{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1135","title":"Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations","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":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations"],"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/1135"],"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\nExhibit 310A\nphotocopies\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 1 of 2 IN-DEPTH PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description: Facilities service includes resources to identify, plan and execute maintenance/repair programs equitably so that Little Rock School District students can receive efficient, functional and effective education. Specifically, facilities includes maintenance programs to maintain/repair all District facilities in an equitable condition commensurate with financial resources and District priorities. Purpose: The purpose operation's necessary to critical as management. of the Facilities Program is part of the base costs to maintain the buildings and grounds support the educational mission. This program is it encompasses all aspects of real property Scope and Content: The Facilities Program encompasses the repair of all existing facilities, grounds and other real property, the maintenance thereof, new construction to support academic initiatives, all real estate actions to include leases, purchasing of property, selling of property, easements, grants, rights-of-way and licenses. It is extenqed to include the base operation costs of utility payments covering electric, water, gas, refuse, entomology and any other miscellaneous services. It includes long-range planning, responsibilities with regard to new construction, maintenance, acquisition and closing of facilities. Participants/Beneficiaries: The Facilities Program is a base operations program that supports all persons that work for the Little Rock School District, are educated by its programs, or visit its facilities. Program Goals: To equitably maintain and repair facilities to support academic programs, student enrollment and administrative support, the Little Rock School District is committed to insure for all students equitable educational facilities and schools which are located in lower socio-economic areas shall receive attention and resources at least equal to those in more affluent areas in the District. 1 Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria for the objectives listed in the Facilities Program consists principally of historical records indicating requests and completions of maintenance and repair work. The evaluation criteria is geared .specifically to the objectives as outlined in the Desegregation Plan, Court Orders and OD~ Reports. They do not require a relative measure of success, but merely to report numbers of requests made and completions and the percent thereof. Evaluation Results: There is no measurable scale of success against which the evaluation can be made. The objectives reported in the Facilities Program Budget Document, as stated previously, merely report the percent of completion of requests made of the Facilities Program. There is no set goal that can be equated to measure this quantity. The amount of work completed has too many variables to establish a set percent to be achieved in any given reporting period. This is due to the complexity of the requests, the nature of the requests, the total number and the resources allocated to complete that goal, coupled with the priority. Objective #1: To maintain all school facilities such that they are in a safe, operational condition, and to repair, as necessary, commensurate with resources. Discussion fl: The overall level of success indicates that we have met our objective on all reporting periods. It is to be reasonably expected that the percent completed of the items listed under \"Strategies\" will vary commensurate with the amount of work and the resources allocated these initiatives. Since there is no measure of success or pre-determined percent which must be completed, one can only assume that all work that could reasonably be accomplished during the reporting period was done so, and all uncompleted work will carry forth to the next reporting period. Objective #2: The capacities of junior high schools will be reviewed in light of needed programs. Such capacities will then be revised as necessary. Discussion #2: This objective was met in 1993 and later evaluated in 1994. It will be recommended that this objective be deleted from the Program Budget Document. Objective #3: Concrete walks and macadam drives will be in good repair. Discussion #3: This is a subjective evaluation. The numbers of requests made, and the numbers completed, are what is reported. It is not possible to establish a desired level of completion because the work is received at various times during the reporting period such that the complexities of scheduling and allocated resources will vary the completion rate. Objective #4: New public address systems and bell systems will be placed in buildings where such items are not repairable. Discussion #4: Almost eighty percent (80%) of the requests made during the last reporting period have been completed. This is a program, like others, which is ongoing and which will be funded commensurate with approved funding levels. Objective #5: Any school which has portable buildings will have these buildings replaced with new units or repaired so that they will be in a condition suitable for use. Discussion #5: Sixty-two percent ( 62%) of the work requested of the Directorate was completed during the last reporting period. Objective #6: All school construction shall be subject to the Court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation. New construction must be approved by the Court. l l Discussion #6: This is an ongoing strategy. There are no requirements pending at this time. There is no need for further evaluation of this objective. Objective #7: Modify building space to increase library capacities at Mitchell and Garland, purge the shelves of outdated, well-worn materials at Mitchell. Books most frequently used by the Four-Year Old Program, Kindergarten, and First Grades could be permanently placed in the individual classrooms since those grades are all housed in structures that are detached from the main building. Discussion #7: The portion of this objective allocated to the Facilities Program was completed in 1992. Objective #8: Franklin: Repair or replace the roof on each level of the building. Replace all ceiling tiles damaged by water leaks. Repaint interior walls as needed. Discussion #8: Most of these repairs have been completed. The ones that have been requested have been attended to. This building is scheduled for painting during School Year '94 - '95. Objective #9: Garland: Determine the feasibility of adding bathrooms on the second floor of the building. Increase the size of the Media Center and relocating the building's main entrance. Discussion #9: This assessment and report was completed and filed in 1992. No further evaluation is needed. Objective #10: Ish: Professionally evaluate the structural condition of the building and correct the many problems caused by the leaking roof. May be necessary to add a new slope roof. Unsightly classroom bathrooms would be repaired at once by those qualified to deal with asbestos. Exterior lighting should be repaired or replaced and the building's trim painted. once the roof no longer leaks, the entire interior should be repainted. Discussion #10: This objective was completed and reported in October of 1992. Objective #11: Mitchell: Correct the drainage problems and then replace the water-damaged carpeting in the GT room. Address the shortage of Media Center space, possibly by adding bookshelves to the second floor hallway near the Librarian's Office which is located in a kiosk area. Also consider adding more shelves to create storage space within existing Media Center. Discussion #11: This requirement requires no further evaluation. It was completed in 1992. Objective #12: Rightsell: Eliminate the moisture problem at the school. Professionals with restoration experience involved to help solve problems of the final Playground should receive major improvements additional age appropriate equipment. Discussion #12: should be building. including This objective does not require further evaluation since it has not been completed. Objective #13: Rockefeller: Install a new heating and cooling system if the effectiveness of the present system is not corrected by the recently-replaced room thermostats. Discussion #13: This assessment was made and the correction was completed in 1992. Objective #14: Stephens: Stephens' objective is to be deleted since the school has been demolished. l Discussion #14: NIA Objective #15: _,. ... ,, All seven (7) incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, the custodial staff should be trained in proper plant care. Many Little Rock School District schools have lost mature plantings to improper and over-zealous pruning by District wo:tkers, or from under-watering in times of summer heat and drought. Discussion #\n15: This is an ongoing problem. Guidance has been given the facilities. It will continue to be monitored. There is no level of success against which this objective can be measured. Objective #16: Give the incentive schools priority in the District sequencing of capital improvement projects since doublefunding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. Buildings must be sound, attractive and well-maintained. Discussion #16: This objective was met when the capital improvements project was prioritized in 1990. Objective #17: The District has stated it would make adjustments to the Omaha Formula to meet the needs of buildings like McClellan that have special needs. Discussion #17: The custodial program is accountable by the Omaha Formula which is used by this District to proportion its custodial resources to its many facilities. This program is evaluated on a periodic basis. Every time there is an addition or change to a major facility structure the custodial structure is re-examined. It was last reexamined in December of 1993. It was submitted to the District and approved. Adjustments were made. The custodial program, at the present time, has sufficient manpower resources to meet its permanent needs. Temporary custodial needs, however, must be addressed by a separate correspondence. Obstacles to Goal Attainment: There is one principal obstacle to the desired goal attainment of an equitable Facilities Program, and that is resources. The Plant Services Directorate is far below the national and regional averages, and as such, falls further behind as its backlog of maintenance and repair increases on a yearly basis. The amount of work identified district-wide to keep our buildings in a good state of repair, and at an educational standard to support our programs, is mounting every year. With level or decreased funding each year, the backlog continues to increase. It is only through a higher funding level that we will be able to maintain our facilities to meet our operational needs. Recommendations: The Facilities Program, as reported under the Program Budget document, provides no guidance nor equitable measure to the Superintendent or Board of Directors on the success of the Facilities Program. This is something that is not measurable. The bulk of the Facilities Program is reacting to requests made by Facility Managers. As those requests are made, they are prioritized and they are funded. The addition of funds and resources would most assuredly allow more work to be accomplished by having it first identified, scheduled, and then completed. Without the resources to further identify additional work, it is not possible to identify how much work could be scheduled, and hence completed, thereby determining additional resources. Many of the items in the Facility Program Budget Document have been completed, and it has been recommended that they be deleted from this program. Recommendation fl: My recommendation would be to restructure the way the School District assesses its facilities. The bottom-line effort of the Little Rock School District is two-fold: 1) To maintain all of its facilities in a safe and orderly fashion to meet the goals of its educational program. 1. l DCE/rlh/pe 2) To insure that the resources allocated the Plant services Director are equitably spent such that no schools are given favoritism for resources over others. The establishment of the priority system, which is in place at the Plant Services Directorate, insures that this happens. It is only through outside pressures and perception of conditions in the past that the Facilities Program of equitable spending is sometimes off-balance. I would recommend that additional resources be given the Plant Services Directorate, such that they approximate at least the regional or national average of the CWE per school district to allow it to maintain its facilities to meet the goals as stated above. A business case is recommended. The overall recommendation is likely to have an increase in budgetary impact. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1) The program being evaluated as outlined in the desegregation portion of the Program Budget Document specifically identifies items in the Desegregation Plan and Court Orders and ODM Reports that do not give an overall view of the Facilities Program. The Program Budget Document merely responds to specific areas of concern and does not adequately see nor measure the Facilities Program. The Facilities Program is general engineering support to the entire district. As stated on page one of this document, it encompasses all aspects of the engineering program to support the many facilities. It goes far beyond seventeen (17) specific items as outlined in the Budget Document. 2) The data that has been used to analyze this program is simply a tally of work order requests as made by the Facilities' Managers and as recorded by the Plant Services Directorate. All recommendations listed here are considered in the support area. 3) There are no desegregation funds allotted the program under the Little Rock School District budget. This is not a prudent area to be reported, nor commented on for the purposes of monetary programming. DCE/rlh/pe\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1193","title":"Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations","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":["1994/1995"],"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 innovations","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations"],"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/1193"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nExhibit 310A\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 1 of 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION : EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 1 of 2 SEQ# 14 03 227 23 233 24 230 33 231 07 02 207 213 215 01 228 15 13 226 222 223 224 79 78 25/225 05 203 21 204 08 EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS (Alphabetical Order) Program Name Academic Progress Incentive Grant Academic Support Program Communication Services Computerized Transportation Contingencies Data Processing(deseg) Data Processing Services (non-deseg) Facilities Family Life Education/New Futures Federal Programs Four-Year-Old Program Gifted and Talented Guidance Services Health Services/Nursing Services HIPPY Human Resources Services McClellan Community School New Futures Planning and Evaluation Plant Services Pupil Transportation Purchasing Services Rockefeller Early Childhood Romine Interdistrict Safety and Security School Closings Special Education/Learning Center (deseg) Special Education (non-deseg) Staff Development Student Assessment Substitute Teacher Vocational Education (non-deseg) Vocational Education (deseg) EXTENDED EVALUATION ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT (APIG) Program Description 1990 - 1991 The Academic Progress Incentive Grant (APIG) was first made available to each area school principal in the 1990-91 school year in the sum of $25,000. The process to be followed was for each school principal to write a proposal attached to a budget sheet identifying items and cost as related to the proposal being submitted. The use of the money was to be directly connected to and support of the school's yearly annual school plan. The school plan was developed cooperatively by the principal and staff with parent committee input. All participants were in agreement that the annual school plan supported the goals of the Little Rock School District as well as the following goal objectives. LRSD Goals 1. To increase educational achievement of all students with specific emphasis on closing disparities in achievement. 2. To establish climates of educational excellence in all schools through: a) providing equitable educational opportunities for all students m a desegregated learning environment\nb) enabling all students to develop a lifelong capacity and love for learning\nc) leading all students to be productive contributors in the school, the community and the workplace d) providing a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students. 3. To enhance human relations skills for principals, teachers, and central office administrators. 1. APIG Objectives To increase the academic achievement for identified students in the core curricular areas by providing teachers with a broad base of resources and equipment. To provide varied enrichment activities that would broaden identified students' experience base. 1 3. To involve parents as full partners in planning at schools for identified students' growth and success. 4. To provide staff development activities which meet the specific needs of identified students. The grant proposals were then to be forwarded to the Academic Progress Grant Committee for review and approval. Upon approval, the budget sheet was forwarded to the Financial Services Department, and budget codes were set up for the individual schools to use in purchasing the items requested. The respective assistant superintendent over the area schools who monitored the school's annual plan would review incoming requisitions to see if the purchases requested related to the school's plan. The schools' grant proposals were slow in corning in that year in addition to many of the grants being returned to principals for revisions. Several schools were successful in receiving early approval in the first semester for the full amount. The majority of schools, however, did not receive grant approval until late January and early February of 1991 and not for the full amount. Even though the money was received on a late timeline, it did enable the schools to purchase needed equipment, materials, supplementary reading materials, enrichment trips, etc. for all students as well as providing funds for some tutoring assistance to their at-risk groups before the MPT (Minimum Performance Test) and MAT-6 (Metropolitan Achievement Test Edition 6) test dates. Considering the timeline with a week out for Spring Break and two to three weeks scheduled for MPT and MAT-6 testing, the principals were asked only to write a narrative for the grant evaluations that would be no longer than three typed pages describing the status of their grant. The report was to include: 1. Identification of local school grant goals. 2. A description of the results. 3. Identification of any proposed change for the 1991-92 school year, if possible. These narratives were attached to the school's annual report and forwarded to their assistant superintendents. 1991 - 1992 In the second year of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant, the funds were frozen the first semester of the school year. Once the funds were released, the procedures set forward for application were the same as outlined in the 1990-91 school year except for one change. 2 The school grant proposals were now to come to the assistant superintendent over the school and then forwarded to the associate's office for his signature. Principals, teachers, and parents worked together to develop tutoring schedules for their atrisk students. After-school programs and Saturday programs were implemented to assist their various targeted groups. All of this was possible because of the funds received. During this year a new standardized test, Stanford 8, was given in the place of the MAT-6 test. Principals were asked to use the same reporting format in describing the status of their grant. The narrative was to be attached to their annual school report and forwarded to their assistant superintendent. 1992-93 In the third year of the APIG, the funds were reduced to $10,000 for which the area schools could apply. Again, many of these grants were not funded until November due to the busy schedules at the beginning of the school year. The principals were to use the same format for applying and reporting as was used in the 1991-92 school year. Focused Activities - Each area school shall have a fundamentally sound and strong basic educational program. Each area school shall also have the option of developing focused activities (which may center around a theme) after appropriate community and parental involvement. All focused activities must promote the desegregation objectives ordered by the court. SUMMARY: Focused Activities - The purpose of the focused activities shall be threefold: (1) to promote the school as a \"community of learning\" among parents, staff and students\n(2) to provide enrichment opportunities at the building level\n(3) to ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the elementary area schools. The focused activities of each area school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the . school's environment and day-to-day activities. The academic performance of area school students will indicate achievement gained partially as a result of enrichment experiences provided by the core program and enrichment activities. Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extended the core curricular activities. All are:i. schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. A steering committee was appointed to chair the inservice for the principals in order to implement Focus Activities in their schools. The principals were then to establish a school based committee who would develop an activities action plan for the school year. From this action plan a checklist would be developed by the school's 3 i. ,- I' activities coordinator. The principal and school committee were to use the checklist to monitor the program. The activities coordinator would prepare a report each semester to be submitted to the assistant superintendent for review. The grant was to be reviewed by a district committee and the proposal, if approved would be granted. Program Goals The program goals listed below will ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations: 1) The grant opportunity would enrich each district's elementary curriculum to achieve greater racial balance through voluntary interdistrict and intradistrict transfers. 2) The Little Rock School District will establish an Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program, the goals of which will be to (a) improve the education of all students and (b) reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. 3) Each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will provide focused activities for the total school population including attention to gender, race and socio-economic issues. 