{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1367","title":"Proceedings: ''Testimony of David J. Armor, Ph.D.,''","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":["1996-05-14"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education--Standards","School management and organization","Court records","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Testimony of David J. Armor, Ph.D.,''"],"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/1367"],"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":["128 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1385","title":"Proceedings: ''Testimony of Herbert J. Walbert, Ph.D.''","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":["1996-05-13"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Testimony of Herbert J. Walbert, Ph.D.''"],"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/1385"],"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":["168 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1448","title":"Report: ''Status Report: Little Rock School District Incentive School Staffing 1995-96,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1996-05-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School employees","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Status Report: Little Rock School District Incentive School Staffing 1995-96,'' Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Little Rock, Ark."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1448"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["50 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1160","title":"Little Rock School District, Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations","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":["1996-05-08"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations"],"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/1160"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nI ' Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations Table of Contents Executive Summary 1. Purpose of Position Paper 2. Background 3. Response Groupings and Definitions of Tenns 4. Results of Audit and Interviews 5. Position on 'Not Begun' Items 6. Internal Enhancements 7. Conclusions May 8, 1996 This report was prepared by the LRSD administrative team of Brady Gadberry, Sterling Ingram, Dr. Ed Jackson, Deana Keathley, Dr. Patty Kohler, Dr. Russ Mayo, Leon Modeste, Ken Savage, and Marvin Schwartz. 1 3 4 8 11 13 15 16 Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201 #501-324-2000 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED sw EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~ WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL -------,---- DE P. CLERK DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS SPECIAL STATUS REPORT For its special status report, the Little Rock School District states: 1. The Little Rock School District has recently reviewed the status of its compliance with its desegregation obligations and determined that the district is in substantial compliance with those obligations. The attached \"Little Rock School District Position Paper On Desegregation Obligations\" describes the process used by LRSD to determine its compliance and reports the conclusion that LRSD has implemented 96.3 percent of its desegregation obligations. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 r1.stopher Helle Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Special Status Report has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 8th day of May, 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION p APER ON OESEGREGA TION OBLIGA TIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINDINGS  THE DISTRICT IS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH ITS DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS. THIS IS BASED ON IMPLEMENTATION OF 96.3% OF ITS OBLIGATIONS.  SOME OF THE GOALS OF THE PLAN HA VE NOT BEEN ACHIEVED AND ARE NOT LIKELY TO BE ACHIEVED TIIROUGH THE CURRENT OBLIGATIONS. RECOMMENDATIONS  RECOGNITION OF THE DISTRICT'S SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE SHOULD BE MADE BY THE COURT.  OBLIGATIONS WHERE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED SHOULD BE RELEASED FROM COURT SUPERVISION.  OBLIGATIONS WHICH DO NOT MEET THE NEEDS OF STUDENTS SHOULD BE REVISED.  REVISED OBLIGATIONS SHOULD BE MODELED ON ACTION ITEMS IN THE RECENTLY COMPLETED STRATEGIC PLAN. Page 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1. PURPOSE OF POSITION PAPER  Assess District's performance m meeting desegregation obligations.  Inform the public of status of these accomplishments.  Prove good faith effort in achieving substantial compliance. 2. BACKGROUND  The District has accepted desegregation obligations as a binding contract.  Desegregation obligations are reviewed through regular updates of the Program Budget Document.  A LRSD obligations audit identified more than 2,000 items and published the listing as the Abbreviated Summary. Scan sheets were developed for each item and completed by District staff.  Compilation of scan sheet responses provided the overall status for this report. 3. RESPONSE GROUPINGS AND DEFINITION OF TERMS  Responses to the scan sheets were grouped to match program names.  Responses within each program name were sorted to identify total items in compliance and items not yet begun. Page2 POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS 4. RESULTS OF AUDIT AND INTERVIEWS  Final assessment of the audit showed substantial compliance with all desegregation obligations. This is based on implementation of 96.3% of those items.  The interview process allowed comprehensive review of all evidence supporting implementation of obligations. 5. PosmoN ON NoT BEGUN ITEMS  Obligations identified as Not Begun reveal barriers to effective implementation such as unrealistic expectations.  The obligations modification process lags behind current implementation plans. 6. INTERNAL ENHANCEMENTS  An automated PBD will show new patterns of completion, allowing assessment of obligations by individual items and by schools.  The automated process increases overall accountability toward fulfillment of the obligations. LITTLE RocK SCHOOL D1sTR1cT POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS 1. Purpose of Position Paper The daily operation of the Little Rock School District is centered on providing the public with the highest quality education available in Arkansas and the nation. With an October 1995 enrollment of 24,922 students and the employment of . 3,513 people, the tasks required to provide that quality education are quite numerous. Effective coordination of those tasks and public accountability for their implementation are some of the criteria by which the District should be measured. The numerous obligations approved for the District by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals have resulted in a lengthy and highly detailed document containing more than 2,000 obligations or specific tasks. Additionally, the LRSD Desegregation Plan is one of several plans approved by the Court for Pulaski County public school districts. The District commits significant personnel and financial resources to implementation and reporting of desegregation obligations. Some of these resources could be used more effectively to meet student educational needs. The primary purpose of this position paper is to assess District progress in meeting desegregation obligations. Secondary purposes of this position paper follow in logical sequence. To assure accountability by the District in response to desegregation obligations, this paper will identify the status of those accomplishments. It will show which Page3 obligations the District has fully or partially accomplished, and it will show the results from those actions. The overall intent of this paper is to prove a good faith response by the LRSD to the complex task of meeting desegregation obligations. Further, this paper will address those obligations which the District has not fulfilled, and it will give an account for those nonaccomplishments. In some cases, an appropriate response to the obligation was not possible. In other cases, a response was possible but not attempted because circumstances made the effort unfeasible. Finally, this paper will provide an update on District efforts to meet reasonable obligations where progress is lacking. More specifically, the overall intent of this paper is to prove a good faith response by the LRSD to the complex task of meeting desegregation requirements. It is the goal of the LRSD to meet the educational needs of all its students. In the process of meeting those needs, the District seeks to achieve unitary status or release from Court jurisdiction. We believe an objective reading of this position paper will advance that effort and better serve the interests of Little Rock students and all citizens of the community. LITTLE RocK SCHOOL D1sTR1cT POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS 2. Background The desegregation obligations currently in place for the LRSD have evolved from legal actions and court supervision of Pulaski County school districts that began in the early 1980s. These obligations derive from the consent decrees the District has entered into with several parties, including:  North Little Rock School District  Pulaski County Special School District  Knight Intervenors  Joshua Intervenors  State of Arkansas (no longer current) In 1993, an audit of desegregation obligations was undertaken by LRSD attorneys at the Friday Law Firm. After review by District management, the obligations listing was filed with the court. The District's response to all desegregation obligations has been to accept them as a binding contract. As a whole, this imposes a weighty burden on the District. Finances for instructional programs have been diverted toward legal fees, and an administrative capacity for the development of creative instruction has been dissipated in time spent in the legal process or in preparation of desegregation-related documents. These impositions have limited the District's ability to meet the needs of a diverse student population. A reporting process used by the District to update the Court on progress Page4 toward obligations is key to the assessment and conclusions reached in this position paper. This process is the Program Budget Document (PBD). An explanation of the development and implementation of the PBD will help identify the reporting burden and the tendency for duplication imposed by the system. The PBD was developed to monitor progress on all obligations. The document identifies every obligation relating to the case and provides essential information to track relevant activity. The District's response to the desegregation obligations has been to accept them as a binding contract. The PBD is updated quarterly with information provided by the primary leaders to reflect progress. However, many items on the PBD are repeated yearly or are part of a continuous process. These can include items such as principals writing school profiles or District Equity Monitors visiting schools. Such items are never completed in themselves, but reports are required within the year to show how much of the task has been accomplished. Conversely, some items are maintained on the PBD and addressed even after they have been completed. (This weakness in the PBD design has been corrected in the new automated version. See Section 7. Internal Enhancements). LITTLE RocK SCHOOL D1sTRICT The LRSD process for reporting to the Court is centered on updates of the obligations and activities contained in the PBD. One barrier to the PBD reporting process, however, is the lack of a quantifiable assessment which clearly shows how well the District has done in meeting all its obligations. The original version of the PBD did not provide a numerical or percentage summary. As a preliminary step toward overall assessment, the District began a comprehensive review in mid 1995 to identify every distinct obligation. The Abbreviated Summary, as the project came to be known, involved cross referencing items from the PBD and all legal documents. The audit identified 2,098 distinct obligations. A refining of the list yielded a final count of 2,008 obligations. Further, the Abbreviated Summary identified numerous inconsistencies such as POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS duplicative obligations (See Figure 1. Examples of Duplication among Desegregation Obligations) and obligations being implemented for which no legal reference could be located. Additionally, numerous legal documents had made separate contributions to the obligations by this time, each introducing additional requirements. Legal Documents Influencing Obligations  8th Circuit Court Orders  District Court Orders  lnterdistrict Plan  LRSD Desegregation Plan  Settlement Agreement  Stipulations  McClellan Plan  Henderson Plan  Court Transcripts  Exhibit  June 5, 1992 Monitoring Report Figure 1. Examples of Duplication among Desegregation Obligations Subject Abbreviated Text Original Legal ID#, Document Incentive 1. Make recommendations to the Board LR Deseg. Plan 1783 School 2. Make staff recommendations LR Deseg. Plan 1788 Staffing 3. Make staff recommendations for LR Deseg. Plan 1789 employment to the Board M-to-M 1. Develop recruitment plan with PCSSD for lnterdistrict Plan 1481 Transfers M-to-M transfers 2. Parties to promote M-to-M transfers lnterdistrict Plan 3154 1. ID numbers for obligations refer to listings in the Abbreviated Summary. Page 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGA TIONS The assessment process chosen for the task was for the LRSD Division of Planning Research and Evaluation (PRE) to develop computer scan sheets relating to the status and evidence of all obligations. (See Figure 2. Obligations Scan Sheet) In 1995, a process was begun in which primary leaders answered six concise questions and sent the sheets back to PRE for compiling of responses. The scan sheets asked direct questions and gave multiple choice answers. The Primary Leaders had to identify if their obligations were a) not begun, b) completed, c) completed periodically, or d) continuous/never completed (See Figure 3. Response Categories for Scan Sheet Survey of Obligations). To assure accountability, they also had to identify the specific location where evidence concerning the obligation was kept and who was responsible for that evidence. The assessment process continued with a 1996 follow-up survey to address items that had been recently added as well as allow a figur~ 2. Obli'gatiof'ls Scan Sheet Questions relating to the evidence available for the above named obligation. 1. What is the status of the obligation? A) Not begun (If answer is A, do not complete the rest of the form.) B) Completed (ff answer is B, go to question # 2.) C) Completed Periodically (ff answer is C, go to question #3.) D) Continuous/Never Completed (ff answer is 0, go ta question #3.) 2. In what school year was the obligation completed? A) Priorto1992-93 (If answer is A, goto question # 4.) B) 1992-93 (ff answer is B, go to question# 4.) C) 1993-94 (ff answer is C, go ta question # 4.) D) 1994-95 (ff answer is D, go to question# 4.) 3. If the obligation is on-going, in what school year was the obligation first accomplished? A) Prior to 1992-93 B) 1992-93 C) 1993-94 D) 1994-95 4. In what form does the primary evidence for this obligation exist? A) Pamphlet or Publication B) Written Evaluation, Survey or Summary Report C) Bill or Requisition 0) Document (written agenda, sign--in sheet, notice of meeting, invnation, etc.) E) No evidence exists (ff answer is E, do not complete the rest of the form\nhowever. explain why in AREA 2 an the back of this sheet.) 5. Location where primary evidence concerning this obligation is kept: A) School B) District Offices, LRSD Annex, IRC, Student Assignment C) Plant Services, Procuremen~ Food Services, Safety \u0026amp; Security, Transportation D) Adult Education 6. Who is the keeper of the primary evidence? A) Primary Leader B) Secondary Leader C) Person Responsible Signature: _ _ _ _ _________ Date: _ _____ _ Page6 I (!) 0@  j ' @. J.@\n,J@)  ,@  A . : ,, 0 , @_ .  ,@  ~t .@, ... ~ . \"',.   @    .A .! ., B . ~ (E) I l'J 1 j   (i) -1 IV I  i  I  m I (!)  .  I '(r) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT second reporting on items previously identified as \"not begun.\" The processing of scan sheets gave the District a clear and comprehensive understanding of the degree of compliance it had achieved regarding the identified obligations. The scan sheets gave the District a clear understanding of the degree of compliance it had achieved regarding the identified obligations. Progress since 1993 has resulted from the improved tracking accuracy of the original PBD. A recent upgrade to a computerized PBD process will further improve its accuracy. The audit of obligations and scan sheet surveys represent other distinct improvements in the District's overall response to desegregation obligations. POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS Figure 3. Response Categories for Scan Sheet Survey of Obligations CO - Completed. Items done once which need no repeating. Example: Motion granted for construction of cafeteria at Chicot Elementary. ID #1177, Court Order, 4/30.!93, Pg. 1 CP - Completed Periodically. Items which have repetitive schedules within fixed time frames. Example: Establish a summer school program. ID #1208, lnterdistrict Plan, 4129193, Pg. 13 NC - Continuous/Never Completed. Items which require on-going implementation. Example: Monitor the Desegregation Plan. ID #0936, LR Plan, 4129192, Pg. 28 NB - Not Begun. Items which have not been addressed. Example: Plan new junior high school construction. tD #1326, LR Plan, 4129192, Pg. 129 Page7 LITTLE RocK SCHOOL D1sTRICT POSITION p APER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS 3. Response Groupings and Definition of Terms To fully understand the information reflected on the scan sheets and to communicate those results to the public in a precise manner, certain groupings of responses were made. This process included three broad steps, summarized below and detailed in the remaining sections of this report. 1 The status of individual obligations were identified on the scan sheets as CO CP NC, or NB. , , 2 All obligations were categorized as CO orNB. 3 Overall response to desegregation requirements was identified as Substantial Compliance (SC). The process began by grouping the scan sheet responses into PBD Program Areas. In this manner, thousands of individual obligations and strategies were brought together under distinct program names. The process then gave abbreviated titles to the distinct categories of response as shown on the scan sheets. These abbreviations are presented in Figure 3, and examples of obligations for each category are provided. An additional category is represented with the letter A. This group includes obligations which were identified after the 1995 scan sheet survey. Examples of A items include: Pages  Restore Gifted Coordinator to Budget, ID #5144,Court Transcript, 716/95, Pg. J  Court Requires Long-Range Facilities Plan, JD #5127, Court Order, 2/8195, Pg. 2 All A items have been addressed in the follow up survey of February 1996, and their tally is included in the final results. As represented in Figure 4. Obligation Status - Grouping Process, the grouping process condensed five categories of responses into three. Each category represents total responses for that status and does not relate to specific programs or activities. For example, responses marked \"completed\" include those which are addressed periodically and those which are continuous/never completed or cyclical. These items are considered completed because the District has met all possible requirements for their fulfillment during the time frame or cycle. Final grouping of the responses culminated in the two categories, Completed (CO) or Not Begun {NB), represented in the next section of this report. In this manner, the District has been able to provide the most direct presentation of its substantial compliance with desegregation obligations. To assure the most accurate reporting possible, the District identified the legal definitions of the categories of response and other terms used when describing desegregation obligations. Many LITTLE RocK ScHooL D1sTR1CT of these terms have had their original meanings transformed through usage by the media, the public, and by educators who did not fully understand them in the proper context. As a legal document, however, the Plan requires a strict and consistent interpretation. POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS The following items are key terms2 in understanding desegregation obligations and the District's response.  Obligation - a legal requirement that constrains to a course of action, an imperative for specific action. An 2 Definitions for terms were paraphrased from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1991. Initial Survey Figure 4. Obligation Status - Grouping Process Response Grouping Page9 Results of Follow-up Preliminary Surveys Follow-up Survey Legend A Added after Initial Survey CO Completed CP Completed Periodically NC Never Completed/Continuous NB Not Begun SC Substantial Compliance L1TTLE RocK SCHOOL D1sTRICT   obligation is something one is bound to do. It leaves no room for negotiation, compromise, or alternative. Example: LRSD will pay an increase of $52,604.09 in the ODM budget. ID #4113 . Court Order. 418194, Pg. J Recommendation - something which is offered or suggested as a favored action. A recommendation is worthy of acceptance, but there are no constraints upon its action. Recommendation refers to an action which is advisory in nature rather than one having a binding effect. Example: The following full time positions are recommended for each Incentive School. (20 positions are listed, including classroom teachers, counselors, etc.) LR Desegregation Plan. Incentive School Section, 4/2192, Pg. 190 Substantial Compliance: conformity with the essential requirements in fulfilling formal or official obligations of a contract or a statute. Being in substantial compliance means that you have done substantially all you were required to do to fulfill the obligation. The concept of \"substantial compliance\" is the primary assessment criteria for this report. Example: Establish six thematic interdistrict schools, ID #1479, lnterd1str1ct Plan, 4/29/92, Pg. 3  Good Faith Effort - an effort based on an honest belief, the absence of malice, and the absence of the design to   Page 10 POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS defraud or seek advantage. Example: Provide Homework Hotlines. JD #1918, LR Desegregation Plan, 4/2/92, Pg. 180 Completion - something which is fully realized, which possesses all necessary parts. Completion means an action has been brought to an end or to an intended condition. With desired results achieved, no further action is necessary. Example: Install Rockefeller Elementary Heat/AC. ID # 1350, Monitoring Report, 615/92. Pg. 43 On-Going Obligations - certain items identified as obligations which need to be repeated on a regular basis. These \"on-going obligations\" can not be totally completed because further action is necessary throughout the term of the desegregation plans. The District considers itself in compliance with these items if it fulfills the necessary action within each scheduled reporting period. These items are represented in the CP ( completed periodically) or the NC (never completed) groups. Example: Maintain all school facilities for safe/operable condition. ID #950, LR Desegregation Plan, ,l/2/9192, Pg. J 29 LITTLE RocK ScHOOL D1sTRICT Results of the preliminary surveys showed the District m substantial compliance with its desegregation requirements. This was based on initial findings which showed implementation of 97. 5% of obligations. The need for evidence of compliance with obligations led to a final round of interviews. The intent of the interviews was to gain proof in addition to the scan sheets that all information was accurate. Interviews were conducted with all primary and secondary leaders and all persons responsible for implementation of the obligations. Evidence of all activities was reviewed by committees, and a new and more specific assessment was obtained. As illustrated in Figure 5. Results of the Interview Audit, the final number of obligations became 1,753. This was achieved by the removal of additional duplicates, recommendations, goals, and items which were identified as not obligations. The District is in substantial compliance with its desegregation requirements based on 96.3% implementation of its obligations. Of that group of 1,753 obligations, 96.3% or 1,689 were identified as being in substantial compliance. Partial compliance Page 11 POSITION p APER ON OESEGREGA TION OBLIGATIONS was achieved in 1.1 % or 19 obligations, and only 45 obligations or 2.6% of the total remained as Not Begun items. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS Figure 5. Results of Interview Audit ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED OBLIGATIONS 2008 REVIEWED - NOT OBLIGATIONS 12 DUPLICATE OBLIGATIONS 224 RECOMMENDATIONS 9 GOALS 10 NET OBLIGATIONS AFTER AUDIT-~17~5\"\"!\"\"3 RELEASED FROM COURT SUPERVISION SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE COMPLETED ON-GOING PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT BEGUN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT BEGUN PARTIAL COMPLIANCE 1% 203 52 429 1005 19 45 1753 1689 19 45 1753 NOT BEGUN 3% SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE 96% Page 12 11 .6% 3.0% } 24.5% 57.3% 1.1% 2.6% 100.0% 96.3% 1.1% 2.6% 100.0% 96.3% Substantial Compliance LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION p APER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGA TI0NS 5. Position on 'Not Begun' Items As previously stated in this report , the District has identified desegregation obligations with a 'Not Begun' status. Analysis of those obligations showed that in some cases, the premise upon which the obligations were based was found to be flawed. In other areas, obligations were shown to be dependent on numerous factors outside the District's control. Accountability for the 'Not Begun' obligations is best represented through the following broad categories.  Conditional Obligation: These items are dependent on external factors which have not been met, such as partnership relations with other organizations, receipt of grant funds, or other conditions outside District control. Example: Two obligations under the Library Media section of the Interdistrict Plan and cross referenced in the LRSD Desegregation Plan call for Utilization of TV Technology and Implement Utilization of Cable Channel 19. (m #1033, Interdistrict Plan, Pg. 34, 4129192) The Plan states these obligations will be done \"if funded by a federal Star grant.\" The grant was not funded, therefore, the obligations were not begun.  Unrealistic Expectation: These items are unfeasible or do not generate a sufficient return to justify the effort of implementation. This decision is based on District experience in the field and is a realistic response to items developed Page 13 as part of a 'wish list' by framers of the obligations. Example: The Incentive School Support Section of the LRSD Plan requires the District to meet at homes with groups of parents. cm #2049, LRSD Desegregation Plan, Pg. 210, 4/29/92) The District has found the effort to locate and coordinate a home-based meeting of parents is a time consuming and laborious process. This obligation does not address the reality that people must be invited into a home. They can not be mandated to offer that hospitality.  Changed by Court Order: Changes in the LRSD Desegregation Plan by the Court, such as rulings from the bench and Court orders, have not been reflected as revised the language in the Plan. Example: Numerous items within the Focused Activity section of the LRSD Desegregation Plan have been superseded or redefined by a May 1, 1992 Court Order.  On Appeal: The District is involved in an appeal process to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding an obligation. In this instance, the obligation is not appropriately aligned with contemporary events. Example: A Court Order currently under appeal states that the LRSD will reimburse PCSSD $167,113 within 60 days of the order. cm #4111, Court order, Pg. 3, 3/16194) LITTLE RocK SCHOOL D1sTRICT  Improperly Reported: Errors in reporting were discovered as a result of of the desegregation obligations scan sheets and audit. Example: An item erroneously reported as NB requires the LRSD to develop or enhance site-based management at designated schools. (ID #0501 , LRSD Desegregation Plan, Pg. 42, 4/29/92) The obligation is being implemented through staff development for principals, revision of District procedures, and enhanced principal accountability for programs. The implementation is being addressed through the Strategic Planning Action Team 8 and will continue through the 1996-97 school year.  Not Begun: These are obligations which the District has not yet implemented. The District recognizes the validity of these obligations and intends to comply with them. Example: An obligation addressing the Incentive School Latin Program calls for the District to evaluate the elementary Latin Program. (ID #2021, LRSD Desegregation Plan, Pg. 164, 4/29/92) This will be done as soon as possible. Similarly, an obligation requires the District to form a media coalition that involves a series of meetings between the superintendents of the three school districts and representatives of the local media. cm #1555, Interdistrict Plan, Pg. 3, 4129/92) Scheduling for these meetings is currently being arranged. POSITION p APER ON OESEGREGA TION OBLIGA TIONS Page 14 LITTLE RocK ScHOOL D1sTR1cT POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS 6. Internal Enhancements The LRSD has completed a revision of the Program Budget Document (PBD) reporting process which will provide information in greater detail and with instant computer access. The computerized PBD will greatly enhance the District's ability to track on-going compliance with obligations. Staff inservice is underway for the recently designed program automation, which is expected to be implemented in the spring of 1996. An automated computer linkage will allow primary leaders to access the system and input directly to the LRSD mainframe AS400 system. Information will address activities done toward the fulfillment of obligations. The automation replaces a manual system where computer diskettes were submitted quarterly and updated reports printed. Another improvement in the system is the automated program's ability to identify responses to single items by individual schools and across the District. This will allow school-by-school reports on specific obligations, an option not previously available. If questioned about a specific obligation, the District has immediate access to its status at each setting. The system will also show patterns of completion and allow deactivation and storage of completed obligations. PBD automation will control the publishing of updates and changes to the obligations, thereby avoiding errors resulting from changing text or phrasing of obligations. Page 15 LITTLE RocK ScHooL D1sTR1cT Major accomplishments such as the identification of obligations and the implementation of a strategic planning process show the District is doing a good job of meeting its desegregation obligations. A 96.3% level of implementation affirms that achievement. The District should be recognized for its accomplishments and certain items should be released from further court supervision. The District should\"be recognize'd 'folits ' accomplishments and i. r  certain 'items released from 'further court supeNision. The District is accountable for its response to desegregation obligations, a response represented in this report. But it should not be held accountable for all of the goals of the Plan, some of which have proved to be unobtainable in this district or any other district in the country. The desegregation plans of the District have resulted in significant desegregation accomplishments. As we near the end of the six-year life of those plans, however, it is apparent that in some ways they have outlived their usefulness. The recently completed Strategic Plan, developed as a result of significant community input and involvement, should be used to guide decisions about LRSD's future. POSITION PAPER ON DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS Page 16\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":"usm_oh_mus-coh-handkej-transcript","title":"Oral history with Jan Handke","collection_id":"usm_oh","collection_title":"Oral History","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Handke, Jan, 1945-","Rachal, John, 1948-"],"dc_date":["1996-05-08"],"dcterms_description":["Oral history.; An interview conducted on May 8, 1996 with voter registration activist Jan Handke (born May 10, 1945). Ms. Handke was a part of the Freedom Summer Project, becoming occupied with voter registration in Vicksburg and working in the Freedom School.","Electronic version made available through a National Leadership Grant for Libraries from the Institute for Museum and Library Services to the University of Southern Mississippi.","This item is part of the Civil Rights in Mississippi Digital Archive."