DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report for 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Arkansas Archeological Survey Annual Report 2019–2020 Arkansas Archeological Survey Annual Report for 2019–2020 A Division of the University of Arkansas System Arkansas Archeological Survey Annual Report for fiscal year 2019–2020 A Division of the University of Arkansas System Arkansas Archeological Survey Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................1 Highlights for the Year ...............................................................................................................2 Reports of the Survey Research Stations University of Arkansas Fayetteville ...................................................................................... 18 University of Arkansas at Fort Smith ................................................................................... 24 University of Arkansas at Monticello .................................................................................. 28 University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff ..................................................................................... 32 Winthrop Rockefeller Institute ............................................................................................. 38 Arkansas State University....................................................................................................... 44 Henderson State University................................................................................................... 52 Southern Arkansas University............................................................................................... 58 Parkin Archeological State Park ............................................................................................ 64 Toltec Mounds Archeological State Park ............................................................................ 68 Reports of the Coordinating Office, Fayetteville The Survey Director ................................................................................................................ 74 The State Archeologist ............................................................................................................ 78 The Survey Registrar ............................................................................................................... 82 Educational Outreach ............................................................................................................. 86 Sponsored Research Program ............................................................................................... 92 Computer Services and Archaeogeophysical Applications ............................................ 96 Publications Program ............................................................................................................106 Photographic and Graphic Arts ..........................................................................................110 Partners in Preservation .......................................................................................................114 Fiscal & Administrative ........................................................................................................120 How to Contact the Arkansas Archeological Survey .....................................................121 Appendix 1. Reports & Publications by ARAS Staff, 2019–2020 ...............................122 Appendix 2. Presented Papers, Symposia & Workshops, 2019–2020 ........................125 The 2019–2020 Annual Report was compiled and edited, including layout, design, and cover by Deborah Sabo. All photos by ARAS staff unless noted otherwise. No state funds were used to print this document. ii 1 Arkansas Archeological Survey University of Arkansas System Arkansas Archeological Survey Introduction he Arkansas Archeological Survey (ARAS) is a unit of the University of Arkansas System. TOur mission is to study archeological sites in Arkansas, to preserve and manage archeological information and collections, and to communicate what we learn to the people of Arkansas. Coopera- tive agreements with seven state university campuses, two state parks, and the UA System’s Winthrop Rockefeller Institute enable scholars at research stations around the state to carry out this mission. The Survey has been a model for statewide archeological programs in the United States and around the world. Our coordinating office (CO) is located in Fayetteville. The Director, the State Archeologist, the ARAS registrar, the fiscal office, publications staff, and outreach programs operate from the CO. Through our websites and publication series we seek to keep educators, colleagues, and the public informed of new findings. Our registrar maintains a central archive of all archeological site records in the state. The coordinating office building also contains the University of Arkansas Museum -Col lections Facility. The Survey acts as a repository for archeological collections originating from state and federally funded projects in Arkansas, our own research, private consulting firms, and dona- tions. Also at the CO our sponsored research program (SRP) and computer services program (CSP) support themselves in part through grants, contracts, and cost-share agreements with local, state, and federal agencies. The CSP offers an archaeogeophysical program with the latest technologies for nondestructive detection of subsurface features at archeological sites. Professional archeologists at our research stations teach college courses in anthropology and assist their university museums, or develop materials for public interpretation at the state parks, in addition to conducting basic research in their areas. Survey archeologists help to increase our knowledge of the past and its relationship to the present by working closely with local, state, and federal govern- ment agencies, American Indian tribes, college students, school teachers and K-12 students, tourists, fellow scholars, land owners and managers, amateur archeologists, and all Arkansas residents inter- ested in archeology, prehistory, and the early history of the state. At the Survey, science and service go hand-in-hand. George Sabo III, PhD Director ii 1 Arkansas Archeological Survey Annual Report 2019–2020 Highlights for the Year Scientific Achievements & Archeological Mission 2019–2020 • Survey staff authored or coauthored53 print or digital publications and reports, and presented 32 papers or post- ers at meetings and conferences in 2019–2020. • The Survey’sAMASDA database (Automated Management of Archeological Site Data in Arkansas) is one of the oldest and best computerized site file systems in the country. Our computer services program and registrar’s office personnel are constantly working to expand and upgrade the AMASDA system to add new functionality. The system is now available online (password protected) for qualified researchers. Contractors may subscribe per project or for an annual fee. • 412 new archeological sites were recorded, bringing the total number of sites in Arkansas site files to50,162 . • 172 new archeological projects were entered into the database, bringing the projects total to 7,540. Archeological sites recorded into our AMASDA database passed the 50,000 mark this year. Here, Sarah Shepard (ARAS Assistant Registrar) offically puts the stamp onto the site form, with ARAS Director George Sabo looking on. • The Survey registrar facilitated 1,500 requests for informa- tion from the Arkansas site files by students, researchers, and project managers. This included 20 graduate student and aca- demic research projects. We assisted local, state, and federal entities, four American Indian Tribes, and 39 private firms conducting projects in Arkansas. • We conducted projects supported with new funds generated by grants and cost-share agreements totaling $145,668. 2 3 Arkansas Archeological Survey Annual Report 2019–2020 • Despite curtailment of in-person opportunites in March and cancellation of the annual June Training Program due to Covid-19, volunteer participation in our projects totaled 1,384 hours, showing a high level of continued interest in archeology. • Digital Data Collection Initiative. A DDCI working group within ARAS, led by Carl Drexler (ARAS-SAU), devel- oped an action plan to transition us from paper records filled out by hand to use of a digital platform for creating all of the records collected during fieldwork and uploading those records from the field to our servers. This involved making digital versions of the many forms we use (excavation unit level records, feature forms, profile forms, Field Serial Number log sheets, photo record sheets, special sample forms, etc.), selecting associated hardware platforms (weatherized tablets for use in the field), and developing software for uploading the data. Other members of the group were Elizabeth Horton (ARAS-Toltec), the late Jamie Brandon (ARAS-UAF), Emily Beahm (ARAS-WRI), John Samuelsen (ARAS-CSP), and Teka McGlothlin (ARAS-CO). • Our publications program continues to develop with two new Popular Series volumes (No. 6 and No. 7) pub- lished in 2019–2020, and another in production. We have additional submissions to Research Series and Popular Series under review. • Thanks to cooperative effort with the University of Arkansas’s CashNet team, our program now has an online eCommerce storefront, linked from our main website, where individual customers can order books. Online sales were shut down for several months during the pandemic. Ouachita
Recommended publications
  • A Many-Storied Place