4) Each school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members and parents are totally involved and supportive. 5) The focused activities of each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the school's environment and day-to-day activities. 6) All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. 7) All elementary area schools will be viewed by the Community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. Evaluation Criteria Academic Incentive Grant Program - The number of low achievers will decrease as evidenced by upward quartile movement on the norm referenced test. 4 Focused Activities - At the end of each school year, the activities coordinator will include focused activities in a district-wide report. This report will focus on the following items: 1) the degree to which each focused activities have been interrelated with the core curriculum\n2) the number of enrichment activities that broadened the students' experience based\n3) the amount of parental involvement\n4) academic achievement as reflected on standardized tests and yearly grade reports\n5) the racial and socio-economic composition of the student population in each elementary area school\n6) the number of voluntary majority to minority transfers\n7) the type and amount of enrichment materials/supplies/purchased by each elementary area school through the focused activities budget\n8) the type and number of staff-development activities at each elementary school. Evaluation Results Evidence from the principals' narrative reports and surveys indicate that funds received from the APIG proposal over the three-year period were used to support the school plan as \"it related to the goals of the district.\" The programs and projects were numerous and were targeted to assist groups of students as well as the total school population. The selection of targeted groups are as follows: Principals and staff disaggregate test data by grade levels. Students that are 39 NCE and below go to the Reading Academic Support Program for assistance and those students below 30 NCE go to the Math Academic Support Program. The students whose NCE scores are between 40 and 49.9 NCE have not been eligible for the Academic Support Program. With the AIPG funds, plans can be made to assist these groups of students in the area of need in addition to any of the other who are in the Academic Support Program. At the conclusion of each school year, the principals would then submit in the narrative the names of the projects that were implemented, the list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. All of the reporting schools used their funds to provide activities interrelated to the core curriculum. It is also noted that school climate surveys 5 were used to target areas needing improvement. As a result of this data, principals, staff, and parents tried hard to provide a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students. An intense incentive progr:im was implemented to encourage good behavior. There were reports made by principals, staff, and parents, and program participants of the overall positive results that they could identify as happening for the benefit of the students. However, with all of the favorable behavior changes that were confirmed, achievement data did not reflect that the grants led to the disparity reduction that had been desired. Focus Activities - The Focus Activities of each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will be integra~ed into the core curriculum or reflected in the school's environment and day-to-day activities. All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extended the core curricular activities. Evidence - Academic Incentive Grant - The percentage of elementary principals reporting that their Academic Incentive Grant funds aided in the reduction of disparity on targeted groups are on file. Focused Activities - Steering committees have been identified in the area schools. To date, four proposals have been submitted for approval. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Obj. 1.0 To implement focused activities in elementary area schools.  Not Achieved The Focused Activities grant was provided to the schools in the spring of 1994. No data has been collected. Obj. 1 To provide means of local area schools to (A) improve the education of fill students, and (B) reduce the disparitv in achievement among students of different racial, socio-economic, and gender.  Not Achieved The quality of education was improved but not for ALL children. The lateness of funding did not provide for opportunities to organize and implement model programs. Eighteen weeks (second semester minus two weeks for testing and one for spring break) was not sufficient time to bring about the necessary academic improvement to offset the disparity in achievement levels. The $25,000 to Sl0,000 for the 1992-93 APIG. 6 Time prohibited the collection and analysis of data in order to provide uniform conclusions about the effectiveness of programming under the APIG. Parental support was limited in the planning and evaluation process. At the secondary level the majority of the impact of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant has been in directed assistance to the development of identified students in programs after the regular school day ends. Such an arrangement limits availability of students for program participation due w extra curricular activities, family responsibilities, and employment of students. Also, there is a need in some instances to show a more direct relationship between the strategies employed in a proposal and the attainment of the proposal goals under the Academic Progress Incentive Grant. Focused Activities - Proposals are presently being submitted and approved for the first time during the 1994-95 school year. Recommendation: Objective: Evaluation Criteria: Expected Benefits: Impact Analysis: Resource Analysis: Recommendations It is recommended that the Little Rock School District concentrate on the implementation of its new curriculum and standards. It is also recommended that any extra remediation be supported by the Chapter I funding and the Special Summer School for K-3. Discontinue the Academic Progress Incentive Grant and the Focused Activities Grant for the 1994-95 school year. The K-3 summer School and Chapter I evaluation will be utilized for documentation. The deletion of the APIG will provide the district in assisting with budget cuts and will enable schools to concentrate and implement a more uniform curriculum across the district. This is the fifth year for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants to be offered to area schools. Obligations implemented at this time will support the desegregation plan and address court orders favorally. Some principals, parents and board members may want to assure that extra funding is provided to the area schools :or equity reasons. The district will save a total of $445,000 by discontinuing both grants. (See graph below) 7 Elementary Junior High Senior High Total Schools Area Schools Area Schools Schools (3) (25) (4) APJG $10,000 $250,000 $40,000 $30,000 $320,000 Focused 5,000 125,000 125,000 - TOTAL $375,000 $40,000 $30,000 $445,000 Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the parties involved in planning the budget for the 95-96 school year. Comments from previously principals in evaluations suggest that they will also support this recommendation. General Implementation Plans: The grant proposals will not be submitted in the 1995-96 school year budget. The Board will have to agree on this recommendation and the ultimate decision may be made by the federal courts. The programs will be evaluated at the end of this school year by the principals and the selection committee. Business Case is recommended: ___ Yes  No Plan modification is recommended:  Yes ___ No No budgetary impact. ___ _ Increased costs Decreased costs  8 Purpose ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM IN-DEPTH PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description The purpose of the Academic Support Program is to provide support for participating students in grades one through twelve in the areas of reading, language arts, and mathematics. The program reinforces and enhances the academic achievem~nt of these targeted students. The support is provided by certified reading specialists and English and mathematics teachers in the regular classroom, in additional classes, and in labs. scope and content All of the District's remediation programs are part of the Academic Support Program. All such programs are located at the individual school sites, except the Metropolitan VocationalTechnical Education Center. The Academic support Program offers a variety of options to the individual schools for providing accelerated reading/language arts and mathematics learning experiences for students identified through a process using multiple criteria. The program is characterized by providing either direct or indirect services to identified students through additional classes, smaller class sizes, or in-class assistance at the secondary level and in-class assistance or limited pullout at the elementary level. Elementary Academic Suppor~ Program At the elementary level, the primary delivery method in the area of mathematics is in-class assistance for grade level 2, and limited pull-out as a possible second strategy for grade levels 3-6. Grade 1 teachers attend special inservice sessions to better prepare them to meet the needs of their students. In the area of reading/language arts, minimal pull-out is used to provide for the learning needs of students ~ith identified reading deficits for grade levels 1-6. Indirect Services Reading and math specialists are paired with classroom teachers to assist in implementing accelerated learning experiences for students with identified reading and mathematics skills deficits. An instructional program and duration of services are established for each student in order to address individualized needs. The Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 2 revised curriculum is used by the regular teacher and the reading/mathematics specialists to provide a uniform and integrated approach to learning . Schedules are developed in cooperation with the regular teacher to determine appropriate time for specialists to provide services in the regular classroom. Time is allocated for the specialists to plan and consult with the regular teacher in order to ensure consistency in student learning. This cooperative planning allows for a team effort to best meet needs of students and to prevent fragmentation in teaching and learning. In addition, this approach improves and enhances educational opportunities for these students to experience academic success in the regular classroom. Through the alternative methods for delivery of instruction, students increase their time on task, make greater gains, and maintain progress. Direct Services For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class is available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. Reading teachers focus on mastery learning and use of listening labs and computer labs to diagnose, remediate, and assess specific learning problems, using a variety of curricular approaches including computer technology. This arrangement promotes program continuity, connected learning, student/teacher bonding, and shared accountability. Data secured through individual assessment and other relevant records are used to develop the student's program and establish the duration of services. Secondary Academic Support Program Secondary schools implement the Academic Support Program according to one or a combination of the following possible approaches: APPROACH ONE Indirect Services The academic team approach pairs English, reading, learning foundations, and mathematics teachers. These paired teams of teachers jointly plan appropriate whole group instruction, small group instruction, and individual instruction for learning experiences. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation page 3 Direct Services For students identified with severe reading problems, a reading class is available to assist them in mastering fundamental reading skills and to stimulate their interest in reading. APPROACH TWO Direct Services Regular classroom teachers work to meet the needs of their own targeted students. Smaller class sizes are scheduled for regular language arts and/or mathematics teachers to allow them to provide more individual assistance for targeted students during each class period. APPROACH THREE Direct Services The Language Arts Plus and Math Plus Programs are intended to reinforce regular instruction exclusively and to focus on specific student deficits. The Plus Programs add an enrichment class to schedules of targeted students. This concept utilizes the services of regular English and mathematics teachers in whose classes the targeted students are enrolled. The Language Arts Plus and Math Plus teachers teach up to four regular periods and during the remaining periods provide tutorial and accelerated learning experiences for all academic support students enrolled in each of their regular classes. Average class size is not to exceed 15 students per period in the teachers' plus class periods. The Language Arts Plus Program approach reduces the number of separate reading classes and the number of language arts students per teacher. The Math Plus Program approach also provides a reduced number of math students per teacher. EXTENDED SERVICES - ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY To support and extend learning opportunities for targeted students, the academic team concept is supplemented by making available to these students before-school, at lunch, and afterschool instructional services. Additionally, some sites may schedule periodic extended weeks in order to provide a practice and review session on Saturdays. Principals may use flexible scheduling of staff to provide some of their extended day services. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 4 The implementation of academic support programs may vary from school to school in design. However, the following common critical elements are evident in every program: instructional strategies including higher order thinking skills\nclose observance of time on task\nuse of the District's approved curriculum with appropriate materials and resources\na positive school climate that includes conveying high expectations for all students\nparent involvement designed to assure a collaborative partnership between parents and school\nproblem analysis consisting of collecting, analyzing, and disaggregating student data\nand monitoring, assessment, and evaluation. New staff members participate in development activities that assist them in use of curriculum guides as well as appropriate staff development activities for targeted students. Participants/Beneficiaries Target students are initially identified from the student population scoring in the lower quartile on the annual student assessment. Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records are used to select students from the eligible population to participate in the Academic Support Program. Program Goal The goal of the Academic Support Program is to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences for all students in the mainstream setting by supporting them with the instructional and technical assistance needed to reduce the learning disparity. Specific objectives have been developed in order to designate what is to be accomplished to implement the adopted goals. The Academic Support Program includes the following objectives: 1. To identify and serve students who are at-risk in reading/language arts and mathematics. 2. To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation page 5 3. To reduce or eliminate pull-out academic support programs. 4. To provide parents with the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Evaluation Criteria The Academic Support Program has been evaluated by analyzing data from Spring 1992 through Fall 1994. Specifically the evaluation consists of: 1. Print-out of eligible students is provided to local school teams. Uniform District criteria are used (Stanford 8 cutoff score and multiple criteria) to identify targeted students. 2. Personal education plans of targeted students reflect implementation of the selected school option(s). 3. Individual student folders that include a systematic collection of student work, pre and post standardized test scores, grades, and recommendations to provide individual/group/school progress are maintained for continuous student and program progress. 4. Parental involvement reflects an increase in the numbers of parents attending parent conferences and parent training sessions and visiting schools. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect data gathered from several sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and yield the following results, presented in correspondence with each previously stated objective. Objective 1 To identify and serve students who are at-risk in reading/language arts and mathematics. Each year the Academic Support Program options are explained to local school administrators and they are provided with an overview of how all of the individual Academic Support Programs are to be coordinated for continuity of services to children and efficient use of resources. Local school administrators select appropriate Academic Support Program components. I 11 I I II I I Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 6 Students eligible for participation in the Academic Support Program are identified from the District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results. Identified students are those with total reading and/or mathematics scores falling within the lowest quartile on the Stanford 8 (total NCE of 35.8 or below). Multiple criteria, including student grades, teacher recommendations, and student records, are used to select targeted students from the identified population to participate in the Academic Support Program. Staff assignments are determined at the building-level and schedules are completed to ensure implementation of the selected school options. Discussion For the 1992-93 school year, thirteen secondary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while one secondary school chose the Language Arts Plus Approach and three secondary schools chose the Direct Mathematics Approach. All elementary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-1) For the 1993-94 school year, fourteen secondary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while seven secondary schools chose the Language Arts Plus Approach and six secondary schools chose the Direct Mathematics Approach. All elementary schools chose the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-1) For the 1994-95 school year, fourteen secondary schools have chosen the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Direct/Indirect Approach. Seven secondary schools have chosen the Language Arts Plus Approach. All secondary schools have the Math Plus Approach with some degree of indirect services through pairing of regular math teachers with Math Plus teachers. (Appendix A-1) The District-wide printout of the Stanford 8 results for the 1992-93 school year revealed that 11,955 students were eligible for participation. For the 1993-94 school year, 11,044 students were eligible . For the 1994-95 school year, 12,033 students were eligible. (Appendix A-2) For the 1992-93 school year, uniform multiple criteria were used to identify 8,173 targeted students from the eligible population to be served by the Academic Support Program. For the 1993-94 school year, 7,466 students were selected. For the 1994-95 school year, 6,296 students have been selected, using the uniform multiple criteria. (Appendix A-2) Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation page 7 During the 1992-93 school year, 2,525 students at the secondary 1evel were served by the Indirect/Direct Approach, 26 students were served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 287 students were served by the Direct Mathematics Approach. At the elementary level, 5,385 students were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) During the 1993-94 school year, 2,212 students at the secondary level were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. 466 students were served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 622 students were served by the Direct Mathematics Approach. At the elementary level, 4,655 students were served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) During the 1994-95 school year, 3,230 students at the secondary level are being served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. 420 students are being served by the Language Arts Plus Approach and 760 students are being served by the Math Plus Approach. At the elementary level, 4,787 students are being served by the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-3) For the 1992-93 school year, a total of 52 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while .6 teachers staffed the Language Arts Plus Approach and 6.1 teachers staffed the Mathematics Direct Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 82.4 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4)  For the 1993-94 school year, a total of 40.6 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while 8.2 teachers staffed the Language Arts Plus Approach and 15.3 teachers staffed the Mathematics Direct Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 71.6 teachers staffed the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) For the 1994-95 school year, a total of 24.6 teachers staff the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach, while 46 teachers staff the Language Arts Plus Approach and 11.6 teachers staff the Mathematics Direct Approach and 14.2 teachers staff the Math Plus Approach. At the elementary level, a total of 73.05 teachers staff the Reading/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach. (Appendix A-4) --------------~- ----------- Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 8 Objective 2 To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. The Stanford 8 Individual Record Sheet serves as the basis for developing a personal education plan for each targeted student. The Little Rock School District Curriculum, which is correlated to the Stanford 8 objectives, is used as the curriculum in each program option at each school site. Schools are clustered for delivery of staff development and a schedule is developed to provide training to the staff responsible for delivering each Academic Support Program. Workshops are provided on the topics of specialized content area strategies, team planning, learning styles/cultural diversity, interactive teaching/learning, mastery learning, and cooperative team learning. Workshops are monitored to ensure that all topics have been addressed. Instruction and learning in the Academic Support Program settings are monitored regularly to determine student involvement, appropriateness of learning strategies and cultural diversity, creativity and resourcefulness, use of tutors, small group instruction, and extended day/week programs, teacher-student interaction, and increased student achievement and social skills. Technical assistance is provided on an as-needed basis in each of the areas monitored. TABLE B MONITORING CATEGORIES I SCHOOL TECHNICAL SCHOOL I YEAR \u0026amp; CLASSIFICATION I VISITS ASSISTANCE BASED I XEETINGS I ' i 1992-93 ELEMENTARY 413 40 24 I Totals SECONDARY 97 6 13 I i 1993-94 ELEMENTARY 241 175 4 SECONDARY 125 78 8 ! 