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["University of Southern Mississippi. Center for Oral History and Cultural Heritage."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights workers","Civil rights movement"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history with Jan Handke"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Southern Mississippi. Center for Oral History and Cultural Heritage"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://usm.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_4b360b0e-da59-46a2-9ee5-74fea646e209"],"dcterms_temporal":["1960/1969"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["University Libraries provides access to these materials for educational and research purposes. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. When possible, we have provided information regarding the copyright right status of an item; however, the information we have may not be accurate or complete. Obtaining permissions to publish or otherwise use is the sole responsibility of the user."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Handke, Jan, 1945- --Interviews"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_4","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":["1996-05","1996-06","1996-07","1996-08","1996-09"],"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":["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/4"],"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.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1622","title":"Court Filings concerning Little Rock School District's motion to end federal court jurisdiction, LRSD 1995-96 third quarter status report, motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state, LRSD budget, and incentive school management","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":["1996-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","Magnet schools","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court Filings concerning Little Rock School District's motion to end federal court jurisdiction, LRSD 1995-96 third quarter status report, motion to enforce settlement agreement with the state, LRSD budget, and incentive school management"],"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/1622"],"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":["36 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_114","title":"Memos received","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":["1996-05","1996-06","1996-07"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Memos received"],"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/114"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["memorandums"],"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-- Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RE CE iVj C.~UP ITOGLE NMEA WLLILH LOITITT,L DEi rRecOtCorK. G, AenReKraAl NESdAucSa t7io2n2 0D1-iv1i0s7io1n  (501) 682-4475 MAY 1 3 1996 Office o1 Desegregation MonitQrlllQ Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Secondary Principals Middle/Jr. High Principals NO: TEC-96-066 Page: 1 of 5 Date: May 9, 1996 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None There are attachments and enclosures to this memo. Assistant Director, Technical Assistance: Frank Anthony Associate Director, Accountability: Rodger Callahan Subject: Rules and Regulations Requiring Criminal Background Check for all First-time Educational Licenses and Revocation Procedures Index Code: GBEB Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-405 and 6-17-410 (Sup. 1995) Contact Person: Skip Hibblen Phone No: 682-4342 1995 Arkansas Act 1310 outlined procedures for the Arkansas Department of Education to use to require criminal background check for all first-time educational licenses and revocation procedures. The attached rules and regulations have been approved by the State Board of Education and have been properly filed. The effective date of the rules and regulations is July 1, 1996. The rules and regulations outline procedures which will be used to license first-time applicants for an educational license and revocation of such licenses. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES AND REGULATIONS DEFINING THE REQUIREMENT OF A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK FOR ALL FIRST-TIME EDUCATIONAL LICENSES, AND THE PROCEDURES FOR REVOCATION OF SUCH LICENSES 1.00 REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations governing the requirement of criminal background check for all first-time applicants, and the revocation procedures for such licenses. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's Authority under Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-405 and 6-17-410 (Supp. 1995). 2.00 PURPOSE 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to set forth the requirements for a criminal background check for each first-time applicant for a license issued by the State Board of Education. 2.02 It is the further purpose of these regulations to prescribe the procedure for revocation of an educational license. 3.00 DEFINITIONS/ACRONYMS 3.01 ADE: Arkansas Department of Education. 3.02 Criminal background check: a state and nationwide criminal records check conducted by the Arkansas State Police and the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation, including the taking of fingerprints. 3.03 FBI: Federal Bureau oflnvestigation 3.04 SBE: State Board of Education 3.05 First-time applicant: initial or first license issued to each applicant by the SBE. 3.06 Letter of provisional eligibility: a six month, nonrenewable letter of provisional eligibility for licensure issued by the SBE to the first-time applicants during the conduction of the criminal background check by the FBI. - 5.00 - 6.00 REQUEST FOR WAIVER 5.01 A request to waive the provisions of Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-410 (d) can be made to the SBE. A request for waiver of provisions of the aforementioned section may be made by: (1) the board of a local school district, (2) the affected applicant for licensure, or (3) the person holding a license subject to revocation. 5.02 The request must be made in writing to the Coordinator of OTEL or the designee within twenty (20) calendar days after notification of denial of a license. The request for a waiver shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (I) a certified copy of court records indicating grounds for conviction, (2) any other pertinent documentation to indicate surrounding circumstances. 5.03 If an individual notifies OTEL in writing that he/she desires a hearing, the SBE will hold a hearing. 5.04 If the individual does not notify the OTEL that he/she desires a hearing, the SBE will not hold a hearing and may take action based upon proof submitted by OTEL. SCHOOL DISTRJCT RESPONSIBILITIES 6.01 The superintendent and the local school board of each school district shall report to the SBE through the Coordinator of OTEL or the designee the name of any person holding a license issued by the SBE and currently employed, or employed during the two (2) previous school years, by the local district who has plead guilty, nolo contendere, or has been found guilty of a felony, who holds such license obtained by fraudulent means, who has had a similar license revoked in another state, who has intentionally compromised the validity or security of any student test or testing program administered or required by the ADE, or has submitted falsified information requested or required by the ADE. 6.02 The district with knowledge shall report, in writing to the SBE through the Coordinator of OTEL or the designee, any information contained in section 6.01. The complaint does not have to be made in any specific form, but it should contain enough information about the person holding a license issued by the SBE to warrant starting an investigation. 6.03 Willful failure of a local district to report a violation by certified mail within five (5) calendar days of knowledge, as listed in regulations 6.0 I may result in sanctions imposed by the SBE, including but not limited to loss of accreditation. 7.00 LICENSE REVOCATION PROCEDURES 7.01 A complaint is filed with OTEL. 7.02 OTEL investigates the complaint and determines whether the individual's educational license must or may be revoked. 7 .03 If OTEL determines revocation of a license is appropriate, OTEL notifies the individual who has plead guilty, nolo contendere, or been found guilty of the offense(s) listed in Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-405 (a) and (b) in writing by certified mail of the date, time and location that the SBE will consider revocation. 7.04 If the individual notifies OTEL in writing that he/she desires a hearing, the SBE will hold a hearing. 7.05 If the individual does not notify the OTEL that he/she desires a hearing, the SBE will not hold a hearing and may take action based upon proof submitted by OTEL. -- Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 RECEIVE GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division NO: CUR-96-088 .,,.\\( 1 3 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitorin9 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Elementary Principals Page: 1 of2 Date: May 9, 1996 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None Assistant Director, Planning \u0026amp; Curriculum: Jim Boardman Subject: Early Childhood Education Preschool PT A Meetings Regulatory Authority: Act 202 of 1989 Contact Person: Glenda Bean Index Code: IHBI Phone No: (501) 682-4891 The Arkansas Early Childhood Commission and the Arkansas State PT A are sponsoring a series of informational meetings throughout the state to promote the concept of Preschool PTA. A Preschool PT A is a group set up especially for parents of young children from infancy to ages four or five years, to discuss concerns and plan activities to benefit both parents and children. Preschool PT A may be organized within a school setting specifically for the preschools, nursery school programs or any other setting for preschool age children. If you would like to know more about the Preschool PT A project and how to establish one in your program, plan to attend one of the five informational meetings. You will receive information on how to begin a Preschool PT A and suggestions for making the program work for your school, the families and children you serve. DATE TIME May 14, 1996 1 :00 - 2:30 P.M. LOCATION South West Arkansas Educational Service Cooperative 500 S. Spruce, Hope, AR Director's Memo DATE May 16, 1996 May 20, 1996 May 28, 1996 May 29, 1996 Preschool PT A Meetings Page 2 of 2 TIME LOCATION l :00 - 2:30 P.M. 1 :00 - 2:30 P.M. 1 :00 - 2:30 P.M. 1 :00 - 2:30 P.M. Jones Center, Room 228 Springdale, AR Spencer Gallery U of A Monticello Campus Monticello, AR Hames Room Arkansas State University Convocation Center Olympic Drive Jonesboro, AR North Little Rock High School East Campus, Mini Auditorium 2400 Lakeview Road North Little Rock, AR For additional information, contact Maureen Bailey, Arkansas State PTA at (501) 753-5247 or the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission at ( 501) 682-4891. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RECEIV. 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division MAY 1 3 1996 Office of Desegregation Momtonn51 Forward Copies To: Supe1intendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Child Nutrition Directors NO: FIN-96-100 Page: lof3 Date: May 9 , 1996 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Optional Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Food Services Direct Certification Regulatory Authority: Public Law 101-147 Section 202 (b) (1) Index Code: EF Contact Person: Louann Griswood/Phillip Whiting Phone No: 501-324-9502 The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Child Nutrition Section, will offer direct certification for the 1996-97 school year. This offer is open to all public schools in Arkansas that participate in the National School Lunch and/or School Breakfast Program(s). The income guidelines for free meals, food stamps and AFDC assistance are the same: Therefore, direct certification, as defined by USDA regulations, allows school food authorities to determine children eligible for free meals based on food stamp or AFDC eligibility. Regulations also allow a computerized list as documentation of eligibility. This list will replace the application for free meals and will eliminate the verification of applications for all children certified by direct certification. New students or any other student not certified by this process will need an approved application on file to qualify for free meals. To eliminate work for you, we will provide a direct certification list for each school in your district, if you provide us the 96-97 enrollment for each of your schools by no later than May 31, 1996. This infom1ation is to be provided on IBM compatible 5  inch computer diskettes or on 3  inch computer diskettes or on 1600 b.p.i. magnetic tape. The diskettes may be high or low density. Infom1ation and file requirements arc listed later in this memo. In the meantime, we ask you to ensure that social security numbers and birth dates are accurate for each student. The social security number must belong to the student, not the student's parent. If social security numbers are not available, please use the student ID nwnbers provided by the Department of Education. Please make every attempt to remove any student who is no longer enrolled in your school(s), for example, graduates and transferred students. Please replace \" \" around nicknames with ( ). The file, provided to us on IBM compatible diskettes must be an ASCII file, with quotes, comma delimited. Each school must be on a separate diskette and that diskette labeled with school name and school LEA number. An ASCII file is sometimes referred to as a text file (xxx. txt). We cannot accept typed or handwritten listings, only diskettes and magnetic tape. To explain what an ASCII file with quotes and comma delimited means, take the example of John Doe, social security number of 999-11-8888, birth date April 15, 1987, next year's grade 04 and Jane Doe, social security number 888-99-7777, birth date June 23, 1983, next years grade 09. Both students are enrolled in school LEA nwnber 770l001. On the diskette you send to us, each field should be surrounded by quotes and each field should be separated by commas. There is not a comma after the last field for the student. The data for John Doe and Jane Doe would appear on the diskette as follows: \"7701001 \",\"999-11-8888\" ,\"Doe\",\"John\" ,\"P.O. Box XXX\" ,\"Sometown\",\"ST\" ,\"99999\", \"041587\" ,\"Father \u0026amp; Mother Doe\" ,\"04\" \"7701001 \",\"888-99-7777\",\"Doe\",\"Jane\" ,\"P.O. Box XXX\" ,\"Sometown\" ,\"ST\",\"99999\", \"062383\" ,\"Father \u0026amp; Mother Doe\" ,\"09\" . The file which we will create from your information is as follows: * LEA number Social security number Last name First name Address City State Zip Code Birth date Parent name * Grade A7 - Required A9 - Required A25 - Required A25 - Required A20 - If provided A20 - If provided A2 - If provided Al O - If provided A6 - Required 40 - If provided A2 - Required * LEA number: If this information is in your file, it should contain the LEA number of the school the student will attend during the 1996-97 school year. If this infonnation is not in your file, we will insert the LEA number of the school whose name and LEA number is on the diskette. If the information is not in your file and you write the LEA number on the diskette, ensure it is correct. * Grade: This should contain the grade the student will be in during the 1996-97 school year, not the current year grade. Many of you have files in which the student's first and last names are in the same field and the address, city, state, and zip are in the same field. We can handle this situation. Social Security Number and Grades must be in fields by themselves. For those who use the School Administrator software: Copy your STUDENT.IMD file onto a diskette and send it to us. For those who use OSCAR software: If you have upgraded this year, you should be receiving a set of instmctions, within the next few days, from the OSCAR Software Company. Otl1erwise use the instmctions you used last year. These instmctions will pertain to creating a diskette from your Student Demographic File. If you do not have the instructions, contact us at the Child Nutrition Unit. Be sure the LEA number and next year's grades are included. For those who use TSA software: You may have the necessary files already in your c:\\TSA directory. If unsure or you need directions, contact the Child Nutrition Unit. For those using the APSCN/Pentamation Student Management Systems software: You should be receiving a set of instmctions from APSCN within the next few days. These instmctions will pertain to creating a diskette which only your District Student System Administrator has the privileges to mn. The student's Social Security Number must be present in the Social Security Number field (even if you are using the Social Security Number as the Student's ID Number). If you have questions after you receive the instmctions, please contact the APSCN Student Help Desk at 1-800-850-5649. For those who submit a magnetic tape: The tape should be 1600 Bits Per Inch (BPI), the record length should be 167, and the block factor should be 16 7 00. The record layout should be tl1e same as the example above. The those who utilize a system other than those mentioned above: If your file has social security number and birth date, export this file, with any other information listed above, to an ASCII type file and send it to us. Please keep in mind that only those students with valid social security numbers and valid birth dates will be used in the matching operation at the Department of Hwnan Services. We will accept your diskettes as soon as they are available and no later than May 31, 1996. Contact Louann Griswood or Phillip Whiting of Child Nutrition at 324-9502 for instructions or questions. Return diskettes to: Arkansas Department of Education Child Nutrition Section Executive Building, Suite 404 2020 West 3rd Street Little Rock, AR 72205-4465 .. , 00 NOT SEND TO ADE BUILDING Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCXfION 4 STATE CitPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (50 I) 682-4475 RECEIVED GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division NO: TEC-96-064 l~IA Y 1 3 1996 Page: 1 OF 2 Date: 5-9-96 Ottice of DesagregatiOll Monitormg Forward CopiesYor Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Secondary Principals Middle/Jr. High Principals Elementary Principals Type of Memo: Regulatory Response Required By: None Assistant Director, Technical Assistance: Frank Anthony Subject: Instructional Programs Index Code: 1H Definition of the Instructional Day Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann. 6-15-208 Contact Person: Bob Maddox Phone No: 682-4390 In order to implement Act 236, the State Board of Education is permitting greater flexibility in the instructional day. To accommodate the professional development needs, the following guidelines will apply: * * * Schools must average six hours of instrnctional time per day and average thirty hours of instructional time per week. Instructional time may be a combination of teacher/pupil interaction time and staff development activities focused on Act 236. Schools may schedule the school day and week in such a manner that allows for weekly or monthly time designated for staff development activities. This accumulated time would permit schools to release early or set aside days for staff development around Act 236 above and beyond the required teacher/pupil interaction time. However, no more than five (5) additional days will be approved. This time is in addition to the five (5) required staff development days and must be focused on the implementation of Act 236. Director Memo Page 2 For the 1996-97 school year, schools wishing to set aside days as outlined in this memo, must submit a request in writing no later than October 15, 1996. These requests should contain an explanation of how time will be accumulated, a schedule with specific staff development activities and a calendar with these days indicated. Requests should be submitted to: Bob Maddox, Co-Coordinator Field Services Room 305-B #4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Written requests for early dismissal will not be required.    ADE Memos - Received 4-29-96 Student Awards, Honors, and Scholarships Master Learner Program Food Services Scholarship for ADE Manager Certification Training School Funds Rules and Regulations Implementing Act 2 of 1994 as Amended by Act 1228 of 1995  Special Education Programs 1996 NASDSE Teleconferences on Current Issues in Special Education (Reminder) . . - Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1f STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division ~p t:. 9 1996 Office of Dese r g egation Monitoring FORWARD COPIES TO: X SUPERINTENDENTS, CO-OP DIRECTORS X SECONDARY PRINCIPALS X MIDDLE/JR. HIGH PRINCIPALS X ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS OTHER: DEPUTY DIRECTOR/SECTION: Diana Julian X X NO: DIR-96-013 PAGE: lOFl DATE: April 25, 1996 TYPE: RESPONSE REQUIRED BY: ADMINISTRATIVE ALL INFORMATIONAL THOSE AFFECTED REGULATORY X OPTIONAL NONE ATTACHMENT (S) SUBJECT: Student Awards, Honors, and Scholarships INDEX CODE: JM Master Learner Program 'GULATORY AUTHORITY: Ark. Code Ann. 6-15-601 through 605 (Rep!. 1993) CONTACT PERSON: Betty Gale Davis, Coordinator PHONE NO: (501) 682-4247 The State Recognition Program is requesting information from public school officials who would like to nominate a student for one of the five Master Learner State Awards. The purpose of these awards is to recognize students in the schools of Arkansas who have made the most significant academic gains during the 1995-96 school year. The Master Learner Program honors students not for outstanding performance but for outstanding academic improvement. The program is meant to encourage all students to strive for excellence. The State Recognition Panel will select the five students from those nominated by school officials in the state. The recognition a student receives at the local school level by being nominated for one of the state awards is also extremely important. This recognition emphasizes to all students that outstanding improvement on the part of individual students will be noticed. An announcement of the Master Learner Program guidelines and a nomination form are attached. The nomination form must be filed by Friday, May 24, 1996, for a student to be considered for one of these awards. Please share the attached information with your staff. We encourage your school to participate in this program. Recognition can be a powerful motivational tool. - Arkansas Department of Education 4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 (Please pass this sheet and nomination form to interested persons.) THE STATE RECOGNITION PROGRAM ANNOUNCES THE MASTER LEARNER PROGRAM FOR 1995-96 . THIS IS A PROGRAM OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION FOR STUDENTS WHO MAKE THE LARGEST ACADEMIC GAINS IN A GIVEN SCHOOL YEAR . THE PROGRAM IS PROVIDED FOR UNDER ARK. CODE ANN. 6 - 15 - 601 through 605 (Repl. 1993). WHO MAY APPLY: Public schools or school districts that will identify students in terms of academic gains made in a given school year. AWARDS AVAILABLE: Five state awards will be given in the form of plaques to the five students selected by the State Recognition Panel who prove to have made the most significant academic gain in the 1995 - 96 school year. DEADLINE FOR NOMINATIONS: May 24, 1996: Nominations received after Friday, May 24, will not be considered. PURPOSE: To identify students in the schools of Arkansas who have made tremendous academic gains in one school year. The program honors students not for outstanding academic performance but for outstanding academic improvement . The program is meant to encourage all students, not just the gifted or superior, to strive for excellence. SELECTION CRITERIA: The State Recognition Panel will screen the nominations made by the school districts and make five awards based on the following criteria: 1. Each school district shall submit names and information about those students identified as master learners in the local district to the State Recognition Panel. 2. The student(s) nominated can be from any grade. 3. The data submitted with the nomination form must document the academic gains made by the student(s) during the 1995-96 school year. CONTACT PERSON Dr. Betty Gale Davis, Coordinator, State Recognition Program, Arkansas Department of Education, Room 203B, 4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201. Telephone number 682-4247. Call or write Dr. Davis for additional information. MSTll Arkansas Department of Education, 4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 MASTER LEARNER PROGRAM NOMINATION FORM FOR MASTER LEARNER STATE AWARDS Application Deadline: May 24, 1996 (Nominations received after Friday, May 24, will not be considered.) Please type or print clearly. A. GENERAL INFORMATION School District Special instructions: Please submit 15 copies of the nomination form and supporting materials. ---------------------------------- Superintendent's Name ____________________________ _ Superintendent's Office Address (Number) (Street) (City) (Zip Code) Superintendent's Office Phone Number _____________________ _ School Name School Address (Number) (Street) (City) (Zip Code) Principal's Name Phone ____ _ Will the student listed below be in this school next fall? Yes __ No __ _ If no, please give the name of the school. B. STUDENT PROFILE Name of Student Grade Level- ------- Sex Race- ---- Name of Parent(s) _______________________________ _ Home Address ----------------------------------- (Number) (Street) (City) (Zip Code) Home Phone Number ------------ C. DOCUMENTATION OF ACADEMIC GAINS FOR STUDENT DURING SCHOOL YEAR 1995-96 1. Please attach all objective data used in selecting this student as a Master Learner nominee from your school or school district. The data must document academic gains made during the school year. Any validated test data which support growth from the end of school year 1994-95 to Ark. Code Ann. 6-15-601 through 605 (Repl. 1993) DIR-01-02-001 end of school year 1995-96 will be accepted. Suggestions are (but not limited to) test scores, Iowa Basic Skills, PSAT, SAT, ACT, and/or medical evaluations with test results. If the nominee is a secondary student, provide a school transcript. 2. Please explain any subjective data used in selecting the student as a Master Learner nominee. Subjective data may include a description of a change in attitude by the student toward school and/or school work, major changes in behavior during the year which resulted in better school work and observations made by the classroom teacher(s) which support the nomination. As an option, the student could be asked to write a short essay (if age permits) on why he/she made such exceptional strides this year in his/her school work. If the child is young, the parents could be asked to describe in a letter what changes they have noticed in the child during the year. Subjective data alone will not be accepted as enough support for consideration. 3. Please furnish two letters of recommendation in support of the nomination. One letter must be from the building principal or the student's counselor and the other from one of the student's classroom teachers. D. PLEASE NOTE THAT A NOMINATION WILL BE AUTOMATICALLY REJECTED IF: * documentation of the student's academic gain from the close of school year 1994-95 to the end of 1995-96 and required letters of recommendation do not accompany the nomination form\n* the requested number of copies (15) of the nomination form and all attachments are not received\n* the superintendent (or the highest ranking school official in the system) fails to sign the form personally. E. ASSURANCES: The applicant school district gives assurance and certifies that the information contained in this nomination form is correct. DATE ----- (Signature of Superintendent) (School District) RETURN COMPLETED NOMINATION FORM WITH THE REQUESTED INFORMATION ATTACHED TO: Dr. Betty Gale Davis, State Recognition Program, Arkansas Department of Education, Room 203B, 4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 24, 1996 (Nominations received after May 24 will not be considered.) MST12 Ark. Code Ann. 6-15-601 through 605 (Repl. 1993) DIR-01-02-001 Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division RC APR 2 9 1996 a!lon Monitonng Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Child Nutrition Directors NO FIN-96-095 Page: 1 of I Date: April 25, 1996 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Those Affected There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Food Services Index Code: EF Scholarships for ADE Manager Certification Training Regulatory Authority: NA Contact Person: Barbara Smith Phone No: 324-9502 The deadline for applying for Team Nutrition Training Grant Scholarships of$300 each, has been extended to May 31 , I 996. As stated in Director's Memo FIN-96-087, these scholarships are available for Child Nutrition Managers and Manager Trainees to attend the ADE Manager Certification Training. This training will be held on the University of Central Arkansas campus in Conway. Part I of this training will be held from July 8 -- 19, 1996. Parts II \u0026amp; III will be held from June 10 -- 21, 1996. The purpose of the scholarships is to address the training needs of schools without a certified manager and to facilitate the district's work toward the goal of healthier school meals. See attached application for selection criteria. ERRATA The Arkansas School Food Service Associaiton scholarship application included in Director's Memo FIN- 96-087 inadvertently requested personal information that is no longer used for the approval process. The information will not be included on the 1996-97 application. TEAM NUTRITION TRAINING (TNT) GRANT SCHOLARSHIP APPLICATION FOR ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MANAGER CERTIFICATION This scholarship is made possible by a grant from USDA NAME OF APPLICANT ____________________ SS# ___ ____ _ DISTRICT _________________________ _____ _ CURRENT POSITION _______ _ POSITION TITLE FOR 1996-97 SY ------- HOME ADDRESS _________ _ WORK ADDRESS ___________ _ HOME PI IONE _________ _ WORK PHONE ___________ _ Only one $300 scholarship will be awarded per district for Manager Certification Training. 1. Applicants must be employed as a manager or director for the 1996-97 school year. 2. The following criteria will be used when selecting scholarship recipients. (A) First priority will be given to applicants from districts that do not currently have an ADE certified manager/director or a manager/director in any of it's schools who is currently enrolled in ADE Manager Certification Training (Will attend Part I) (B) Second priority will be given to applicants from districts that currently have a manager/director enrolled in the ADE Manager Certification Training, but has not completed the training (Will attend Part II or Part III) (C) Third priority will be given to applicants from schools that do not have a certified manager. Scholarships for this criteria will be awarded on a first come, first serve basis (Will attend Part I) Indicate the criteria (A, B or C) met by this applicant: A B C Indicate the session of Manager Training the applicant will be attending: _ Partl--July8-19, 1996 _ PartlI--June 10-21 , 1996 _ PartIII--June 10-21 , 1996 The school district agrees to financially support attendance of the additional workshops needed to complete certification. Food Service Director Return application by May 31 to: Barbara Smith Child Nutrition Phone: (501) 324-9502 2020 West Third St., Suite 404 Little Rock, AR 72205-446 Superintendent APR 2 9 1996 Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division Office of Desn NO: FIN-96-094 Page: I of I --- Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Educational Agencies Date: April 25, 1996 Type of Memo: Regulatory Response Required By: Optional There are attachments to this memo. - Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: School Funds Index Code: DIB Rules and Regulations Implementing Act 2 of 1994 as Amended by Act 1228 of 1995 Regulatory Authority: Arkansas Code Annotated 6-20-303 and 6-11-105 (Rep!. 1993) Contact Person: Robert Shaver Phone No: 682-4256 Enclosed are the Rules and Regulations Implementing Act 2 of 1994 as Amended by Act 1228 of 1995 approved by the State Board of Education on February 12, 1996. These rules and regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code Annotated 6-20-303 and 6-11-105 (Rep!. 1993). 1.00 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING ACT 2 OF 1994 AS AMENDED BY ACT 1228 OF 1995 Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as the Arkansas Department of Education regulations implementing Act 2 of 1994 as amended by Act 1228 of 1995. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code Annotated 6-20-303 and 6-11-105 (Repl. 1993). 2.00 Purpose 2.01 The purpose of these rules and regulations is to describe how the Department of Education will implement Act 2 of 1994 as amended by Act 1228 of 1995. 