    A Many-Storied Place

    A Many-storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator Midwest Region National Park Service Omaha, Nebraska 2017 A Many-Storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator 2017 Recommended: {){ Superintendent, Arkansas Post AihV'j Concurred: Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources, Midwest Region Date Approved: Date Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28 Words spoken by Regional Director Elbert Cox Arkansas Post National Memorial dedication June 23, 1964 Table of Contents List of Figures vii Introduction 1 1 – Geography and the River 4 2 – The Site in Antiquity and Quapaw Ethnogenesis 38 3 – A French and Spanish Outpost in Colonial America 72 4 – Osotouy and the Changing Native World 115 5 – Arkansas Post from the Louisiana Purchase to the Trail of Tears 141 6 – The River Port from Arkansas Statehood to the Civil War 179 7 – The Village and Environs from Reconstruction to Recent Times 209 Conclusion 237 Appendices 241 1 – Cultural Resource Base Map: Eight exhibits from the Memorial Unit CLR (a) Pre-1673 / Pre-Contact Period Contributing Features (b) 1673-1803 / Colonial and Revolutionary Period Contributing Features (c) 1804-1855 / Settlement and Early Statehood Period Contributing Features (d) 1856-1865 / Civil War Period Contributing Features (e) 1866-1928 / Late 19th and Early 20th Century Period Contributing Features (f) 1929-1963 / Early 20th Century Period
  • Further Investigations Into the King George