1994-95 ELEMENTARY 175 12 47 to 12/6/94) SECONDARY 53 2 3 'Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 9 Discussion A comparison of the total number of training sessions conducted during the 1992-93 school year to the total number of sessions conducted during the 1993-94 school year reveals that there was an increase in the amount of technical provided by the reading/language and Mathematics Departments. During the 1992-93 school year, staff members made 593 monitoring visits. For the 1993-94 school _year, staff members made 631 monitoring visits. for the 1994-95 school year, 287 monitoring visits have been made to date by staff members. (Appendix B-1) Objective 3 To reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Programs. The collection of appropriate data, including pre and post standardized test scores, student grades and records, samples of student work, and parent/teacher/student recommendations, serves as the basis for targeting students to be served by the Academic support Program. These data are analyzed for each student targeted to evaluate program effectiveness in remediating student achievement and contributing to the reduction or elimination of pull-out Academic Support Program components. Discussion A three year comparison of the students served by the Academic support Program shows that the number of students decreased in four out of nine grade levels in reading and mathematics from 1992 to 1993. The number of students served decreased at all grade levels in reading and mathematics from 1993 to 1994. (Appendix C-1) For the 1993-94 school year, the Language Arts Plus Approach increased to seven schools from only one during the 1992-93 school year. Six secondary schools also chose the Mathematics Direct Approach, representing an increase of three schools over the 1992-93 school year. These changes represent a trend at the secondary level away from an exclusive Rea.ding/Language Arts/Mathematics Indirect/Direct Approach toward more Direct Approaches. The trend continues in 1994-95 as all thirteen secondary schools use the Direct Math Plus Approach and maintain the same level of Language Arts Plus that was established in 1993-94. (Appendix A-1) ' Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 10 Objective 4 To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Parents were assisted in obtaining the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school through provision of information about students' achievement and behavior, conferences about their children, and the establishment of parent/school partnerships. Discussion A comparison of 1992-93 parent activity documentation to the 1993-94 parent activity documentation reveals there has been an increase in the number of participating parents. The number of parents involved during 1993-94 increased two and a third times the rate of parental participation during the 1992-93 school year. Twenty-eight of the twenty-nine schools where data were collected showed positive gains in parent participation. (Appendix D) Data have not yet been compiled showing participation during the 1994-95 school year. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Obstacles to goal attainment are indicated by specific objectives: 1. To identify and serve students who are at-risk in reading/language arts and mathematics. Although this objective is achieved, it has not been achieved in a timely manner. Students identified for Academic Support Program service need to be identified prior to the beginning of the school year during which they are to be served. The identification process should begin in the spring of the preceding year with teacher recommendations based on multiple criteria followed by a review of each recommended student's test score results in early summer. By matching teacher recommendations and test score results, the population in need of service can be determined in time to ensure that appropriate Academic Support Program components are in place at each school site when the new school year begins. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 11 2. To prescribe a personal education plan for targeted students. This objective is largely achieved\nhowever, some folders are not complete because teachers do not have sufficient information to develop the plans. Individual Test Records (Stanford 8) for all Academic Support students are needed in order for teachers to develop the personal education plans. 3. To reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Programs. Although progress toward reducing pull-out components of the Academic Support Program has been made in mathematics, more work needs to be done in reading/language arts at the elementary and junior high levels. While the data reveal a three year decrease in the total number of students needing services, too many students continue to need service from year-to-year after they enter the Academic Support Program. This fact requires a re-examination of the kinds of services available to students in reading/language arts at grades K-3 and grades 7-9. Several components of the current Academic Support Program are proving successful, most notably the language arts/mathematics plus classes (Approach Three) at the secondary level. Unfortunately, only two of the eight junior high schools are currently using the language arts plus model, while the other six continue to rely exclusively on Approach One, where traditional reading classes dominate without the direct support of the English teachers. More language arts plus classes are needed. At the elementary level, too much emphasis continues to be placed on traditional reading classes as a remediation strategy at all grade levels. The data do not indicate any concentrated effort on intervention/prevention at grades K- 3, where reading skills are developed. The current Academic Support Program lacks sufficient options at these grade levels necessary for developing the skills of the immature reader. The options for the primary grade levels need to be overhauled and expanded to ensure adequate support for students who are at-risk of becoming permanently trapped by the remediation cycle. Expansion of services must include concentrated approaches such as Reading Recovery, complemented by a greater degree of cooperation and interaction between the classroom teacher and the reading teacher. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 12 4. To provide parents the knowledge and skills needed to promote the education of their children at home and at school. Although this objective is largely achieved at the elementary level, there is a need for strengthening efforts at the secondary level. Recommendation 1 Teacher recommendations based on analysis of multiple criteria should be made in the spring of the school year prior to the school year during which Academic Support Program service is to be provided. These recommendations should be forwarded to Central Office to be matched with test results as soon as they are available in order to determine the population to be served. This population should be identified on a customized printout, designed to reconcile teacher recommendations with test cut-off scores. The customized printout would be used to determine service needs so that appropriate Academic support Program components are in place at each school site before the new school year begins. Additionally, multiple copies of the customized printouts need to be in each school. at the beginning of the school year to facilitate timely service to all targeted students. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to ensure timely identification and selection of students to participate in the Academic Support Program and to serve targeted students by developing personal education plans based on their Stanford 8 Individual Test Recordf. Evaluation Criteria Documentation will indicate that the selection and identification processes occur in a timely and efficient manner and that program teacher record keeping is complete. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 13 Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts and in mathematics. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Resource Analysis The Language Arts Office, Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, and the Data Processing Department will generate the necessary forms. The Office of Federal Programs will gather and report data so that analysis can be made. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office supervisors, director of federal programs, building principals, IRC reading and mathematics specialists, program teachers, students, and parents. There are no known detractors. General Implementation Plan 4/1/95 5/1/95 6/1/95 7/1/95 Activity Teacher recommendation based on multiple criteria. Teacher recommendation forms forwarded to Central Office Teacher recommendations matched with test results Customized printout forwarded to schools Person(s) Responsible Elementary classroom teachers, Secondary Language Arts/Math teachers Building Principals Director of Data Processing Director of Data Processing Academic Support Program In Depth Program Evaluation Page 14 Recommendation 2 Language Arts Plus classes should be included as an Academic Support Program option in all junior high schools. Utilization of this component would restructure the junior high school English departments, enabling regular English teachers to serve targeted students in additional enrichment classes. These teachers would teach up to four regular English classes and during the remaining periods would provide tutorial and accelerated learning experiences for all academic support students enrolled in each of their regular classes. The Language Arts Plus Program would reduce the current number of reading classes taught by additional teachers. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support Program approaches by providing additional instructional time to targeted students with their regular English teachers. Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria will include personal education plans for targeted students, annual district printouts of standardized test scores, and annual reports on numbers of students eligible for service through the Academic Support Program and numbers of students actually served. Review of these criteria will indicate increased student mastery of District learning objectives, increased standardized test scores, decreased numbers of students eligible for Academic Support Program services, and decreased numbers of students actually served. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Academic Support Program In Depth Evaluation page 15 Resource Analysis This recommendation will utilize existing junior high school English department staff, while reducing the total number of reading specialists needed at the junior high level. Teachers and students will use the existing curriculum and textbooks. No additional classroom materials will be needed. force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office personnel, including supervisors and directors, building principals, teachers, students, and parents. Anticipated detractors will include reading teachers whose positions will be eliminated. General Implementation Plan Activity Person(s) Responsible 4/1/95 5/1/95 6/1/95 7/ 1 / 95 7/1/95 Teacher recommendations based on multiple criteria Teacher recommendation forms forwarded to Central Office Teacher recommendations matched with test results customized printout forwarded to schools Students and teachers assigned to Language Arts Plus classes Sixth grade teachers and secondary English teachers Building Principals Director of Data Processing Director of Data Processing Building Principals Academic Support Program In Depth Evaluation Page 16 Recommendation 3 The current Academic Support Program needs to be restructured at the elementary school level to ensure adequate support for students who are at-risk of becoming permanently trapped by the remediation cycle. This restructuring should focus on providing appropriate program components at grades K-3, where reading skills are developed. An aggressive intervention/prevention program targeting these grade levels would reduce the overall size of the Academic Support Program by mainstreaming before the fourth grade students who would otherwise continue to need the support of the current program. Expansion of services must include concentrated approaches such as Reading Recovery, supplemented by a greater degree of cooperation and interaction between the classroom teacher and the reading teacher. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to reduce or eliminate pull-out Academic Support and academic disparity. Evaluation Criteria Evaluation criteria will include personal education plans for targeted students, annual district printouts of standardized test scores, and annual reports on numbers of students eligible for service through the Academic Support Program and numbers of students actually served. Review of these criteria will indicate increased student mastery of District learning objectives, increased standardized test scores, decreased numbers of students eligible for Academic Support Program services, and decreased numbers of students actually served. Expected Benefits The District will meet its commitment of reducing academic disparity and pull-out programs. Impact Analysis This recommendation will assist the District in providing appropriate instructional opportunities for students with identified needs in reading/language arts. As the students are served, pull-out programs and learning disparity will be reduced. Academic Support Program In Depth Evaluation Page 17 Resource Analysis This recommendation will require reallocating available Chapter One funds to provide for staffing needs, materials and supplies, and staff development. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be central office personnel, including supervisors and directors, building principals, teachers, students, and parents. Anticipated detractors will include reading teachers whose position will be eliminated. General Implementation Plan Activity Person{s) Responsible 4/1/95 5/1/95 6/1/95 7/1/95 8/1/95 Teacher recommendations based on multiple criteria Teacher recommendation forms forwarded to Central Office Teacher recommendations matched with test results Customized printout forwarded to schools Students and teachers assigned to Academic Support Program Classroom teachers Building principals Director of Data Processing Director of Data Processing Building principals I I .i :I\ni ' ' ! INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Magnet JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Henderson Magnet Mabel vale Mann Pulas}~i Heights Southwest l-.l t. Learning Ctr. ~I.,EMENTARY SCHOOLS l-.11 APPENDIX A-1 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE 1992-93 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS ONE TWO THREE Indirect/ Language Direct Direct Arts Plus X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .ppendix A-1 (page 1 of 3) MATHEMATICS ONE TWO Indirect/ Direct Direct X I X X X X I I X I X X X X X I X I X I X --- ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE I 1993-94 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO 1, Indirect/ Language Indirect/ I Direct Direct Arts Plus Direct Direct ,,, SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central X X X 1,11 J. A. Fair X X X I Hall X X 11 McClellan X X X Parkview Magnet X X X JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale X X Dunbar Magnet X X Forest Heights X X Ii Henderson Magnet X X II Mabel vale X X X II Mann X X X X Pulaski Heights X X X Southwest X X Alt. Learning Ctr. X ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS All X X I ~ I I I I ~pendix A-1 (page 2 of 3) II II - ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS APPROACHES ONE, TWO, THREE 1994-95 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS INSTRUCTIONAL ONE TWO THREE ONE TWO THREE APPROACH Indirect Language Indirect Math /Direct Direct Arts Plus /Direct Direct Plus SENIOR HIGHS Central X X X X I J. A. Fair X X X Hall X X X McClellan X X X X Parkview X X X X JUNIOR HIGHS Cloverdale X X X Dunbar X X X Forest Hts. X X X Henderson X X X Mabel vale X X X X Mann X X X X X I Pulaski Hts. X X X ii Southwest X X X I :1, Alt. Ln. Ctr. X I II 1: ELEMENTARY All X X f.ppendix A-1 (page 3 of 3) . l READING/LANGUAGE TOTAL TESTED # ELIGIBLE Spring 1992 1992-93 Gr. 1 2,094 Gr. 2 804 Gr. 2 1,881 Gr. 3 707 Gr. 3 1,783 Gr. 4 649 Gr. 4 1,904 Gr. 5 524 Gr. 5 1,922 Gr. 6 685 Gr. 6 1,843 Gr. 7 473 Gr. 7 1,795 Gr. 8 668 Gr. 8 1,573 Gr. 9 599 Gr. 9 1,554 Gr. 10 494 Gr. 10 1,602 Gr. 11 495 Gr. 11 1,472 Gr. 12 357 Appendix A-2 (page 1 of 3) APPENDIX A-2 READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1992-93 ARTS # SERVED TOTAL TESTED 1992-93 Spring 1992 700 Gr. 1 2,094 599 Gr. 2 1,881 560 Gr. 3 1,783 505 Gr. 4 1,904 570 Gr. 5 1,922 428 Gr. 6 1,843 432 Gr. 7 1,795 282 Gr. 8 1,573 142 Gr. 9 1,554 137 Gr. 10 1,602 69 Gr. 11 1,472 MATHEMATICS # ELIGIBLE # SERVED 1992-93 1992-93 Gr. 2 625 531 Gr. 3 418 455 Gr. 4 358 491 Gr. 5 324 467 Gr. 6 406 507 Gr. 7 332 284 Gr. 8 544 276 Gr. 9 621 254 Gr. 10 728 360 Gr. 11 672 95 Gr. 12 472 29 --- -- --- ------------------------ READING/LANGUAGE TOTAL TESTED I ELIGIBLE Spring 1993 1993-94 Gr. 1 1,941 Gr. 2 686 Gr. 2 1,912 Gr. 3 714 Gr. 3 1,770 Gr. 4 575 Gr. 4 1,715 Gr. 5 486 Gr. 5 1,821 Gr. 6 623 Gr. 6 1,855 Gr. 7 466 Gr. 7 1,716 Gr. 8 603 Gr. 8 1,571 Gr. 9 548 Gr. 9 1,506 Gr. 10 471 Gr. 10 1,587 Gr. 11 403 Gr. 11 1,383 Gr. 12 392 Appendix A-2 (page 2 of 3) READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1993-94 ARTS # SERVED TOTAL TESTED 1993-94 Spring 1993 514 Gr. 1 1,941 584 Gr. 2 1,912 499 Gr. 3 1,770 435 Gr. 4 1,715 475 Gr. 5 1,821 457 Gr. 6 1,855 503 Gr. 7 1,716 407 Gr. 8 1,571 195 Gr. 9 1,506 190 Gr. 10 1,587 110 Gr. 11 1,383 MATHEMATICS I ELIGIBLE 1993-94 Gr . 2 584 Gr. 3 405 Gr. 4 411 Gr. 5 197 Gr. 6 329 Gr. 7 303 Gr. 8 555 Gr. 9 539 Gr. 10 691 Gr. 11 547 Gr. 12 516 # SERVED 1993-94 366 334 360 218 324 305 354 422 335 72 7 READING/LANGUAGE TOTAL TESTED I ELIGIBLE Spring 1994 1994-95 Gr. 1 1,957 Gr. 2 625 Gr. 2 1,771 Gr. 3 663 Gr. 3 1,788 Gr. 4 666 Gr. 4 1,720 Gr. 5 493 Gr. 5 1,694 Gr. 6 584 Gr. 6 1,763 Gr. 7 561 Gr. 7 1,810 Gr. 8 627 Gr. 8 1,718 Gr. 9 608 Gr. 9 1,568 Gr. 10 569 Gr. 10 1,509 Gr. 11 414 Gr. 11 1,448 Gr. 12 416 Appendix A-2 {page 3 of 3) READING/LANGUAGE ARTS/MATHEMATICS STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST 1994-95 ARTS I SERVED TOTAL TESTED 1994-95 Spring 1994 580 Gr. 1 1,952 571 Gr. 2 1,775 487 Gr. 3 1,783 382 Gr. 4 1,717 439 Gr. 5 1,687 403 Gr. 6 1,760 445 Gr. 7 1,792 410 Gr. 8 1,688 182 Gr. 9 1,564 146 Gr. 10 1,503 110 Gr. 11 1,439 MATHEMATICS I ELIGIBLE I SERVED 1994-95 1994-95 Gr. 2 548 476 Gr. 3 455 388 Gr. 4 528 445 Gr. 5 306 244 Gr. 6 356 291 Gr. 7 462 274 Gr. 8 691 378 Gr. 9 644 501 Gr. 10 770 358 Gr. 11 514 22 Gr. 12 533 1 Extended Program Evaluation Communication Services Completed by: Dina Teague Communications Specialist December 14, 1994 Program Name Communication Services Program Description: Program Purpose: To keep all publics informed of the actions of the LRSD and its programs. Scope and Content: The Communication Services program is in place to facilitate the transferrance of information between district employees, board members and administrators. and the District itself with the public. All conventional means of communications are used from telephone and written correspondence. to television production and programming. In addition to being the primary source of infonnation for community members and the news media. the communications office also provides assistance to other district offices and school building personnel. The communication services program encompasses all functions of the communications office that are not specifically mentioned in the desegregation programmatic areas. Panicipants: Participants in the communication services program are primarily the employees of the communications department: Director of Communications, Communications Specialist, Secretary, part-time COE Student Worker, and District Receptionist. All functions of the department are under the direction of the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation. Beneficiaries: District students, patrons, board members, and employees benefit from good internal communication as well as external communication with tax payers. community members, opinion leaders. and media representatives. Program Goal To suppon the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness. understanding and confidence. Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Documents available 2.0 Employee Directory 3.0 Media requests answered 4.0 Public requests answered 5.0 Internal requests completed 6.0 Clipping file 7 .0 Events completed 8.0 Bulk mailings completed 9.0 NIA I 0.0 Copy of Annual Report 11.0 Copy of videos 12.0 Board information prepared 13.0 LRSD representative on KLRE Board 14.0 Required reports available I 5.0 Documents available 16.0 Cable 4 operational, equipment up and running, Cable 4 updated, videos produced 17.0 Budget maintained 18.0 Correspondence completed 19.0 Projects in place, visits scheduled 20.0 Office maintained 2 Evaluation Results O~iective 1.0 Assist the Superintendent's office with technical writing and computer support, and other special projects, as requested. The communications staff produces various written documents such as scripts, resolutions. and letters for the Superintendent as needed. ( 1.1 J Various computer generated documents such as the district organizational chart, citations. etc. are produced on a regular basis. ( 1.2) From time to time assistance with special projects such as board photos. assembly of needed information, and meeting scheduling is provided. (1.3) Objective 2.0 Produce a district employee directory. The Communications Secretary annually gathers information with the assistance of Human Resources. She then organizes copy, secures advertising. and schedules printing of the employee directory. (2.1 ) Objective 3.0 Respond to all media requests. The Communications Director and Communications Specialist record all requests and obtain clearance from the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation to respond. (3.1, 3.lAJ When clearance is given, they gather infonnation or arrange interviews as appropriate and contact the media representative with a response. (3.3. 3.4) If necessary, requests are forwarded to the Superintendent. (3.1) All other request fonns are sent to the Superintendent upon completion. Objective 4.0 Respond to public requests for information The same procedure described above is followed unless a patron is requesting a district publication. Calendar and brochure requests are honored immediately upon receipt. Objective 5.0 Respond to all internal requests for information The same procedure described above is used to respond to internal requests. Objective 6.0 Maintain a clipping file of all education-related articles The communications office subscribes to all local newspapers and news magazines. The publications are reviewed each day and all articles related to education or to the Little Rock School District are clipped. copied and filed by date. (6.1, 6.3) A log is kept to facilitate research on a given subject. 