3.00 Implementation 3.01 The Department of Education shall determine the amount of Minimum Foundation Program Aid distributed to school districts during the 1993-94 school year. 3.02 The Department shall determine the amount of Minimum Foundation Program Aid each district would have received if Act 1 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1994 had been implemented for the entire 1993-94 school year. 3.03 The Department shall subtract the amount of Minimum Foundation Program Aid calculated in section 3.02 from section 3.01 and if the result is a positive number shall provide each local school district the following amounts. A. For the 1994-95 school year 85% of the difference. 0 I.D -\u0026lt; (.')[..,\"') O\"\\ \u0026gt; B. For the 1995-96 school year, 50% of the difference. I -Jf':\"\"\".(J:\n::. ... ~~:!: u riM\u0026gt; ::::.:, ~ o~::: .,.,., C. For the 1996-97 school year, 25% of the difference. \"\"T'j:::::o  Cl 7)- \u0026gt;=\u0026lt;Z :\nr :?.cu \u0026gt;,,~ ~ :::1 fTi ::\n::C/'Jj'i'} -:.. c.,-'-cn - -~ --i.-i - :::\ncnr-, 0' :\u0026lt; ADE023-1 Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division APR 2 9 1996 Office of Desog.  gat1on \\l!onnoring NO: FIN-96-093 Page: I of I Date: April 25, 1996 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-op Directors Other: LEA Supervisors Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Optional There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Special Education Programs 1996 NASDSE Teleconferences on Current Issues in Special Education (REMINDER) Index Code: IHBA Regulatory Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1423 (a)(3), Public Law 94-142, as amended\n34 CFR 300.382 (b)(c) Contact Person: Susan Nelson Phone No: 682-4222 Attached is a flyer that you may choose to post and/or copy to send to your staff regarding the second in a series of satellite conferences regarding current issues in special education. The Arkansas Department of Education has subscribed to the entire series\nthus, these conferences are available at no cost to any site accessing the conference. This conference will address Assessment and Assessment Accommodation related to the development and implementation of statewide assessment programs and inclusion of students with disabilities. In addition, the determination of appropriate assessment accommodation will be discussed. DATE and TIME: Wednesday, May 8, 1996, from 12:00 Noon to 2:00 PM CDT COORDINATES: Test Time: 11:45 - 12:00 Channel: Satellite: ANIK - E2 Polarity: Band: C-BAND Audio: Transponder: 6A Location For technical information contact: Patsi Evans, 412/443-7821 extension 281. 11 Horizontal 6.2/6.8 MHZ 107.3 West Longitude - Also included is information related to assessment/assessment accommodation. Please feel free to copy and distribute. Conference #2 1996 NASDSE SATELLITE CONFERENCE SERIES: CURRENT ISSUES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION ~ ======================= Assessment/ Assessment Accommodation May 8, 1996 1:00 - 3:00pm (ET) 12:00 - 2:00 pm (CDST) This conference will address issues related to the development and implementation of statewide assessment programs and inclusion of students with disabilities. In addition, the determination of appropriate assessment accommodation and issues related to the instructional strategies relative to assessment accommodation will be discussed. Presenter(s): Moderator: Corporate Sponsor: Edward D. Roeber, Director Student Assessment Programs Council of Chief State School Officers Washington, DC Judy Elliot, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN Martha J. Fields, Ed.D. Executive Director, NASDSE The Psychological Corporation Broadcasting from the Distance Learning Center, Gibsonia, PA. For technical information contact: Patsi Evans, 412/443-7821 extension 281. Assessment Accommodations: What we know about the current debate The debate that has surrounded the finding of excessive exclusion of students with disabilities from national and state assessments (McGrew, Thurlow, Shriner, \u0026amp; Spiegel, 1992\nMcGrew, Thurlow \u0026amp; Spiegel, 1993) is inextricably mixed with the provision of accommodations in assessments. It has been argued that when trying to increase the number of students with disabilities who are included in large-scale assessments it is necessary to consider the use of reasonable accommodations in those assessments (Ysseldyke \u0026amp; Thurlow, 1994). Assessment programs vary tremendously in what they consider to be reasonable accommodations. Some programs provide an array of possible adaptations in test formatting, scheduling, and setting. Some allow testing adaptation without noting the adaptations, while others allow modifications but identify those tests and remove the scores from reports. Concerns about the lack of accommodations in testing have been controversial for our major national educational assessment, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). For several years now the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has struggled with the issues surrounding the use of accommodations. In 1994, for the first time since NCES took over the administration of NAEP, field tests were conducted to examine the possible use of accommodations in future administrations. The results of these field tests are not yet available. In contrast to our national education assessment, most states have for some time made provisions for students with disabilities to use accommodations during statewide assessments. The results of a 1992 state survey (Thurlow, Ysseldyke, \u0026amp; Silverstein, 1993) revealed that 21 states had assessment accommodations. By early 1995, a total of 39 states had guidelines for the use of accommodations by students with disabilities in their statewide assessments. Clearly, much has been happening in the states in terms of developing guidelines about the use of accommodations in assessments. Probably one factor that has led to this activity is a recognition that both statutory and constitutional law imply that policies should provide individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in assessments with appropriate accommodations (Phillips, 1992, Thurlow et al., 1993). Most recently, the Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 103-366) required that accommodations and adaptations be made by businesses and agencies receiving federal funds . NCEO ... appropriate adjustment or modifications or examinations, training material or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. (see Section 10[9]). J. Elliott NASDSE 5/96 These concepts are now reflected in national education reform laws Goals 2000: Educate America Act (103-227) and Improving America's Schools Act (103-328). A general overview of existing state accommodation guidelines There is great variation in numbers and types of assessments that states employ, numbers of students assessed, and purposes of the assessment programs (see NCREL, 1994). In some states, accommodations vary as a function of the purpose of the assessment and/or the specific assessment. In others, the same guidelines apply, regardless of the assessment or purpose. The National Center on Educational Outcomes has recently published a document summarizing states' guidelines for accommodations in assessments for students with disabilities (Thurlow, Scott, Ysseldyke, 1995). Findings reveal a wide range of guidelines and provisions of assessment accommodations for_students with disabilities. None of the guidelines however, are based on research findings. States' assessment accommodation guidelines vary in length, terminology and classification schemes. Among the terms used to convey the concept of accommodations are: non-standard administration, mediation, modifications, alteration, and adaptation. States' accommodation classifications often follow a scheme in which the accommodation is in: (1) the presentation of the assessment, (2) the response made by student, (3) the setting in which the assessment is administered, or (4) the timing or scheduling of the assessment. Other classification schemes that are used include ones based on the category of the disability, the specific test being administered, or accommodations appropriate for aggregation of test scores. Despite the variability in the specific accommodations that are allowed within states' written guidelines, there are some important generalizations that can be reached about the current status of using accommodations in statewide assessments: IEP function. The role of the IEP team in making decisions about accommodations that may be used by individual students with disabilities is part of the guidelines in 22 states Requirements for documentation of the use of accommodations. Four states have guidelines that require an assessment accommodation to be documented. Use of the same accommodations for assessment as for instruction. Fourteen states refer to the need to allow students the same accommodation in testing as they use during instruction. - NCEO 2 J. Elliott NASDSES/96 Acceptability of specific accommodations. In some states there are specific prohibitions against using certain types of accommodations. However, for every instance where a specific accommodation is prohibited, there is another state in which that same accommodation is permitted. Allowing accommodations for students without disabilities. Five states have provision in their guidelines for making accommodations for students who need them regardless of whether they hold an IEP. Out-of-Level testing. There are a few states that allow assessment in a level that is not the student's grade level (e.g., at a lower grade level). Reporting results. It has been noted (Thurlow, Scott, \u0026amp; Ysseldyke, 1995) that states sometimes exclude from summary reports of results the score of students with disabilities, simply because they have a disability. Some states make decisions about whether scores are reported based on whether accommodations used,_ or for sr,ecific types of accommodations that are used, during assessment. Summary Currently, there exists a great deal of variability and confusion about the use of assessment accommodations. Recently state efforts have been made to put into place guidelines that specify assessment accommodations. Most states' guidelines discuss at great length the need to obtain a valid, reliable, and fair measure of a student's educational achievement. The language of the guidelines varies from being extremely cautious of the test instrument (cautioning against destroying the integrity of the test) to providing the student with disabilities the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency without being unfairly restricted by the existence of disability. Curiously missing in all but a few of the guidelines is the role of parents in creating a focus on the critical need to measure the outcomes of their child's educational experiences. The use of accommodations in statewide assessments is quite prevalent, but not very consistent. States vary greatly in detail of their accommodation guidelines, as well as in what they recommend or permit. Nearly every state has revised its accommodations guidelines within the past two years, however the guidelines still are not based in research. NCEO is currently producing a document that highlights considerations and criteria to consider in the areas of participation, accommodation and reporting in large-scale assessment of students with disabilities. Until research data on the effects of accommodations are available, these criteria can be used to formulate accommodation guidelines and policies. NCEO 3 J. Elliott NASDSE 5/96 References McGrew, K. S. Thurlow, M. T. Shriner, J. G., \u0026amp; Spiegel, A. N. (1992). Inclusion of students with disabilities in national and state data collection programs. (Technical Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. McGrew, K. S., Thurlow, M. T., \u0026amp; Spiegel, A. N. (1993). The exclusion of students with disabilities in national data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 339-352. NCREL. (1994). State student assessment programs database, 1993- 1994. Oak Brook, IL: Council of Chief State School Officers and North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Phillips, S. E., (1992). Testing condition accommodations for handicapped students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Thurlow, M. T., Scott, D. \u0026amp; Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995). A compilation of states' guidelines for accommodations in assessments for students with disabilities. (Synthesis Report 18). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Thurlow, M. T., Ysseldyke, J.E. \u0026amp; Silverstein, B. (1993). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of the literature. (Synthesis Report 4). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Ysseldyke, J.E. \u0026amp; Thurlow, M. T. (1994). Guidelines for inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments. NCEO Policy Directions (Number 1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. NCEO 4 J. Elliott NASDSE 5/96 ASSESSMENT/ASSESSMENT ACCOMMODATION BIBLIOGRAPHY Inclusion and Accommodation of Students with Disabilities in Testing Algozzine, 8. ( 1993). Including students with disabilities in systemic efforts to measure outcomes: Why ask why? In J. Ysseldyke \u0026amp; M. Thurlow (Eds.), Views on inclusion and testing accommoda1ions for sludents with disabilities (Synthesis Report 7) (pp. 5-10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Assessment accommodations: What you should do. (1995, May 27). The Special Educalor, 10(21 ), 329-330. Beattie, S., Grise, P., \u0026amp; Algozzine, 8. (1983). Effects of test modifications on the minimum competency performance of learning disabled students. Leaming Disability Quarterly, 6( 1 ), 71-77. Center for Policy Options in Special Education. ( 1994 ). Assessment guidelines Outcomes-based acco1111tabili1yfor students wilh disabililies. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Author. DeStefano, L. ( 1993 ). The effecls of slandards and assess men/ on sludents in special educa1 ion (Synthesis Report I 0). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. DeStefano, L., \u0026amp; Metzer, D. (I 991 ). High stakes testing and students with handicaps: An analysis of issues and policies. In R. E. Stake (Ed.). Advances in progra111 evaluation (Vol. I A). Greenwich. CT: JAi Press. Education Testing Service. ( 1990). Testing persons ll'ith disabilities: A reporl for ETS programs and their constituents. Princeton, NJ: Author. Elliot, J.L., Thurlow, M. L., \u0026amp; Ysseldyke. (1996). Assessment guidelines that 111aximi::e !he participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assess111e111s: Characteristics and considerations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Erickson, R., Thurlow, M., \u0026amp; Thor, K. (1995). 1994 state special education outcomes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Koehler, P. H. ( 1993 ). Inclusion and adaption in assessment of special needs students in Arizona. In J. Ysseldyke \u0026amp; M. Thurlow (Eds.), Views on inclusion and tesling accommodations for students ll'ith disabilities (Synthesis Report 7) (pp. 11-18). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Loeding, 8. L., \u0026amp; Crittenden, J. 8. (1993). Inclusion of children and youth who are hearing impaired and deaf in outcomes assessment. In J. Ysseldyke \u0026amp; M. Thurlow (Eds.), Views on inclusion and testing acco111111odations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 7) (pp. I 9-29). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Assessment!Assessmenl Acco111111odation Bihliography NASDSE Sa1el/i1e Conference Page I May 8. /99(, McGrew K. S., Spiegel, A. N., Thurlow, M. L., Shriner, J. G., \u0026amp; Ysseldyke, J. E. (1994). Seconda,y a11alysis of state assessment data. Why we can't say much about students with disabilities (Technical Report 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. - McGrew, K. S., Thurlow, M. L., Shriner, J. G., \u0026amp; Spiegel, A. N. (1992). Inclusion of stude11ts with disabilities in national and slate data collection programs (Technical Repor1 2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. McLaughlin, M. J., \u0026amp; Warren, S. H. ( 1992). Issues \u0026amp; options in restructuring schools and special education programs. College Park: University of Maryland, Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth. McLaugblin, M. J. , \u0026amp; Warren, S. H. (1992). Outcomes assessment for students with disabilities: Will it be accountability or continued failure? Preventing School Failure, 36(4), 29-33. Merwin, J. ( 1993). Inclusion and acco111modatio11: \"You can tell what is important to a society by the things it chooses to measure\". In J. Ysseldyke \u0026amp; M. Thurlow (Eds.), Views on inclusion and tes1ing accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 7) (pp. 30-34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. ( 1988). NAEP testing for swte comparisons: Issues related lo inclusion of handicapped students. Alexandria, VA: Author. National Center on Educational Outcomes. (in press). State special education outcomes 1995. M i1111eapolis: University of Minnesota. Author. Olsen, K. ( 1980). i'vlinilllu111 competency testing and the IEP process. Exceptional Children. -17(3 ). - 176-183 . Resch ly, D. J. ( 1993 ). Consequences and incentives: 1 rnpl ications for inclusion/exclusion decisions regarding students with disabilities in state and national assessment progra111s. ln J. Ysseldyke \u0026amp; i'vl. Thurlow (Eds.). VieH.1 011 i11c/11sio11 011d testing occo111111odatio11sfor students ll'ith disabilities (Synthesis Report 7) (pp. 35-46). Minneapolis: University of i\\-1irrnesota, National Center on Educational Outcollles. Reynolds, M. C. (1993). Inclusion and accolllmodation in assessment at the lllargins. 111 J. Ysseldyke \u0026amp;' M. Thurlow (Eds.), Viell'S 011 inc/11sio11 and testing acco111111oda1ions for students ll'itl, disabilities (Synthesis Report 7) (pp. 47-64). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center 011 Educational Outcollles. Roeber, E. ( 1996, Spring). Assessing students with disabi I ities: Q \u0026amp; A with Ed Roeber. Counterpoint, J 6(3 ), 8. Thurlow, M. L., Scott, D. L., \u0026amp; Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995). A compilation of States' guide/i11esfor acco111111odotions in assess111e11/s for students ll'ith disabilities (Synthesis Report 18). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Thurlow, M. L. , Scott, D. L., \u0026amp; Y sseldyke, J. E. ( 1995 ). A compilation of States guidelines for i11clucli11g students with disabilities in assessments (Synthesis Report 17). Minneapolis: University of rvt innesota, Nat ion al Center on Eclucat ion al Outcomes. ,.Jssess111e11t/Assess111en1 Acco1//111odatio11 Bibliography :\\'.~SOS Satellite Conference  !'age 2 ,\\lay 8, 1996 Thurlow, M. L. \u0026amp; Ysseldyke, J. E. (1993). Can \"al!\" ever real!y mean \"all\" in defining and assessing student outcomes? (Synthesis Report 5) Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outco1i1es. Thurlow, M.L., Ysseldyke, J.E., \u0026amp; Silverstein, B. (1993). Testing acco111111odationsfor students with disabilities: A review of the literature (Synthesis Repon 4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Willingham, W. W., Ragosta, M., Bennett, R. E., Braun, H., Rock, D. A., \u0026amp; Powers, D. E. (Eds.). ( 1988). Testing handicapped people. Boston: Allyn \u0026amp; Bacon. Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M. L., McGrew, K. S., \u0026amp; Shriner, J. G. (1994). Reco111111endationsfor making decisions about the participation of students with disabilities in statewide assess111e111 progra111s (Synthesis Repo11 15). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Ysseldyke, .I., Thurlow, M., McGrew, K., \u0026amp; Vanden\\OOd, M. ( 1994). Making decisions about the inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments (Synthesis Repo11 13 ). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. General Assessment Issues American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, \u0026amp; National Council on Measurement in Education. ( 1985). Standards for educational and p!\u0026gt;ychological testing. Washington, DC: Author. Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A., \u0026amp; Jirele, T. ( 1987). GRE score level, test completion, and reliabilit_\\' for ,isual!y impaired, phvsically ho11dicapped, one/ 11011ha11dicapped groups. The Journal of Special Education, 21 (3 ), 9-21. Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A., \u0026amp; Kaplan, B. A. ( 1987) SAT cliffere111ial item pe1for111a11ce.fc1r 11i11e ha11dicapped groups. Journal of Educational Measurement, :24( I), 44-55. Bond, L. A., \u0026amp; Roeber, E. D. ( 1995). The slot us of state stucle111 assess111e111 progra111s in the United Stales. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers and the No11h Central Regional Educational Laboratory. National Forum on Assessment. ( 1995). Pri11ciples and i11dicatorsfor student assess111ent .1rste111s. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Fair \u0026amp; Open Testing. Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Waner \u0026amp; 1-1. I. Braun (eds.). Test validity (pp. 3-17). Hi I lsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dari ing-Hammond, L. ( 1991 ). The implications for testing policy for educational quality and equity. Phi Delta Koppa, 73(3), 220-225. Fuchs, D., f-uchs, L. S., Benowitz, S., \u0026amp; Barringer, K. ( 1987). Norm-referenced le ts: Arc they valid for use with handicapped students. Exceptio11ol Children. 5-1, 263-272. Assess111en1/ Assess111e111 Acco111111oda110n Bibliography NASDSE Satellite Conference Page J tl!ay 8. /996 Haertel, E. ( I 989). Student achievement tests as tools of educational policy: Practices and consequences. In 8. Gifford (Ed .), Test policy and test performance: Education, language and culture (pp. A 25-50). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher. - Herman, J. L. ( 1992). What research tells us about good assessment. Educational Leadership. 49(8), 74-78. Kozlov, M. ( 1994). Improving educational outcomes for children with disabilities: Principles for assessment, program planning, and evaluation. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. National Center for Fair \u0026amp; Open Testing. ( I 995). Selected annotated bibliography on language minority assessmenl. Cambridge, MA: Author. National Education Association. ( 1993 ). The role of high-stakes resting in school reform. Washington, DC: Author. Office of Technology Assessment. ( 1992). Testing in American schools: Asking the right questions. Washington, DC: Congress of the United States, Author. Phillips, S. E. ( 1993). Legal implications of high stakes assessment: Whal states should kno\\1'. Oak Brook, IL: Nonh Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Rothman, R. ( I 994, Winter). Assessment questions: Equity answers. Evaluation Comment, Los Angeles: University of California, CSE/CRESST. Salvia. J., \u0026amp; Ysseldyke, J. (1995). Assessment (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifllin. Swanson. H. C., \u0026amp; Watson, B. L. ( 1989). Educational and psychological assessmen/ of exceptional children (2nd ed .). Columbus. OH: Merrill. Sweetland, R. C., \u0026amp; Keyser, D. J. ( 1991 ). Tests: A comprehensive reference for assessments in psrchology. education. and business (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Wiggins, G. P. ( 1993). Assessing srudenl pe1.formc111ce: Exploring !he purpose and limits of 1esring. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Assess111en1/Assessme111 Accom111odation Bibliography NASDSE Satellite Conference Page -I May 8. 1996 Conference #2: ASSESSMENT/ASSESSMENT ACCOMMODATION Evaluation Form 1996 NASDSE SATELLITE X CONFERENCE SERIES: 2= =====CU=RR=E=N=T=l=SS=U=E=S =IN=SP=E=C=IA=L=E=D=U=C=A=T=IO=N Involvement/Participation 1. (a) How many down-sites benefitted from the teleconference within your state? _________ _ (b) The number of participants from your state was: ___________________ _ 2. What type of audience was involved? (check as many as apply) D State Administrator D Regular Teacher D District, Building Administrator D Special Education Teacher D Regular Administrator D Other (please identify) _________ _ D Special Education Administrator D Unknown Rating Scale: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements by blacking out the circle that applies: CD-disagree, @-somewhat disagree, @-somewhat agree, -agree Presentation 1. Discussion/presentation was relevant to the topic. 2. Information was presented in an interesting manner. 3. Information was relevant to my needs. 4. Discussion/presentation helped formulate a plan of action. Supplemental materials packet 1. (a) The materials were received in a timely manner. (b) The materials were relevant with and/or beneficial to the presentation. (c) The materials were relevant and/or beneficial to the needs of your state. Evaluation overall 1. The series covered all aspects of its representation. 2. The series offers continuity toward state/district inservice development. 3. Suggestions for improving the format: (a) alternate kinds of materials need to be sent. (b) increase/decrease time limits between receiving materials/presentations. 4. There _was satisfaction with the series overall. Future Topics 1. Future series should address new topics. Suggested topics: (a) Introduction of special education into the general curriculum. (b) Development of the IEP. (c) Initial and other evaluations. (d) Teacher preparation. (e) More indepth study of components of assessment such as ______ _ (f) Other (specify) _____________________ _ CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD @ @ @ @ @ Q) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Q) @ Q) @ @ @ @ @ Q) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Q) @ @ Return to: Conference Evaluation  NASDSE  1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 320  Alexandria, VA 22314  FAX (703) 519-3808                       ADE Memos - Received 5-28-96 ESL Academy Workshop Special Education Programs Local Education Agency (LEA) Special Education Supervisor Funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 Types of Funds Rules and Regulations on Approval of Loans and Bonds Applications Food Services Debarment and Suspension  Textbook Selection and Adoption  Special Education Programs  \"Arkansas Schools Are For All Kids\" Regional Training Announcement for the 1996-97 School Year Compensatory Education Title I Assessment Data Collection  Public Hearing on Proposed Amended Rules and Regulations Requiring Criminal Background Check for All First-Time Educational Licenses and Revocation Procedures  State and Federal Programs Administration Title VI, ESEA, Allotments  Revenues From State Tax Sources Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of Consolidation Incentive Funding  Compensatory Education Title I Information Update  Student Attendance 1. Superintendent's Quarterly Attendance Report Grades K-12 2. Superintendent's Annual Report on Pupil Enrollment and Attendance  School Funds/Types of Funds MFP A and Trust Pfund Aid Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division Forward Copies To: Superintendents Others: ESL Coordinators Type of Memo: Response Required by: No: TEC-96-071 Page: 1 of 1 Date: May 23, 1996 Informational Optional There are attachments to this memo Assistant Director, Technical Assistanc-e: - Frank Anthony\nSubject: ESL Academy Workshop \\ Index Code: IHBEA Regulatory Authority: NI A MAY 2 8 1996 - Contact Person: Dr. Andre Guerrero Office f Dessgregaton Monitoring Phone Number: 682-4213 The Arkansas Department of Education/Equity Assistance Center, in partnership with Tyson Foods, Inc., would like to invite you to participate in the English as a Second Language (ESL) Academy which will be held July 28, 1996 through August 2, 1996. Intensive, focused training will be provided for those whose responsibilities include working with language minority students. The week-long, residential workshop will be held at the Tyson Management Development Center in Russellville, Arkansas. Through a generous grant from Tyson Foods and support from the U. S. Department ofEducation/OBEMLA, all expenses for the ESL Academy will be provided for, including registration, travel, lodging, meals, and materials. In addition, three hours of graduate credit will be awarded by Arkansas Tech for participants completing the Academy's training in ESL Culture and Methodology. The Academy will focus on four areas of skill development for ESL programs. They are as follows: 1) Language Acquisition\n2) ESL Methodology\n3) Assessment of Language Minority Students\nand 4) Teaching and Culture. These competency areas parallel the new approved requirements for ESL certification, and the graduate credit earned may be applied toward fulfilling requirements for state certification. Teaching/Resource faculty for the ESL Academy will include: Dr. Frank Gonzalez, San Antonio, Texas\nDr. Elisa Gutierrez\nDr. Steve Jackson, San Antonio, Texas\nDr. Ursula Chandler, Arkansas Tech\nDr. Margaret Clark, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville\nDahri McFaline, M.Ed., Arkansas Department of Education\nBarbara Berry, Tyson Foods, Inc.\nAnita Muriel Hill, M. Ed., San Antonio, Texas\nAl Lopez, Rogers Schools\nMai Le Nguyen, Fort Smith Schools\nJudy Story, Fort Smith Schools\nPi Chi Han, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville\nand Dr. Andre Guerrero, State Department of Education. In addition, members of Arkansas Group, a public policy development, non-profit organization, will facilitate discussion groups and chair panel presentations. Space for participation is very limited. Please share this invitation with all interested parties, and return the enclosed application fonn to our office by June 30, 1996. Application fonns may be duplicated. (Please post the following) PLEASE JOIN US as we learn how to serve language minority students in our schools The Arkansas Department of Education in partnership with Tyson Foods, Inc. would like to invite you to apply for the ESL Academy (English as a Second Language Academy) and earn three hours of graduate credit in ESL Culture and Methodology What: A week-long training institute on ESL, including the areas of Language Acquisition, ESL Methodology, ESL Assessment, and Teaching and Culture. When: July 28 thru August 2, 1996 Where: Tyson Management Development Center, Russellville, Arkansas costs: Who: How: All participant expenses will be covered by ADE/Tyson's, Including travel, lodging (at the Tyson Management Development Center in Russellville, Arkansas), all meals, registration, materials, And college credit fees (three hours of graduate credit in Culture And Methodology awarded by Arkansas Tech) Teachers, teaching assistants, ESL coordinators, school administrators, community/school liason personnel, parents, any other individual responsible for providing services to language minority students. Apply by June 30, 1996 using the enclosed application form (Please duplicate application form as needed) For additional information, please contact: Dr. Andre Guerrero or Dahri I. McFaline Arkansas Department of Education Equity Assistance Center #4 Capitol Mall, Suite 405-B Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Tel.: (501) 682-4213 FAX: (501) 682-5177 Important: Space is limited, please apply ASAP APPLICATION TO PARTICIPATE Arkansas Department of Education Equity Assistance Center ESL ACADEMY July 28-August 2, 1996 Tyson Management Development Center Russellville, Arkansas Name: _______________________ _ Mailing Address (Summer): Telephone Number (Summer): _______________ _ School District: --------------------- Position: ----------------------- Please provide a short statement on how you believe your participation in the ESL Academy will benefit your district: Please mail application by June 30, 1996 to: Dr. Andre Guerrero Arkansas Department of Education Equity Assistance Center #4 Capitol Mall, Suite 405-B Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-4213 Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division Forward Copies To: Superintendents Others: ESL Coordinators Type of Memo: Response Required by: No: TEC-96-071 Page: 1 of 1 Date: May 23, 1996 Informational Optional There are attachments to this memo Assistant Director, Technical Assistaqce: Frank Anthony Subject: ESL Academy Workshop Regulatory Authority: NI A Contact Person: Dr. Andre Guerrero MAY 2 8 19961 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Index Code: IHBEA Phone Number: 682-4213 The Arkansas Department of Education/Equity Assistance Center, in partnership with Tyson Foods, Inc., would like to invite you to participate in the English as a Second Language (ESL) Academy which will be held July 28, 1996 through August 2, 1996. Intensive, focused training will be provided for those whose responsibilities include working with language minority students. The week-long, residential workshop will be held at the Tyson Management Development Center in Russellville, Arkansas. Through a generous grant from Tyson Foods and support from the U.S. Department ofEducation/OBEMLA, all expenses for the ESL Academy will be provided for, including registration, travel, lodging, meals, and materials. In addition, three hours of graduate credit will be awarded by Arkansas Tech for participants completing the Academy's training in ESL Culture and Methodology. The Academy will focus on four areas of skill development for ESL programs. They are as follows: 1) Language Acquisition\n2) ESL Methodology\n3) Assessment of Language Minority Students\nand 4) Teaching and Culture. These competency areas parallel the new approved requirements for ESL certification, and the graduate credit earned may be applied toward fulfilling requirements for state certification. Teaching/Resource faculty for the ESL Academy will include: Dr. Frank Gonzalez, San Antonio, Texas\nDr. Elisa Gutierrez\nDr. Steve Jackson, San Antonio, Texas\nDr. Ursula Chandler, Arkansas Tech\nDr. Margaret Clark, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville\nDahri McFaline, M.Ed., Arkansas Department of Education\nBarbara Berry, Tyson Foods, Inc.