    Further Investigations Into the King George

    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2010 Further investigations into the King George Island Mounds site (16LV22) Harry Gene Brignac Jr Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Brignac Jr, Harry Gene, "Further investigations into the King George Island Mounds site (16LV22)" (2010). LSU Master's Theses. 2720. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/2720 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE KING GEORGE ISLAND MOUNDS SITE (16LV22) A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Geography and Anthropology By Harry Gene Brignac Jr. B.A. Louisiana State University, 2003 May, 2010 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to give thanks to God for surrounding me with the people in my life who have guided and supported me in this and all of my endeavors. I have to express my greatest appreciation to Dr. Rebecca Saunders for her professional guidance during this entire process, and for her inspiration and constant motivation for me to become the best archaeologist I can be.
  • 2004 Midwest Archaeological Conference Program

    2004 Midwest Archaeological Conference Program

    Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 47 2004 Program and Abstracts of the Fiftieth Midwest Archaeological Conference and the Sixty-First Southeastern Archaeological Conference October 20 – 23, 2004 St. Louis Marriott Pavilion Downtown St. Louis, Missouri Edited by Timothy E. Baumann, Lucretia S. Kelly, and John E. Kelly Hosted by Department of Anthropology, Washington University Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-St. Louis Timothy E. Baumann, Program Chair John E. Kelly and Timothy E. Baumann, Co-Organizers ISSN-0584-410X Floor Plan of the Marriott Hotel First Floor Second Floor ii Preface WELCOME TO ST. LOUIS! This joint conference of the Midwest Archaeological Conference and the Southeastern Archaeological Conference marks the second time that these two prestigious organizations have joined together. The first was ten years ago in Lexington, Kentucky and from all accounts a tremendous success. Having the two groups meet in St. Louis is a first for both groups in the 50 years that the Midwest Conference has been in existence and the 61 years that the Southeastern Archaeological Conference has met since its inaugural meeting in 1938. St. Louis hosted the first Midwestern Conference on Archaeology sponsored by the National Research Council’s Committee on State Archaeological Survey 75 years ago. Parts of the conference were broadcast across the airwaves of KMOX radio, thus reaching a larger audience. Since then St. Louis has been host to two Society for American Archaeology conferences in 1976 and 1993 as well as the Society for Historical Archaeology’s conference in 2004. When we proposed this joint conference three years ago we felt it would serve to again bring people together throughout most of the mid-continent.
  • University of Oklahoma

    University of Oklahoma

    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE ALTERNATE PATHWAYS TO RITUAL POWER: EVIDENCE FOR CENTRALIZED PRODUCTION AND LONG-DISTANCE EXCHANGE BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CADDO COMMUNITIES A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By SHAWN PATRICK LAMBERT Norman, Oklahoma 2017 ALTERNATE PATHWAYS TO RITUAL POWER: EVIDENCE FOR CENTRALIZED PRODUCTION AND LONG-DISTANCE EXCHANGE BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CADDO COMMUNITIES A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY BY ______________________________ Dr. Patrick Livingood, Chair ______________________________ Dr. Asa Randall ______________________________ Dr. Amanda Regnier ______________________________ Dr. Scott Hammerstedt ______________________________ Dr. Diane Warren ______________________________ Dr. Bonnie Pitblado ______________________________ Dr. Michael Winston © Copyright by SHAWN PATRICK LAMBERT 2017 All Rights Reserved. Dedication I dedicate my dissertation to my loving grandfather, Calvin McInnish and wonderful twin sister, Kimberly Dawn Thackston. I miss and love you. Acknowledgements First and foremost, I want to give my sincerest gratitude to Patrick Livingood, my committee chair, who has guided me through seven years of my masters and doctoral work. I could not wish for a better committee chair. I also want to thank Amanda Regnier and Scott Hammerstedt for the tremendous amount of work they put into making me the best possible archaeologist. I would also like to thank Asa Randall. His level of theoretical insight is on another dimensional plane and his Advanced Archaeological Theory class is one of the best I ever took at the University of Oklahoma. I express appreciation to Bonnie Pitblado, not only for being on my committee but emphasizing the importance of stewardship in archaeology.
  • GOP Ticket Leads in Arkansas