16.2) Objective 7.0 Schedule. plan, and execute special events The communications staff plans and executes many special events at the request of the Superintendent or other administrators. Staff members often work closely with other departments such as Human Resources or the Superintendent's Office staff on these events. 3 Objective 7.0 (continued, Examples are the annual retirement pany \u0026lt;7.11 and the newly implemented winter holiday parties. Objective 8.0 Assist in district /schools bulk mailings The Communications Secretary coordinates bulk mailings of many district publications such as the calendars. recruitment surveys. and brochures. She also instructs school level employees and PTA members on bulk mailing procedures. (8.1 l Objective 9.0 Di-stribution of mail, faxes. and all internal communications The District Receptionist. with the help of the part-time COE Student Worker. operates the district switchboard and fax machine as well as distributes all district office external and internal mail. and fax transmissions. (9.1. 9.3. 9.4 \u0026amp; 9.5) They also stamp all mail and register district cenified mail. 19.2J Objective 10.0 Prepare district's Annual Repon Each fall, the Director of Communications gathers information for, generates graphics for and writes the District's Annual Report. (10.1, 10. 2 \u0026amp; 10.3) She then distri.butesthe report at board meetings and advertises the report in the newspaper. (10.4) Objective 11.0 Write scripts. edit and produce district videos The office of communications responds to all requests for video production and must rely on the teaching staff of Metropolitan Vo-Tech and the availability of their equipment to be able to create videos. Objective 12.0 Produce news releases and support documents for the Board of Directors The Communications Specialist prepares media advisories to notify the media of all board functions and advises them of agenda items or discussion topics as appropriate. ( 12. l ) Each member of the communications staff works to provide any information or materials requested by board members for their presentations. 02.2) Generally this refers to special citations presented by board members. Objective 13.0 Represent the district on the KLRE Board The director of communications attends all KLRE Board meetings, serves on the Personnel Committee. and attends special events. (13.1. 13.2 \u0026amp; 13.3 )* O~iective 14.0 Prepare required reports The communications department has prepared reports such as Coopers and Lybrand Outsourcing Report. Financial Reports. coun preparations. etc. as requested. ( 14.1 J* 4 Objective 15.U Provide technical writing support for other district departments The communications department has prepared documents. fliers. letters for other LRSD departments. such as ADA Campaign. and EPA notifications for Plant Services as requested.* Objecrive 16.0 Maintain. operate and produce Cable Channel 4 programming. The Communications Secretary coordinates all maintenance calls for equipment. (16. l l She also updates the district calendar and airs district videos.(16.2J O~iective 17.0 Preparation and maintenance of department budget and budget-related documents The Director of Communications maintains the budget and monitors department spending. 117. l l* Ol\u0026gt;jective 18.0 Correspondence to schools and community All members of the communications staff write thank you notes and letters as appropriate. (18.l l Objective 19.0 Develop and execute special projects with community group\\ No evaluation results.* Objective 20.0 General Non-Desegregation related office administration The communications staff orders supplies. maintains equipment. etc. as needed. (20.l l ,:, Please see attached memo from Dina Teague regarding these items. 5 Recommendations: No recommendations are made at this time. I feel it would be inappropriate for me as the Communications Specialist to suggest changes. Although many staff members have expressed an understanding that I am the Acting Director of Communications. an official change in title has not been made and I do not want to overstep my authority. It is my understanding that a Director of Communications will be in place in approximately one month. I feel that it would be more appropriate for the new director to suggest changes under the advisement of the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation (primary leader). 6 Addendum Program description: The purpose of the communication services program is to keep all publics infonned of the actions of the LRSD and its programs. The Communication Services program is in place to facilitate the transferrance of information between district employees. board members and administrators. as well as the District itself and the public. The communication services program encompasses all functions of the communications office that are not specifically mentioned in the desegregation programmatic areas. Participants in the communication services program are primarily the employees of the communications depanment: Director of Communications, Communications Specialist, Secretary. part-time COE Student Worker, and District Receptionist. All functions of the department are under the direction of the Associate Superintendent of Desegregation. District students, patrons, board members, and employees benefit from good internal communication as well as external communication with tax payers, community members. opinion leaders, and media representatives. Recommendations: No recommendations are made. 7 I I I I 11 I 11 I ' Human Resources Services The Human Resources Department serves the District as the focal point for all staffing functions including recrui tin9, hiring, staffing, transfers, promotions, salary schedules, benefits coordination and compliance with state and federal regulations as they apply to public schools. The Human Resources Department also serves as the unit responsible for the coverage of classes as needed with substitutes. Recommendations are listed as follows: 1. A more complete and comprehensive salary study be conducted. Preferably, the study would be done by an outside consulting firm to assure impartial, unbiased results as well as a timely study. To do the study internally would require vast amounts of man-hours from the Human Resources staff. Communications Services The Communications Services program is in place to facilitate the transference of information between district employees, board members and administrators, and the District itself with the public. In addition to being the primary source of information for community members and the news media, the communications office also provides assistance to other district offices and school building personnel. The communication services program encompasses all functions of the communications office that are not specifically mentioned in the desegregation programmatic areas. Recommendations are listed as follows: * No recommendation are made at this time 1, I II Ii I Ii I' I' Ii Ii I I I II I I I I I Evaluation criteria Specific evaluation criteria include: 1.0 Adequate service provided in support of programs. Determined by dividing numbers of requests by number provided. 1.1 All buses assigned only two routes. 1.2 Students effectively and efficiently routed to facilitate a smooth school opening 1988-89. 1. 3 Significant reduction in street address errors introduced by poor/inadequate data entry. 1. 4 No student required to exceed four blocks/six blocks walk. 1. 5 Published policies on student behavior /safety on LRSD buses. Published policies for drivers/driver aides to assist in communicating the districts' position on transportation safety procedures. Frequent meetings to address safety issues and concerns. Attendance verified through sign-in sheets. Review of supervisor's monitoring report. 1. 6 Routes generated based upon current assignment information. 1.7 Two mile list published and distributed to school staff . Add transportation policies and procedures. 1.8 Written request for student data forwarded. incremental initiated by routing supervisor. Research error listing to within 5%. Completion of first day prior to registration. Evaluation Results Census system routes Evaluation results were gathered from data available within the historical records in the Transportation Department. Objective 1. o The Transportation Department will request additional resources to help provide transportation support for evening and extended day programs. All request for extended day and evening support were honored in 1993-94. 2 ' Discussion The district has consistently requested additional resources from the state to support the M to Mand magnet programs. Extended day activities are provided based on requests submitted to the Transportation Department and the assets available to support these requests. Miles are added to the fleet each time a bus is used to support evening and extended day programs. These programs are charged a fee to cover the basic cost of the driver plus $1.31 a mile which has been established as the cost to run the bus one mile. Currently, all requests for support are being honored. In the future, consideration must be given to the impact such programs have on the life of the fleet and its primary purpose of transporting students to and from school. Objective 1.1 In 1990-91 the District reduced its number of runs from three to two. The district returned to a two run system - one elementary and one secondary - in the 1990-91 school year. Discussion The limit of a two run system determines the maximum number of routes that can be scheduled based on the number of available buses. With the expansion of the majority to minority (M to M) transfer program, resources have been redirected to support these students. For M to M students a route may be as much as 90 minutes long and the bus may stop at two or m~re schools. Therefore, these buses have only one route. Regular LRSD Buses generally have two routes. One route for elementary school is 45 minutes and the second route for secondary school is 45 minutes. Each bus, generally goes to only one school per run. Special Education buses have two runs of 45 minutes and may go to two or more schools on each run. Elementary students are usually on the first run and secondary students are on the second run. Currently, the number of students on each run varies from one to eight students, with four students as an average. This is a very expensive way to transport students. 3 I, I I I II II ,' I Some buses serve as few as four students while other buses serve 65 students. If regular route buses were to go to more than one school, some buses could be combined to free up additional assets for the regular program. Objective 1.2 LRSD has made progress in the utilization of the ECOTRAN MAPNET System. 1988-89 school opening. This item completed 06/90, and is not recurring. Objective 1.3 There is extensive work to be done in updating the geographic files, tables with the LRSD database. The number of errors found in 1993-94 were 6000 when data base was initially loaded. Discussion All new streets are added to the ECOTRAN MAPNET System based on the information provided by the LR City Engineers. When an error list is run, the street names/numbers are compared to the post office street names/numbers upon which the district data base is built. The ECOTRAN Database is changed to match the district data base. At the beginning of 1994-95 only 500 errors were initially fo~nd. An update is currently under way using November data. Objective 1.4 School attendance areas and upda~ed walk zones need to be encoded into map files. Based on the information in the data base, no student was required to walk more than four blocks to the bus if an elementary student or more than six blocks as a secondary student. Students who are within the walk zone are required to walk if no courtesy stop is provided. Discussion The Transportation Department continuously receives requests for closer bus stops than the four/six blocks criteria due to safety and supervision issues. Many parents state that four/ 4 six blocks is too far for the student to walk. Accommodating these requests can increase the routing time and require buses to go into areas that are difficult to maneuver within on large buses. Objective 1.5 (Transportation Safety Policies need to be reviewed and updated properly. Changes will be incorporated from Applicable Board Policies and Administrative Directives). Discussion The policies of the Transportation Department were governed by a negotiated agreement with the Classroom Teachers Association for the 1993-94 school year. The association lost its recognition for the 1994-95 school year. The practices and procedures were reviewed and published in the fall of 1994. Safety meetings are scheduled and conducted on a regular basis by the safety supervisors. Objective 1.6 (Assignment promotion population region tables need to be created to ensure proper student assignment). Discussion The data processing department provides tapes that are used to generate routes based on current assignment information. Objective 1.7 All school attendance areas will be encoded into the geographic tables. Corresponding walk zones will be generated for schools, all transportation policies will be reviewed and updated. The two mile lists were established after the attendance zone boundaries were encoded. The policies and procedures for the Transportation Department are shared annually with principals and assistant principals. 5 1 I II I ' Objective 1.8 An entire new stop network will be generated to improve efficiency and most economically utilize District resources. Census information provided by data processing was used to establish first day routes prior to registration. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective 1.0 Objective achieved 1.1 \" 1.2 \" 1.3 \" 1.4 \" 1.5 \" 1.6 \" 1.7 \" 1.8 \" \" Recommendations The failure of the Transportation Department to reach its stated program goal was not related to the program entitled Computerized Transportation Routing System. The factors involved manpower shortage, equipment failure, and the proposal to outsource. However, the district could profit from upgrading the system to the current edition of the software. Recommendation 1: Upgrade the ECOTRAN software and hardware to utilize the Mapnet Plus system similar to the Pulaski County School District system. Evaluation criteria: The routes prepared for the opening of school reflect the information available in the district's data base on August 1, 1995. 6 Expected Benefits: The amount of time required to route all buses for the district will be reduced. By training the staff, effective utilization of the special features in the system will enhance the routing procedures. To the degree the system is used in strategic planning, the system will allow the district to try several different attendance patterns and levels of organization based on the capacity of various schools. Impact Analysis: 1. Program. The computerized routing system will improve the efficiency of the routing process. Negatives a. The system will be down during the upgrade process and during training. Positives a. The routing process will be faster. b. The data base can be directly downloaded from the mainframe. c. The system will be compatible with the Pulaski County Special School District routing system. d. Reports can be generated concerning transported students to include race ~nd grade. e. The system can projecting attendance boundaries. 2. Desegregation Plan be used for strategic zone enrollments based planning by on varying The upgrade supports the Desegregation Plan to provide computerized routing system to optimize travel times. 3. court Orders There should be no impact on court orders. 7 I I I 4. Political factors The collaboration between the Pulaski County Special School District and the LRSD Transportation Department concerning student transportation and staff training would occur. 5. Risks There appears to be no risks to upgrading the system. The risk to not upgrading the system is not being able to use the system for strategic planning. 6. Timing Some cost savings could be realized by deciding to upgrade immediately. Also, training needs to be conducted for those individuals who will be operating the system before its full potential can be realized. Resource Analysis 1. Personnel Analysis No additional positions are needed to support this project. The number of individuals to be trained will depend upon how the system will be used. At least three individuals will receive training to support the routing of buses . 2. Financial Analysis a. The upgrade software will cost $16, 900. The cost of computer equipment to support upgrade is $5,104. If both stations are upgraded, an additional $200 will be required for the software and another $5,104 for the hardware. The total cost will be $27,308. The annual Maintenance/License fee will $1,635. b . The source of revenue would be from the current Transportation Department budget. Force Field Analysis 1. Forces For The supervisors directly responsible for routing will support the project because the time to route would be reduced. 8 Administrators involved in strategic planning should support the upgrade because it will allow them to experiment with several senecios and see the impact on student assignments when changing boundaries. The other parties who have an interest in assignment plans should support the upgrade because the software could be used to respond to their \"what if\" questions. 2. Forces Against The issue related to spending this money for the upgrade rather than saving for next year's budget would be a detractor. However, the value of being able to interface with Pulaski County School District and the increased accuracy of the routes because the information will come directly from the data base should overcome objections. I. General Implementation Plan Milestones Timeline Tasking 1. Proposal sent to Associate Superintendent 01/07/95 Cheatham 2. Approval of Proposal 02/01/95 Mayo 3. Order Upgrade of software/hardware 02/15/95 Neal 4. Installation of upgrade 03/15/95 Contractors 5. Staff Training 04/01/95 ECOTRAN 9 I I II I I\nI I I I I I ADDENDUM Program Evaluation Computerized Transportation A brief description of program being evaluated: The primary component is the Transportation Planning and Management System which is the routing and scheduling software. In addition, there is the Map Build and Maintenance System which updates the map, Census Processing which allows for matching the student file to the map file, and the Geographic Enrollment Analysis System which is redistricting software that can be used to propose modifying boundaries and test alternatives. RECOMMENDATION 1 - does not have a matching number. The area classification is Desegregation. The data used for the evaluation was located in the historical records in the Transportation Department. 10 Program Description: Purpose: Scope and Content: Panicipants/Beneficiaries: Program Goals: Evaluation Criteria: Evaluation Results: Objective 1.0 IN-DEPTI-l PROGRAM EVALUATION Non-Desegregation Contingencies Those activities concerned with maintaining a funding reserve for future operations as well as unforeseen events. The contingency fund is a reserve of funds established to provide for emergencies and expenditures that cannot be foreseen at the time of budget preparation. The contingency fund process entails the solicitation and securement of financial and other resources that may be necessary during the fiscal year to provide complete and adequate support for the District's schools and administrative sites. The contingency fund is established during the budget process based upon input from the Board, staff, and community. The allocation to fund or not fund the contingency is approved by the Board of Directors. All students and employees in the District benefit, either directly or indirectly, should the reserve become necessary to fund emergency situations or unforeseen expenditures. To provide a pool of reserve funding. 1.1 Fund balance at any point in time. 1.2 Transfer of funds. 1.1 Monthly financial reports and corresponding historical revenue and expenditure data. 1.2 Internally generated forms supporting any transfers required. To maintain a source to fund future and/or unforecasted events. I I I I I I I I I I In-Depth Program Evaluation Non-Desegregation Contingencies Page 2 Discussion 1.0 The District's monthly internal reporting format is structured to predict, based on certain historical data, the projected ending fund balance. Even though the past is being used to predict the future, a certain degree of continuity does exist. Current political events, as well as day-to-day operational happenings, must also be factored into this future projection equation. Although it is impossible to obtain the actual fund balance until all year end activities have been completed, a projection system such as we use certainly goes a long way in helping to spot trends and make sound decisions. Obstacles to Goal Obtainment: Objective I. 0: Recommendation I: Objective 1: Evaluation Criteria: Expected Benefits: This objective was not achieved due to the elimination of a budget allocation by the Board of Directors. However, the strategies to obtain the goal are an on-going process in order to maintain historical data on which to base future budgeting decisions. Continue to expand the historical data base used to summarize the past so the future can better be predicted. To maintain a reliable reporting structure for the District's fund balance (reserve pool). The objective will be evaluated mathematically based on the accuracy of the monthly projections to the actual ending balance. The District will have a more complete and broader data base on which to make future projections and decisions regarding the budget and contingency planning. Program Description DATA PROCESSING SERVICES PROGRAM EVALUATION 1 ::\nr To provide the resources (Hardware, Software, Training, Programming, Computer Operations, Hardware and Software Support) necessary to collect, store and report information on LRSD students. Information Services will provide the computer resources necessary to collect, store, and report student information in a timely and accurate manner. School and central officebased staff, parents, and students will benefit from accurate up-to-date information on students. Information Services also supports all LRSD corporate business functions and classroom technology infrastructure needs. Purpose Provide effective, efficient information service support to LRSD. Scope and Content Plan, develop, implement and maintain the telecommunications, computing and miscellaneous information services for: 1. LRSD corporate business functions\n2. LRSD student administrative functions\n3. LRSD desegregation reporting functions\n4. Classroom technology infrastructure needs. Participants/Beneficiaries 1. Each student, LRSD. 2. Each employee, LRSD. 3. Each school, LRSD. 4. Each staff agency, LRSD 5. Board of Directors, LRSD. 6. Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Program Goals To provide the programs and data bases necessary to collect and store all pertinent student information. To provide all necessary reports required to support school and central office based functions. To provide all necessary information required by outside interests. To provide timely response to all requests for information. Evaluation Criteria 1.0 Information is available in a timely manner for planning and decision making. 