\nAnita Muriel Hill, M. Ed., San Antonio, Texas\nAl Lopez, Rogers Schools\nMai Le Nguyen, Fort Smith Schools\nJudy Story, Fort Smith Schools\nPi Chi Han, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville\nand Dr. Andre Guerrero, State Department of Education. In addition, members of Arkansas Group, a public policy development, non-profit organization, will facilitate discussion groups and chair panel presentations. - Space for participation is very limited. Please share this invitation with all interested parties, and return the enclosed application form to our office by June 30, 1996, Application forms may be duplicated. (Please post the following) PLEASE JOIN US as we learn how to serve language minority students in our schools The Arkansas Department of Education in partnership with Tyson Foods, Inc. would like to invite you to apply for the ESL Academy (English as a Second Language Academy) and earn three hours of graduate credit in ESL Culture and Methodology What: A week-long training institute on ESL, including the areas of Language Acquisition, ESL Methodology, ESL Assessment, and Teaching and Culture. When: July 28 thru August 2, 1996 Where: Tyson Management Development Center, Russellville, Arkansas costs: Who: How: All participant expenses will be covered by ADE/Tyson's, Including travel, lodging (at the Tyson Management Development Center in Russellville, Arkansas), all meals, registration, materials, And college credit fees (three hours of graduate credit in Culture And Methodology awarded by Arkansas Tech) Teachers, teaching assistants, ESL coordinators, school administrators, community/school liason personnel, parents, any other individual responsible for providing services to language minority students. Apply by June 30, 1996 using the enclosed application form (Please duplicate application form as needed) For additional information, please contact: Dr. Andre Guerrero or Dahri I. McFaline Arkansas Department of Education Equity Assistance Center #4 Capitol Mall, Suite 405-B Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Tel.: (501) 682-4213 FAX: (501) 682-5177 Important: Space is limited, please apply ASAP Name: APPLICATION TO PARTICIPA'IE Arkansas Department of Education Equity Assistance Center ESL ACADEMY July 28-August 2, 1996 Tyson Managem.ent Developm.ent Center Russellville,.A.-kansas ------------------------ Mailing Address (Summer): Telephone Number (Summer): _______________ _ School District: --------------------- Position: ----------------------- Please provide a short statement on how you believe your participation in the ESL Academy will benefit your district: Please mail application by June 30, 1996 to: Dr. Andre Guerrero Arkansas Department of Education Equity Assistance Center #4 Capitol Mall, Suite 405-B Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-4213 ,t Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, Gcner1tl Ednc~tion nivi~ion NO: FIN-96-110 Page: 1 of2 Date: May 23, 1996 Forward Copies To: Type of Memo: Administrative Superintendents, Co-op Directors Response Required By: Those Affected Other: Special Education Supervisors There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Subject: t i Special Education Programs ! Local Education Agency (LEA) Special Educaion Supervisor Funding for Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 ,, I MAY 2 8 1996 Regulatory Authority: Act 1194 of 1995 't Office of Des enre t' :, -~- \"' ga ion Monitoring Contact Person: Clent Holly Phone No: (501) 682-4223 Enclosed is the FY 1997 application for funding LEA special education supervisors. For instructions, please refer to the \"Special Education Administrative Handbook for State and Federal Funds.\" The reimbursement rate will remain at $23,700 for the salary portion of one (1) full-time equivalent (FTE). The district or districts may use state funds or federal VI-B pass-through grant funds to cover costs which exceed or are not covered by the reimbursement. No local educational agency special education supervisor units will be funded beyond those presently approved. Cooperatives that wish to divide a previously approved full-time supervisory position and hire two half-time supervisors may do so\nhowever, the funding level will not be increased. Funding will remain at $23,700 for the equivalent of one FTE supervisory position presently approved. (over) Director's Communication No.: FIN-96-110 Page 2 of2 May 23, 1996 Applications are due July 19, 1996, and should be mailed to: bt Arkansas Department of Education Special Education Grants and Data Management 4 Capitol Mall, Room 105-C Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 District APPLICATION LEA SPECIAL EDUCATION SUPERVISOR 1996-97 SCHOOL YEAR ----------------- LEA# ------- The above stated district is submitting this application to request funding for a special education supervisor position for the 1996-97 school year. 1. Indicate administrative arrangement and 1995-96 ADM: A. __ Single District with a 1995-96 ADM of ___ _ B. __ \"Lead District\" Cooperative with a combined 1995-96 ADM of _____ _ Submit Attachment A. C. Education Service Cooperative with a combined 1995-96 ADM of ______ or ______ school districts served. Submit Attachment B. (NOTE: Do nm count school districts or the ADM of school districts within an Education Cooperative who retain their own supervisor.) 2. This administrative unit received ____ FTE supervisory position(s) during the 1995-96 school year and is applying for ____ FTE supervisory position(s) for the 1996-97 school year. NOTE: The number ofFTE supervisory positions funded during the 1996-97 school year will be the same as 1995-96 ~ the administrative unit's ADM has decreased to the point where that unit no longer qualifies for the same number ofFTE supervisory positions. Failure to meet other criteria for Special Education supervisor funding would also cause a reduction of the number ofFTE supervisory positions funded. I certify that these data are accurate and that the district agrees to use these funds in accordance with the criteria set forth for funding local special education supervisors. I agree that the person(s) employed under this application will participate in training institutes sponsored by Special Education. Superintendent's Signature Date ADE USE ONLY Approved: Yes __ (See below.) No Reason ------------- This application for LEA special education supervisor funding is approved for $ ____ _ This approval is based on an FTE of ___ for a ____ month contract. For funds to be released to your district, the contract of your special education supervisor must be received by the Grants and Data Management Unit of the Special Education Office, Arkansas Department of Education, and the certification of your supervisor approved by your special education supervisor. Administrator, Grants and Data Management Act 1194 of 1995 Date ADE Form No. SPED-02-00-005R 5/96 District APPLICATION LEA SPECIAL EDUCATION SUPERVISOR 1996-97 SCHOOL YEAR ----------------- LEA# -------- The above stated district is submitting this application to request funding for a special education supervisor position for the 1996-97 school year. 1. Indicate administrative arrangement and 1995-96 ADM: A. __ Single District with a 1995-96 ADM of _____ _ B. __ \"Lead District\" Cooperative with a combined 1995-96 ADM of _____ _ Submit Attachment A. C. Education Service Cooperative with a combined 1995-96 ADM of ______ or ______ school districts served. Submit Attachment B. (NOTE: Do nm count school districts or the ADM of school districts within an Education Cooperative who retain their own supervisor.) 2. This administrative unit received ____ FIB supervisory position(s) during the 1995-96 school year and is applying for ____ FTE supervisory position(s) for the 1996-97 school year. NOTE: The number ofFTE supervisory positions funded during the 1996-97 school year will be the same as 1995-96 JJ.Dlw the administrative unit's ADM has decreased to the point where that unit no longer qualifies for the same number of FTE supervisory positions. Failure to meet other criteria for Special Education supervisor funding would also cause a reduction of the number ofFTE supervisory positions funded. I certify that these data are accurate and that the district agrees to use these funds in accordance with the criteria set forth for funding local special education supervisors. I agree that the person( s) employed under this application will participate in training institutes sponsored by Special Education. Superintendent's Signature Date ADE USE ONLY Approved: Yes __ (See below.) No Reason ____________ _ This application for LEA special education supervisor funding is approved for $ ____ _ This approval is based on an FTE of ____ for a ____ month contract. For funds to be released to your district, the contract of your special education supervisor must be received by the Grants and Data Management Unit of the Special Education Office, Arkansas Department of Education, and the certification of your supervisor approved by your special education supervisor. Administrator, Grants and Data Management Date Act 1194 of 1995 ADE Form No. SPED-02-00-005R 5/96 District APPLICATION LEA SPECIAL EDUCATION SUPERVISOR 1996-97 SCHOOL YEAR ----------------- LEA# ------- The above stated district is submitting this application to request funding for a special education supervisor position for the 1996-97 school year. 1. Indicate administrative arrangement and 1995-96 ADM: A. __ Single District with a 1995-96 ADM of ____ _ B. __ \"Lead District\" Cooperative with a combined 1995-96 ADM of _____ _ Submit Attachment A. C. Education Service Cooperative with a combined 1995-96 ADM of ______ or ______ school districts served. Submit Attachment B. (NOTE: Do run count school districts or the ADM of school districts within an Education Cooperative who retain their own supervisor.) 2. This administrative unit received ____ FTE supervisory position(s) during the 1995-96 school year and is applying for ____ FTE supervisory position( s) for the 1996-97 school year. NOTE: The number ofFTE supervisory positions funded during the 1996-97 school year will be the same as 1995-96 :unim the administrative unit's ADM has decreased to the point where that unit no longer qualifies for the same number ofFTE supervisory positions. Failure to meet other criteria for Special Education supervisor funding would also cause a reduction of the number ofFTE supervisory positions funded. I certify that these data are accurate and that the district agrees to use these funds in accordance with the criteria set forth for funding local special education supervisors. I agree that the person(s) employed under this application will participate in training institutes sponsored by Special Education. Superintendent's Signature Date ADE USE ONLY Approved: Yes __ (See below.) No Reason ------------- This application for LEA special education supervisor funding is approved for $ ____ _ This approval is based on an FTE of ____ for a ____ month contract. For funds to be released to your district, the contract of your special education supervisor must be received by the Grants and Data Management Unit of the Special Education Office, Arkansas Department of Education, and the certification of your supervisor approved by your special education supervisor. Administrator, Grants and Data Management Act 1194 of 1995 Date ADE Form No. SPED-02-00-005R 5/96 ATTACHMENT A SPECIAL EDUCATION \"LEAD DISTRICT\" COOPERATIVES 1996-97 School Year Submission Statement In accordance with Section 18 of Act 102 of 1973, as amended and Section 300.190 of the Public taw 94-142 regulations, the school districts listed below have established a \"lead district\" cooperative administrative arrangement for the purpose of sharing the services of an LEA supervisor. Lead District LEA Number Total ADM The signatures below verify this arrangement and assure that duplications of requests, and portions thereof, have not been submitted to the Department of Education. (Duplicate this page if necessary.) Superintendent's Signature Lead School District LEA# LEA ADM Superintendent's Signature Cooperating District LEA# LEA ADM Superintendent's Signature Cooperating District LEA# LEAADM Superintendent's Signature Cooperating District LEA# LEAADM Superintendent's Signature Cooperating District LEA# LEAADM Submission Statement ATTACHMENT B EDUCATION SERVICE COOPERATIVE 1996-97 School Year In accordance with Section 18 of Act 102 of 1973, as amended and Section 300.190 of the Public Law 94-142 regulations, the school districts listed below have established an education service cooperative administrative arrangement for the purpose of sharing the services of an LEA supervisor. Cooperative LEA Number Total ADM The signatures below verify this arrangement and assure that duplications of requests, and portions thereof, have not been submitted to the Department of Education. (Duplicate this page if necessary.) Superintendent's Signature Cooperating District LEA# LEA ADM Superintendent's Signature Cooperating District LEA# LEAADM Superintendent's Signature Cooperating District LEA# LEA ADM Superintendent's Signature Cooperating District LEA# LEAADM Superintendent's Signature Cooperating District LEA# LEA ADM ,.., Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION oe~w.~~01, MALL. LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071. (501) 682-4475 .i 'il 1 \"~- }DENE WILHOIT, Directo r. Gcm\nrql Education Division NO: FIN-96-108 .MAY 2 B 1996 Page: 1 of 1 i Office of Desegregation Mont . , 1 ormg Date: May 23, 1996 - Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Educational Agencies Type of Memo: Regulatory Response Required By: Optional There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis - Subject: Types of Funds Index Code: DIB Rules and Regulations on Approval of Loans and Bond Applications Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann. 620-801et seq., 6-20-901 et seq., 6-20-l00let seq., 6-20-1201 et seq., and 6-11-105 (Repl.1993) Contact Person: Robert Coleman Phone No: (501) 682-4465 Enclosed are the Rules and Regulations Governing the Consideration and Approval of Loan and Bond Applications. These rules and regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code Annotated 620-801et seq., 6-20-901 et seq., 6-20-l00let seq., 6-20-1201 et seq., and 6-11-105 (Repl.1993), as amended. -\u0026gt; r:-,1 F - ... 1,.~ D ''),. -... ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 05 . .: \u0026gt;-.. : '-\n, RULESANDREGULATIONS ..,~/ifi'f ~3 4/1 . :, !.( ON APPROVAL OF LOANS AND BOND APPLICATIONS~,,,,. 8 S5 C.\",: l. /~l:. \"I A~ f ,' ' ( ) f - V f/J.f\" J,~1,'\\' r-i'i,,.. ~7 1.00 REGULATORY AUTHORITY ~. ' I:. r\n, : ... _.,..,,. r-'7:':' !.! Y- -----.. ___ ,,,.,,-.,.,1 1 ,:(, s,,41sT t 1.01 1.02 These regulations shall be known as the Arkansas Department of Educati~:--------. Regulations governing the consideration and approval of loan and bond applications. These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Ark. Code Ann. sections 6-20-801 et seq., 6-20-901 et seq., 6-20-1001 et seq., 6-20-1201 et seq., and 6-11-105 (Repl. 1993), as amended. 2.00 PURPOSE 2.01 These regulations are enacted to set forth the criteria that shall be used by the Arkansas Department of Education Loans and Bond Committee in reviewing and recommending loan and bond applications from school districts and Educational Service Cooperatives to the State Board of Education, and by the State Board of Education in approving loan and bond applications from school districts and Education Service Cooperatives. 3.00 DEFINITIONS 3.01 Base Millage: 25 Mills available for maintenance and operations. 4.00 APPLICATION 4.01 These regulations shall be applicable to all loans and bond applications filed by school districts and Education Service Cooperatives with the Department of Education for approval of any loan, bond issue, or refunding bond issue. 4.02 Loans approved as part of a court approved settlement agreement to which the Department or State Board of Education are signatory are exempt from the general application of these regulations. 5.00 LOANS AND BOND COMMITTEE 5.01 The Loans and Bond Committee shall consist of these nine members of the Arkansas Department of Education Staff: A. Assistant Director for Finance and Administration B. Associate Director for Finance and Administration ADE031-l C. Associate Director for Instruction D. Administrator, Loans \u0026amp; Bonds-School Insurance E. Coordinator, Equity Assistance Center F. Coordinator, School Transportation G. Coordinator, School Plant H. Coordinator, Statistics \u0026amp; Local Fiscal Services I. K-12 Supervisor 5.02 Loan and bond applications which meet the requirements set forth in Section 10 of these regulations, will be considered by the Loans and Bond Committee at a meeting of the Committee scheduled within thirty (30) days prior to regularly scheduled meetings of the State Board of Education. 5.03 Applications considered by the Committee may be acted upon in any of the following ways: A. the application may be recommended for approval to the State Board of Education\nB. the application may be forwarded to the State Board of Education without a recommendation in conformance with these regulations\nC. the application may be recommended for disapproval to the State Board of Education\nD. the application may be tabled pending a request for additional information\nfor further study by the Department staff\nor for verification of information regarding the application\nor E. the application may be conditionally recommended for approval to the State Board of Education. 6.00 ACCREDITATION STATUS 6.01 Loan or bond applications from school districts which have an accreditation status of \"not accredited\" at the time the application is considered by the Loans and Bond Committee, excluding applications for refunding bond issues, shall not be recommended by the Loans and Bond Committee to the State Board of Education. The Loans and Bond Committee may recommend for approval to the State Board of Education applications for refunding bond issues from school districts \"not accredited\" at the time the application is considered. 6.02 Loan and bond applications from school districts which have an accreditation status of \"not accredited\" at the time the application is considered by the State Board of Education, may be considered by the State Board of Education, without the recommendation of the Loans and Bond Committee, upon appearance by the superintendent, but will not be approved absent extraordinary circumstances. Refunding bond applications from such districts may be considered by the State - ADE031-2 Board of Education upon the recommendation of the Committee and without the - appearanc~ of the school district's superintendent. 6.03 Loan and bond applications from school districts which have an accreditation status of \"probationary\" at the time the application is considered, excluding applications for refunding bond issues, shall not be recommended by the Loans and Bond Committee to the State Board of Education unless the citation that is the cause of the probationary status will be corrected through the use of the loan or bond proceeds. In such an instance the Committee may, but is not required to, recommend the application to the State Board of Education. 6.04 Loan and bond applications from school districts which have an accreditation status of \"probationary\" at the time the application is considered, shall be considered by the State Board of Education upon appearance by the district's superintendent. Approval of such an application shall be discretionary with the State Board of Education. Refunding bond applications from such school districts may be considered by the State Board of Education upon recommendation of the Loans and Bond Committee. 6.05 Loan and bond applications from school districts which have an accreditation status of \"accredit cite\" at the time the application is considered, which has been awarded for teacher certification violations on more than 30% of the district's teachers, shall not be recommended by the Loans and Bond Committee to the State Board of Education for approval. 6.06 Loan and bond applications from school districts which have an accreditation status of \"accredit cite\" at the time the application is considered, which has been awarded for teacher certification violations on more than 30% of the district's teachers, shall be considered by the State Board of Education upon appearance by the district's superintendent. Approval of such an application shall be discretionary with the State Board of Education. 6.07 Loans and bond applications from districts which currently have an accreditation status of Probationary, Not Accredited or Accredited Cite (where teacher certification violations exceed 30% of the district's teachers), may be recommended to the State Board for approval if the violations have been cleared, and the district has provided sufficient documentation to show that the deficiency no longer exits. 7.00 EQUITY STATUS 7.01 All Pulaski County School Districts submitting loans or bonds applications to fund a proposed facility project, excluding maintenance and operation facilities, transportation facilities, and other non-instructional facilities, shall submit ADE 031-3 a letter from their attorney, accompanied by substantiating written documentation, stating the proposed facility is part of their Court-approved Desegregation Plan. 7.02 All other school districts submitting loans or bonds applications to fund a proposed facility project, excluding maintenance and operation facilities, transportation facilities, and other non-instructional facilities, shall submit written documentation showing: (A). That the proposed facility project is necessary to meet an important educational goal of the district. Completion of the proposed project should allow the applying district to provide a better quality, desegregated education, necessary to meet the needs of its present and projected population. A detailed outline or explanation of the educational goal being met shall be included\nand/or (B). That the proposed facility project is necessary to comply with ADE rules and regulations, and/or State and federal statutes and regulations. 7.02.1 The applying district shall have as its goal not to establish or enlarge a school, unless the enrollment in such school is reasonably projected to be within a 25% range of its district-wide percentage of majority-minority students by organizational level, as established in the Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District case. 7.02.2 The applying district shall submit a written assurance impact statement that the facility project will not in any manner establish, continue, or ignore segregative activities within the district. 7.02.3 Any school in any county contiguous to Pulaski County shall submit a written assurance statement that the proposed facility project will not have a substantial negative impact on the ability of any district in Pulaski County to desegregate effectively. 7.03 The Loan and Bonds Committee shall not recommend approval of any application from any district not submitting the documentation in sections 7.01 or 7.02. 7.04 The Loans and Bonds Committee may recommend approval of any application from a district submitting the information in sections 7.01 or 7.02 if the Committee agrees with the documentation. 7.05 The State Board of Education shall not approve an application from any district not submitting the information required in sections 7.01 or 7.02. 7.06 The State Board of Education may consider a school district's application not A approved by the Committee under section 7.04 after reviewing the documentation W submitted by the applying district. ADE 031-4 8.00 ENDING BALANCES 8.01 Revolving loan applications for less than 5% of a district's projected ending balance, from school districts which have a projected ending balance exceeding 15% of their total budget will not be recommended to the State Board of Education by the Loans and Bond Committee. 8.02 Revolving loan applications for less than 5% of a district's projected ending balance, from school districts which have a projected ending balance exceeding 15% of their total budget shall be considered by the State Board of Education upon an appearance by the district superintendent. Approval of such an application shall be discretionary with the State Board of Education. 8.03 Revolving loan applications from districts or Education Service Cooperatives which project a year's ending balance less than the amount of the loan payment, including accrued interest, will not be considered by the Loans and Bond Committee or the State Board of Education. 8.04 Revolving loan applications from school districts or Education Service Cooperatives which have a negative projected ending balance will not be considered by the Loans and Bond Committee or the State Board of Education. - 9.00 COST EFFICIENCY 9.01 Loan and bond applications for projects which substantially exceed the cost of similar projects will not be recommended to the State Board of Education by the Loans and Bond Committee without written justification by the district or Education Service Cooperative explaining the additional cost. The Department of Education's School Plant Section will provide average cost figures on projects to school districts and cooperatives upon request. 9.02 Loan and bond applications from school districts which exceed 27% of the district's latest assessed valuation will be considered by the Loans and Bond Committee upon written justification explaining the necessity for exceeding the percentage limit. The Committee, in making a recommendation to the State Board of Education, may consider its recommendation upon appearance by the district's superintendent to explain the conditions underlying the request. 10.00 REFUNDING BONDS 10.01 A separate application must be submitted for each issue being refunded, unless the the maturities are the same. ADE031-5 10.02 Total minimum net savings must be 5% or $100,000 (whichever is less) inclusive of Agent's fees and related costs. 10.03 Refunding issues may not be combined in order to achieve minimum savings. Each refunding bond must meet the savings requirement independently. 10.04 The amount of the new bond issue is limited to no more than the amount on the application. If there is a sudden drop in interest rates after application has been approved, and more bonds will have to be sold to accomplish the sale, written approval must be granted by the Department of Education Loan Committee for the increased amount. 10.05 Principal and interest payments must be structured evenly so savings are distributed over the life of the issue. 10.06 Once an application for a refunding issue has been approved by the State Board of Education, the application is only effective for one calendar year following the date of the approval. If the district has not exercised its option to refund within this time period, a new application must be submitted to and approved by the State Board of Education. 11.00 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 11.01 No loan or bond application will be considered by the Loans and Bond Committee or the State Board of Education until the application complies with all statutory requirements. 11.02 All documents must be received by the Loans and Bond Section of the Department of Education 30 days before the regularly scheduled State Board of Education meeting to consider the applications. Loan or bond applications for which documents are received after this date will be considered in the next application cycle. 12.00 SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFAULT 12.01 In case of default on principal or interest payments on revolving loan or Commercial Bond issues, the State Department of Education shall withhold all state aid payments in amount(s) sufficient to cure the default. 13.00 EDUCATION SERVICE COOPERATIVE APPLICATION 13.01 Education Service Cooperatives shall submit an authorization signed by the Board President and Secretary authorizing the Department of Education to withhold state aid in case of default. ADE031-6 C 13.02 Education Service Cooperatives shall submit an authorization signed by the Board President and Secretary pledging the transfer of title to property securing the loan in the event of loan default. 14.00 REPORTING 14.01 School Districts that call bonds early must report such calls to the Department of Education's Loans and Bond Service prior to June 30 of the school's fiscal year. The notification must include the amount of bonds called, the series and the date the bonds were called. 15.00 TRUSTEE FEES 15.01 Fees assessed by Trustee Banks for acting as paying agent and for providing other services necessary to manage School District Bond Issues shall be approved by the Arkansas State Board of Education. A fee schedule will be provided upon request to interested Banks and Financial Institutions by contacting the Loans and Bond Section of the Arkansas Department of Education. 15.02 Fees Set by the Arkansas State Board of Education will be reviewed on a regular basis and adjustments will be made to reflect current costs of services being provided. ADE031-7 Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLf: ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Duector, General Education Division NO: FIN-96-104 AY 2 8 1996 Page: 1 of2 11 Office of Desegregation Date: May 23, 1996 , onttonn Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Child Nutrition Directors Type of Memo: Regulatory Response Required By: Those Affected There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Food Services Index Code: EF Debannent and Suspension Regulatory Authority: 7CFR 3017 Contact Person: Dorothy Caldwell or Barbara Smith Phone No: 501-324-9502 Hiland Dairy Foods has been suspended by the federal government from entering into school contracts in excess of $100,000. If Hiland Dairy currently has your school district's milk bid and your purchases exceed $100,000 during the contract period, you should have received a letter from the company informing you of the suspension. Enclosed is a copy of a memorandum from the Director of Child Nutrition, USDA Food and Consumer Service describing Federal Nonprocurement Debannent and Suspension Waiver Provisions. Please note that waiver requests will not be accepted until a local agency has publicly solicited bids twice and failed to find an eligible supplier or obtain lower prices from an eligible supplier. The memo states that if the first bid does not result in an eligible supplier, the local agency must notify the state agency and describe proposed actions to resolicit bids. If a school district decides to request a waiver, a written request must be made to the state agency. It must include justification for the request and certification that all possible efforts to find an eligible or lower price supplier have been exhausted. The state agency is required to review the request and forward it to the USDA regional office. The decision to grant an exception will be at the discretion of the Food and Consumer Service Administrator in Washington, DC. Director's Communication No. FIN-96-104 Page 2 of2 Because of the additional time required for this process, it is important that school districts affected by this suspension expedite the milk bidding process this year. REMINDER TO ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS: You have received two previous communications regarding debarment and suspension. Director Memo Fin-96-016, dated August 10, 1995, stated: \"A school district is prohibited from contracting with a company or individual that has been debarred or suspended in accordance with 7CFR 3017. This prohibition applies to new contracts and extensions or renewals of existing contracts of$25,000 or more ... . \" The contract threshold has since been raised to $100,000 by Public Law 103-355. The memo also included a copy of a Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion that companies must include with school bids in excess of $100,000. Another copy is enclosed. Use it with bid requests for purchases in excess of$100,000. If you have questions, please contact Dorothy Caldwell or Barbara Smith at 501-324-9502. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower Tier Covered Transactions This certification is required by the regulations implementing Executive Order 12549, Debarment and Suspension, 7 CFR Part 3017, Section 3017.510, Participants' responsibilities. The regulations were published as Part IV of the January 30, 1989, Federal Register (pages 4722-4733). Copies of the regulations may be obtained by contacting the Department of Agriculture agency with which this transaction originated. (BEFORE COMPLETING CERTIFICATION, READ ATTACHED INSTRUCTIONS) (1) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. (2) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this, proposal. Organii.ation Name PR/Award Number or Project Name Name and Title of Authorized Representative Signature Date Form AD-1048 I,NSm[crICNS R:R CliRl.'IF'ILM'ICN 1. By signing and subnitting this fo:rm, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out on the Fo:rm AD-1048 in accordance with these instructions. - 2. 'I'he certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later dete:rmined that the prospective lower tier participant kno.-ringly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other rerredies available to the Federal Governrrent, the departrrent or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available rerredies, including suspension and/or debanrent. 3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide imrediate written notice to the perc-...,on to which this proposal is subnitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when subnitted or has becare erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 4. The te:rms \"covered transaction, 11 \"debarred, 11 \"suspended, 11 \"ineligible, 11 \"lower tier covered transaction,\" \"participant\", \"person\", \"pritrary covered transaction, 11 \"principal, 11 \"proposal, 11 and \"voluntarily excluded, 11 as used in this clause, have the rreanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules irrplerrenting Executive Order 12549. You may contact the person to which this proposal is subnitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by subnitting this form that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knc:Mingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded fran participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the depart.nent or agency with which this A transaction originated. W 6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by subnitting this form that it will include this clause titled \"Certification Regarding Debanrent, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - La,,er Tier Covered Transaction, \" without rrcdification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 7. A participant in a covered transaction tray rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a: lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded fran the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant tray decide the method and frequency by which it dete:rmines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the Nonprocurerrent List. 8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establislim:mt of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knc:Mledge and infortration of a participant is not required to exceed that which is nortrally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knc:Mingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded fran participation in this transaction, in addition to other rerredies A available to the Federal Gavernrrent, the departrrent or agency with which this W transaction originated may pursue available rerredies, including suspension and/or debanrent. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION ~~~rM~~rK.?~22s!?,!l~I~.2~ ~ GENE WILHOIT, Director, Genera l Education Division MAY 2 6 1996 Office of Desegrega1io11 Monitoring Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Secondary Principals Middle/Jr. High Principals Elementary Principals NO: FIN-96-103 Page: l of 1 Date: May 23, 1996 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Textbook Selection and Adoption Index Code: IJJ Regulatory Authority: Arkansas Code Annotated 6-21-401 to 413 (Repl. 1993) Contact Person: Sue McKenzie Phone No: 682-4593 Under the terms of state contracts for state-adopted textbooks and other instructional materials, publishing companies agree to replace without cost to the state any textbooks that during the first two years of normal use show evidence of faulty binding or manufacturing. The reading, practical arts, and foreign language textbooks implemented in 1994-95 will have seen two years of classroom use at the end of this school term. As you take inventories in preparation for closing school this year, you may want to check these textbooks for signs of manufacturing failures. Some examples of things to look for are: -Condition of joints? (Look for partial or complete separation of joints or hinges, along the spine of the book ... front, back or both) -Integrity of the book block? (Look for single or multi splits separating the book block from the case or cover. .. would be noted inside the front of back cover most likely along the first signature.  -Are individual pages holding? (Are pages falling out or missing or is there partial separation of individual pages?) You are looking for evidence of faulty binding due to manufacturing failures, not damage caused by student abuse. Replacement may not be claimed for books that are badly abused by students. If damage is found that you believe is due to manufacturing failure, please contact Sue McKenzie at 682-4593 for assistance in claiming replacement. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division NO: FIN-96-106 MAY 2 8 19961 Page: 1 of2 Office of Desegrog tion Moi'lit rlti~ Date: May 23, 1996 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-op Directors Secondary Principals Middle/Jr. High Principals Elementary Principals Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None Other: Special Education Supervisors Early Childhood Coordinators Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Special Education Programs \"Arkansas Schools Are For All Kids\" Regional Training Announcement for the 1996-97 School Year Regulatory Authority: Public Law 94-142 Index Code: IHBA Contact Person: Susie B. Nelson, CSPD Coordinator Phone No: (501) 682-4222 ADE, Special Education Lynn Springfield, Consultant (501) 663-3835 Arkansas Special Education Resource Center The \"Arkansas Schools Are For All Kids\" (AR-SAF AK) workshops on inclusion are now being planned for the 1996-97 school year by the Arkansas Department of Education, Special Education. The two-level, four-day training will be offered at six regional sites around the state. The AR-SAF AK workshops are adapted from training developed by the California Research Institute on the integration of students with severe disabilities and from materials from other sources such as the Vermont Systems Change Project. A committee composed of higher education representatives, school personnel, state consultants and Arkansas Department of Education, Special Education staff adapted the materials for use in Arkansas. Schools that are interested in developing and implementing inclusive policies will increase their likelihood of success by establishing an AR-SAF AK School Building Inclusion Team. Once the team has implemented an action plan for a specific student, it may then develop a building-based plan of action for creating an inclusive school that meets the individual needs of ALL students. The team may also function as a general advocacy group for the philosophy of inclusion. (over) Director's Communication No.: FIN-96-106 Page 2 of2 May 23, 1996 School districts are invited to identify a School Building Inclusion Team to participate in the training. Each school team is to be built around an individual student and must include the building principal. Schools are also strongly encouraged to include the identified student's parent on their teams. Other suggested team members include superintendents, general and special education teachers, special education supervisors, related services personnel, and any other staff involved with the identified student. The same School Building Inclusion Team from each participating district must attend both levels of the workshop. A registration fee of no more than $45 per person will be charged for the training, which includes one two-day training session in the fall and a second two-day training session in the spring. The registration fee includes materials and lunch for all four days. Registration information and materials will be sent to school districts during the month of August. The tentative schedule for the 1996-97 training is: LEVELi: LEVEL II: SITE The Leadership Challenge School Site Implementation Hope October 9 \u0026amp; 10, 1996 February 26 \u0026amp; 27, 1997 Fort Smith November 5 \u0026amp; 6, 1996 March 5 \u0026amp; 6, 1997 Pine Bluff October 16 \u0026amp; 17, 1996 February 19 \u0026amp; 20, 1997 Paragould November 13 \u0026amp; 14, 1996 March 5 \u0026amp; 6, 1997 Fayetteville October 9 \u0026amp; 10, 1996 February 19 \u0026amp; 20, 1997 Plumerville November 13 \u0026amp; 14, 1996 March 12 \u0026amp; 13, 1997 bt -- Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION ~~~IM~~l.~\nK!?,!l~~!!,2~ MAY 2 B 19 ,u GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division 111 NO: CUR-96-090 Office of Des ,.. egregation Monitoring Page: l of 1 \"- .' Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Title I Coordinators Date: May 23, 1996 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Optional Assistant Director, Planning \u0026amp; Curriculum: Jim Boardman Subject: Compensatory Education Title I Assessment Data Collection Regulatory Authority: P.L. 103-382 Contact Person: John Heying Index Code: IHBD Phone No: 682-4565 Attached with this memo are the assessment data collection forms that were discussed in the recently completed area meetings Please be advised these forms are only samples and the Local Education Agencies(LEAs) are free to develop their own form if they wish. The only condition is the data must be collected according to Section 1111-3-1 of Public Law 103-382, Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA). The data should be collected for the fall of 1995 for grades five, seven and ten. The data should be kept at the LEA and NOT sent to the State Education Agency. This will be compared with data from the fall of 1996 for these same grades, at which time an accountability piece will be developed to report to the state. If there are any questions, please call 682-4565 .  Targeted Assistance \u0026lt;TAS\u0026gt;   ASSESSMENT DATA COLLECTION BASIC BATTERY Participants/ Grade School Year ___ School ________ _ Total Enrollment __ _ {Circle one} Gender Racial/Ethnic Group Male Female Am. Indian Asian Black Hispanic White No. % No. % I No. I % I No. I % I No. I % I No. I % I No. I % I o. Os 02 01 Handicapped Non- Economic Non-Economic LEP Migrant Disabled Handicapped Deprived Deprived Non-Disabled NO. % NO. % No. % No. . % NO. % o. Os 02 Q,  Targeted Assistance \u0026lt;T AS\u0026gt;   ASSESSMENT DATA COLLECTION READINC Participants/ crade School Year ___ School _________ _ Total Enrollment ____ _ {Circle one} cender Racial/Ethnic croup -- e Female Am. Indian Asian Black Hispanic White - % NO. % I No. I % I No. I % I NO. I % I No. I % I No. I % I 04 03 02 01 Handicapped Non- Economic Non-Economic LEP Migrant Disabled Handicapped Deprived Deprived Non-Disabled - 0. % NO. % NO. % No. % No. % 04 03 02 01  Targeted Assistance \u0026lt;TAS\u0026gt;  ASSESSMENT DATA COLLECTION  MATH Participants/ crade School Year ___ School __________ _ Total Enrollment {Circle one} ---- cender Racial/Ethnic croup Male Female Am. Indian Asian Black Hispanic White No. % NO. % No. % No. % No. % NO. % NO. % 04 03 02 01 Handicapped Non- Economic Non-Economic LEP Migrant Disabled Handicapped Deprived Deprived Non-Disabled I No. I %] No. ,., .. . % NO. % I No. I % II No. I % 04 03 02 01 I  Targeted Assistance \u0026lt;TAS\u0026gt;   ASSESSMENT DATA COLLECTION LANCUACE ARTS Participants/ crade School Year ___ School ________ _ Total Enrollment ____ _ {Circle one} I cender II Racial/Ethnic Croup I Male Female I Am. Indian I Asian I Black I Hispanic I White I NO. % NO. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 04 O:s 02 o. Handicapped Non- Economic Non-Economic LEP Migrant Disabled Handicapped Deprived Deprived Non-Disabled No. % No. % I No. I % I No. % NO. A, o. % 04 O:s 02 0,    ASSESSMENT DATA COLLECTION SCHOOL WIDE crade School Year ____ _ School ________ _ BASIC BATTERY Total Enrollment --- I cender II Racial/Ethnic croup I I Male I Female II Am. Indian I Asian I Black I Hispanic I White I No. % No. % NO. % NO. % No. % NO. % No. % 04 03 02 01 Handicapped Non-Handicapped Economic -~ LEP Migrant Disabled Non-Disabled Deprived Depri No. % NO. % No. % No. % No. % No. % o. Os o. o.    ASSESSMENT DATA COLLECTION SCHOOL WIDE READING crade School Year ____ School _________ Total Enrollment --- Gender Racial/Ethnic Group Male Female Am. Indian Asian Black Hispanic White No. % No. % I No. I % I NO. I % I No. I % I No. I % I No. I % I 04 03 02 01 D MigrantJ~L~ .. -- pped Economic Non-Economic LEP Non-Disabled Deprived Deprived No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % I No. I % I Q4 Os Q, o.    ASSESSMENT DATA COLLECTION SCHOOL WIDE crade School Year ____ _ School --------- MATH Total Enrollment Cender Male Female Am. lnC:ian NO. % NO. % No. % Q4 Os 02 o. Racial/Ethnic croup Asian Black No. % No. % dicapped isabled Hispanic NO. Economic Deprived % --- ~I No. % Non-Economic Deprived i1--~-:---11--No_._ _o/c _o- --111---N0----1--o/c-o--if--N-o._-+--%--u--N-o-.- +-- 0 -,---il--N-O--~f--o/c-o ~I    ASSESSMENT DATA COLLECTION SCHOOL WIDE LAN:GUAGE ARTS Grade School Year ____ _ School ________ _ Total Enrollment __ _ lb\nGender I Racial/Ethnic Group I Female Am. Indian Asian Black Hispanic White No. % No. % NO. % No. % NO. % No. % No. % 04 03 02 01 Non-Hanaiica1,pe1a11 E LEP Mig Non-Disablea No. % No. % No. % No. % Os o. Q Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION .MAY 2 8 1996 TATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division NO: DIR 96-014 Page: 1 of 1 Office of Dese ~ . g egat,on Monitoring Date: May 23, 1996 -~ ~.-, - -... .\n\"' Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Secondary Principals Middle/Jr. High Principals Elementary Principals Other: Deans of Colleges of Education Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None There are attachments to this memo. Deputy Director, General Education: Dr. Diana Julian Subject: Public Hearing on Proposed Amended Rules and Index Code: GCF/GDF Regulations Requiring Criminal Background Check for All First-Time Educational Licenses and Revocation Procedures Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-410 (Supp. 1995) Contact Person: Elizabeth Turner Phone No: (501) 682-4227 The Department of Education invites public comment on the attached proposed amended rules and regulations requiring Criminal Background Check for All First-Time Educational Licenses and Revocation Procedures. A public hearing has been scheduled for Friday, May 31, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. in the ADE Auditorium, #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, Arkansas. 1.00 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES AND REGULATIONS DEFINING THE REQUIREMENT OF A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK FOR ALL FIRST-TIME EDUCATIONAL LICENSES, AND THE PROCEDURES FOR REVOCATION OF SUCH LICENSES REGULATORY AUTHORITY 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations governing the requirement of criminal background check for all first-time applicants, and the revocation procedures for such licenses. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's Authority under Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-405 and  6-17-410 (Supp. 1995). 2.00 PURPOSE 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to set forth the requirements for a criminal background check for each first-time applicant for a license issued by the State Board of Education. 2.02 It is the further purpose of these regulations to prescribe the procedure for revocation of an educational license. 3 .00 DEFINITIONS/ ACRONYMS 3.01 ADE: Arkansas Department of Education. 3.02 Criminal background check: a state and nationwide criminal records check conducted by the Arkansas State Police and the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation, including the taking of fingerprints. 3.03 FBI: Federal Bureau oflnvestigation. 3.04 SBE: State Board of Education 3.05 First-time applicant: initial or first license issued to each applicant by the SBE . .3.M Law enforcement officer: either a state policeman, a city policeman, a sheriff or a deputy sheriff. 3.01 Letter of provisional eligibility: a six month, nonrenewable letter of provisional eligibility for licensure issued by the SBE to the first-time applicants during the conduction of the criminal background check by the FBI. 3.0.8. OTEL: Office of Teacher Education and Licensure. 4.00 THE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK 4.01 Each applicant for an initial license issued by the SBE will submit the following to the Office of Teacher Education and Licensure: (A) Completed application form including program of studies verification (if applicable) (B) Official transcripts (must bear college seal) (c) Satisfactory scores of National Teachers Examinations including: (1) PPST (2) Test of Professional Knowledge (3) Specialty area test (D) Effective July 1, 1996, no application for issuance of a first-time license will be considered without a criminal background check by the Arkansas State Police and the FBI. 4.02 Each applicant shall complete the State Police fingerprint card in the presence of a law enforcement officer, and shall have the law enforcement officer sign the fingerprint card and give his/her jurisdiction, the date and his/her badge number. 4.03. Each applicant must sign a release of information (Appendix A), and submit it to the ADE and shall be solely responsible for the payment of any fee associated with the criminal background check to the Arkansas State Police. 4.01_ Upon completion of the criminal background check, the Identification Bureau of the Arkansas State Police shall forward all information obtained concerning the applicant in the commission of any offense listed in Ark. Code Ann.  6-17- 410( C) to the Legal Office of the ADE. 4.0~ The criminal background check conducted by the Arkansas State Police and the FBI shall have been completed no earlier than twelve (12) months prior to the application for an initial license issued by the SBE. 4.0.Q SBE shall be authorized to issue a six-month, non-renewable letter of provisional eligibility for licensure. This letter of provisional eligibility for licensure shall be.issued only to those applicants who meet all other qualifications for licensure by the SBE, and who have submitted the Arkansas State Police background check showing no violations listed in Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-410 (C). 4.01 The letter of provisional eligibility will immediately become invalid upon receipt of information obtained from the criminal background check from the FBI indicating any offense listed in Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-410 (C). 4.0R The ADE will not issue a first-time teaching license until the criminal background check conducted by the Arkansas State Police and the FBI has been completed. 5.00 REQUEST FOR W AIYER 5.01 A request to waive the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-410 (d) can be made to the SBE. A request for waiver of provisions of the aforementioned section may be made by: (1) the board of a local school district, (2) the affected applicant for licensure, or (3) the person holding a license subject to revocation. 5.02 The request must be made in writing to the Coordinator of OTEL or the designee within twenty (20) calendar days after notification of denial of a license. The request for a waiver shall include, but not be limited to, the following: ( 1) a certified copy of court records indicating grounds for conviction, (2) any other pertinent documentation to indicate surrounding circumstances. 5.03 If an individual notifies OTEL in writing that he/she desires a hearing, the SBE will hold a hearing. 5.04 If the individual does not notify the OTEL that he/she desires a hearing, the SBE will not hold a hearing and may take action based upon proof submitted by OTEL. 6.00 SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES 6.01 The superintendent and the local school board of each school district shall report to the SBE through the Coordinator of OTEL or the designee the name of any person holding a license issued by the SBE and currently employed, or employed during the two (2) previous school years, by the local district who has plead guilty, nolo contendere, or has been found guilty of a felony, who holds such license obtained by fraudulent means, who has had a similar license revoked in another state, who has intentionally compromised the validity or security of any student test or testing program administered or required by the ADE, or has submitted falsified information requested or required by the ADE. 6.02 The district with knowledge shall report, in writing to the SBE through the Coordinator of OTEL or the designee, any information contained in section 6.01. The complaint does not have to be made in any specific form, but it should contain enough information about the person holding a license issued by the SBE to warrant starting an investigation. 6.03 Willful failure of a local district to report a violation by certified mail within five (5) calendar days of knowledge, as listed in regulations 6.01 may result in sanctions imposed by the SBE, including but not limited to loss of accreditation. 7.00 LICENSE REVOCATION PROCEDURES 7.01 A complaint is filed with OTEL. 7.02 OTEL investigates the complaint and determines whether the individual's educational license must or may be revoked. 7 .03 If OTEL determines revocation of a license is appropriate, OTEL notifies the individual who has plead guilty, nolo contendere, or been found guilty of the offense(s) listed in Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-405 (a) and (b) in writing by certified mail of the date, time and location that the SBE will consider revocation. 7.04 If the individual notifies OTEL in writing that he/she desires a hearing, the SBE will hold a hearing. 7.05 If the individual does not notify the OTEL that he/she desires a hearing, the SBE will not hold a hearing and may take action based upon proof submitted by OTEL. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION ~~~IM~~!K.~\n~!?,!!Sf.\\z!!.2. .~ GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division MAY 2 8, 1996\nOffice of D esegregation Monitorin -- \"'~~--- g Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Title VI Coordinators NO: TEC-96-070 Page: 1 OF 1 Date: May 20, 1996 Type of Memo: Administrative Response Required By: None There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Technical Assistance: Frank Anthony Subject: State and Federal Programs Administration Index Code: CGD Title VI, ESEA, Allotments Regulatory Authority: 20 USC 7353 ( P.L. 100-382, Section 6303, as amended) Contact Person: Glenda J. Peyton Phone No: 682-4464 Please find enclosed Title VI allotment information for the 1996-97 school year. August 15, 1996, is the cutoff date for filing applications, but Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) are encouraged to file early. The allotment is based upon the combined enrollment of public and non-profit private school students using October 1, 1995, enrollment data for the student count. The distribution rate is $4.1596 per student for basic grant and $1.9340 per student for high-cost adjustments, provided the district qualifies. Public school administrators are responsible for consulting with appropriate private school officials regarding the development and implementation of the Title VI program before the LEA makes any decision concerning the use of funds. We reference Sections 6303 (a)(3) and 6402 of the Act. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION ~bJ~!M~~I.~rK!?,!rtI~,2~ GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division ~AY 2 8 1996 Office of Desegregati n Monrtor ng Fonvard Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Other Educational Agencies NO: FIN-96-107 Page: 1 of I Date: May 23, l 996 Type of Memo: Regulatory Response Required By: Optional There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Finance \u0026amp; Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Revenues From State Tax Sources Index Code: DEB Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of Consolidation Incentive Funding Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Aim.  6-11-105 (Rep!. 1993), Section 20 of Act 1194 or 1995, and Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-305 (Supp. 1995) Contact Person: Paul Blaney Phone No: 682-4258 Attached you will find the Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of Consolidation Incentive Funding. These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Ark. Code Ann.  6-11-1 05 (Rep I. I 993 ), Section 20 of Act 1194 of 1995, and Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-305 (Supp. 1995). ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE DISTRIBUTION OF CONSOLIDATION INCENTIVE FUNDING 1.00 Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as the Arkansas D\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_268","title":"Business Cases Proposed, Additional Business Cases-1996-97 (revised)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-04-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Business Cases Proposed, Additional Business Cases-1996-97 (revised)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/268"],"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\nBUSINESS CASES PROPOSED Additional Business Cases - 1996-97 (Revised - April 29, 1996) RECEIVE^ APR 2 9 1996 Office of Desejregalion MoniwrinyT BUSINESS CASES . ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX RELOCATION - (SAVINGS) X- ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION - (SAVINGS) . ADULT EDUCATION RELOCATION - (SAVINGS) 1 . CONSOLIDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS-HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS LRSD FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM - (SAVINGS) x- ^Jq . EXPANSION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL TO INCLUDE HIGH SCHOOL - (ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES) . INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER RELOCATED TO ISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - (SAVINGS) /. OUTSOURCING COURIER SERVICES - (SAVINGS) . OUTSOURCING SPECIAL NEEDS TRANSPORTATION - (SAVINGS \u0026gt;(. REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTS - (SAVINGS) SIX PERIOD DAY VERSUS SEVEN PERIOD DAY - (SAVINGS\n. STAGGERED STARTING TIMES - (SAVINGS) ,^ . STUDENT ASSIGNMENT RELOCATION - (SAVINGS) . TRUANCY REDUCTION - (SAVINGS)I I ' I J BUSINESS CASE ADMINISTRATIVE ANNEX RELOCATION1. BUSINESS CASE: BACKGROUND: ADMINISTRATION ANNEX RELOCATION The Administration Annex houses various support activities of the Little Rock School District. located approximately two (2) The building is blocks from the Administration Building at 100 South Arch Street. facility with no parking and no excess acreage. It is a 26,273 square foot appears to be a renovated warehouse. The facility It is four (4) stories with no windows and approximately 60 to 70 percent utilized and the fourth floor is entirely used for storage. a drab appearance due to the lack of natural light. The facility presents The location two (2) blocks from the Administration Building is not germane to the operation of this facility. that do not It consists of independent offices functions require daily contact with other administrative in the Administration Building and can therefore be considered for relocation should space become available. In 1980, the Little Rock School District Board of Education excessed this building and deemed it not necessary for School District operations\nhowever, the building has been in constant use since that time. for sale at anytime. The building has not been sold but may be considered The personnel of the Administration Annex would be considered prime candidates to be relocated to any school within the Little Rock School District that might be considered for closure providing that it has sufficient square footage to meet their needs. Their functions can operate quite effectively from anywhere within the District. 2 . PROBLEM DEFINITION\nThe problem is to consider whether we should include the personnel from the Annex relocations. in any current 3. ANALYSIS alternatives: OF 1) ALTERNATIVES\nBasically, we have two (2) Leave the personnel at the Annex Building where they are presently located until such time as a better facility could be found or a long range plan complied or 2) consider relocating them with personnel to be relocated during the summer of 1996 . ALTERNATIVE NUMBER ONE LEAVE THE PERSONNEL AT THE ANNEX: Leaving the personnel in the Annex Building seems a prudent move at this point in time. They are fully operational and appear to be content with their surroundings. Although it is not the most attractive or most operational building within the district. it does meet the office needs of the personnel that are located there. ALTERNATIVE TWO CONSIDER RELOCATING THE PERSONNEL IN THE ANNEX BUILDING: Relocating the personnel from the Annex at this point may be extremely difficult. The relocation of the Instructional Resource Center from Sixth and Ringo to the Ish Building will be extremely tight and there is no space left in Ish for any other functions. other than those associated with the Instructional Resource Center. While the possibility of additional space may be available at Oakhurst Elementary School with the movement of Adult 1 *Education from Eastside, the amount of space needed has not been determined. Should additional space become available at that school, it is conceivable that smaller offices from the Annex could be relocated. which has over However, a primary concern is Special Education building. fifty (50) people and occupies most of that This is a function that requires direct public access and must be in a location that is readily accessible to meet the publics needs. While Oakhurst may be considered as a possible location, the size of the building will not permit Adult Education and Special Education to occupy the building at the same time. 4. RECOMMENDATION\nIt is recommended that the Annex Building not be considered for relocation at this time. As schools become available within the Little Rock School District, careful consideration could then be given to relocating the personnel in the Annex to a better location. 5. OBJECTIVE\nThe objective of this recommendation is to leave things relatively status quo and to limit the disruption to the Little Rock School District because of the moves that have already been planned for this summer. It could be considered a positive move if a school building is vacated within the District. Most assuredly, being in a building with one or two levels, adequate parking and natural light would be a better situation than they are presently in. 6. IMPACT ANALYSIS\nThe movement of any organization is expected to have a limited negative impact due to the disruption of services until they are fully restored at their required operational level. The personnel in the Annex are all tied in some way to the Desegregation Plan\nhowever, their physical location fosters, nor detracts from the Desegregation Plan. 7. RESOURCE ANALYSIS\nThere will. of course. be a relocation impact on the staff, but, it would appear that bettering the office situation of these people would result in a more positive attitude and better operational surroundings. With regard to general District resources, it is conceivable that the Annex could possibly be sold but this can not be determined until a market analysis is completely made. At the present time, the vacancy rate in downtown Little Rock is between eight (8) and twelve (12) percent\nwarehouse space is slightly lower. There is a possibility that the Annex could be sold as general warehouse space to a downtown agency. 8. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS\nThe force field analysis has not been done because we have not seriously considered relocating this facility\ntherefore, the aspects of personnel who may be in favor, or against, this move have not been determined.9. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION\nIt would be recommended that the Annex personnel stay where they are presently located for the time being, and that no consideration be made to move them during the summer of 1996. When, and if. a facility plan is put together for administrative buildings and administrative offices, that the annex personnel be considered for relocation as space becomes identified. dce/apl/bcaseaarBUSINESS CASE ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATIONBUSINESS CASE ADULT EDUCATION RELOCATION1. BUSINESS CASE: ADULT EDUCATION RELOCATION BACKGROUND - The Adult Education Program is presently located at Eastside Junior High School on Scott Street. It has been in that location for a number of years. In 1983, the Little Rock School District excessed that property and deemed it sellable. Although this has not been actively pursued, recent interest has indicated that some agency may be preparing an offer to secure that property\ntherefore, consideration should be given to relocate the Consideration has been given over the Adult Education Program. years, and was approved by the Board in 1995, to relocate Adult Education and to proceed with the selling of Eastside. While Eastside Junior High School may be adequate at the present time to meet the needs of Adult Education, future educational programs have yet to be determined and therefore their impact on the building can not be ascertained at this time. C ' ' Current requirements regarding maintenance are high and the necessity to eventually adapt it to ADA standards, to meet the needs of our disabled adult students, must be considered this next year. 2 . PROBLEM DEFINITION - The problem that we are facing is the consideration of relocating Adult Education to a facility which better meets their needs and capitalizes on vacant space within the Little Rock School District. 