    GOP Ticket Leads in Arkansas

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 22, 2014 INTERVIEWS: Tom Jensen 919-744-6312 IF YOU HAVE BASIC METHODOLOGICAL QUESTIONS, PLEASE E-MAIL [email protected], OR CONSULT THE FINAL PARAGRAPH OF THE PRESS RELEASE GOP ticket leads in Arkansas Raleigh, N.C. – PPP's newest Arkansas poll finds Republicans leading across the board in the state's key races for this year, led by Tom Cotton with a 43/38 advantage over Mark Pryor and Asa Hutchinson with a 44/38 lead over Mike Ross at the top of the ticket. Cotton's lead is up slightly from 41/39 on our previous poll. Voters aren't in love with him- 40% see him favorably to 41% with an unfavorable opinion. But Pryor continues to have tough approval ratings, with 36% giving him good marks to 51% who disapprove. Both candidates are receiving 77% of the vote from within their own party but Cotton has a substantial advantage with independents, getting 53% of their vote to 20% for Pryor. The Governor's race is pretty steady with Hutchinson's 44/38 lead little changed from 43/38 in early August. Hutchinson has positive favorability numbers (43/35) while voters are pretty closely divided in their feelings about Ross (35/36). The strong GOP advantage with independent voters carries over to this race too- 48% support Hutchinson to 23% for Ross. Barack Obama has a 31/62 approval rating in Arkansas, including 13/80 with independents, and that's probably making things hard for the Democratic ticket in the state. The news isn't all bad for progressives in Arkansas.
  • Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson

    Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson

    April 7, 2020 The Honorable Asa Hutchinson Governor of the State of Arkansas State Capitol Room 250 500 Woodlane Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Governor Hutchinson: As our nation faces the massive challenGe of respondinG to a Global pandemic, you have demonstrated leadership by issuing several executive orders that have been designed to curb the spread of COVID-19 in Arkansas. Your April 4 executive order reaffirmed the state’s restriction on mass GatherinGs of more than ten people,1 which is in line with the recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance.2 Unfortunately, Saturday’s order continues to exempt houses of worship from this ban and merely “advise[s]” that places of worship adhere to social distancinG protocols.3 The failure to include houses of worship in the mass gatherinG ban is particularly surprising considering that you have recognized that allowing houses of worship to continue to hold mass GatherinGs “endanGers not just the people at the church but the community as well”4 and that Arkansas houses of worship, such as the Jonesboro Awaken Church, have said they would comply with an order to stop GatherinG.5 This existinG reliGious exemption allows reliGious GatherinGs to continue under circumstances deemed too dangerous for secular gatherings, putting the public health at risk. We write to explain why this exemption is not only detrimental to public health but also unconstitutional and to urGe you to revoke it immediately. Mass Gathering Bans Are Critical to Saving Lives AccordinG to the CDC, “larGe events and mass GatherinGs can contribute to the spread of COVID-19 in the United States via travelers who attend these events and introduce the virus to new communities.”6 Attendance at these GatherinGs is danGerous not just for the individuals who attend, but for all of us.
  • An Intensive Surface Collection and Intrasite Spatial Analysis of the Archaeological Materials from the Coy Mound Site (3LN20), Central Arkansas

    An Intensive Surface Collection and Intrasite Spatial Analysis of the Archaeological Materials from the Coy Mound Site (3LN20), Central Arkansas