1.1 Appropriate hardware is available and functiona, as designed. 1.2 Appropriate software is available and functional to meet the needs of the district. 1.3 Appropriate telecommunications systems are functioning to meet the needs of the District. Evaluation Results 1.0 No, information is not available in a timely manner. 1.1 No, appropriate hardware is not available. 1.2 No, appropriate software is not available. 1.3 No evaluation results. I ,, I I I I I I I I I I I . I ' I I I I I ' I I I I I I Objective 1 To provide the necessary informational services that ensure appropriate planning and decisionmaking processes. Discussion Objectives have not been achieved. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. This lack of a comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan has significant negative input on LRSD's ability to meet goals/objectives. To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired\ninstead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria, and each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom. The probable result would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, none connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers, no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical new, expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary. Currently, each school and staff agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization, maintenance, etc. has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple formats. There are no \"hallways\" connecting these diverse automation islands. LRSD will probably survive without one elementary school, however, an information infrastructure connects/encompasses all LRSD schools, staff agencies and activities. Obstacles to Goal Attainment 1. LRSD Information Services staff is not trained or staffed for current technology. 2. LRSD lacks an inadequate information services infrastructure. 3. LRSD lacks a comprehensive Information Services budgeting and procurement strategy/plan. 4. LRSD has not correctly implemented current technology. 5. LRSD has no global corporate data model. 6. LRSD has not acquired the correct tools for efficient ad-hoc reporting. 7. LRSD employees are not trained on current technical tools. 8. LRSD Instructional Resource Center is not staffed or trained for current technology. 9. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. Recommendations Develop a comprehensive Information Services plan for LRSD. -Business cases to address obstacles to goal attainment will be prepared as a part of LRSD budget-planning process. Program Description DATA PROCESSING PROGRAM EVALUATION To provide the resources (Hardware, Software, Training, Programming, Computer Operations, Hardware and Software Support) necessary to collect, store and report information on LRSD students. Information Services will provide the computer resources necessary to collect, store, and report student information in a timely and accurate manner. School and central officebased staff, parents, and students will benefit from accurate up-to-date information on students. Information SeNices also supports all LRSD corporate business functions and classroom technology infrastructure needs. Purpose Provide effective, efficient information service support to LRSD. Scope and Content Plan, develop, implement and maintain the telecommunications, computing and miscellaneous information services for: 1. LRSD corporate business functions\n2. LRSD student administrative functions\n3. LRSD desegregation reporting functions\n4. Classroom technology infrastructure needs. Participants/Beneficiaries 1. Each student, LRSD. 2. Each employee, LRSD. 3. Each school, LRSD. 4. Each staff agency, LRSD 5. Board of Directors, LRSD. 6. Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Program Goals To provide the programs and data bases necessary to collect and store all pertinent student information. To provide all necessary reports required to support school and central office based functions. To provide all necessary information required by outside interests. To provide timely response to all requests for information. Evaluation Criteria 1.A ( Administration has received all required reports for the school year). 1.8 ( All data is accurately stored and is retrievable). 1.C (Quality reports are being delivered on time). 1.0 (Complaints are no longer being received about information not available). 1.1 (Reports are available which accurately report dropout). 1.2 (All test results are stored in the computer and are reflected in pertinent reports). 1.3 (All available student achievement data is stored and reported as requested). 1.4 (Attendance data is accurately stored and reported to the state with minimum manual compilation). 1.5 (Discipline data is accurately entered and reported as required). 1.6 (Student assignment data is stored and all reporting requirements are met). 2. (The District requirements for computer resources are being met). 2.1 (All employees requiring access to student records have access to terminals) . 2.1.A (The computer system has the capacity-disk, memory, print, speed, and processor speed meet peak demands). 2.1.B (At present time, the performance and monitoring tools that were implemented are being evaluated). 2.2 (All necessary software is installed and functioning properly to collect, store and report information in a timely and accurate manner). Evaluation Results 1.A No, report backlog frequently exists. 1.B No, data is not easily retrievable cannot ascertain if it is accurately stored. 1.C No, reports are of poor quality and not timely. 1.D No, complaints reference information availability are still received. 1.1 No evaluation results. 1.2 No evaluation results. 1.3 No evaluation results. 1.4 No, manual intervention is excessive. 1.5 No, reporting is cumbersome. 1.6 No, reporting is cumbersome. 2.0 No, LRSD computing resources are not adequately addressed. 2.1 No evaluation results. 2.1.A No, computing resources are not adequate. 2.1.B 2.2 No, software does not properly collect, store and report information in a timely and accurate manner. Objective 1 Data Processing (Information Services Department) will provide the necessary support for all school and central office based functions. Objective 2 Data Processing Department (Information Services Department Staff) will have the capacity to respond to District needs as required by District goals and state and federal laws such as grade distribution and the ability to identify students and cohorts of students. Discussion Objectives have not been achieved. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. This lack of a comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan has significant negative input on LRSD's ability to meet goals/objectives. To use an analogous situation, suppose the decision was made to rebuild Chicot Elementary. No architect is hired\ninstead the librarian is given money to rebuild the library, food service is given money to rebuild the cafeteria, and each teacher is given money to rebuild his/her classroom.  The probable result would be an excellent library, an excellent cafeteria and excellent individual classrooms. Unfortunately, Chicot would consist of multiple buildings, none connected to the other, no hallways, no lockers, no rest rooms etc., etc. In summary a new, expensive, Chicot Elementary would be nonfunctional. LRSD information infrastructure is currently comparable to this hypothetical new, expensive but nonfunctional Chicot Elementary. Currently, each school and staff agency spends considerable money to meet their specific automation needs. Personal computers, printers, fax machines, modems, etc., with a multitude of software applications have been purchased and installed. No comprehensive plan for connectivity, standardization, maintenance, etc. has been followed. Data/information now resides in multiple locations in multiple formats. There are no \"hallways\" connecting these diverse automation islands. LRSD will probably survive without one elementary school, however, an information infrastructure connects/encompasses all LRSD schools, staff agencies and activities. Obstacles to Goal Attainment 1. LRSD Information Services staff is not trained or staffed for current technology. 2. LRSD lacks an inadequate information services infrastructure. 3. LRSD lacks a comprehensive Information Services budgeting and procurement strategy/plan. 4. LRSD has not correctly implemented current technology. 5. LRSD has no global corporate data model. 6. LRSD has not acquired the correct tools for efficient ad-hoc reporting. 7. LRSD employees are not trained on current technical tools. 8. LRSD Instructional Resource Center is not staffed or trained for current technology. 9. LRSD has no comprehensive Information Services strategy/plan. Recommendations Develop a comprehensive Information Services plan for LRSD. Business cases to address obstacles to goal attainment will be prepared as a part of LRSD budget planning process. IN-DEPTH PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description: Facilities service includes resources to identify, plan and execute maintenance/repair programs equitably so that Little Rock School District students can receive efficient, functional and effective education. Specifically, facilities includes maintenance programs to maintain/repair all District facilities in an equitable condition commensurate with financial resources and District priorities. Purpose: The purpose operation's necessary to critical as management. Scope and Content: of the Facilities Program is part of the base costs to maintain the buildings and grounds support the educational mission. This program is it encompasses all aspects of real property The Facilities Program encompasses the repair of all existing facilities, grounds and other real property, the maintenance thereof, new construction to support academic initiatives, all real estate actions to include leases, purchasing of property, selling of property, easements, grants, rights-of-way and licenses. It is extended to include the base operation costs of utility payments covering electric, water, gas, refuse, entomology and any other miscellaneous services. It includes long-range planning, responsibilities with regard to new construction, maintenance, acquisition and closing of facilities. Participants/Beneficiaries: The Facilities Program is a base operations program that supports all persons that work for the Little Rock School District, are educated by its programs, or visit its facilities. Program Goals: To equitably maintain and repair facilities to support academic programs, student enrollment and administrative support, the Little Rock School District is comrni tted to insure for all students equitable educational facilities and schools which are located in lower socio-economic areas shall receive attention and resources at least equal to those in more affluent areas in the District. l Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria for the objectives listed in the Facilities Program consists principally of historical records indicating requests and completions of maintenance and repair work. The evaluation criteria is geared.specifically to the objectives as outlined in the Desegregation Plan, Court Orders and ODM Reports. They do not require a relative measure of success, but merely to report numbers of requests made and completions and the percent thereof. Evaluation Results: There is no measurable scale of success against which the evaluation can be made. The objectives reported in the Facilities Program Budget Document, as stated previously, merely report the percent of completion of requests made of the Facilities Program. There is no set goal that can be equated to measure this quantity. The amount of work completed has too many variables to establish a set percent to be achieved in any given reporting period. This is due to the complexity of the requests, the nature of the requests, the total number and the resources allocated to complete that goal, coupled with the priority. Objective U: To maintain all school facilities such that they are in a safe, operational condition, and to repair, as necessary, commensurate with resources. Discussion #1: The overall level of success indicates that we have met our objective on all reporting periods. It is to be reasonably expected that the percent completed of the items listed under \"Strategies\" will vary commensurate with the amount of work and the resources allocated these initiatives. Since there is no measure of success or pre-determined percent which must be completed, one can only assume that all work that could reasonably be accomplished during the reporting period was done so, and all uncompleted work will carry forth to the next reporting period. Objective t2: The capacities of junior high schools will be reviewed in light of needed programs. Such capacities will then be revised as necessary. Discussion #2: This objective was met in 1993 and later evaluated in 1994. It will be recommended that this objective be deleted from the Program Budget Document. Objective #3: Concrete walks and macadam drives will be in good repair. Discussion #3: This is a subjective evaluation. The numbers of requests made, and the numbers completed, are what is reported. It is not possible to establish a desired level of completion because the work is received at various times during the reporting period such that the complexities of scheduling and allocated resources will vary the completion rate. Objective #4: New public address systems and bell systems will be placed in buildings where such items are not repairable. Discussion #4: Almost eighty percent (80%) of the requests made during the last reporting period have been completed. This is a program, like others, which is ongoing and which will be funded commensurate with approved funding levels. Objective #5: Any school which has portable buildings will have these buildings replaced with new units or repaired so that they will be in a condition suitable for use. Discussion #5: Sixty-two percent ( 62%) of the work requested of the Directorate was completed during the last reporting period. Objective #6: All school construction shall be subject to the Court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation. New construction must be approved by the Court. l Discussion #6: This is an ongoing strategy. There are no requirements pending at this time. There is no need for further evaluation of this objective. Objective #7: Modify building space to increase library capacities at Mitchell and Garland, purge the shelves of outdated, well-worn materials at Mitchell. Books most frequently used by the Four-Year Old Program, Kindergarten, and First Grades could be permanently placed in the individual classrooms since those grades are all housed in structures that are detached from the main building. Discussion #7: The portion of this objective allocated to the Facilities Program was completed in 1992. Objective #8: Franklin: Repair or replace the roof on each level of the building. Replace all ceiling tiles damaged by water leaks. Repaint interior walls as needed. Discussion #8: Most of these repairs have been completed. The ones that have been requested have been attended to. This building is scheduled for painting during School Year '94 - '95. Objective #9: Garland: Determine the feasibility of adding bathrooms on the second floor of the building. Increase the size of the Media Center and relocating the building's main entrance. Discussion #9: This assessment and report was completed and filed in 1992. No further evaluation is needed. Objective UO: Ish: Professionally evaluate the structural condition of the building and correct the many problems caused by the leaking roof. May be necessary to add a new slope roof. Unsightly classroom bathrooms would be repaired at once by those qualified to deal with asbestos. Exterior lighting should be repaired or replaced and the building's trim painted. Once the roof no longer leaks, the entire interior should be repainted. Discussion #10: This objective was completed and reported in October of 1992. Objective Ul: Mitchell: Correct the drainage problems and then replace the water-damaged carpeting in the GT room. Address the shortage of Media Center space, possibly by adding bookshelves to the second floor hallway near the Librarian's Office which is located in a kiosk area. Also consider adding more shelves to create storage space within existing Media Center. Discussion f 11: This requirement requires no further evaluation. It was completed in 1992. Objective #12: Rightsell: Eliminate the moisture problem at the school. Professionals with restoration experience involved to help solve problems of the final Playground should receive major improvements additional age appropriate equipment. Discussion -#12: should be building. including This objective does not require further evaluation since it has not been completed. Objective #13: Rockefeller: Install a new heating and cooling system if the effectiveness of the present system is not corrected by the recently-replaced room thermostats. Discussion #13: This assessment was made and the correction was completed in 1992. Objective -#14: Stephens: Stephens' objective is to be deleted since the school has been demolished. l Discussion #14: NIA Objective #15: All seven (7) incentive schools would benefit aesthetically from the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, the custodial staff should be trained in proper plant care. Many Little Rock School District schools have lost mature plantings to improper and over-zealous pruning by District workers, or from under-watering in times of summer heat and drought. Discussion #15: This is an ongoing problem. Guidance has been given the facilities. It will continue to be monitored. There is no level of success against which this objective can be measured. Objective #16: Give the incentive schools priority in the District sequencing of capital improvement projects since doublefunding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. Buildings must be sound, attractive and well-maintained. Discussion #16: This objective was met when the capital improvements project was prioritized in 1990. Objective #17: The District has stated it would make adjustments to the Omaha Formula to meet the needs of buildings like McClellan that have special needs. Discussion #17: The custodial program is accountable by the Omaha Formula which is used by this District to proportion its custodial resources to its many facilities. This program is evaluated on a periodic basis. Every time there is an addition or  change to a major facility structure the custodial structure is re-examined. It was last reexamined in December of 1993. It was submitted to the District and approved. Adjustments were made. The custodial program, at the present time, has sufficient manpower resources to meet its permanent needs. Temporary custodial needs, however, must be addressed by a separate correspondence. Obstacles to Goal Attainment: There is one principal obstacle to the desired goal attainment of an equitable Facilities Program, and that is resources. The Plant Services Directorate is far below the national and regional averages, and as such, falls further behind as its backlog of maintenance and repair increases on a yearly basis. The amount of work identified district-wide to keep our buildings in a good state of repair, and at an educational standard to support our programs, is mounting every year. With level or decreased funding each year, the backlog continues to increase. It is only through a higher funding level that we will be able to maintain our facilities to meet our operational needs. Recommendations: The Facilities Program, as reported under the Program Budget document, provides no guidance nor equitable measure to the Superintendent or Board of Directors on the success of the Facilities Program. This is something that is not measurable. The bulk of the Facilities Program is reacting to requests made by Facility Managers. As those requests are made, they are prioritized and they are funded. The addition of funds and resources would most assuredly allow more work to be accomplished by having it first identified, scheduled, and then completed. Without the resources to further identify additional work, it is not possible to identify how much work could be scheduled, and hence completed, thereby determining additional resources. Many of the items in the Facility Program Budget Document have been completed, and it has been recommended that they be deleted from this program. Recommendation #1: My recommendation would be to restructure the way the School District assesses its facilities. The bottom-line effort of the Little Rock School District is two-fold: 1) To maintain all of its facilities in a safe and orderly fashion to meet the goals of its educational program. 1 l DCE/rlh/pe 2) To insure that the resources allocated the Plant Services Director are equitably spent such that no schools are given favoritism for resources over others. The establishment of the priority system, which is in place at the Plant Services Directorate, insures that this happens. It is only through outside pressures and perception of conditions in the past that the Facilities Program of equitable spending is sometimes off-balance. I would recommend that additional resources be given the Plant Services Directorate, such that they approximate at least the regional or national average of the CWE per school district to allow it to maintain its facilities to meet the goals as stated above. A business case recommendation is budgetary impact. is recommended. The overall likely to have an increase in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 1) The program being evaluated as outlined in the desegregation portion of the Program Budget Document specifically identifies i terns in the Desegregation Plan and Court Orders and ODM Reports that do not give an overall view of the Facilities Program. The Program Budget Document merely responds to specific areas of concern and does not adequately see nor measure the Facilities Program. The Facilities Program is general engineering support to the entire district. As stated on page one of this document, it encompasses all aspects of the engineering program to support the many facilities. It goes far beyond seventeen (17) specific items as outlined in the Budget Document. 