3 . ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES - Essentially, there are three (3) alternatives available to consider: in the current facility. 1) Allow the agency to remain While this is a viable alternative, the for that facility and the backlog of maintenance and repair necessity to determine new work regarding Americans with disabilities and the remote possibility of expanded programs must be taken into consideration. undetermined, academic ie: Adult Educations 2) Relocate the facility yet requirements are essentially administrative and classroom space\ntherefore, the relocation into a school would be considered most appropriate. A primary concern would be the location of that school and the ease with which that school can meet the needs of the adults that it serves. Consideration could be given to considering Adult Education relocation into facilities if facilities close due to the implementation of any long range planning. Relocate into ' At the present time, the Little Rock 3) existing vacant facilities. School District has one facility which is vacant, Oakhurst Elementary School (Ish Elementary School has been identified as the new home for the Instructional Resource Center). On the surface. On the surface. Oakhurst may appear to be a building that is not in much better shape than Eastside, but it does possess a more centralized location, has the capability of being more readily adapted for ADA standards and appears to meet the general requirements of the Adult Education Program. In addition, it would assist in vacating Eastside and would allow us to proceed with a more aggressive plan to sell that property.1 While two of the alternatives deal with relocations, the only advantage to alternative three is the fact that it is a move that could possibly occur during the summer of 1996 due to the vacancy of Oakhurst Elementary School. 4. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that serious consideration be given to relocating Adult Education into Oakhurst Elementary School. 5. OBJECTIVE - The objective of this recommendation is purely one of financial initiatives. It is expected that the operating cost of Adult Education and Oakhurst will not be appreciably different from that at Eastside. Additionally, certain renovations will have to be made to Oakhurst to make the facility adaptable for the Adult Education Program and to improve certain structural elements of the building so as to insure the safety and comfort of its inhabitants. However, it will assist the Districts financial planning through the disposal of excess property which is not deemed necessary for its operational needs. It should be noted that Eastside also houses the HIPPY Program and the Truancy Center. Each of these are being considered separately for moves within the Little Rock School District and as of this point in time, final destinations for those programs have not been identified, made. But, considerations are being 6. Adult IMPACT ANALYSIS - The most concern should be the impact on the Education Program. Preliminary discussions with the Supervisor and staff indicate that the general location of the facility will meet their needs. until 10:00 at night. Bus transportation, operating is within two (2) blocks of the facility. Adequate parking is available and the classrooms are of sufficient size to accommodate all academic programs. The area is more residential and appears to be more settled than that of the present location. Discussions with the Director indicate that the program can be relocated easily into Oakhurst Elementary School. The Adult Education Program services a wide range of people throughout the Little Rock area and it is not considered a major element of the Districts desegregation plan and should not require any coordination with parties regarding change elements of the plan. The writer knows of no Court Orders that outline any stipulations with regard to Adult Education and, in general, it is not felt that undue risks are being taken in relocating this program. 7. RESOURCE ANALYSIS There will. of course. be a relocation but it appears that most impact on the staff of the facility, personnel drive to this facility so therefore transportation is not Other than the fact that people may be deemed a detriment. resistant to move, it is felt that the facility will meet the needs Financially, Oakhurst will of the personnel running the program. operate at the same approximate cost as Eastside. will not be completely filled by the Adult Education Program, consideration is being given to moving other agencies into the While Oakhurst building which will maximize the facility and bring the per capita cost down.8. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS At the present time, preliminary indications are that some members of the faculty are opposed to the move while others support it. The general relocation into a facility with which the staff will have the opportunity to input their needs into minor renovations at the building will hopefully go far in easing the burden of relocating this program. 9. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION - It is expected that Adult Education could be moved during the month of June 1996. Preliminary planning has already begun. Floor layouts are being drafted at this time, communication plans and surveys are being taken, the building has been assessed for repairs and construction, and instructions will soon be given to the staff on packing and relocating. dce/apl/bcaseaepBUSINESS CASE CONSOL IDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIO. JS - HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS LRSD FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAMLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSOLIDATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters LRSD Four-Year Old Program April 19, 1996 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District (LRSD) provides educational services for four-year old children through the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) and the school based Four-Year Old Program. Each program operates as a desegregation strategy. HIPPY is a home based developmentally appropriate intervention program which recognizes the mother as the first significant teacher of the child. HIPPY assists mothers in preparing their children to be ready for kindergarten. The LRSD Four-Year Old Program provides school based instruction delivered by certified teachers. The classes are located at schools that have been difficult to segregate. The students are prepared to enter kindergarten. During this time of financial crisis all budget reduction strategies must be reviewed. Savings can be realized by consolidating the administrative functions of the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters and the Little Rock School District Four-Year Old Program. The estimated savings could be $23,720.76 or $57,056.58 depending on the option selected.A. BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District (LRSD) provides educational services for four-year old children through the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) and the school based Four-Year Old program. Each program operates as a desegregation strategy. HIPPY is a home based developmentally appropriate intervention program which recognizes the mother as the first significant teacher of the child. HIPPY assists mothers in preparing their children to be ready for kindergarten. The LRSD Four-Year old program provides school based instruction delivered by certified teachers. The classes are located at school that have been difficult to segregate. The students are prepared to enter kindergarten. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION There is a need to reduce spending within the Little Rock School District. Therefore, some programs have been identified for possible merger. HIPPY and the LRSD Four-Year Old program were reviewed to determine if the administrative functions could be combined for cost savings and management efficiency. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The District must now decide if it will continue the of the LRSD Four-Year Old Program and HIPPY. The alternatives at this time are: separate management functions 1. Make no changes The current management cost for the LRSD Four-Year Old Program i lie on -n..-_ . o ------------ vudi lui iiic rour-iear uia rrogram is $70,335.82. This amount is the total salaiy cost for one (1) coordinator. No secretary is assigned to this department. L ___ L _______ desegregation budget. (See attached reorganization chart for details.) This cost is charged to the The current management cost for HIPPY is $99,797. Because of budget reductions for the 1995-96 school year, the two coordinator positions which total $48,441.52 are currently funded through Federal Programs. The remaining $51,355.86, which is part of the desegregation budget, supports one (1) supervisor at $31,313.15 and one (1) secretary at $20,042.71. (See organizational chart for details.) one 12. Consolidate Administrative Functions a. Assign the Early Childhood Coordinator the administrative responsibilities for HIPPY and the LRSD Four-Year Old Program. In order to maintain HIPPY at its current level of servicing 249 families, the Early Childhood Coordinator may need to supervise 4 home visitors in addition to assuming the administrative duties. ESTIMATED SAVINGS: HIPPY Supervisor (1.0) less HIPPY training cost for Early Childhood Coordinator $24,220.76 500.00 $23,720.76 b. Assign HIPPY supervisor the administrative responsibilities for the LRSD Four-Year Old Program and HIPPY. The Early Childhood Education Coordinator position requires an Arkansas teachers certificate, K-6 and a masters degree. The current HIPPY supervisor does not hold an Arkansas teachers certificate. An Arkansas teachers certificate is not required to occupy the HIPPY supervisor position. The current HIPPY supervisor would need to obtain an Arkansas teacher s certificate and a masters degree. Since responsibilities would include supervision of the Kindergarten program. Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) training would be required for the current HIPPY supervisor. ESTIMATED SAVINGS: Early Childhood Coordinator less training cost for ESPF $73,335.82 350.00 $72,985.82 This does not appear to be a viable option at this time. c. Reassign Early Childhood Coordinator to an elementary school Reassign HIPPY Supervisor to a HIPPY Coordinator position. Hire a person to supervise HIPPY and Four- Year Old Program at a lesser salary. principal position. 2a D. A number of elementary principalship vacancies occur each year. Since the current Early Childhood Coordinator has served as a principal, consideration could be given to reassigning the coordinator to an elementary principalship. The District could hire a person with less administrative experience at a lesser salary. ESTIMATED SAVINGS: (1) Early Childhood Coordinator less salary for new coordinator at lower rate of pay less cost for HIPPY and EPSF training (2) HIPPY Supervisor (1.0) OBJECTIVES $73,335.82 40,000.00 (estimate) 33,335.82 850.00 $32,485.82 $24,220.76 $57,056.58 The objective of the business case is to identify means to reduce spending with the Little Rock School District. A merging of HIPPY and the Four-Year Old Program will save the District money during the current financial crisis. EVALUATION CRITERIA The merger of the HIPPY and Four-Year Old Program administrative functionswill be determined a success if actual expenses are reduced and service of both programs are maintained at the current level. EXPECTED BENEFITS The Districts financial condition will improve and greater administrative efficiency will be evident. E. IMPACT ANALYSIS No modification of the Desegregation Plan would be required. Some persons may believe that the administrative functions of the two programs are to broad for one person to manage effectively. 3'^e District can reap some savings from combining the administration functions of the two programs. F. RESOURCE ANALYSIS a. Assign Early Childhood Coordinator as manager of both programs ESTIMATED SAVINGS: HIPPY Supervisor position less HIPPY training cost for Early Childhood Coordinator $24,220.76 500.00 $23,720.76 b. Assign HIPPY Supervisor as manager of both programs ESTIMATED SAVINGS: Early Childhood Coordinator position less training cost for EPSF $73,335.82 350.00 $72,985.82 This does not appear to be a viable option at this time. c. Reassign HIPPY Supervisor and Early Childhood Coordinator - Hire person to manage both programs at a lesser salary. ESTIMATED SAVINGS: (1) Early Childhood Coordinator less salary for new coordinator at lower pay rate $73,335.82 less cost for HIPPY training and EPSF training 40,000.00 (estimate) $33,335.82 850.00 $32,485.82 (2) HIPPY Supervisor position $24.220.76 $56,706.58 4G. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of a merger of HIPPY and the Four-Year Old Program will be persons who believe the District has too many administrators and that the District can \"streamline\" its operations and become more efficient. The primary detractors will be persons who believe that the uniqueness and complexity of HIPPY and the Four-Year Old Program requires the attention of an administration assigned exclusively to each program. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES 1. 2. 3. ACTIVITY COMPLETION DATE RESPONSIBLE PERSON Identify administrative option Make reassignments Identify appropriate inservice needs 05/23/96 07/01/96 05/23/96 Superintendent/ Board of Directors Director of Human Resources Director of Staff Development 5COORDINATOR OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION RESPONSIBILITIES '^'^t IJ i\u0026gt;i- i. ^^HWS 8i1 I a SUPERVISOR OF HIPPY PROGRAM 4X0^ MOO\u0026gt;3!\u0026lt;f: U2r'  W. i** I?' iS*:) Xi WttO Ml?Mi\nil- i..s., iS#! BUSINESS CASE EXPANSION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL TO INCLUDE HIGH SCHOOLI.RSI)-PR()P-7 WPS~4 Page I Little Rock Alternative School 800 Apperson Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Business Case Expansion of the Alternative School to Include High School Executive Summary Background Problem Definition Analysis of Alternatives I 1 Recommendations Objective Impact Analysis Resources Analysis Typical Schedule General Implementation Plan|.RSI)-PR( )P-7 WPS-1.3/96 Page 2 Executive Summary\nThe Little Rock School District's alternative school serves only junior high schools (grades 7-8-9) in the district. There is no alternative school for elementary- or senior high schools. The Inter-district Desegregation Plan (April 29, 1992) requires the parties to \"Develop (an) alternative school for students in need of intervention . \" The Little Rock School District's alternative school has had a capacity of sixty students since its opening. During the last quarter of the 1995-96 school year two significant improvements were made to expand the number of students served. Today we can serve seventy-two students in grades 7, 8, and 9 This limitation is based on the number of faculty and staff. Eight certified teachers assigned twelve students each for five periods and one planning period can serve seventy-two students plus a class of self-contained special education students. With the eleven classrooms presently in use, six classrooms available for future use, each certified teacher having one planning period per day, and a maximum student-teacher ratio of twelve students per class the maximum num.b er ofr' s.t udents_ _abLIle. to be s-e-r-v-e-d- aott rosnnae. bhiutnnHdrrae/d4 rpieprrcrepnntt cmanpaarciittyv uw/onunlldd hbee sveevveenwtyO^-- tivo junior hieh, five special etlucation. and sixt)-ft\u0026gt;ur senior hieh for a total of one hundred thirty-seven Considerations\nStudents who are not successful at the regular school setting, in spite of interventions, require an-a-b-n--o-r-m---a-l- -a-m--o--u-n--t- -o--f- e--a-ch school's resources Stuaents who are disruptive in the reuular school setting damage the educational environment for the rest of the students. Serving students, who are not successful at the regular school setting, will improve the educational outcomes of both the alternative school student and the regular school students Expanding the maximum number of students able to be served in the facility at Apperson 1 Modify the junior high school program to include the same number of students but from the middle level (grades 6, 7, and 8) and hiring six more teachers and support staff to serve the high schools (crades 9, 10, 11, and 12). The six classrooms that are needed are available. This would almost double the capacity from seventy-two students to one-hundred forty-one students 3. Expand services to the senior students by having one half day classes and a supervised career program for jobs the other half of the day. In that way, capacity could be increased by sixty-four more 1/2 rime students. Z Expanding the maximum number of students able to be served by providing services at more than one facility in the Little Rock District. Other campus's could be Ish Elementary School and Metro or other unused buildings owned by the school district. Expanding the alternative services to include elementary programs (grades 1 through 5) Expanding the alternative services by creating alternative classrooms at each regular school. Recommendation Due to the critical need for alternative services to include elementary and senior high children and the limitations in the budget and fimding, I recommend an immediate expansion of the alternative program by including four semor high grade classes with a school-job/work-study prograin. This would incr^se the maximum capacitv of the facilitv to serve about sixth-four senior high school students in a work-study program. This recommendation would require an immediate search for four qu^ified teachers, one instructional aide, and one qualified work-study supervisor. This expansion is the least expensive of the other alternatives due to the ability to expand without an increase in admimstrative support. Further expansion, beyond this recommendation, would require additional admimstrative support, such as, attendance secretary, instructional aids, security officer, and assistant pnncipa LRSl)-PR()P-7 WPS-i/S/96 Page ? Positive: Negative: Personnel: Impact Analysis Better support for junior and senior high school students' specialized needs Fewer disruptions at the regular school setting. More students being offered specialized alternative services. Public perception improvement concerning importance of alternative services Disparity improvement required by the desegregation plan. Increased budget and funding required for teachers salaries. Increased funding required for classroom furniture. Increased risk of security and discipline problems at the alternative school. Resources Analysis 1) Four teachers (Secondary English/History/Math/Science) 2) One Work-study supervisor 3) One instructional aide 4.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE bI.RSI)-PR()P-7 WPS-l/3/96 Page 4 Background\nThe Tri-County Alternative School began approximately three years prior to the opening of the Little Rock Alternative School, \"Alternative Learning Center.\" Late tn the 1990-91 school year Ms. Othello Faison became the first principal. During April 1992, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring evaluated the alternative schools of each of the three districts in Pulaski County. Their findings included: \"To develop and provide sound and effective alternative education programs. . . (each district) should understand what the term 'alternative education' means. Dr. Raymond Mosely, a consultant with the Iowa Department of Education stated, ------------J---------------\" There are many alternative education is a perspective, not a procedure or program. other ways to become educated. There are other types of environments and structures. Teaching strategies, expectations, services, and programs must contribute to increase the chances for academic achievement. Alternative schools include magnet schools, vocational schools, and other continuation schools. Continuation schools are those that provide another option for the dropout, potential dropout, suspended student, and other students who are not successful at the regular school setting. These schools are expected to provide less competitiveness and more individualized strategies. The typical reasons to assign students to an alternative school include: ** **  * ** excessive absenteeism failure or retention ** ** ** poor grades low math and reading scores low self-esteem suspension feelings of rejection, isolation, insecurity, or alienation lack of motivation ** lack of cooperation ** The alternative school is nontraditional by nature. Intervention strategies are in flux. Learning styles and modes must be reevaluated often. The alternative constant flux. Learning styles ana moaes musi uc iccvaiuaitu uiivu, school staff must be flexible and open to change. Each situation is unique and requires Dr. Kenneth Clark, A noted expert on at-risk students, reminds us that specialized care. 1----------------------- . . our future society depends on our ability to break the cycle of nsk. Experts agree that there is often resistance to institutional change\nhowever, it is just that change that can bring us closer to the answers. The Little Rock School District's alternative school serves only junior high schools (grades 7-8-9) in the district. There is no alternative school for elementory or senior high schools. The Inter-district Desegregation Plan (Apnl 29, 1992) requires the parties to \"Develop (an) alternative school for students in need of intervention . . . If The Little Rock School District's alternative school has had a capacity of sixty students since its opening. During the last quarter of the 1995-96 school year two significant improvements were made to expand the number of students served. Today we can serve seventy-two students in grades 7, 8, and 9. This limitation is based on the number of faculty and staff. Eight certified teachers assigned ttvelve students each forI.RSI)-PR()P-7 WTS-t/3/% Page: 5 five periods and one planning period can serve seventy-two students plus a class of self- contained special education students. The facility at Apperson Street has twenty-four classrooms, a library, and a cafetorium. Several of the classrooms are used for other purposes. Room Number Rooms 1 to 4 Rooms 5 and 6 Rooms 7 and 8 Room 9 Room 10 Room 11 Room 12 Room 13 Room 14 Room 15 Room 16 Room 17 Room 18 Room 19 Room 20 Room 21 Room 22 Room 23 Room 24 Purpose__________ Classrooms Security Offices Main Office Level Zero English Reading/Custodian Computer Room Math Social studies Science Health Ninth Grade Class Teachers' Lounge Hearing Office Special Education Orientation Woodshop Level One Weight Room Classroom Available Not Available Not Available In use In use Not available In use In use In use In use In use In use Not available Not available In use In use Available In use Available In use 1 1 1 1 1 1 Not avail Available 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Totals n 6 7 With the eleven classrooms presently in use, six classrooms available for future use, each certified teacher having one planning period per day, and a maximum studentteacher ratio of twelve students per class the maximum number of students able to be served at one hundred percent capacity would be iunivr high, .five special education, and xixty-four seni high for a total of one hundred (hirtv-seven (J4U Problem Definition: The number of students in our district junior and senior high schools requiring alternative services exceeds the maximum capacity of the seventy-two students presently being served at the alternative school due to faculty/staff limitations. Limits on budgets and funding restrict the district from maximum use of the alternative school. Considerations: Students who are not successful at the regular school setting, in spite of interventions, require an abnormal amount of each school s resources. Students who are disruptive in the regular school setting damage the educational environment for the rest of the students. Serving students, who are not successful at the regular school setting, will improve the educational outcomes of both the alternative school student and the regular school students.l.KSl)-PK()P-7 WPS-4/3/% Page 6 Analysis of Alternatives: In order to serve the required number of students who qualify for alternative school services, expansion of the present program is necessary to include sixth grade and senior high school. Expansion can be achieved in several ways. ** Expanding the maximum number of students able to be served in the facility' at Apperson Street. 1. Modify the junior high school program to include the same number of students but from the middle level (grades 6, 7, and 8) and hiring six more teachers and support staff to serve the high schools (grades 9,10, 11, and 12). The six classrooms that are needed are available. This would almost double the capacity from seventy-two students to one-hundred forty-one students. 3. Expand services to the senior students by having one half day classes and a supervised career program for jobs the other half of the day. In that way, capacity could be increased by sixty-four more 1/2 time students. ** Expanding the maximum number of students able to be served by providing services at more than one facility in the Little Rock District. Other campus's could be Ish Elementary School and Metro or other unused buildings owned by the school district. Expanding the alternative services to include elementary programs (grades 1 ** through 5). Expanding the alternative services by creating alternative classrooms at each regular school. Recommendations: Due to the critical need for alternative services to include elementary' and senior high children and the limitations in the budget and funding, 1 recommend an immediate expansion of the alternative program by including four senior high grade classes with a school-job/work-study program. This would increase the maximum capacity of the facility to serve about sixth-four senior high school students in a work-study program. This recommendation would require an immediate search for four qualified teachers, one instructional aide, and one qualified work-study supervisor. This expansion is the least ive of the other alternatives due to the ability to expand without an increase in expensive ot the other aitemarives uuc lu me auu.ij uv -------- 77 administrative support. Further expansion, beyond this recommendation, would require additional administrative support, such as, attendance secretary, instructional aids. security officer, and assistant principal. Objective: to According to the desegregation program description, \"The Alternative Learning Center (ALC) provides the support (academic, educational, and social) necessary to students so that students can return to their regular school setting and function effectively. The student population at ALC consists of \"at-nsk youngsters those who are at compulsory attendance age and are experiencing difficulties m school because ofLRSI)-PR( \u0026gt;P-7 WPS-J/.V96 Page 7 poor attendance, or other dysfunctional situations which seriously impede the student's objective is to insure alternative educational services are II ability to succeed.,\" our aiiemauvc cuuoauunai ativiwo available for all students who are in need of services. Therefore, our goal is to AOThave to turn down students who need our services and are recommended for services by the junior or senior high principals and the Little Rock School District Alternative Screening Committee. ** Goal: To provide an appropriate educational environment for senior high students who are not having success at the regular classroom setting aM have been recommended by their principal and the LRSD Alternative Screening Committee for alternative services. ** Evaluation Criteria: Report bi-weekly student enrollment by grade level, race. and gender w'ith a comparative analysis between enrollments prior to this expansion and enrollments after this expansion. **jExpectedBenefits: Additional students will be offered alternative services hi^^ificipals will be able to devote more attention to the educational Junior^hign principals will be able to devote more attention to me eaucaiionai improvements at their schools instead of the management of the disruptions, interruptions, and frustrations caused by the at-risk children who are now being served by the alternative school. Teachers will be able to provide better services for the remaining students without the pressures and frustrations of interruptive and disruptive behaviors. Impact Analysis: Positive: ** ** ** ** ** Negative: ** ** Better support for junior and senior high school students specialized needs. Fewer disruptions at the regular school setting. More students being offered specialized alternative services. Public perception improvement concerning importance of alternative services Disparity improvement required by the desegregation plan. Increased budget and funding required for teachers salaries. Increased funding required for classroom furniture. Increased risk of security and discipline problems at the alternative school. Resources Analysis: Personnel: Furniture\n1) Four teachers (Secondar\u0026gt;' English/History/Math/Science)4.0 FTE 2) One Work-study supervisor  0 FTE 3) One instructional aide FTE 1) Classrooms 1,2, 3, and 4. Ten student desks and one teacher's desk for each room. One round table with four chairs for each room. One booth style desk and chair for each room for time out. 2j Media Center: Nine round tables and fortt' chairs.I,RS1)-PR( )P-7 WPS-J3M. Page K FURNITURE TOTALS STUDENT DESKS 40 RND TABLES 13 CHAIRS 56 BOOTHS TEACH DESK 4 4 Resources: 1) Books\nOne teacher's editions of each subject, each grade level (12). One classroom set for each subject (32). 3) Copy machine Available for high school staffs use. TYPICAL SCHEDULE Class Anive land? 3and4 Study Lunch 1 and2 3and4 Study/End lOA lOB 8:30 8:40 10:00 11:20 12:10 Work-Study Program. Work-Study Program 12:10 12:40 2:00 3:20/3:45 IOC lOD 8:30 8:40 10:00 11:20 12:10 Work-Study Program. Work-Study Program 12:10 12:40 2:00 3:20/3:45 1 lA 1 IB 8:30 8:40 10:00 11:20 12:10 Work-Study Program. Work-Study Program 12:10 12:40 2:00 3:20/3:45 12A 12B 8:30 8:40 10:00 11:20 12:10 Work-Study Program. Work-Study Program 12:10 12:40 2:00 3:20/3:45 General Implementation Plan: Milestones Timeline Tasking 1. Approval of Proposal Immediate School Board 2. Advertise for Personnel 4 Secondary Teachers 1 Instructional Aide 1 Work-Study Supervisor April 96 Human Resources 3. Order Furniture and Resource Materials May 96 Procurement 4. Paint Classrooms and Prepare for Class June 96 Plant Services 5. Interviews Complete July 96 Principal 6. Personnel in Place August 96 Human Resources 7. Evaluation of Proposal Objectives Quarterly 1996-97 Principal BUSINESS CASE INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER RELOCATED TO ISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOLSUBJECT: COST CUTTING PROPOSAL FISCAL YEAR 1996 Introduction - It is recommended that the following be considered as a cost cutting measure to be implemented in the budget process and subsequently the 1996 budget. Proposal - It is proposed that the Instructional Resource Center, presently located in the Parkin Building at 6th and Ringo, be relocated to Ish Elementary School during the summer of 1996. Background - Lee School at Ringo in 1993. The Instructional Resource Center was relocated from 12 th and Cedar to the Parkin Building at 6th and This was due to the deteriorated condition of the Parkin Building is leased by the Little Rock Lee School. The Parkin Buildxng is leasec ny one School District for an amaual rental of $88,800.00 per year utilities and parking. The present lease is for 24,000 square feet - -   feet is offxce space and the of which approximately 13,000_square yATPa4n4Tig 11,000 square feet xs  unfinished warehousing space. Ish Elementary School became vacant in until a final decision was reached by the courts, school presently houses the relocated chxldren 1993 and remained vacant The elementary from Chicot ii^meZtaSy S^ool, but it is anticipated that they will vacate t^t space in March of 1996. regard to Ish Elementary School. No future plans have been developed with Requests have been received from at xeaso iive (5) different agScies desiring to occupy the Ish Elem^tary School. Each of these esencies ale sot Little Both Scbool_Distritt ag^ties^and ]Lease either part or all of the building. It is would desire to lease this building at an ___________ hopes that the Little Rock School District would absorb most of the operating costs. least five the Ish Elementary School. have requested to anticipated that they extremely low rate in Problem Definition assist the Little It is - The problem is to institute measures that will Rock School District in cutting its operating costs in 1996 and future years. - There are basically two (2) alternatives Analysis of Center\n1) allow . the to remain in its present location. with regard to the Instructional Resource Center If we were to select this alternatxve, the present operating cost This expected to be $127,112.00. the rental of additional for 1996 for the Parkin Lease xs 1995 rental of $88,800.00, and the estxmated utilxty costs of is based on the ---- $35^000 00 ^^It ie howevS^ anticipated that the rent may go up by $35,000.00. It xs, nowepercent in 1996. While the Center located at 6 th and Ringo is It ie, as much as three While the Instructional Resource convenient to the general operation of the Little Rock SchoolPage Two Continued District, the annual cost of over $127,000.00 may not warrant its remaining in that facility\n2) relocating the Instructional Resource Center to Little Rock School District space. The recommendation to relocate the Instructional Resource Center to a building presently owned by the Little Rock School District is to the rental cost presently incurred by the The operating cost of Ish Elementary School _ the in space. principally offset DXStZSrXCtZa Vxxc     -----------  last two (2) years has only averaged. $16,000.00 for utilities. Maintenance costs have averaged approximately $24,000.00 per With an anticipated cost next year of Ish at approximately $40,000.00, it would appear save as much $87,000.00 next year. However, there would be a one time cost associated with the relocation to cover such items as moving costs, rewiring of the facility for to include packaging and relocation, computers telephone relocation. Reconrnendation - Instructional Resource Center Elementary School. operating Ish to It is recommended that the District relocate the from the Parkin Building to Ish The Parkin Building is approximately 24,000 square feet. Elementary School, although subdivided into rooms, tc_^_r Ish totals 31,800 In addition, parking without the additional lease is ______ J A a square feet. -------- . . - . approximately the same at both locations.  