    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 4-2004 An Intensive Surface Collection and Intrasite Spatial Analysis of the Archaeological Materials from the Coy Mound Site (3LN20), Central Arkansas William Glenn Hill Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Hill, William Glenn, "An Intensive Surface Collection and Intrasite Spatial Analysis of the Archaeological Materials from the Coy Mound Site (3LN20), Central Arkansas" (2004). Master's Theses. 3873. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/3873 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN INTENSIVE SURFACE COLLECTION AND INTRASITE SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS FROM THE COY MOUND SITE (3LN20), CENTRAL ARKANSAS by William Glenn Hill A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degreeof Master of Arts Department of Anthropology WesternMichigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan April 2004 Copyright by William Glenn Hill 2004 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Foremost, my pursuit in archaeology would be less meaningful without the accomplishments of Dr. Randall McGuire, Dr. H. Martin Wobst, and Dr. Michael Nassaney. They have provided a theoretical perspective in archaeology that has integrated and given greater meaning to my own social and archaeological interests. I would especially like to especially thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Michael Nassaney, for the stimulating opportunity to explore research within this theoretical perspective, and my other committee members, Dr.
  • Schenectady County Historical Society

    Schenectady County Historical Society

    Schenectady County Historical Society Newsletter Vol. 63, No. 1, Winter 2019 | 518.374.0263 | schenectadyhistorical.org A Dotted Landscape: Piecing Together the History of Schenectady County's Forgotten Farms By Julia Walsh Schenectady County is in a state of revival. New events, businesses, initiatives and people have been coming to the city and surrounding communities to make their mark on one of the oldest settlements in New York State. As a native to the area, I see two sides to this; it is great to see a new swing of development, making Schenectady attractive to those who don’t already call it home. However, as developers seem to be changing the cityscape ever faster, it is interesting to note where nature has taken its course. As part of my 2018 internship with the SCHS, I explored several locations in rural Schenectady County abandoned by their former residents. For most of its history, Schenectady County’s economy was primarily agricultural. Farms dotted the landscape from Duanesburg to Princetown to Rotterdam. With the 20th century came a transition from farming to industry. Suburbs began to sprawl, bolstered by the growth of GE and the development of the automobile. The landscape and the culture of Schenectady County changed dramatically during the 1900s, as towns like Glenville became suburbs of city employees. Locals shifted their aspirations from self-sufficient or market-enterprising farms to a house in the GE plot and a college degree. The demographics of Duanesburg and Princetown changed as suburbanites moved in and farmers moved out. Today, many farms lay abandoned, their fields ever fallow.
  • University of Oklahoma

    University of Oklahoma

    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE WISTER AREA FOURCHE MALINE: A CONTESTED LANDSCAPE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By SIMONE BACHMAI ROWE Norman, OKlahoma 2014 WISTER AREA FOURCHE MALINE: A CONTESTED LANDSCAPE A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY BY ______________________________ Dr. Lesley RanKin-Hill, Co-Chair ______________________________ Dr. Don Wyckoff, Co-Chair ______________________________ Dr. Diane Warren ______________________________ Dr. Patrick Livingood ______________________________ Dr. Barbara SafiejKo-Mroczka © Copyright by SIMONE BACHMAI ROWE 2014 All Rights Reserved. This work is dedicated to those who came before, including my mother Nguyen Thi Lac, and my Granny (Mildred Rowe Cotter) and Bob (Robert Cotter). Acknowledgements I have loved being a graduate student. It’s not an exaggeration to say that these have been the happiest years of my life, and I am incredibly grateful to everyone who has been with me on this journey. Most importantly, I would like to thank the Caddo Nation and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes for allowing me to work with the burials from the Akers site. A great big thank you to my committee members, Drs. Lesley Rankin-Hill, Don Wyckoff, Barbara Safjieko-Mrozcka, Patrick Livingood, and Diane Warren, who have all been incredibly supportive, helpful, and kind. Thank you also to the Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, where most of this work was carried out. I am grateful to many of the professionals there, including Curator of Archaeology Dr. Marc Levine and Collections Manager Susie Armstrong-Fishman, as well as Curator Emeritus Don Wyckoff, and former Collection Managers Liz Leith and Dr.
  • Test Excavations at Prehistoric Site 41SM203, Smith County, Texas