2) The data that has been used to analyze this program is simply a tally of work order requests as made by the Facilities' Managers and as recorded by the Plant Services Directorate. All recommendations listed here are considered in the support area. 3) There are no desegregation funds allotted the program under the Little Rock School District budget. This is not a prudent area to be reported, nor commented on for the purposes of monetary programming. DCE/rlh/pe Program Name: Family Life Education (New Futures) EXTENDED EVALUATION DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS Primary Leader: Estelle Matthis 2 Secondary Leader(s): Linda Young Rene' Carson PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The Family Life Education Program was implemented eight years ago to address the teen pregnancy problem in the Little Rock School District. An educational program was written and begun in the seventh grade eight years ago. Two specialists were hired to teach the junior high program. A module for grades 4-6 was written and begun in five schools. A K-3 program was later written and begun. The staff had increased to four elementary specialists and two junior high specialists at that time. currently, all of the Incentive Schools participate in the program along with the seven area schools and two magnet schools. The staff now consists of two elementary specialists, two junior high specialists, and a half-time coordinator. Purpose: The Family Life Education Program was designed to give the students of our District the correct information regarding their reproductive health, strategi~s to raise self-esteem, help formulate decision-making skills, and develop a feeling of individual importance. Scope and Content: The Family Life Education Program in the District (grades 4-7) has a spiraling curriculum. Each year the program has the following outline: I. Self-esteem II. Decision-making skills III. Communication skills IV. Reproductive Health V. Pregnancy and Birth (7th grade only) Participants/Beneficiaries: All seventh grade students in the District participate in the Family Life Education program through the seventh grade science class. The material is offered in a three week block of instructional time and is taught by two specialists who have received training. There are approximately 2500 seventh grade students served by this program. All incentive schools (five) are involved with the program, along with two magnet schools and eight area schools. Two thousand fourth and fifth grade students are served by the elementary program. PROGRAM GOALS: Family Life Education focuses on the developmental needs of children by addressing the areas of decision making skills, communication skills, self-esteem, and reproductive 3 heal th. The goal of the program is to help children make good decisions which will affect their future well-being. EVALUATION CRITERIA: The program's overall goal is long term. A reduction of or no increase in the number of pregnancies occurring in the district is an ideal goal. Overall good decision making skills shown by the students at school reflects on whether the program has had an impact on students. EVALUATION RESULTS: Evaluation results are based on results reported from Health Services. Objective l.: To provide Family Life Education for the Incentive Schools in grades l.-6 as a part of their Health and Physical Education Program. Discussion l.: Family Life Education is currently being taught in fifth and sixth grades in all of the Incentive Schools. Due to a reduction in staff only fifth and sixth grades could continue to receive instruction. Last year there were no elementary pregnancies in the Incentive Schools. Prior to 1991.-92 there were 15 elementary pregnancies reported by the school nurses. During the 92-93, 93-94 school years, only 2 elementary pregnancies have been reported. Objective 2: To provide Family Life Education for other targeted schools in the Little Rock School District. (7 area schools and two magnet schools) Discussion 2: Nine other schools are involved in the Family Life Program. Carver and King are the two magnet schools that are involved. King was added at semester last year. The area schools are Baseline, Watson, Geyer Springs, Cloverdale, Wilson, Terry, and Fulbright. Two specialists teach the program in all of these schools. Last year there was one elementary pregnancy in the nine school which this program serves. There were three pregnancies reported among students in these schools during the 90-93 school years. One of these students was raped and later reported this incident to the school nurse as a result of activities in Family Life class.The other students came to our District from other schools outside the District. Two of these students had not fully participated in our program. The nurses worked with these students and helped the each one receive necessary medical attention. 4 Objective 3: To provide Family Life Education in all of the Junior High Schools in the District through the seventh grade science classes. Discussion 3: All seventh grade students in the District receive instruction in the Family Life Education program through a three week module taught during their life science class. The classes are taught by two trained specialists. Pre-tests and post-tests have been given to students by the specialists each year since the program has been in operation. With very few exceptions, the students have scored higher on the post-test than the pre-test . Students have also written a verbal assessment of the program. Representative colllll\\ents from the students are as follows: \"Thanks for helping me understand some things about myself.\" \"I never knew about some of things we talked about, and I was embarrassed to talk to my parents about these things.\" \"I appreciate being taught about how to think about making good decisions.\" \"I am glad we had special teachers, I think it would have been hard to ask my regular teacher about sex and stuff. They might think I was bad or something.\" Comments from teachers: \"I don't think I could have taught this material to my students. I am not up-to-date on the information needed for this class. The students ask so many questions that are really specific. I would hate to give them the wrong information. It was probably best that a specialist came and taught my classes. I was able to observe my students and help with the class. I also learned a great deal about the human body.\" \"Thank goodness for special teachers. I am not comfortable teaching this topic. I probably would not have done a very good job because this topic is very difficult to teach.\" \"Our students need this program. I am glad that the District has made a commitment to have special teachers, nurses, and counselors work with our students with issues such as l 5 decision-making, and emotional and physical changes.\" Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective l: This objective was met for three years, however, due to a budget deficit the staff was reduced. Currently, only the fifth and sixth grades classes continue to be served by specialists. These specialists do not have the time to serve the remaining fifty (50) K- 4 cl~sses along with the classes in the other nine schools. The counselors and nurses have received some training in the area of Family Life Education and were supposed to help teach the curriculum in the lower grades. Many of the counselors and nurses have not set aside the amount of time to teach the program as the specialists did when they were assigned to teach in the lower grades. The continuity of the program is not as evident as it was in the past when the same specialist saw the students over a period of time. The specialists worked closely with counselors and nurses in identifying younger children in possible child abuse situations. The Heal th Advisory Committee of New Futures has proposed an after school program to address postponing sexual involvement or those students targeted as \"at risk\" students. \"At risk\" students have low grades/self-esteem or have mothers who became pregnant as teens or have teenage siblings with babies. The program has not been initiated, but members of the committee have attended a training session. The program will hinge on volunteer efforts and students choosing to participate in the after school program. Objective 2: This objective was reached for three years. Two magnet schools and seven area schools continue to be served by the Family Life Education program. However, due to budget cuts and staff reduction, the services in these schools have also been reduced to just the fifth and sixth grade students. King Magnet School was added to the program last year because many of the students who were attending Ish Elementary enrolled at King. The counselor and nurse participate on a limited basis with the Family Life teacher. Due to the limited availability of the nurse, the problems encountered by the counselors, a complete and thorough program is not always taught in the lower grades. The nurses and counselors have both been involved in staff development 6 regarding family life education, but they often become involved in other school programs which take priority. Objective 3: The program in the junior high schools continues to be taught by two trained specialists. The program continues to be part of the LRSD science curriculum. Every student is held responsible for the program's objectives and is tested on all of the material. Teachers have continually praised our teachers for the excellent program and the professional way the classes are taught. Many have expressed appreciation for the program. Recommendations Recommendation 1: Reinstating the program to grades K-4 would be the most desirable recommendation for the Incentive Schools, but under the current budget constraints this is not a feasible suggestion. Since many of the students in these schools could benefit from attending classes where decision making skills, problem-solving skills, and discussions regarding reproductive health are discussed, implementing the program being studied by the Adolescent Health Advisory Committee and continuing the staff development program offered for the nurses and counselors would be the best recommendation .. Objective 1: Adding personnel to the Family Life Education staff would allow all classes in the Incentive Schools to receive the entire Family Life Education program. Since increasing the staff would cause an increase in the budget for the total program, adding personnel is not an option. Implementing the after school program and expanding staff development opportunities for the nurses and counselors is the best solution for this objective. Evaluation Criteria 1: Continuing to see an extremely low pregnancy rate among the students in these schools would be one effective criteria to use to evaluate the students exposed to our program. Having the students and teachers evaluate our program at the end of the year would give us some input about what the students and teachers think about and want from the program~ Expected Benefits 1: Preventing any child from an early pregnancy would benefit the child, family, District, and State. The AFDC benefits per child per year in the State is $2,290. From birth to 18 years the state spends $41,423 per child. Long term savings would be much greater. ------------------------ 7 Impact Analysis: Desegregation (Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p.156) This recommendation will assist the district in continuing to meet its obligation under the Desegregation Plan. Resource Analysis: The combined salary of the two specialists who teach the program in the Incentive Schools (but also teach in area/magnet schools) totals $58,561 plus travel expenses. Approximately another $2000 is spent on office supplies and copy expenses. The salary of the half-time coordinator is $22, 982. The total salary of the elementary specialists represent approximately 42% of the total salary budget of $137,690 for the Family Life Program. Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this program are the parents, teachers, administrators, nurses, and counselors in the school. General Implementation Plan: Ideally, returning this program to the full level of implementation would be an asset for the students in the Incentive Schools. Realistically, budget constraints prohibits this option. Retaining the program at its present level in all of the Incentive Schools is better than elimination of the program. More training needs to done with the counselors and nurses in the area of Family Life Education. This will be done during the spring semester. Recommendation 2: The program in the two magnet schools and the nine area schools should be maintained at the current level of service. Continuing service at the current schools would keep some consistency for the students currently enrolled. Objective 2: Program at the two magnet schools and the nine area schools should at least be maintained at the current level of service. Counselors and nurses need further training in the Family Life Education program and should document the time spent teaching the objectives of the program. This training will be done during the spring semester. Evaluation Criteria 2: Maintaining an extremely low to zero pregnancy rate in the elementary schools would be the ideal criteria. Teachers 8 and students could evaluate the program using a very specific questionnaire. Expected Benefits: Preventing any child from an early pregnancy would benefit the child, family, District, and State. The AFDC benefits per child per year in the State is $2,290. From birth to 18 years the state spends $41,423 per child. Long term savings would be much greater. Impact Analysis: The program in the magnet and area schools is not part of the Desegregation Plan. However, many of the schools have listed the program as part of their school improvement plans. Resources Analysis: The two specialists who teach the program in the Incentive Schools also teach the program in the magnet and area schools. The combined salary of these two specialists total $58,561 plus travel. This is approximately 42% of the total Family Life budget of $137,690. The junior high specialists also teach in three of the area schools. One week each month, the junior high specialists teach in the elementary schools. One-fourth of the salaries of the junior high specialists is $14,036. The total salaries for the complete elementary program is $72,597 or 52% of the total Family Life salary budget of $137,690. Office supplies and copy cost still fall within the $2000 amount listed in objective 1. Force Field Analysis: The primary supporters of this program are the parents, teachers, administrators, nurses, and counselors in the school. Recommendation 3: The Family Life Education program has been a strong component of the seventh grade science program and should continue to be taught by specialists. The two specialists have been able to maintain a strong and upto- date program. Continuation of this program with the current delivery system is very important. The program/content would be eliminated or possible taught incorrectly/improperly if the program is turned over to the regular classroom teacher. Objective 3: This program should be maintained at the current level of support. Two specialists I 9 are employed to teach the classes in all the seventh grade science classes in the District. The two specialists teach approximately 2500 students. Evaluation Criteria 3: Keeping the teen pregnancy rate at a low level would help support the idea that Family Life Education has had an impact on the decision-making processes for the junior high teen. The program will continue using the survey form for both the students and teachers. Expected Benefits: Preventing any student from dropping out of school due to an unexpected pregnancy would be a cost effective benefit. Arkansas ranks very high among states in teen pregnancy statistics. The overall goal for this portion of the New Futures Program is to reduce the pregnancy rate among our students. The chart of statistics for pregnancies in our district shows that the number of pregnancies last year was the lowest in seven years. Our program is now seven years old. Impact Analysis: Postponing sexual activity or preventing an early pregnancy would have an impact on the district as well as the State. Reducing the number of cases of sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancies, or the number of low birth weight babies which later becomes a burden on State welfare roles could be an ~conomic factor which needs to be considered. The AFDC benefits per child per year in the State is $2,290. From birth to 18 years the state spends $41,423 per child. Long term savings would be much greater. Resources Analysis: The salary of the two specialists who teach the program in all of our junior high schools plus four other elementary schools totals $56,147 plus travel. Seventy-five (75%) percent of this salary or $42, 110 can be designated as salary expense for the time spent in the junior high schools. The salary for the half-time coordinator is \\$22,982. Office expenses for media, copy cost, and printing of classroom materials is approximately $4,000. 10 Force Field Analysis: The parents, teachers, administrators, nurses, and counselors in the schools are very supportive of the program. To place this program in the hands of the regular classroom teacher could be disastrous. There would not be sufficient control over what is said by the instructor, what videos are shown, or what is allowed to be discussed in the class. This could cause the program to be destroyed. Many of our students would never receive the correct information about their reproductive health, and the myths about sexual behavior will continue to be perpetuated among our teens. I Grade/Race 5th grade African-American 5th grade/White 6th grade African-American 6th grade/White - 7th grade African-American 7th grade/White 8th grade African-American 8th grade/White 9th grade African-American 9th grade/White 10th grade African-American 10th grade/White 11th grade African-American 11th grade/White 12th grade African-American 12th/White Total LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PREGNANCY STATISTICS 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 3 2 3 2 * * 0 0 * * 7 8 * * 0 l 56 82 25 20 * * l l * * 31 40 * * 2 5 * * 60 56 * * 6 7 133 146 54 38 * * 7 4 * * 39 42 * * 13 8 186 230 248 232 91-92 92-93 93-94 l 0 0 0 5 0 l 0 0 0 3 8 5 0 0 l 18 20 17 0 0 l 32 35 29 3 3 2 38 51 27 4 5 5 38 48 30 5 7 6 27 44 38 8 8 12 181 230 174 * For the 87-88, 88-89 years - pregnancy statistics not recorded by grade and ethnic groups. 11 12 General Implementation Plan: Beginning in January, 1995, the following activities will occur: Date January, 1995 May, 1995 June, 1995 August, 1995 Sept., 1995 Activity Staff development for Nurses and Counselors Survey teachers, nurses, counselor, and students about issues in the FLE program staff development for specialists, UAMS (no cost) Begin program in schools Staff development for nurses and counselors Persons Responsible Family Life Ed. Staff Family Life Ed. Staff Coordinator of FLE Family Life Ed. Staff Family Life Ed. Staff I 13  Business Case is recommended __ yes no  Plan modification is recommended _yes __ no  overall recommendations are likely to have what type of budgetary impact: No budgetary impact Increased costs - Decreased costs Purpose FEDERAL PROGRAMS PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description The Office of Federal Programs is a department of the Division of Curriculum and Learning Improvement. Compensatory and support services are provided to students by funds secured through federal, state and other agencies. Scope and Content Program operations are categorized in two broad areas. First, the department develops, implements, monitors and evaluates programs: Chapter 1, ESEA, 1965 - Amended 1994 Chapter 2, ESEA, 1965 - Amended 1994 State Compensatory Education Programs Act, 1990 Eisenhower Math/Science Education Act, 1982 - Amended 1994 Chapter 1, ESEA is the centerpiece of programs in the department. All program services are designed to provide a range of needs and contribute specifically to that effort in areas of early intervention, supplementary reading/language arts and mathematics, and parental involvement. For some students, funding programs contribute to opportun\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1216","title":"Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations","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":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School employees","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation: Extended Program Evaluations"],"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/1216"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nExhibit 310B\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 2 of 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATIONS 1994-1995 2 of 2 NEW FUTURES EXTENDED PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description Purpose New Futures Pagel In addition to the enrichment programs, Dunbar is a full participant in the New Futures for Little Rock Initiative. (The purpose of the New Futures junior high school restructuring initiative is to establish a school climate, culture and curriculum that is responsive to the developmental needs of early adolescent youth and the particular needs of at-risk students. ( Dunbar is not a participant of the program. This information was filed with the court in a motion to substitute language and provide updated information on May 13, 1993 and approved in a court order dated September 13, 1993. Scope and Content The program focuses on the development and implementation of (1) school restructuring which engages teachers and administrators in the long-term process of expanding their thinking and engage in basic and fundamental changes around issues that affect how they teach and support all students utilizing site-based management, (2) developing and implementing middle school practices and programs, (3) developing and implementing specific intervention programs and practices for at-risk youth through school improvement which may be based on the Effective Schools research. Participants/Bene~iciaries This program impacts the total school community including teachers, students, staff administrators, and parents at each New Futures school. The schools participating in this program are Cloverdale Junior High, Forest Heights Junior High, Pulaski Heights Junior High, and Southwest Junior High School. Program Goa.l I The first goal of the New Futures program is to assist local schools in the process of fundamental change and school reform to redesign schools that can provide success for all students. Specific objectives have been developed in order to specify what is to be accomplished to implement this goal. New Futures Page 2 1. Two heterogenous, interdisciplinary student teams that share a common group of teachers, common space, and common blocks of instructional time for 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students will be established. 2. Incentive programs and partnerships with community businesses to encourage and reward achievement, attendance, and good citizenship will be developed and implemented. 3. Homework Centers will be operational through the After School Program. 4. Tutoring opportunities will be available to students needing assistance through the After School Program. 5. In-school suspension programs will be developed and implemented as an alternative disciplinary response to suspendable actions. Evaluation Criteria The evaluation for the New Futures program will consist of: 1. Student team rosters, identifying team names, agendas, and participant evaluations. 2. Team documentation will reflect program implementation and numbers of students involved. 3. Student participation rosters, implementation of hotline program. 4. Student participation rosters. 