parking lot during meetings and in Little Rock School District owns While Ish However, consideration to expanding the service instruction can be done, as ----- ------- 17 immediately adjacent to Ish Clementa^\nJchool^ Elementary School may not appear to be^ as^ r _ property centrally located as the piSZn Balding, trav^l ti^oughout Little Rock to this facility _ 25 minutes from any location make it easily reachable within 20 in the City. Estimating the one time cost least give us year and a savings of _ _ These monies of approximately $35,000.00 would at approximately $50,000.00 savings during the first approxiiuduc eon.non.00 in. 'approximately of $85,000.00 to $90,000.00 in future years. operational short falls. could be used to offset current Objective - The objective of this proposal is_two.fold. reduce the operating costs^of decreasing its overhead presently owned by the Little future plans have been developed. The objective 1) To the Little Rock School District by and 2) by better utilizing space that is Rock School District for which no made to retaining the presence of the in the community surrounding Ish Consideration must also be^ Thi^^building has been constantly occupied Elementary School-------recently became vacant during the This since the middle ^^50's School'. The relocation of the construction of King Eiemenuairy t-he facilitv in October children from Chicot Elementary School into the facility in October the building occupiec. of 1993 has again made School. The permanentPage Three Continued relocation into this facility of the Instructional Resource Center positive step by the surrounding would most assuredly be seen as a . the local government as being an ----- cne loccxx future plans for its closed community and ---- _ Rock school District to have Little facilities. Analysis The Ish Ipproiimateiy'vToOO square feet larger a. M A I K^fiOlXZ initiative of the Elementary School Facility is than the facility presently The ability for t-ViA Instructional Resource Center. ... . -------d- xsh Elementary School will not them to tneir----------------------*n isn j subdivided into in any y =^.,^P:yi?^aiSatiorin sl^ent^Tr School. The Classrooms as this was by the additional 7,000 square subdivision of rooms will be f_ y instructional Resource feet Which will allow .JjTw at all he coSined in the sane he need as a school huildins in the being used by 1 conduct their operations in in any way be subdivided into The future. Resource Analysis There is no specific items with regard to that present staffing of the Kesourcf^ r identify staiimg o- resource ly- ^Vtrict wouS be^responsible for the relocation Little Rock School District School to Chicot School children from Chicot ^,.^.nt relocation June of 1996. of both the----------- upon its completion in March i- Instructional Resource Center in of the Implementation Plan January, 1996 month so as to - A tentative time line follows: A tentative decision must be made this 'proceed with preliminary planning. J . During this period of time we would February and March building, plan the the Instructional Center ... determine how complete the move and allow personnel to they can operate During the building, plan the Resource look at their organization in the new facility. * -n iQQfi - During this period of time, April, 1996 - During finalize that we would prepare During it is hopeful we and any contracts necessary to support the move. May, 1996 anything materials telephones in May, we we would make the placement of orders for _ we woux aeeomplish the move, such as necessary support computers and \"'^^o.lble'conotru^ction. Additionally and any ci cut intent the Parkin Building. would make to for support construction. not to renew would make the lease atPage Four Continued 1996 - It is anticipated that upon June, 1396 - It xs  the school that the Instructional Resource the closure of Center would Ish Elementary School, completed within a one month period. move to This move can easily be DCE/apl/ccpircBUSINESS CASE OUTSOURCING OF COURIER SERVICESBH BUSINESS CASE OUTSOURCING MAIL COURIER SERVICE CURRENTLY HANDLED BY THE PROCUREMENT AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Procurement and Materials Management Department currently has a mail and courier service section consisting of two vehicles and two drivers. Intra-district mail is collected and sorted daily for next day delivery. In addition, correspondence going to out-of-district destinations is picked up daily and metered at the central administration building for deposit to the main U.S. Postal Office the same day. Limited, on call special delivery, pick up, and messenger service is also provided as time and available vehicle cargo space allow, as well as video distribution and A/V equipment pick up and delivery for Media/Library Services. The intent of this business case is to determine the efficiency and/or economy of continuing this service in-house versus outsourcing the service to a private company. This analysis is in response to a request by the LRSD Board for potential areas of savings that could be realized by the District. There are only two alternatives considered: One alternative is to do nothing and continue performing the service in-house. This alternative is not recommended because of the increasing overhead costs each year in terms of labor (salary and benefits) and equipment maintenance expenses. The other alternative is to contract with a private provider of this type service and take advantage of the savings available due to the efficiencies inherent in a contract with a firm that specializes in this work. This outsourcing alternative is recommended. The only negative aspect is the displacement of two employees, one of whom has indicated that he will be leaving the District soon anyway. The savings by adopting this recommendation are two (2) FTEs in the Procurement Department and approximately $43, 700 each year starting with the first annual contract. 1 April 26, 1996A. BACKGROUND The Procurement Department has provided the internal mail distribution and courier service for the District since 1964. Up until 1987, this was accomplished with one employee and one mail van. In order to maintain the same level of daily service, an additional driver and van were added after the 1987 annexation. At this time the two couriers deliver and pick up mail/distribution each day at each District facility plus ODM, State Department of Education and the CTA offices. In addition to mail items, they also pick up and deliver, as space on the van allows, media related equipment and videos for the Library Services office. The feasibility of outsourcing this service to a private contractor was investigated on a couple of occasions in years past but never seriously considered. Previously, there was essentially only one courier service operating in Little Rock (SunBelt). Also, the savings achieved by contracting out were not very significant during previous evaluations. The District is searching for areas in which economies can be achieved. Contracting with a private courier company can result in a savings while maintaining a satisfactory level of service. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The Districts current financial situation places a responsibility on all departments to operate as efficiently and cost effectively as possible to provide required services at an acceptable level. The mail courier service currently provided in-house has been at an acceptable performance level, however, the cost for this service is excessive when compared to having a private company perform the same work. There are now numerous established private companies in the Little Rock area that provide mail courier service, and a substantial savings opportunity is possible. The costs associated with performing this fimction have escalated in recent years due to the overhead of owmng and operating vehicles dedicated to a single purpose and the salaries paid the employees performing this task. Both employees have performed satisfactorily over the years but this longevity has resulted in salary increases that represent compensation considerably greater than what a private company would pay for the same work. The vehicles currently being used for this service are: 1) a 1988 Ford Van with an odometer reading of 138,825 miles and 2) a 1993 Ford Van with an odometer reading of 49,000 miles. If the in-house mail service is to continue, a new van will need to be purchased to replace the 1988 van as it has had numerous mechanical problems over the past two years. The estimated cost to replace this van is $17,000. 2If the District were to choose outsourcing, two FTEs would be eliminated. One employee is graduating from college in May and is expected to leave the District. The other employee has been with the District for eight years and would be offered an option to accept another position within the District in accordance with policy. In addition, the warehouse manager devotes roughly 1/3 of his time to helping with the mail courier effort. As a result of outsourcing, this would free him to handle other warehouse management responsibilities. However, the warehouse manager would be required to coordinate and supervise the activities of the contracted service provider. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES These alternatives were generated during 1996-97 Support Services staff budget meetings where possible areas of saving were discussed. There are only two alternatives considered, (1) continue the services as is, or (2) contracting out. The Procurement Office also had preliminary discussions with a private company concerning the methods used by courier service companies and the associated costs. Alternatives 1. Continue providing the service in house: The level of service currently provided has worked relatively well for several years. The timing for a change is convenient in that one employee is anticipated to leave soon after receiving his college degree. The other employee, who also acts as the Assistant Warehouse Manager, would need to be placed in another comparable position, if possible. The current system is, of course, reasonably responsive to emergency or on-call courier requirements. However, some on-call deliveries could be eliminated with better scheduling and discipline. It is sometimes too easy to pick up the phone and call for an emergency pickup or delivery, rather than wait for the regular scheduled service. There is the tendency not to associate cost to those resources owned/operated in-house. The primary disadvantage for continuing the current service in-house is the associated annual cost to the District for providing the service: Both labor costs and the increasing expenses associated with owning and maintaining the mail vans, make outsourcing attractive from the standpoint of cost versus benefits derived from providing this routine service. The dollars below reflect 1995-96 annualized cost: Salaries (current including benefits for two employees) Vehicle Maintenance and Depreciation Fuel Vehicle Insurance (premium cost plus average one claim per year) Mail Handling Supplies TOTAL $69,128 5,806 5,159 2,260 1.275 $83.628 This alternative is least desirable in that this administrative function can be accomplished more economically by contracting out to a private courier service. 32. Outsourcing the service to a private company: The level of service would be expected to be at or better than currently received. In addition, a private contractor could provide: a. More flexibility fEfFiciency) by furnishing more personnel and vehicles during the busy school year and less during the summer. Vehicles are radio-equipped and could be reached at all times to expeditiously handle emergency or on-call requirements. b. Reduced management (Efficiency \u0026amp; Economy)- The District would be required only to monitor the contract for compliance rather than conduct the day to day activities, allowing the Supply Center Manager to expend more time on his Supply Center Management responsibilities, thereby eliminating the need for an Assistant Warehouse Manager. (One of the mail drivers fills in at this position part time or as needed.) c The same service at a lower cost (Economy) by providing necessary personnel, vehicles, insurance, and management to meet the requirements of the District. The efficiencies inherent to a company whose existence depends upon fast, courteous service, are evident when comparing outsourcing against performing this function in-house. Cost estimates obtained fi'om a local company currently providing service to the City of Little Rock for the past six years were obtained and are estimated based on the delivery service presently performed by the District couriers: Monthly Charge for daily pickup and delivery to schools including handling of U.S. postal mail Per Delivery rate for extra deliveries over and above routine service Assuming the District has a requirement for 25 additional deliveries per month the annualized cost would be ($7 rate x 25 avg. deliveries x 12 months) Annualized cost for routine service ($3,150 x 12 months) Total expected annualized outsourcing cost $3,150 $7 per delivery $2,100 37,800 $39,900 D. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the District outsource the mail/courier service currently provided by the Procurement and Materials Management Department. The expected annual cost savings of $43,728 ($83,628 - $39,900) is the primary consideration. 4E. OBJECTIVE The objective of this recommendation is to help the District reduce costs while assuring the same and/or better level of service currently provided. The efficient and cost effective delivery/mailing of intemal/extemal correspondence is essential to the operations of the District. Implementation of this recommendation supports LRSD Goals relating to reducing costs and improving service. The successful contractors performance will be evaluated annually by the Procurement and Materials Management Department. Some of the criteria used in this assessment will be: 1. 2. 3. School/Dept. satisfaction as measured by the number of complaints received. Timeliness of extra service deliveries. Response time to District requests. 4. Adherence to cost as stated in the contractors proposal. 5 Reduction in LRSD management involvement in daily mail operations. The expected benefits of this recommendation will be an immediate cost savings realized by the district in current and future years. In addition, the level of service will be equal to or better than that cunently provided. The recipients of these benefits will be all District schools/departments. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS The positive impact of this recommendation will be the cost savings and reduced management time required. The negative impact will be employee reaction to outsourcing and the resulting displacement of one employee. Implementation of this plan will not impact the desegregation plan g.r .court orders, There should be no disruption of service during transitioning to a contracted courier service. The recent outsourcing efforts by the District in other areas should not adversely affect the implementation of this recommendation in that it involves only minimal employee impact. Any potential negative reaction in converting to a contracted courier service can be minimized by careful coordination and implementation of the change-over. There is no nsLto the District if this recommendation is not accepted. The Procurement Department will continue the service in-house. 5Timins: It is recommended that an RFP be prepared with a contract awarded and service to begin July 1, 1996. The transition should not be difficult\nhowever, in order to reduce a hurried start-up by the successful contractor, a contract should be signed by June 15, 1996. G. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel The recommendation is expected to reduce the FTEs in the Procurement Department by two (2) positions. Financial A yearly savings of $43,728 is expected. The costs obtained from the contractor are conservative\ntherefore, actual savings could be greater. A Request for Proposal would be prepared by the Procurement Department. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this recommendation will be patrons and taxpayers of the District and the administration. Those most opposed to this recommendation will be the employees impacted and those generally opposed to outsourcing District services for whatever reason their personal agenda may dictate. L GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The following milestones for implementing this recommendation are suggested and will be monitored by the Director, Procurement and Materials Management: Milestone Date Business Case Approved April 1996 Respotisible Person LRSD CabinetZBoard Prepare RFP May 1, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Proposals Submitted May 15, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Proposal Evaluated May 22, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Award Made May 24, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Notice to Employees June 1, 1996 Hurley, Human Resources Director Contract Negotiated and Completed Contractor Begins Operations June 15, 1996 July 1, 1996 Neal, Procurement Director Neal, Procurement Director 6BUSINESS :ase OUTSOURCING SPECIAL NEEDS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMOutsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 1 Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Executive Summary The most expensive part of student transportation is transportation services for special needs students. Curb-to-curb service, smaller capacity buses, bus aides/monitors, special equipment, extra driver training, and restrictions on ride time are some of the components contributing to these higher costs. Medically fragile students require even greater resources. The intent of this business case is to explain the current issues confronting the district related to transporting special needs students. Parents, teachers and others are concerned that the transportation service provided by the District for special needs students may neither be safe nor meet the needs of each student. Over half (58%) of the buses in the fleet are over seven years old. Of the 18 lift buses in the fleet, 12 are over seven years old. These buses often have mechanical breakdowns which create problems in getting students to school or home in a timely manner. The recommendation of this business case is to outsource the system to a private contractor. The goal statement is\nTo provide special needs students with a safe, reliable, and cost effective transportation system. This proposal supports the districts strategic plan in the areas of safety and meeting the needs of individual students. The following is a list of criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved when this solution is implemented\n1. 2. The District will successfully defend the transportation system against the current and future lawsuits related to special needs transportation. Driver satisfaction will increase by a reduction in the number of complaints from drivers about the equipment. 3. Buses will be on time. 4. Accidents will decrease. 5. 6. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease. A schedule for replacement will be strictly followed.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 2 All students will have safe, reliable and appropriate service to meet their needs. Outsourcing will bring stability to the transportation system, costs can be identified and contained, and effective training will be provided to all staff. The risk of not implementing this solution is increasing parental complaints, continued driver dissatisfaction, equipment failure, and the lack of the ability to respond to student needs. The risks of implementing this solution are the unfounded presumptions that the costs will be greater than calculated and people will lose their jobs. Transition will strain current management because of the short period of time available when considering the activities associated with the start up of the school year. It is critical that the decision be made before June 1 so personnel can be notified of the elimination of administrative and other positions within the timelines of the law and contracts. If outsourcing is to be implemented, patrons will need to know when the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. Some long time District administrators will be displaced. At least $100,000 can be saved from the current proposed transportation budget for 1996-97. There is a real possibility of additional savings depending upon the selected proposal. The old buses can be replaced on a strict schedule which should reduce the number of late buses due to breakdowns.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 3 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Manager of Support Services. Milestone_________________________________________ 1. Establish a transportation steering committee________ 2. Write request for proposal (RFP)__________________ 3. Steering committee review RFP____________________ 4. RFP mailed to potential contractors________________ 5. RFP information session for potential contractors 6, Proposals submitted_______________________ 7, Proposals screened by steering committee___________ 8. Recommended proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval_________________________ 9, Notice to employees_____________________________ 10, Include this as a budget reduction strategy__________ 11. Recruitment of current employees_________________ 12. Recruitment of new employees_______________ 13. Inventory property________________ 14. Finalize contract__________________ 15. Property transfer and occupancy__________________ 16. Complete initial bus routes __________________ 17. Retrain current employees_______________________ 18. Notify patrons_________________ 19. Begin delivery of replacement equipment___________ 20. Complete driver/aide/monitor orientation and dry runs Date 4/17/96 4/26/96 4/29/96 5/1/96 5/15/96 5/22/96 5/23/96 5/23/96 5/24/96 5/24/96 6/4/96 6/4/96 6/26/96 6/27/96 6/30/96 8/8/96 8/1/96 8/1/96 8/12/96 8/16/96 Person Smith, Neal Neal, Cheatham Committee Neal Neal, Cheatham Contractors Neal Williams Hurley Milhollen Contractor Contractor Neal Neal, Attorneys Neal, Milhollen Contractor Contractor Vann, Smith Contractor ContractorOutsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 4 Background: Current situation: Everything has a cost. The per student costs of transporting students with special needs are higher than for regular student transportation. Curb-to-curb service, smaller capacity buses, bus aides/monitors, special equipment, extra driver training, and restrictions on ride time are some of the components contributing to these higher costs. Medically fragile students require even greater resources. The number of medically fragile students is increasing because of the improvements in medical technology. It is impossible to meet the needs of individual children and have a very efficient program. Every attempt is made to serve special needs students in the least restrictive environment such as on the regular buses. At this time during the 1994-95 school year 395 special needs students and 60 Alternative Learning Center (ALC) students rode special needs buses. This year 450 students are currently assigned for special transportation. The district transports 40 students to the Arkansas Schools for the Blind and Deaf. Also, 80 ALC students are transported this year. The Districts special needs transportation operation was in the media on September 25, 1995 when a parent padlocked the gates to the bus terminal. Later that parent and other individuals filed a lawsuit against the district which included charges related to the transportation of special needs students. Even though the district s equipment and personnel meet all state and federal requirements, issues related to labor unrest, safety and poor service continue to plague the district concerning special needs transportation. The maintenance of the fleet is done by contract with Laidlaw Transit. Two mechanics are assigned to do routine and emergency service. Breakdowns continue to be a problem due to the age of the fleet. Background information: Prior to this year, the day-to-day operations of the regular transportation and special needs transportation were intermingled. There was no clear delineation of services and no clear way to determine actual costs by program. Special needs drivers and aides received very little specialized training. The 1995-96 state funding for transportation was based on the number of buses used and the number of students transported in 1994-95. At this time there is no money earmarked for transportation under the new formula. What had been used in the past was folded into the new formula. Of the $1,600,000 in regular transportation aid this year, only $36,000 was included for the increased costs related to transporting special needsOutsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 students. The district does receive funding from the settlement for all costs incurred for transportation related to the M-to-M and Magnet programs which is estimated to exceed 2.1 million dollars for 1995-96. s The laws and regulations impacting special needs students continue to change. The students Individual Education Plan (lEP) determines when the student is to be transported and if special accommodations are needed such as a monitor or aide assigned to assist the student. More options are available to students with lEPs and specialized service is often required such as transportation home at noon because the student is attending for a half day rather than the whole day. Problem Definition: Problem Statement: Parents, teachers and others are concerned that the transportation service provided by the District for special needs students may neither be safe nor meet the needs of each student. Considerations: The Districts financial situation places a strain on all departments to operate efficiently to provide the students with an acceptable level of service. Special needs transportation is more expensive than regular transportation. Specialized equipment is needed for medically fragile students. The district can contract with other agencies or parents to provide some of these services but not having the appropriate equipment is not an acceptable reason for not providing transportation if it is part of the students lEP. The Districts special needs fleet is aging. There are 52 buses of which 18 have lifts and locks for wheel chairs. Only five buses use diesel fuel. Year # of Buses # of Lifts 83 1 1 84 0 0 85 4 2 86 16 9 87 8 0 88 0 0 89 1 1 90 11 0 91 6 0 92 2 2 93 0 0 94 0 0 95 3 3 The district has used the following criteria for replacing buses in the past\nGasoline powered buses: Any such bus that exceeds eight years of age or 120,000 miles at the start of any school year. Diesel powered buses: Any bus that exceeds 10 years of age or 160,000 miles at the beginning of any school year.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 6 Thirty buses are more than seven years old. It normally takes seven to eight months to get buses once the order is placed. If buses are ordered in April, they should arrive in December or January. Driver performance is another consideration. One of the concerns regularly expressed by drivers is the need for new equipment. Drivers are frustrated when their buses are not available due to mechanical problems and students can become confused when their bus is changed. Good equipment that is well maintained can contribute to improved service. Analysis of Alternatives: Process: A committee of administrators, parents, teachers, and drivers was formed in the fall of 1995 before the lawsuit was filed to work on solutions to perceived problems within the special needs section of the transportation department. The group identified the need for new buses and better training as solutions to most of the concerns. Identification: Alternative solutions are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will cause costs to grow annually as the fleet ages and training is not maintained when the staff has turnover. Follow industry standards for equipment replacement, personnel, etc. including a strict schedule for replacing the fleet. This is the most expensive alternative. The district would continue to manage the system. Buses would be replaced on schedule. This would impact the current and future budgets. Phase in the industry standards over a five year period of time. This alternative would have a modest cost and would lead to stabilizing costs over an extended period of time. The district would have more flexibility to respond to the changing state and federal laws as well as student needs. The district would continue to manage the system. Consolidate special needs transportation in all Pulaski County Districts. Getting an agreement on this would be a major challenge. Outsource the special needs transportation to another public agency. The local agencies that provide specialized transportation cannot meet the current community demands for services and do not have the resources and equipment to meet the districts transportation needs.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 7 6. Outsource the special needs transportation to a private concern. This alternative would provide cost containment and more recent equipment. The district would monitor the contract for compliance rather than conduct the day-to-day activities of the system. Recommendation : Action recommended to address the problem: Outsource the special needs transportation system to a private concern. Rationale: The costs of special needs transportation continues to rise. Outsourcing can assist the District in containing the costs. Other factors include a reasonable and predictable fleet replacement, lower driver absenteeism, improved vehicle maintenance , and reduced vehicle accident rate will be realized. These improvements will lead to significantly fewer problems and complaints, as well as establish more stable and reliable special needs transportation system for the future LRSD needs. Objective: Objective of the recommendation: To provide special needs students with a safe, reliable, and cost effective transportation system. Goal support: This recommendation will support the recently adopted strategic plan as follows: Strategy 10 We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools. Strategy 8 We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. The safety of students on special needs buses is one of the major concerns of everyone. Providing appropriate transportation to enable students to access programs identified in each students lEP is a goal of the transportation department.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 8 Evaluation criteria: 1. 2. The District will successfully defend the transportation system against the current and future lawsuits related to special needs transportation. Driver satisfaction will increase by a reduction in the number of complaints from drivers about the equipment. 3. Buses will be on time 4. Accidents will decrease. 5. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease. 6. A schedule for replacement will be strictly followed. Expected Benefits: The students will have safe, reliable and appropriate service to meet their needs. Outsourcing will bring stability to the transportation system, costs can be identified and contained, and effective training will be provided to all staff. Impact Analysis: Positives: 1. The District will successfully defend the transportation system against the current and future lawsuits related to special needs 2. Driver satisfaction will increase by a reduction in the number of complaints from drivers about the equipment. 3. Buses will be on time. 4. Accidents will decrease. 5. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease. 6. A schedule for replacement will be strictly followed. 7. Currently employed drivers/aides will maintain their jobs.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 9 Negatives: 1. Current employees may oppose change. 2. Some parents may express concern related to change. 3. At least four long time non-certified administrators will be displaced. Desegregation Plan: This recommendation has no impact on the Desegregation Plan. Court Orders: This recommendation addresses issues raised in the cunent lawsuit. Political factors: The union will likely oppose efforts to privatize the special needs transportation. Risks: The risk of not implementing this solution is increasing parental complaints, continued driver dissatisfaction, equipment failure, and the lack of the ability to respond to student needs. The risks of implementing this solution are the unfounded presumptions that the costs will be greater than calculated and people will lose their jobs. Transition will strain current management because of the short period of time available when considering the activities associated with the start up of the school year. Timing: It is critical that the decision be made before June 1 so personnel can be notified of the elimination of administrative and other positions. If outsourcing is to be implemented, patrons will need to know when the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, staff must be notified of the change, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 10 Resources Analysis: Personnel Analysis: No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. Some long time District administrators will be displaced. Financial Analysis: At least $ 100,000 can be saved from the current proposed transportation budget for 1996-97. There is a real possibility of additional savings depending upon the selected proposal. The old buses can be replaced on a strict schedule which should reduce the number of late buses due to breakdowns. Force Field Analysis: Forces For: Supporters of this proposal include administrators within the District and patrons because of the improved services for students. The Board of Directors and administration of the district are aware of the financial benefits to the district of this solution. Forces Against: Those most opposed to the solution will be bus drivers/aides/monitors who fear losing their jobs and those who fear private sector managing public sector services.Outsourcing Special Needs Transportation System Business Case 4/19/96 11 Implementation Plan: The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Manager of Support Services. _____________________Milestone____________________ 1. Establish a transportation steering committee________ 2, Write request for proposal (RFP)__________________ 3  Steering committee review RFP___________________ 4, RFP mailed to potential contractors________________ 5, RFP information session for potential contractors 6, Proposals submitted_____________________________ 7. Proposals screened by steering committee___________ 8. Recommended proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval_________________________ 9. Notice to employees_____________________________ 10. Include this as a budget reduction strategy__________ 11. Recruitment of current employees_________________ 12. Recruitment of new employees___________________ 13. Inventory property_____________________________ 14. Finalize contract_______________________________ 15. Property transfer and occupancy__________________ 16. Complete initial bus routes_______________________ 11. Retrain current employees_______________________ 18. Notify patrons_________________________________ 19. Begin delivery of replacement equipment___________ 20. Complete driver/aide/monitor orientation and dry runs Date 4/17/96 4/26/96 4/29/96 5/1/96 5/15/96 5/22/96 5/23/96 5/23/96 5/24/96 5/24/96 6/4/96 6/4/96 6/26/96 6/27/96 6/30/96 8/8/96 8/1/96 8/1/96 8/12/96 8/16/96 Person Smith, Neal Neal, Cheatham Committee Neal Neal, Cheatham Contractors Neal Williams Hurley_______ Milhollen_____ Contractor Contractor Neal Neal, Attorneys Neal, Milhollen Contractor Contractor Vann, Smith Contractor Contractori BUSINESS CASE REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTSBUSINESS CASE SIX PERIOD DAY VERSUS SEVEN PERIOD DAYBUSINESS CASE STAGGERED STARTING TIMES( staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 Staggered Start Times Executive Summary: One of the budget cutting strategies used by many school districts across the United States is staggered opening and closing times. This strategy allows the same bus to pick up and deliver students to several schools instead of just one or two schools. Currently the elementary schools open at 7:50 A.M. and close at 2:35 P.M. and most secondary schools open at either 8:45 A.M. and 8:50 A.M. and close at 3:45 P.M. The intent of this business case is discuss the budget impact of staggering school starting and closing times. The District has limited resources to spend on student transportation. The average number of students per bus run living more than two miles from their assigned school is 43. This is a 66% utilization rate. Some of the vacant seats are used for courtesy stops for students living within two miles of their assigned schools. Based on the 1995-96 contract, the average cost per student per day is $1.86. The average cost per student for a year is $331.08 just to go to and from school. There are 11,513 students assigned to regular buses and 2221 students assigned to magnet buses. The goal statement is\nTo increase the utilization rate of regular buses from 66% to 85% for home to school transportation during the 1996-97 school year. This proposal supports the districts strategic plan in the area of financial stability. The following is a list of criteria to be used to determine if the goal is met: 1. 2. The utilization rate for regular buses will increase to at least 85%. The district budget will be reduced by at least $267,000. The risks of staggering opening/closing times include complaints from parents and staff about the time changes, reduced number of seats available for courtesy stops, and possible student management problems on buses. The risk of not implementing this recommendation is the lost opportunity to reduce the budget by $267,000.Staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 2 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Manager of Support Services. Milestone_______________________________ 1  Determine the schedule for staggered starts. 2. Notify principals. Date 5-3-96 5-3-96 3  Notify public.__________________________ 4. Notify parents as students register for school of the official opening and closing times of the school. 5-3-96 August 1996 Person Williams Gremillion, Mitchell, Anderson Vann Student Assignment, Principalsstaggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 3 Background: Current Situation: All Little Rock elementary schools are scheduled to begin at 7:50 A M. and close at 2:35 P.M. The junior highs are scheduled to begin at 8:45 A.M. and close at 3:45 P.M. The senior high schools are scheduled to begin at 8:50 A.M. and close at 3:45 P.M. except for Parkview and Metropolitan. Parkview opens at 8:41 A M. and closes at 3:45 P.M. Metropolitan opens at 8:40 A.M. and closes at 3:27 P.M. with student exchanges scheduled at lunchtime. The average number of students per bus run living more than two miles from their assigned school is 43. This is a 66% utilization rate. Some of the vacant seats are used for courtesy stops for students living within two miles of their assigned schools. Based on the 1995-96 contract, the average cost per student per day is $1.86. The average cost per student for a year is $331.08 just to go to and from school. There are 11,513 students assigned to regular buses and 2221 students assigned to magnet buses. Board policy EEAB states Insofar as educational requirements permit, school schedules will be adjusted to allow maximum utilization of each bus. More buses are required to support the elementary schools than the secondary schools. When there is less than 55 minutes between the opening and closing times of the two runs, it is difficult to match an elementary school with a secondary school for efficiency. During the 1995 -96 school year, Booker and Carver students were scheduled on the same buses. Once the bugs were resolved, this seems to work. If these schools had been routed separately, an additional six buses on the first run would have been required. Background information: When the district annexed the 14 county schools and went to the controlled choice student assignment plan, the transportation department grew to support the changes. A three run system (Each driver/bus had three different runs.) was initiated because of the limited number of buses available and the personnel costs involved in a two run system. As part of the desegregation plan, the district went back to a two run system. Each bus now has an elementary run and a secondary run. In many neighborhoods only one or two students are assigned to any one school and several buses enter the neighborhood. The district regularly receives complaints from patrons concerning the number of buses entering neighborhoods.staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 4 Problem Definition: Problem statement: The District has limited resources to spend on student transportation. Considerations: The number of buses that must be used to transport students to and from home is based on the guidelines, policies, practices and procedures established by the school district. Changes in the current parameters can result in savings or additional costs. The practice of every school having its own buses for regular transportation results in more buses being used than would be used if students from the same or nearby neighborhoods rode the same bus to different schools. Analysis of Alternatives: Process: A committee of drivers and administrators investigated this option during the 1994-95 school year and recommended that the Booker and Carver runs be combined to see if this option was feasible. This pilot reduced the number of buses needed by six. Identification: 1. Change nothing. The cost of student transportation for the 1996-97 will be as reflected in the initial budget. 2. Consolidate runs without changing opening/closing times. This may work with one or two schools but the savings would be limited. This would be a change from current practice. 3. Change opening/closing times and consolidate some runs. This would allow all possible consolidations to be considered. The savings for the District would be at least $267,000 to the proposed budget. Recommendation: Action Recommended: Alternative three should be selected for the 1996-97 school year. The savings of at least $267,000 can help to balance the districts budget.staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 5 Rationale: The spacing of start times would allow students who are going to different schools to ride the same bus to and from the same neighborhood. This recommendation would result in better utilization of the buses. Objective: Objective of the recommendation: To increase the utilization rate of regular buses from 66% to 85% for home to school transportation during the 1996-97 school year. Goal Support: This recommendation will support the recently adopted strategic plan as follows\nStrategy 9 We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district. If the cost of student transportation can be reduced by staggering the opening and closing times of schools, then the savings can be used to balance the budget with fewer cuts. Evaluation criteria: 1. The utilization rate for regular buses will increase to at least 85%. 2. The district budget will be reduced by at least $267,000. Expected Benefits: 1. Reduce the number of buses required to transport students. 2. Reduce the number of buses going into one neighborhood. 3. Maintain or reduce number of late buses. 4. Reduce the number of drivers/monitors required. Istaggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 6 Impact Analysis: Program: Negatives: 1. Fewer students within the two-mile walk zone will be given courtesy stops. 2. Teacher report times at different schools would vary. Teacher assignments between schools would need to be adjusted to be sure that instructional time is not lost. 3. Seat assignments and student behavior would require coordination among various school administrators. Positives: 1. Reduce the number of buses required to transport students. 2. Reduce the number of buses going into one neighborhood. 3. Maintain or reduce number of late buses. 4. Reduce the number of drivers/monitors required. Desegregation Plan: There is no impact on the desegregation plan because the transportation system is still a two run system. The staggered time allows more than one school to be served by one bus run. Court Orders: There are no court orders that this recommendation will impact. Political factors: Parents may be concerned about combining students from different schools on the same bus and the change in school times. These concerns can be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented.staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 7 Risks: The risks of staggering opening/closing times include complaints from parents and staff about the time changes, reduced number of seats available for courtesy stops, and possible student management problems on buses. The risk of not implementing this recommendation is the lost opportunity to reduce the budget by $267,000. Timing: The parents and staff need to be informed as soon as possible concerning changes in opening and closing time. This decision must be made by July 1 in order for bus routing to be completed by August 1. Resource Analysis: Personnel Analysis: No additional staff is required to implement this recommendation. The opening and closing times are a consideration when staff is shared between buildings. Financial Analysis: The implementation of this recommendation will reduce the transportation budget by $267,000. If this savings is projected over the five years the total will be $1,335,000. Force Field Analysis: Forces For: Patrons who are concerned about the number of buses in the neighborhood, the Advisory Committee for Financial Stability, private day cares that pick up students after school, and the Director of Transportation will support this recommendation because it improves the efficient operations of the fleet. Forces Against: School personnel may be concerned about the change in time and its impact on their personal lives. Some parents may be concerned because students from other schools may be on the bus with their students.staggered Start Times Business Case 4/19/96 8 Implementation Plan: Milestone T 1 Determine the schedule for staggered starts. 2. Notify principals. 3. Notify public. ______________ 4. Notify parents as students register for school of the official opening and closing times of the school. Date 5-3-96 5-3-96 5-3-96 August 1996 Person Williams Gremillion, Mitchell, Anderson Vann______ Student Assignment, PrincipalsBU -INESS CASE STI DENT ASSIGNMENT RELOCATION1. BUSINESS CASE\nSTUDENT ASSIGNMENT RELOCATION BACKGROUND - The Student Assignment Office is presently located at the Cashion Building at 501 Sherman. It is approximately 6,418 square feet sitting on one This is a newly renovated facility and houses only the offices of the Associate (1) acre of land. Superintendent for Desegregation the of Student Assignment. Its separate from administrative functions lends itself to easy access by parents and students of and Office location all the Little Rock School District. The location across the street from the new Post Office makes it relatively easy to find within The building lacks for nothing, space is considered the City. _ _ adequate to meet the needs of their operation and the building appears to be well maintained. in the parking lot and along side streets. There is also a small area which can be considered for expansion of this facility should There is adequate parking the need arise. 2 . PROBLEM DEFINITION - We have been requested to look at the possibility of relocating Student Assignment and selling this building. 3 . ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES There are basically two alternatives: 1) relocate the facility. Leave the facility where it is and 2) (2) to ALTERNATIVE ONE - LEAVE THE FACILITY WHERE IT IS PRESENTLY LOCATED: This building was specifically purchased in 1989 and renovated in 1990 for the purposes of drawing together the functions necessary to support the student enrollment program. Portions of that program were previously located at the Administration Building\nhowever, due to the congestion and large volume of public traffic udeiii-d, it was determined that the facility would be The Cashion Building was purchased and renovated to In addition, we have recently completed to enroll students relocated. meet the Districts needs. The image of computer wiring project to update student services. the Cashion Building and the location of Student Assignment presents a very positive image of the Little Rock School District --- . with a Cashion Building and the with new parents enrolling their students in our program, regard to selling the building, there are no guarantees that the building will sell at a cost that would be beneficial to the Little Rock School District. Our estimated renovation $550,000 dollars for that building, which included the purchase of the building and surrounding lands, means that we would have to sell the building for over $500,000 dollars just to recoup our original cost in 1990. Allowing for depreciation of the building, it is estimated that the cnn nnn t\"n aonroximatelv $400,000 dollars but, I $500,000 could be reduced to approximately $400,000 dollars but, do not believe that this would be supported by any appraisal.To move Student Assignment and Desegregation without any long range plan to put them in a location that would better meet their operational needs is not a prudent consideration. However, it is considered an alternative for the purposes of this Business Case. ALTERNATIVE TWO RELOCATION: Determining the requirements of Student Assignments and their subsequent location within the City can began immediately if it is the desire to relocate that office. However, if the intended purpose is simply to relocate the Student Assignment Office in hopes of selling the facility for profit to subsidize our budget, without any thought whatsoever towards the cost incurred with relocating the facility, you can not present a true picture or viably weight the alternatives. time, At this point in since no requirements have been compiled with regard to Student Assignment and Desegregation and no preliminary plans have been made as to where this facility would relocate other than the possibility of a vacated school, comparison. it is difficult to make a cost 4. RECOMMENDATION\nIt is recommended that Student Assignment and the Office of Desegregation stay where they are presently located in the Cashion Building on Sherman Street. 5. OBJECTIVE\nfinancial one. The objective of this recommendation is purely a Because the new location is not known, the cost to relocate Student Assignments can not be determined at this time. Although, it is conceived that the relocation and renovation costs would, hopefully, not exceed the appraised or purchase price of that building, some cost savings could be realized\nhowever, it can not be accurately determined. Because of the need of Student Assignment to present a very positive image, is essential to the overall academic programs of the Little Rock its location School District. 6. IMPACT ANALYSIS\nThe most important concern should be the impact of the general educational program and the ability of the District to present a positive image to the public, our need to continue on a year round basis, with minimal interruption, our recruiting program and our requirement to meet the needs of the parents to enroll their children. is possible to relocate Student Assignment should the decision be made, these are Though it the impacts that must be weighed carefully. 7. RESOURCE ANALYSIS\nIt will. of course, be an impact on the staff due to relocation. It can not be ascertained whether the long term operational cost of a relocation would be more or less than the present costs that are presently incurred. true picture of the resources necessary to recommendation to relocate is not available. Therefore, a support the8. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS\nA force field analysis has not been made\nhowever, it can be assumed that some people will object to relocating Student Assignment for the sake of relocating them so that the building can be sold. overcome by placing them. if possible. But, hopefully, that could be in a location which is better suited for the overall needs of the School District. 9. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION\nIf a decision is made to relocate Adult Education, occur this year. it would be further recommended that this not With the present turmoil that is expected this summer due to relocations of administrative and support staff, the additional move of the Student Assignment Office would have to be weighed carefully against the benefits. dce/apl/bcasesarBn BUSINESS CASE TRUANCY REDUCTION CENTER SKSnBusiness Case Truancy Reduction Center Program Executive Summary The LRSD Truancy Reduction Program opened for operation on November 1, 1993. Advocacy for the implementation of collaborative a from approach to school truancy reduction a group of concerned citizens composed of community leaders, youth services arose This group agency representatives, the LRPD and LRSD officials. developed a proposal that would take advantage of permissive legislation (Act 867 of 1989) that authorized school districts to partner with the local police department in implementing a joint truancy reduction plan. The collaborative, working with the LRSD Assistant Superintendent for secondary schools and the director of Pupil Services presented a proposal to the LRSD Board of Directors for its review and approval on October 28,1993. Approval was granted by the Board to A staff of three paid employees and a open the Center forthwith. pool of volunteers has operated the Truancy Reduction Center since its beginning in November, 1993. Effective January 4, 1994 the city of Little Rock passed nocturnal curfew ordinance restricting the presence of minors a on the streets. in public places or to be in or operate a vehicle between the hours of 10:00 p.m. \u0026amp; 5:00 a.ro. Sunday through Thursday or between 12:00 midnight \u0026amp; 5:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Monday through Friday. This Ordinance, number 16825, was amended January 3,_1995 to add a curfew for minors during normal school hours from 9:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Passage and enforcement of this ordinance has had a significant impact in reducing the number of children and youth being picked up for truancy this school year. Consequently, the need to continue to maintain the Truancy Center has been reduced. A. Background Prior to the amendment of the curfew ordinance effective January 17, rise. 17, 1995, the number of truants being picked-up by the LRPD and processed through the LRSD Truancy Reduction Center continued to _ The daytime curfew that makes it unlawful for school age children \u0026amp; youth to be on the streets or other public places during school hours has effectively reduced the number of youth being found on the streets between 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. During its first year of operation, the Truancy Reduction Center processed 460 truant students. The Center staff saw a 21% increase during the 199495 school year with 580 truant students being brought to the Center. However, the passage of Ordinance number 16564 as amended in \u0026amp; fewer students are being found on the January, 1995, fewerstreets during school hours. During the first semester of the 1995-96 school year, the number of truants picked up dropped to 113 students. When compared with the first semester of the 1994-95 school year, we have had a 26% decrease in the number of truants processed. Because of the success of the curfew in reducing the presence of truants in public places during school hours, the need to operate a fully staffed Truancy Center has been eliminated. B. Problem Definition Three full time staff and a pool of volunteers have effectively and efficiently operated the Truancy Center since it opened on November 1, 1993. school aged students in January, With the enactment of the daytime curfew law for 1995, the average number of students processed has dropped to between five and six youngsters per week. With an annual budget of $45,915.26. and the dwindling number of students being processed, the operation is no longer cost effective, expenses, a Because of the need to cut the District's operational more cost effective method for achieving our goal of Three alternatives were considered. reducing truancy is needed. The first one is to reduce staff by 50% and reassign supervision of the Center to the Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security, alternative is to continue the Center's operation as is. The second The third alternative is to eliminate all paid staff and have truant students who are picked up by the police delivered directly to the schools to which they are assigned. This alternative would eliminate the need for a paid staff and the overhead for the operation of a central processing point. local schools would be receiving truants. The responsible for processing them, contacting parents and providing the required follow-up. C. Analysis of Alternatives 1. Alternative one would maintain the Center's operation with fewer budgeted positions. Personnel would include a secretary and one Truancy investigator. The coordinator's position, would be eliminated and those functions transferred to the Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security. Estimated costs for this option are as follows: Personnel FTE Salctrv/cost Truancy Officer 1 Secretary 15,500.00 9,000.00 1 (2)Supplies Office Supplies \u0026amp; Copy machine use 1,500 Vehicle Expenses Gas, oil, maintenance 1,500 Total Cost $27,500.00 2 . Alternative two would maintain the current three budgeted positions and operating budget as shown below: Personnel (Including Fringes) FTE Salctrv/cost Truancy Center Coordinator 1 $26,405.00 Security Guard 1 17,004.00 Bus Driver 1 10,000.00 Sub-Total 53,409.00 Purchased Services Materials \u0026amp; Supplies 900.00 Copier Rental 133.00 Telephone Service 4 lines @ $150.00 ea (installation fee one time charge) 600.00 Wiring/Jacks- Harper 606.00 Recurring Yearly Charges 7/1 to 9/30 (3 months) 23.50 X 4 lines = 94.00 94.00 X 3 months = 284.00 10/1 to 6/30 (9 months) 10.85 X 4 lines = 43.40 43.40 X 9 months = 390.00 Sub Total 2,913.00 Annual Cost 56,322.00 (3)in view of the District's need to reduce operational Clsarly^ Xn wx x------- -.c------ costs, with personnel costs driving around 75-80% of the total District budget, consideration of eliminating or restructuring the program to achieve its goals at a lowered financial burden is within the Districts' long-term best interest. Tc mzir.tin th status quo is not a fiscally responsible option at this time. To maintain the Alternative three would continue the collaboration with the 3. LRPD in picking up students, a centralized processing point with paid staff. The truants would be taken directly to the assigned schools by the police officer and turned over to a building administrator. A copy of the release form would be sent to Pupil Services as a way to continue to track Each local school would be responsible in but operate without having truants being picked up. for scheduling and documenting the follow-up parent conferences. This arrangement would eliminate expenses, personnel or otherwise, while maintaining a commitment to truancy all operational reduction. Recommended changes would become effective with the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. D. Recommendation It is recommended that alternative three be adopted as a cost This recommendation is cost efficient since no cutting measure. budgetary expenditures are required. E. Objectives 1. To implement a cost effective procedure for compliance with Arkansas compulsory attendance laws. To reduce personnel and operational expenditures for Truancy Reduction by eliminating manpower operation. intensive 2. F. Impact Analysis the partnership with the LRPD in truancy prevention will be continued and the only change is in the reduction of operational expenses, no negative impact is foreseen. Tiffing A final decision of the Center's operation should be made in a timely manner so as to notify staff within contract negotiated timelines. Political Factors Closure of the Center may be perceived by commitment to truancy reduction. some as a lessened (4)G. Resource Analysis (1) Personnel required. Analysis: No personnel expenditures (2) Financial Analysis: be removed from 1996-97 LRSD budget. Operational expenditures would Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation are those charged ...... - ------------'-I future with budget reduction responsibilities for 1996-97 and in years. Detractors to the recommendation may be citizen groups who They supported the Truancy Center's operation form its inception. may perceive this move as a sign of the District lessening its commitment to truancy reduction. as I. General Implementation Plan (1) May, 1996 - Notify Truancy Center personnel of changes in programs operation for the 1996-97 school year. (2) Inform Truancy Steering Committee \u0026amp; Little Rock Police Department of program's redirection. (3) Move appropriate. furnishings and supplies to storage as (5)\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":"bcri_bcri-ohpc_54","title":"Catherine Burks Brooks","collection_id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc","collection_title":"Birmingham Civil Rights Institute Oral History Project Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-04-29"],"dcterms_description":["Catherine Burks Brooks discusses getting involved with Movement after attending Tennessee State University. She participated in the Freedom Rides and spent almost 30 days in Parchman Farm (Mississippi State Penitentiary). She received recognition from Dr. King for her activism."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","Freedom Rides, 1961","The Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (Atlanta,GA.)","Southern Christian Leadership Conference"],"dcterms_title":["Catherine Burks Brooks"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Birmingham Civil Rights Institute (Birmingham, Ala.)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://bcriohp.org/items/show/54"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc_73","title":"Herman Dozier","collection_id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc","collection_title":"Birmingham Civil Rights Institute Oral History Project Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-04-16"],"dcterms_description":["Herman Dozier discusses how refusing to move from a lunch counter in Greensboro, NC lead him to devote his life to the Movement. He worked with SCLC and demonstrated all around the South."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","Police brutality--United States","Southern Christian Leadership Conference"],"dcterms_title":["Herman Dozier"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Birmingham Civil Rights Institute (Birmingham, Ala.)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://bcriohp.org/items/show/73"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc_69","title":"Reuben Davis, II (April 1996)","collection_id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc","collection_title":"Birmingham Civil Rights Institute Oral History Project Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1996-04-03"],"dcterms_description":["Reuben Davis II discusses how his work with the labor movement lead to his political career. He served as one term as a Jefferson County Commissioner."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","Dunbar High School (Bessemer, Ala.)","Jefferson County (Ala.). County Commission"],"dcterms_title":["Reuben Davis, II (April 1996)"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Birmingham Civil Rights Institute (Birmingham, Ala.)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://bcriohp.org/items/show/69"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":454,"next_page":455,"prev_page":453,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":5436,"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}}]}}