    Test Excavations at Prehistoric Site 41SM203, Smith County, Texas

    Volume 1997 Article 23 1997 Test Excavations at Prehistoric Site 41SM203, Smith County, Texas Glenn T. Goode Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita Part of the American Material Culture Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Other American Studies Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, and the United States History Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Cite this Record Goode, Glenn T. (1997) "Test Excavations at Prehistoric Site 41SM203, Smith County, Texas," Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 1997, Article 23. https://doi.org/10.21112/ita.1997.1.23 ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol1997/iss1/23 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Regional Heritage Research at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State by an authorized editor of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Test Excavations at Prehistoric Site 41SM203, Smith County, Texas Licensing Statement This is a work produced for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) by the report producer. TxDOT and the report producer jointly own all rights, title, and interest in and to all intellectual property developed under TxDOT’s contract with the report producer. The report may be cited and brief passages from this publication may be reproduced without permission provided that credit is given to both TxDOT and the report producer.
  • Meet the Candidates: 2014 Arkansas Gubernatorial Race Sarah C

    Meet the Candidates: 2014 Arkansas Gubernatorial Race Sarah C

    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Policy Briefs Office for Education Policy 4-9-2014 Meet the Candidates: 2014 Arkansas Gubernatorial Race Sarah C. McKenzie University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Gary W. Ritter University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/oepbrief Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Education Law Commons, and the Education Policy Commons Recommended Citation McKenzie, Sarah C. and Ritter, Gary W., "Meet the Candidates: 2014 Arkansas Gubernatorial Race" (2014). Policy Briefs. 38. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/oepbrief/38 This Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Office for Education Policy at ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Policy Briefs by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Vol. 11 Issue 2 Office for Education Policy April 2014 This Brief Meet the Candidates: Introduction P.1 Quotes From the Candidates Arkansas Governor’s Race Interviews with the Candidates P.2 “We need to return to giving Conclusion P.4 more opportunity for stu- Earlier this spring, we at the OEP dents to select a career path were fortunate to sit down with three to present a long-form interview that may not include a bac- of the candidates vying to become the with each candidate answering calaureate.” next Governor of Arkansas. The candi- questions on individuals from dif- ~Curtis Coleman, Republican ferent sides of the political aisle, devel- dates were generous enough to give us their time and allow us to post the full oped a uniform set education policy in “By 2025, I want every 4- interviews on YouTube.
  • Whitewater Scandal Essential Question: What Was the Whitewater Scandal About? How Did It Change Arkansas? Guiding Question and Objectives

    Whitewater Scandal Essential Question: What Was the Whitewater Scandal About? How Did It Change Arkansas? Guiding Question and Objectives

    Lesson Plan #4 Arkansas History Whitewater Scandal Essential Question: What was the Whitewater Scandal about? How did it change Arkansas? Guiding Question and Objectives: 1. Explain the impact of the Whitewater Scandal and how this effected the public and the people involved. 2. How do politicians and the politics make an impact on the world? 3. Is there an ethical way to deal with a scandal? NCSS strands I. Culture II. Time, Continuity, and Change III. People, Places, and Environments IV. Individual Development and Identity V. Individuals, Groups, and Institutions AR Curriculum Frameworks: PD.5.C.3 Evaluate various influences on political parties during the electoral process (e.g., interest groups, lobbyists, Political Action Committees [PACs], major events) Teacher Background information: The Whitewater controversy (also known as the Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater) began with an investigation into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s. — http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/ encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=4061 Materials needed: The Whitewater Scandal reading —see handout Assessment —see handout Opening activity: Ask what the Whitewater Scandal might be? Plot information on the board and guide the students into the direction of the Bill Clinton’s presidency. Activities: 7 minutes—Discuss and determine what the Whitewater Scandal might be. 25 minutes—Read the handout, take notes, and discuss materials while displaying the information opposed to strict lecturing. 30 minutes—Complete the assessment and have students share their findings. 28 minutes—Students will discuss their findings and discuss their impressions of the scandal.