5. Alternative disciplinary response to suspendable actions. Evaluation Results Evaluation results reflect data gathered from various sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and provide the following results, presented in correspondence with each previously stated objective. Objective 1 Two heterogenous, interdisciplinary student teams that share a common group of teachers, common space, and common blocks of instructional time for 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students will be established. New Futures Page 3 At each participating school, the master schedule was developed to provide for two heterogeneous student teams at each grade level. Registrars provided a team roster to each team leader at the beginning of the academic year. No team is 100\\ pure referring to the fact that there are approximately 10-30 students out of a total of 120-150 students on each team that one or more classes on both teams. Each school is designated into team geographic areas either by floor, ramp, or wing. These teams have all the core team classes within a small geographic area. Student team lockers are assigned within this team geographic area. Students move out of the team area for related arts classes and lunch. Team areas are decorated with the team name, bulletin boards, calendar, logo, or theme. All teams have team names, logos, Tshirts, and other identifying strategies. Examples of team names are the WOW team (7th grade:PHJli)\nSkyriders team (7th grade:PHJli)\nPirates team (7th grade:SWJli)\nRed Hots (6th grade:FHJli). See attachment l. Teams have a common planning period each day in which to meet together to discuss student problems, hold joint parent conferences, meet with individual students, develop interdisciplinary units of instruction, and to develop incentive programs for students. All teams maintain team agendas/minutes to serve as a record of their activity. See attachment 2. Steering Committees were established as a way to enhance the teacher leadership being developed through teaming and as a way to begin the practice of effective shared decision making at the local level. Comprehensive training was provided to steering committee members, assistant principals, and principals. Models and decision making models and flow charts were provided as guides in the process. Steering committees maintained minutes and established a self-assessment process to guide the work and process. See attachment 3. During the 1993-1994 school year, staff development activities were conducted to assist local schools in the process of fundamental change and school reform to redesign schools that can provide success for all students. Evaluations of each activity were completed and compiled for review. Participant feedback was positive with 99\\ of the evaluations expressing complete satisfactions with the activity. See attachment 4. Date 7/23/93 Topic Strategic Imperatives _of Restructuring (5 days) Personnel Selected Staff 9/23/93 8/9/93 8/10/93 8/12/93 9/14/93 8/3/93 8/12/93 8/12/93 8/12/93 10/8/93 10/13/93- 12/01/93 10/14/93 10/19/93 10/20/93 10/27/93 11/9/93- 11/10/93 12/14/93- 12/15/93 School-Based Decision Making (3 days) Leadership Training Designing Knowledge Work for Student Success (2 days) Writing Process (2 days) Integration of Skills Understanding At-Risk Youth (2 days) Cooperative Discipline ((2 days) Developing and Implementing Peer Mediation Programs (2 days) Developing and Implementing Advisor/Advisee Programs (2 days) Making Language Meaningful (2 days) On-site technical assistance ( 4 days) Reading Process and Semantic Webbing School Based Decision Making School Based Decision Making Process Communications ( 2 days) Designing Knowledge Work Designing Knowledge Work New Futures Page 4 s t e e r i n g Committees Team Leaders All Staff L e a r n i n g Foundations staff L e a r n i n g Foundations staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff L e a r n i n g Foundations staff Selected Staff Principals Assistant Principals Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff 11/10/93 11/7/93 1/18/94 1/19/94- 2/23/94 2/15/94 1-/27/94 3/10/94- 3/11/94 4/5/94- 4/8/94 4/15/93- 4/16/93 School Based Decision Making Collaborative Teaching on-site technical assistance ( 4 days) Designing Knowledge Work ( 6 days) Process Communications Making Language Meaningful Peer Coaching Implementing Peer Coaching Network Leadership Retreat New Futures Page 5 S t e e r i n g Committees Selected Staff Learning Foundations Staff Selected Staff Selected staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Selected Staff Principals, Ass't Principals Team Leaders Conference participation was provided for local school staff primarily through funding from New Futures for Little Rock Youth as follows: 8/14/93- 8/18/93 8/20/93 7/18/93- 7/24/93 11/4/93- 11/7 /93 3/10/94 4/27/94- 4/29/94 12/5/93 National Conference Selected Staff on Peer Mediation UALR Conference of Peer Selected Staff Mediation Middle Level Summer Selected Staff Institute Conference participation selected Staff and presentation at National Middle School Conf. Conference:Drugs,Gangs Selected Staff Violence and Guns Arkansas Middle Level Selected Staff Conference National Restructuring Board/Staff Conference Discussion 1 New Futures Page 6 The results indicate a 100\\ successful implementation of the objectives. A review of the data reveals that interdisciplinary teams functioned effectively. outcomes of teaming include an increase in parent conferences with several teams reporting more than 150 documented team/parent conferences\ndevelopment and implementation of interdisciplinary uni ts across teams and schools\nsite visits by school districts from across the state\npresentations and training provided to other school districts on interdisciplinary teaming\ngrant received by the Carnegie Foundation for one school through the middle grade school state policy initiative for schools who had successfully implemented most of the recommendations of Turning Points\norganizational structure well developed and initial capacity for replication developed\nknowledge gained through training and conference participation resulted in implementation of innovative programming and academic development in which student outcomes were improved\ncollegial support for organizational structure articulated by teachers, local school administrators, parents, and students. A climate that supports innovation, collaboration, and change has been established and reflects the developmental growth experienced i-n these schools. Objective 2 Incentive programs and partnerships with community businesses to encourage and reward achievement, attendance, and good citizenship will be developed and implemented. A Young Professionals Club at Southwest Junior High School was established in cooperation with AP\u0026amp;L Redfield Power Plant to achieve the following objectives: help each child develop a worthwhile self-image by helping he/she find their identity, help all students understand the concept of pride, reduce the number of suspensions, strengthen academic achievement in underachievers, and improve communication skills. The club is open to 7th grade Pirate team students and meets during lunch under the guidance of the Pirate teaching team. A total of 65 students (35 boys and 30 girls) participated. During the first nine weeks, there were zero suspensions for participating students. The third nine weeks there were a total of 3 suspensions for participating students. This program has received national and state recognition as a model program. The Breakfast Club was established by the Wings Team, an 8th grade team at Pulaski Heights Junior High. The club serves all 8th grade black male students. The club meets on a monthly basis during first period. The focus of the group was to raise self-esteem, serve as a mentoring program, and provide motivation to increase academic achievement. Community speakers were invited to present New Futures Page 7 to the group during each meeting. Students were involved in follow up discussion. Assistant principals reported that there was a noticeable decline in the number of disciplinary sanctions against black males since the beginning of the breakfast club. The number of failures was reduced from 7 black males in 1993 to l black male in 1994. This improvement reflects the goals of the Breakfast Club. A Peer Mediation Program was begun by the Wings Teams after receiving training in developing and implementing such a program. Twenty-seven students were trained as Peer Mediators. The students successfully mediated with approximately 110 students. The targeted groups of the program are the student mediators and the students involved in a dispute who participate in the mediation. The student mediators completed two full days of intensive training. In addition, they met with the project coordinators on a weekly basis to further define their skills and help promote the program in the school. These weekly sessions provided an avenue to process the mediations that had taken place so that concerns and weaknesses in the program could be addressed. This portion of the program was integrated into the After School Program. This type of program is nationally recognized as an effective way to reduce conflict and focus on violence prevention. Discussion 2 The interdisciplinary teams across the schools developed and implemented various unique incentive programs to encourage and reward achievement, attendance, and good citizenship. Generally, most teams designed the incentive programs for a nine week period. Teams involved parents by invi~ing them to special ceremonies and assemblies. Teams recognized improvement as well as achievement. Teams also developed extended incentive prograI!lllling and partnerships as the examples above describe. Teams worked with the Parent and Comm~~ity Involvement staff to identify students in need of special services and include their parents in the Family Support Net Progra~, TOUCH Program, GED Program, and HEAL Program. Over 180 students and their families have bee~ involved in these various programs. Teams identified students to participate in an innovative summer program for high risk youth. This program served a dual purpose: practicum experience for teachers on working with high risk adolescents and summer programming for identi~ied s~udents. These students are woven back into support programming such as the after school program, HEAL groups, and case management during the academic year. Objective 3 Homework Centers will be operational through the After School Program. New Futures Page 8 Student participation rosters were maintained for the after school program. Students participated in academic programming, high interest club activities, and the homework center. Transportation and a nutritional snack were provided. The program was operational three days weekly. See attachment 5. Implementation of a hotline program was not implemented as a city wide program is available to students each evening. Discussion 3 The after school program provided students with opportunities to receive additional academic instruction, access to research and reference materials, special enrichment experiences and participation in high interest club activities such Video News clubs, chess clubs, community service clubs, music and theatrical clubs. Transportation was provided for students in this program as well as a nutritional snack. Cloverdale participated with UCA in a teacher preparation program that was included into the after school program. Objective 4 Tutoring opportunities will be available to students needing assistance through the After School Program. Through the after school program, tutoring opportunities were developed and implemented for students. The primary areas of focus were math, reading, and writing skills. Before testing, students participated in test preparation sessions. Some peer tutoring was also included in the program. Discussion 4 The opportunity to receive additional instruction is needed and beneficial for many students. Many of the students in these schools do not have conducive study environments at home nor the support reference materials to complete certain assignments. This program provides at-risk students with an additional opportunity to achieve academic success. Objective 5 An in-school suspension program will be developed and implemented as an alternative disciplinary response to suspendable actions. As an intervention strategy to assist in keeping students in school and continuing their academic work, the in-school suspension program was developed and implemented for category one offenses. Processes have been established to facilitate the communication of student assignments between the teaching staff and the in-school suspension teacher. Quarterly records were maintained noting the New Futures Page 9 number of students assigned to the program, parent contacts and counselor conferences. Quarterly participation ranged from 66 - 143 students each nine weeks. See attachment 6. Discussion 5 The objectives of the in-school suspension program include helping students accept the consequences for their actions, evaluate his/her behavior, and to modify social performance. The program has been successful in keeping large numbers of students in school and continuing their academic work. Teachers and counselors have supported the program by sending assignments in a timely manner and by participating in conferences with students and parents when necessary. The number of repeaters is low compared to the number of students participating ( less than l0t). Ob~tacles to Goal Attainment Objective l The objective of establishing interdisciplinary student teams that share a common group of teacher, common space, and common blocks of instructional time was attained. The computer process used to schedule students onto teams does not provide adequate support for achieving a minimum of students assigned to both teams. Cross teaming of students presents certain programmatic difficulties. More flexibility in the scheduling process would assist in decreasing the problem. Objective 2 The objective of developing incentive programs and partnerships with community businesses to encourage and rewa:::-d achievement, attendance, and good citizenship was attained. Objective 3 The objective of operating homework centers through the After School Program was attained. Objective 4 The objective of providing tutoring opportunities to students needing assistance through the After School Program was attained. Objective 5 The objective of providing in-school suspension programs as an alternative disciplinary response to suspendable actions was attained. Program Goal 2 New Futures Page 10 The second goal of the program is to promote collaboration/ coordination between local school and other youth serving agencies in the community. The following objective was developed in order to specify what is to be accomplished to implement this goal. 1. A school-based case management system will be operational. Evaluation criteria 1. There will be an increased number of students receiving needed services reflected in case management data reports. Evaluation Results Objective 1 There will be an increased number of students -receiving needed services reflected in case management data reports. Since January 1991, New Futures for Little Rock Youth, in partnership with five youth-serving agencies and the Little Rock School District, has sponsored a pilot program that has offered Case Management services to high-risk youth attending targeted junior high schools in the Little Rock School District: Cloverdale, Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest junior highs. Discussion 1 A team of four Case Managers was formed at each school comprised of youth worker employed by community agencies with expertise in addressing problem areas faced by young people, including adolescent pregnancy and parenting, substance abuse, adolescent mental health, youth employment, and poverty. Executive directors of participating agencies and principals of participating schools meet monthly as an advisory, \"roundtable\" to oversee implementation strategies, monitor program activities, identify program strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations for improvements in service to youth and their families. A New futures staff person, the CMST Coordinator, is assigned to each school to organize the functioning of the CMST. See attachment 7. As of August 1~94, 75% (547 out of 734) of the youth who had received on-going case management services showed improved circumstances at case termination. During the 1993-1994 school year, almost 500 youth participated in 27 various school-based support groups, led or co-facilitated by Case Managers. Case New Futures Page 11 Managers organized 26 typed of special events involving 600 at-risk youth participating in the program during the 1993-94 school year. A report of New Futures goals and objectives for the program and results are included. See attachment 8. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective 1 The objective of providing more services to students through the case management system was attained. Recommendation 1 It is recommended that the efforts of the New Futures program be focused on maintaining and supporting the current programming at Cloverdale, Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest junior highs and expanding the focus of the program to include supporting and assisting in the development of the district wide middle school planning/implementation process. This recommendation would capitalize on the developed capacity at four junior high schools within the district to support a middle school transition and serve as a planned method of capturing and utilizing the existing resources that exist within the district to support future program efforts for adolescent age students and students at-risk. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to maximize existing capacity within the district at the four junior highs to support institutional change in the area of middle school organization. Evaluation Criteria Existing practices of maintaining team roster, team names, agendas, team documentation, and participant evaluations will be followed. Expected Benefits The District will maintain its collaborative efforts with New Futures while utilizing the benefits of the relationship and the resulting capacity development within the district to support a district wide program which supports school reform and benefits atrisk students. Impact Analysis New Futures Page 12 This recommendation will provide a plan for the district to sustain established capacity while developing a middle school organization across the district. It provides a framework for the district to continue to base planning program development on research and best practice. Resource Analysis The current resource allocation to the existing program will be sufficient to implement this recommendation. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters for this recommendations will be the local school staffs and New Futures Board of Directors. General Implementation Plan 1/95 4/95 4/95 5/95 9/95 - 6/96 Activity Utilize existing capacity to assist middle level planning Meet with principals to examine scheduling needs to maintain teaming Continue staff development efforts Work with data processing to provide support Continue existing programming and support middle school planning Person Responsible New Futures Liaison Selected teachers and principals New Futures Liaison New Futures Liaison New Futures Liaison Principals New Futures Liaison Local school staff ' 1993 Interdisciplinary Teams Cloverdale Jr. High ~ 7 Wonders Untouchables P.A.w.s. Superstars Navigators AirFrosh Forest Heights ~ Red Hots Super 7's Wave News2 Gold Royals Green Royals Pulas~:i Heights ~ Skyriders w.o.w. Firecrackers Wings Superstars A Team Southwest Jr. High Team 7 S.A.I.L.S. Pirates Motionaires Terminators Super Novas Spurs nachaent 1 teau93 Team Leader Trish Poore Tammy Gullett Sue Smith Charles McFadden Nancy Hawking Bill Estes Team Leader Glenn Holloway Nancy Cross Ginger Tuck Leigh Cole Dan Drew Melinda Beggs Team Leader Sammy Grandy Ann Blaylock George Coleman Carol Kaffka Sam Steuart Wayne Knight Team Leader Sherry Lack Bettie Williford Chris Kline Jake Tidmore Charles Moore Jackie Falls Grade 7th 7th 8th 8th 9th 9th Grade 7th 7th 8th 8th 9th 9th Grade 7th 7th 8th 8th 9th 9th Grade 7th 7th 8th 8th 9th 9th I H!NUTES CF TE~H HEETI~G Ti:AM\n, .., Y,A~ (, ~J \\, ..... L . ~( : -1\\--i' ./ ,I IL.., '.  \\ -- , .. ' I ,f  \\ I )\n(,-fj TIHE rm, -~ef2-4-1T-i:-. _-) -,- ------- TEAM LEADER 1-i.....f, 1rj,. -_~c_ _ F RES ENT: L\\,~ I t(,-,,..~ ..\\. - r:,\\ 1 7  :{,-..,-1,-J t.-.C: .{ A c_ __ - -:(. , ...... \u0026gt; t,_, ... , y \\ -    J{..f 11,  1 ., lv _____ OTHERS PRSENT: ----------- -=.j.. -J_ ,)r_:...C_f I_?_/ _  ________ .J\\),z-,i-.,_~_j,{_ -,,_\u0026lt;JJ\"/\\. J.__,rr-c(!h. ( Ot,u'\\ ~~ (':-',,'\\.\n{{,cf.! ( -C L--::. -.__:,t_( ~ ... .,,e 1c .\"\\ \u0026amp; (,, ~('c, , ~A.,t c\\ G .,-., .. ~.4{\u0026amp;.  tcfF.. ,.., ~-i .c. ~.'lt?t ] ---------------------------------- - ------------------------------ --------------------------------- ---- - t\", ,.ll,J i :_.::, ,f L: r J C. .:.,1 1-1~:.i ihG ftff . .JJ ) #:9!/rf4 C/ ) Jo \u0026lt;{S-DATE TIME -.L..~'-\"-+'~\"--:--------- ~ l p / ------------------ OTHERS PRESE:HT: 11~ s (. v~ ~ ~~ c~ '. - ~r~~ ,: cO _t.fj::. cl, i.k Vr, ~\\, ho. .... , ~ry- -~~~.,\n::\n...\n...-....\n...-.\n._______,.,....~~--~-_,_ _. .\n_\\.-\"\"_~ (_ _\n_~-,,-\u0026lt;'\u0026gt;_ _\n...,~f~-1 ~-y,f- f#f.~\"', e,(:L))A..f- 6.. e-M 1ft cOl,R/r u L 1 lf --------------------------- --- ) SKYRIDER5 TEAM MEETING JANUARY 26, 1994 1 1 :00 A.M. / ROOM 307 AGENDA 1. MINUTES FROM HIE LAST MEETING c'.iJ...1,,\u0026lt;t lo..te. ~?cv\n.,-, c. aJ 2. STEERING C,OMMITTEE ME~TING ( TODAY )~ Ge~ C,.c,~t-J tr.a!:~ --~ :- St-\u0026gt;c~-=- c..1.o,-a.1cs it..1J'(:'u.Yi1T?,-s GFIY\\.(..~i r vs Cof'y\"-'\\_, O\"'o.-.J\u0026gt;rA- -,r,. :~ -~--.l,-,-L.:.~ - n,\n,, r~1c~. - Sc:c.: 1=, -Mf- . 3. ABOUT FACE ASSEMBLY - 4. DETENTION CENTER ASSEMBLY 5. BLACK HISTORY COMMITTEE 6. TARDY COMMITTEE 7. FUNDRA I SER pv-k . 8. ASSIGNMENT NOTEBOOKS 9. USE OF TEAM MONEY 10. INTERDISCIPLINARY TEACHING -Ceq~ tf 1~ 1 1. HOMEWORK BASH 111\n).Q OC\u0026gt; .ef-\n-{ ..,, , , 12. STUDENT CONFERENCES 13. OTHER ) MINUTES OF TEAM MEETING J/l d --z /,'rl) DATE ~,-,.- 'J. \n.I/ _j_ / TIME TEAM LEADER~ ___ .. MEMBERS PRESENT:~LO\"\"\"...,n'.\n.f ____ _ u ',0'33 ( \"T\nQQ\u0026lt;-Yj QI f.Q' ._-, ::_ __________ . .j A5enda 0 Mi md cs -t,ofY) } as1 we e.k.- ------. AZ .. SOtmiWEST JUNIOR HIGH SOiCOL STEERIJ\\IG C'CM-!ITI'EE MEETING N\u0026lt;NE11BER 11, 1993 AGENDA I. OLD BUSINESS - REPORTS FRCM CCMMITTEES A. PURPOSE/VISION - KLINE/MOORE B. ROLES/EXPECTATIONS - BARNES/COLEMAN/MUNNS C. PRcx::ESS - TICMORE ( (!.::,,-1~,.._.5.,.s) /Ut.3 D. INTERRELATIONALSHIP 0-!ARTS/GRAPHS - FALLS/WILLIFORD/BOLDEN ('IO BE PRESENTED NEXT 'IHURSDAY) II. NEW BUSINESS A. EQUITY MONI'IORIJ\\IG - DECD1BER 9 , 19 9 3 - SMI'.IH ..,. 8 /!JNC, {:,1~ B. ASSIQ.MENI'S FOR STUDEI.TS IN ISSP - BARNES.- I STEL/!-1L, ,v/\nc:.,.,.._n-.H'T\"i.E /f. R~fo5E- 1/2:. SJ~ ,v - ,Ct Po 1\u0026lt;.-r _,,,..,,, 14:, / j/JvC' ~IC -:t. r )fervu2. fc.~'-l A-r,.JI) ~C,\nU',1-.t -\n, /V F, ~ - -- 5\n-ak.,.r-f ~ CtJ#f PK/ TTE /II vu ~672--S: . ... Ms, . n/,-.1,. 1 5:. . r . . ft(~. g ,f-lT.,,./c-~ ./t(Jz. /\u0026lt;L1r-le Ak5, .)1LL1,Fr:llzb ft{Jz5. Ct:JLEM~ /ti t , r-,,,, L-L. S'.-~ - 7,:-\"\"J~-'7kc ,M/zL /soi...JE\"~ ,\nJ\u0026amp;.u~f/ ~1-~r/i37'l...S t,vli-l- ,t3E ,::Jv'T 7?.)/\n,\n'!Af -\nSLE-vfSc /11-5_\n/1/2.\u0026gt; \u0026amp;r-J 7L:J \"/~ fit~~\nZ c /J ok rs ,F}a\n,,v-- (!.LJ//'. vt.,, 77Ee...5 .A, )\u0026gt;u,z?~s./Vi'S1t\nr,.i - Mk.f-::.L1,-.J 5af7\"~'\u0026gt; L.\\.uE TD r1-/-6 Ms5,-,0eE ~F ,\n,1-.JE- J'r 7?/5,..k:. n-t ~/-\u0026amp;E::,h _ A / Fv. I.-'-- /z:.Yo.kT b-_,) 1 /....I..- AG\" Ou ...,. c3,,J ,.If 7 /'/1 t.. ~n=A= M?c.,, 1/4\"' l::\u0026gt;16 67/VC M-~ ovt:?k.1,r11:,Je 6., /z.aL-17~ /~ /\u0026gt;e~r,,-1 ~u,,...,5 - // t:o/'Y .o\n=- ,7?\n/c /z,\n-/\u0026gt;l'hZ.7 t,,vd:S 6, t v'c-7' 7o ,M.,/?1--//BGks rkE5t:.-=-7T ~ ~ ) /U) c..~ ., pt.(~, ...i 5. )L.e-4. b / r r 0 ~c.5 7\n, ,-...1 5 (/.J/37'z. ,!:3-1'.J 7-k.7/1/rJ\u0026amp;-_L) c /t/)c.s~ b'-.J11... .\n,/r~k\u0026lt;l ~ C,\u0026amp;,,..\nc.E-,t,...J wA-\u0026gt; 4-hl::}il::\"ss\u0026amp;~ ~r /ll\u0026gt;-61-~6- 7o '7/\n ,G.\u0026gt;c/'c~,~~l:5 1,,1.\n..\nh5k.... 7~ l-C,+h1t,--=h.s - 1~. ,4--s.s,,s.r v\u0026lt;J/r,,y\nr,,y,e ()\u0026amp;,/5Lc?E\nr\u0026lt;JT er- T~ d-~~A,, ,d/k, Jl--ct?J~.k-G\" 5/,,f-7236 b'Jlr~ ,,1 /\u0026gt;\"'1kE?\u0026lt;.)7 ,,,.~\u0026amp;. /S.. ?kcse/..J r -Wcr ~ 11c ~ L...D 2.E c:\n, ~v b-1 ,4 t.v/\u0026gt; y -r,::\n1:,/V,\"1-/ / N: vU tft7rdGt.. 7 tY ?7 //ff1/8 /'f7\u0026lt;J Y ~ uz\n=s 7\nc .,....:,~ ,::\n1:-_ -5\n,,t\u0026amp;.6:=E,/ o,,us\n~ t,,, ? lc.OC,ES5- 11,,(k, r f\u0026gt;pz,tc\n,,~c :Sr~?'E-.1::i M- l-.et\u0026gt;okT ~OvlL-~ AE 4v\".\n111.-ML AT /I L,,?l'\"E/C 6/1-TE: //411~. }!-L-1/J~ /JU\nbS'~~_s /\n-/J\u0026gt;I-T /i1/r bF.crS:ro...J . i l 1 II MA--/L,rJ6c. Fok~A-T ~/~,?\n1-1../.-/) BG 8- /~T r,tJk\n,:.r..ef L/ D //0,5uk. r#?fr C-,o~b'z,,._J~~~ut:...S /IA-.c 41\u0026gt;Jkc~~z=d ./  A-, tJk.bElc.L '( /t,,(~,tA.J,1--)f\n-k_ b \"\n:\n:\n.\nr\u0026amp;kkLA-v\u0026amp;?/'-'Sh\"o\u0026amp;l c' ,y/l-k:r5/\u0026amp;kA/-)//~ - //4.Ji L (... ~ t3 ~ lz ES\u0026amp;-:.\" c:-..2::. .4T A- L.\"'17 z::-.k 2.) A-TE f.\nJ GvJ lg t.\u0026lt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt;-,-/,,.J~\u0026lt;,. _!\n. .,4. Gf,u1 ry fllo~,r~k,,~k - DE-f\"'J. '7 ~w~, Svtt/n:,/ 5 / ,/-7'c32) //1/d T 7 ~ :=\u0026gt;ij-,:JU L ~ //~ -cv'\u0026amp;e,yT/// Al::\"t_ /,,.) /\u0026gt; L/lt-~ rkri.)1t. /Z' mdr br1 Ti=.., .:Srr-5 /4!3 Ln 7c-~ -r?rE / ~,,,.( /,!?k~c.E ,t)r LJc\n~ ~ ,gJ v\u0026amp;-~ 7\"tf /Z.E?Ob/~.T ~ ~b .5ukc //'4-f-T Ji= /1-,+vf. --U-JL~ (!_Ake t)F bcr/C:re,\u0026lt;-Jc=,-E-_s ,..._Jo~d\n~~~ v1511~/z.5 ~.1/-y A,E ?lcl3-5G\u0026lt;JT ,,,f-r ~\ny 7/~c ,? /l rt\u0026gt; k I c 771-c ,/4.,{ c ,\n-,, Tc:: k,, ,\n.-\u0026gt;6__. fs. /4'5\u0026gt; S r~,J/Mr\n~T.:S Ft:Jlr- 57ub~T.S. 1,,J -L-~ S ,r- /1,( ~. ~4-)~E-S. f/-A5 ,,f,s/t::E~ 7\"/r'~ r ~.-,/.//- /.'.'.'.G,/~,,b /ZhU//04 7\u0026amp;4-e..tVE..r~.5 TZ ,P,~v,6,e ,,-15S/~~G\"'C5 p,-J If kc6~ L,4k ~,1-s /\n. .l,,P/7'c~ /WJ?/AC:Avc,,J -~ /\n--~ Gi:\u0026gt; / .,.J Yi?~ .8.o.x.. t'/4\"',..z. 4{\"c))it Su.?_.-A.?7.k ,,. c=...6 -m,,. s A Y 1s,k-,,,,cJt5-r.,,~/4_ 1,A) /,1/E :5~c ~~,,,VL\u0026amp;t,..,._J /=-kb,L,J- /x'k.. C#EW?7~ .fJff .d/k\u0026gt; - ?~/?\n./ #-~ ,,f- /z:E~.Rw.~.Jbr??.tJ..-J 77#-r 7fi n-1 /T #FcA, \u0026lt;,w:f\nt\nPb,\n,? ~ }z~~.Gl\u0026gt;,,,,-v.a,...J /:\u0026gt;d-e,,.e.13-~ t/4-J /5i3 ~~t:\n=-_l) -0 /,'G~r ::5 7.w.b~zs '?/4,,+e77e SIL t-L~ A-~JJ ~/rE-~,,T C\nf-rJ ,g c G, ,//5?\"-J: -\n~- yU ~ E\ne..r\nFak._ ,4-/',PkoyA -L , _JJ7:- .!Uh. 1- u,.J~ ,P,1s5~ tf/L,t_ 'T $1,JFo~7r~_,,..j t9\n-) A-/=!Ek!\u0026gt;t::/.,t.oaL- r Jz o 6-,.k l}-y-v-- ,4--,,J ~ /3\n\u0026lt;.~ 5 c ff Eb K L. ~ s . ,, Ii I 1. Knowledge Work Project Total Evaluations 1993-94 /-Irr. '1 This group has facilitated my teaching techniques and ideas to another positive level. I believe only in the workshop atmosphere with other teams, could we have learned, been motivated, and expected to achieve the success we so desired. Meeting once a month was a constant and motivating factor in addressing new and innovative ways for kids to achieve emotional, social, as well as educational success. 2. The entire workshop on the whole was informative and creatively delivered. Sharing with teachers from other schools and our own gives a dynamic twist to it. The workshop presented a lot of thought and interaction. I really recommend that it be offered again. Since a few teachers dropped out due to the time consumed, perhaps a statement of their involvement when recruiting would help reduce dropouts. 3. 4. For the workshop as a whole, I've learned some new strategies to teach the work, and that I was already doing some of the strategies in my classroom. It's good to learn something new, but it also feels good to know you're doing something right. What a confidence builder. When planning units and activities I try to build in some of the qualities we have learned about. I think this has been very good for me personally. I believe the information gained is very useful and am excited about sharing it with others in my building. Personally, I would come to this training after school but I don't think many teachers would. 5. The fact that we have planned to present to our school shows we understand and will use the information we have studied this year. I've learned to focus on the work not the kids when preparing lessons. I needed this! 6. The knowledge work workshops have been extremely beneficial for me. I look at my lessons in an entirely different way, knowing what to build into a lesson to make it more interesting and relevant for students is very important. Not only does it make the student enjoy and value my class more, but it also helps with discipline! If a child is interested in the learning, he is less likely to get in trouble. Thank you! 7. With continued innovative training and sharing, we continue to be successful classroom teachers. The team concept and approach has created a new dimension to student learning and successes. l ! ~owledg Work Project Total Evaluation  by Participant 1993-94 /f#.4 8. Pluses: outstanding facilitator. I felt that I learned something about \"how\" I teach, not \"what\" I teach. Though good teachers use these qualities all the time, it has been an important tool in assessing my teaching. This course has served as an invaluable tool for me. I'm sure other teachers have and will gain from this experience. All objectives were met. Wishes: I realize that monthly meetings help generate new. concepts or reassess the qualities throughout the year, however I wish that we could do this in a shorter time span. 9. I have learned a lot from sharing with other teachers in the district what they have tried that works and what does not work. 10. This workshop has provided a resource so that I can design classroom activities to help engage students in the learning process. The work has also made me aware of qualities needed in order to create true classroom knowledge work. 11. During the process of these meetings, I was able to recognize the qualities that are needed to help make a more-effective lesson. Methods to get the students involved in learning are needed daily to meet expectations of today's society. I really enjoyed being able to share information and ideas with others who have had success in the teaching field. I gained valuable information that I can use daily in my classroom. 12. I feel I can articulate the objectives and qualities of knowledge work to others. I have enjoyed affiliating with others and learning strategies which have helped me in planning dynamic activities. I feel you would get more for your money if homework were given to the teachers. Assess teachers and make them accountable for actually using -che ideas in their schools  and classrooms. If we have these opportunities we should use them for what they are and not just as a day away from the students. 13. Fully understood the concepts of knowledge work. I will be able to identify design work for students. As facilitator can share and assess the degree of engagement of work of students. Share the success of design of knowledge work. The collaboration of planning was wonderful. 2 Xnowledge Work Project Total Evaluation by Participant 1993-94 ff{{.'1 14. The workshop has enabled me to feel confident in sharing and modelling actual knowledge work. Helped me to engage students in knowledge work and also design work for students to use. Given me time to associate and share with fellow teachers, as well as, involve resource people from the community. Can identify and assess the degree to which my students are engaged int he work and share examples. 15. I think the time was well spent. I learned many new techniques that I have and will implement in my classes. This has taught me to take the work load off of myself and put more responsibility on the students. I especially like the fact that students will be given choices: This will give the students more ownership in their work and more students will do it and be proud of it! 16. I believe we fully met the first three outcomes that are listed as well as the last two outcomes. I'm still having trouble with modifying variables. I believe that this workshop will cause me to strive for better prepared iessons and assignments. 17. We shared our successes which is always helpful. Practical discussion always counts more than theory. Most importantly, the knowledge work that we design will echo the activities of the other teachers involved. Hopefully kids will end up getting a majority of tasks designed with these qualities. We are now able to take this school wide. I think this is a project with a great potential for continuing, because of its's great practicability. 18. I think to be able to identify in work designed for students there can be some qualities that result in student's being engaged with the work. After working on this workshop I have been able to assess the degree to which students have been engaged. Thank you. 19. This workshop has enabled me to: to articulate and produce knowledge work. Engage students in knowledge work. I am able to design work for students use. We are able to identify and engage outside agencies in .community ~s facilitator. Assess knowledge work. Plan and solve problems individually and collaboratively.  20. The workshop has enabled me to articulate and produce J Jtnovledge Work Project Total Evaluation  by Participant  1993-94 /fff. T knowledge work. Engage students in knowledge work. I am able to design work for students to use. We are able to involve and identify outside agencies and community as facilitator. Assess knowledge work. Collaborative planning and problem solving. 4 rt: t:: The following is a compilation of pluses and wishes from the Leadership Retreat April 15-16, 1994. The leadership consisted of Principals, Assistant Principals, Team leaders or their designee, and the Steering Committee Chairpersons of the four restructuring schools. PLUSES~ ANYTHING YOU LIKED. 1. 2. 3. The ability of this group to be a open and honest about what is best for kids. What changes need to take place with staff to reach students. These are great dedicated people. I will miss this. Quality time to work on goals and action plans for our school. This meeting met our needs as well as or better than .!!.DY we have attended. Thanks to Linda Young! The entire day we had to work with our school team and focus on our plan for 94-95 was very beneficial. We were able to discuss some issues that we had previously swept aside, and we discussed some \"small\" things we could do this year to help with the 11big11 things next year. As usual, the food at the Red Apple was great. Thanks Linda and Gail for arranging a great retreat! 1. 2. 3. More discussion on strategies of delivery of instruction for students with low ability. The  assurance that these opportunities will continue for staff. None!! Excellent opportunity for work. We 1eed to continue these opportunit es. I really do not have any wishes for this retreat. I will just look forward to the next planning session! PLUSES - ANYTHING 4. 5. 6. 7. I like having the time to discuss school improvement and steps that can be followed to reach specific goals set out in our school COE plan. The communication was great! Sharing ideas with other schools. Emphasis on school planning of obtainable programs. Cooperation between administrator and staff. Uninterrupted time together to work through ideas. Sharing of ideas with other schools. Great! Looking intensely at the COE plan to evaluate and reinstated goals. When we shared with the different schools on what we are each doing positive. Dividing into our individual schools and talking about what we are going to do to improve staff morale. Things we planned to get parental involvement. 4. 5. 6. 7. I would like to have met more with teachers from other schools to share ideas and successes, but the day with our own school was great! These workshops help define goals, reestablish team and faculty successes. overall, I feel this workshop was very successful in meeting many needs. Hore time together. Hore resources to provide incentives for performance and behavior. Continued availability of team planning time. Nothing - I thought the time was refreshing, profitable and laid back all at the same time. Continued support in our endeavors to reach kids who have high needs. Nothing, really!! I was pleased with all we did. 8. The agendas of the meeting were excellent. I liked the format of the meetings as it allowed for group sharing and ample time for our school to work together independently. An excellent retreat. 9. Great opportunity to address an area we have skirted around for too long. Good progress made, an opportunity to get our thoughts in order. 10. Support system for new teachers and other staff. Students given an opportunity to have success in what every stage of development they are currently in. 11. Excellent accommodations - good food, great rooms. Well-planned agenda\neverything flowed very smoothly. Forest Heights group had a really productive and enlightening session. 12. I really enjoyed the school time. We were able to accomplish a lot of good work. Work that could not have been done in Little Rock with all our other distractions. (family, home, kids, etc ... ) 13. Our own agenda. B. My room was too warm last night/my fault/too lazy to adjust the temperature. 9. None. 10. Follow through on very welldeveloped plans. More inter team coordination. 11. I wish the cross-school sharing time had been a little more structured. We seemed to have been a little confused about our end goal coming out of the starting gate. 12. N/A. 13. We really need more time -- as usual. PLUSES - ANYTH:J:t~G 14. We got to work together with our colleagues in our school. We accomplished so many positive ideas for our school and our students. We were united for one idea - our goal. 15. It was great to be afforded the opportunity to get .2!!.t, of LR for our retreat. A lot of progress came out of this meeting. It's a fact, I believe this was the best meeting I've attended all year. 16. Time to share with our faculty members as a group. We were able to accomplish a great deal. 17. + Working with my fellow co-workers in a relaxed productive manner. + Accommodations. + Swap Session 14. Nothing. 15. This meeting was everything I wanted it to be. 16. We could have more retreats or workshops strictly for planning school acthrities and strategies. 17. More time. PLUSES - ANYTHING YOU 18. This retreat enabled me to have a better understanding of the other faculty members' attitudes toward certain issues. I had a wonderful time. 19. Sharing ideas as a group. I believe we accomplished what we set out to do. 20. Sharing. 21. I preferred this retreat to others because of the fact that we were allowed to work within our own school issues. 18. I liked the individual schools having the all-day session. We were able to relax~ discuss, and key in some key issues affecting our schools. We were able to accomplish a great deal of concerns. It was good for the fellowship (camaraderie) among the administrators and staff. (Thanks). The sharing of interdisciplinary ideas and units was very helpful. These and other ideas are valuable resources in making our approach to educating our children to be successful. These can provide exciting classroom experiences. 19. None. 20. Longer time. 21. None. PLUSES - ANYTHiNG YOU LIKED. 22. I preferred leaving here with some very distinct and workable solutions for the remainder of this school year to address a problem of tremendous concern for central office at present(# of discipline sanctions). Finally, we have a motto intact and a VISION!! I feel as if we are really moving forward. Enjoyed freedom to develop our own agenda - One of the best ones we've had. 23. We formed a vision statement. We had time to make some workable plans for alternative discipline. 24. I really enjoyed the commitment and excitement generated by the Southwest Jr. High Staff. We dealt with critical issues (1) absenteeism, (2) student/ teacher conflict, (3) discipline with dignity. our staff participation was excellent. We have developed a plan that can truly work. We enjoyed the team effort. 26. I enjoyed meeting with members of my school and trying to come up with solutions for problems, concerns of our school. 22. Too little time - passed too auicklyl! Didn't get up and run this am! (but felt good to sleep in.) 23. None. 25. None. 26. I wish we could have shared our ideas with the other schools. PLUSES 27. Everything - it was one of the best, productive retreats I've been too. 28. Today was super! I only wish that we could do this more often. This weekend was so beneficial to all of us. Working together to help our building to be better is what we're all about ... Making kids feel good about themselves and the school is very important! 29. I liked our goal: To suggest action steps to coordinate and unify the work of the steering committee and school staff members. (T-shirts - love it). 30. The valuable insight of the team leaders. The ability to plan for the future. The opportunity to have research available to offer a strong knowledge base for effective planning. 31. Atmosphere was great for sharing. 27. That the District would listen to us as well as just look at numbers!! We're now just statistics. What if Columbus had turned around and quit? 28. Wish we could do this morel Great Weekend! {Smile face.) 29. None. 30. \"I loved it\" {Smile face.) 31. Wish we could have met with the other schools after we met. It was great. PLUSES - 32. I enjoyed the time with staff - It would 32. None. be nice if we could meet twice per year. I think the steering committee has taken shape and is functioning well. We were able to put together some ideas that will, I am sure help our kids be more successful in school. Thanks for the opportunity. 33. I feel that I got more out of this 33. None. year's retreat than any other. The time spent Saturday was most productive and the Friday session helps us get an opportunity to applaud, assist and encourage each other. 34. I liked the time to plan with individual 34. None. schools. The time was well spent. Enjoyed the day. 35. Teachers sharing successful strategies 35. This was a great meeting! on how to reduce discipline problems and Thanks. improving academic performance is a very good concept. I really liked the ideas of letting teachers who are not team leaders attend the retreat. PLUSES - ANYTHING YOU LIKED. 36. Being able to come together as a team, working together, for a common goal, I feel, increased productivity on the part of teachers and students. students know that we caret We have less behavior problems because many minor problems are dealt with within the team. I see next year as a real opportunity, as we try to go full-force into the advisor-advisee program. 37. As a new team leader and a teacher new to the teaming approach, I am again very impressed with the support and time dedicated to making the re-structured approach work! I find this time with other staff and administrators to be extremely valuable and encouraging. The \"swap\" time last night gave me~ good ideas and the all day planning session today helped our staff design and begin to implement and wonderful new advisoradvisee program. Pulaski Heights is truly on the \"cutting edge\" of the restructuring movement. 38. Having time to develop a plan that we WILL use. Without the planning time, to develop programs (s) for increasing successful strategies for ALL students would be impossible and more students would fall through the educational cracks. 36. None. 37. None. 38. Hore planning time for schools to develop more successful strategies for all students! PLUSES - ANYTHING YOU LIKED. _, . -::::-\n~:l . . . . 39. I really liked the format this year. it is so helpful to get together with other teachers for idea exchanges. 40. Share sessions to find out about successful team activities that other schools are using to keep students in school and provide motivation for learning. Example: Discussed\nA. Interdisciplinary units. B. Conflict resolution - peer mediation. c. Block Scheduling. 2. Time for school planning - plans for small group setting - Advisor-Advisee. 41. The format was extremely beneficial. It was such that individual schools had 42. time to plan for the upcoming year after hearing on the previous night the successful interventions and programs being implemented in other schools. It was an excellent time to be creative, to dream, to take risks with brainstorming for better schools next year. Lots of definite plans with deadlines were established. Ended up with a product! Had an opportunity to plan a program that designed to reach~ of our kids. relaxed atmosphere promotes ideas. is The 39. Chances for more swap sessions during the school year. 40. All was valuable - need this time more often. 41. I think that the goals established were met, and an appreciation for our teams was renewed. Thanks for the opportunity. 42. Didn't have enough time to get everything done that needs to be done. PLUSES - ANYTHING YOU LIKED. 43. Great atmosphere - Extremely conducive to brainstorming and getting things done. Our group was close and on task in planning for the future and working for an even more effective learning environment. Hass meeting of sharing with other schools gave some great ideas that might be used at our own learning center. The New Futures Restructured schools seem to go all the way for the benefit of the whole child. 44. The accommodations and format for the weekend was great! The initiatives promoted by the restructuring schools are paramount to ensure the students' needs for tomorrow. The environment created allows teachers and students to work towards addressing the complex issues and challenges that today's society presents to our kids. Not only can we provide academic instructions, but we can assist the students with their growth a,~ maturation in becoming contributing citizens of our community. 45. Having the opportunity to work and plan strategies to help students achieve their potential - restructuring has allowed us to spend the time before implementation thinking about and planning our activities. 43. Longer sessions - possibly the use of audio visual material next time i.e. examples ' on tape of what was used at other schools or slides. 45. Time for a round of golf! 46. That we had more opportunities to plan like this during the school year - away from the day to day hassle. rr n . :.\u0026gt; CLOVERDALE JR HIGH AFTER 50-iOOL PROGRAM 1JiAME f1!AMf 1.t2t ~IEAM GPA 1 '1W GPA 2 ffi AII. ADKINS JERMAlNE 897813 9 NAV 2.57 2.87 EX ALLEN CEDRIC 913929 9 NAY 1.14 0.857 GOOD ALLEN SHONEY 167292 8 STARS 2.0 2.714 EX AWSON SHARONDA 166990 8 PAWS 2.83 3.167 EX ASHFORD JOHNNY 919538 8 PAWS 1.71 2.167 EX AYERS TIFFIN! 894198 7 UNTOUC 3.14 3.5 EX BAKER DEUNDRA 878038 7 7WOND 3.714 3.714 EX BEVERLEY TANESHIA 898261 9 NAV 3.14 2.571 GOOD BIDDLE ELIZABETH 914141 7 UNTOUC 4.0 4.0 EX BIWNGS JAVIA 931601 9 AFROSH 0.857 1.0 AV BIVENS RONNIESHA 164323 9 AFROSH 3.428 3.0 GOOD BLACK AL 937715 8 STARS 2.428 1.714 GOOD BLACKMON ARLESHIA 898297 8 STARS 2.5 3.333 EX BRENT LAVAR 914272 9 NAV 2.0 1.857 GOOD BROWN ROY 914404 9 NAV 2.0 2.0 AV BROWN SHAMEKA 898608 8 STARS 3.5 3.333 GOOD BUCKLEY RASHAWN 896737 9 NAV 2.857 3.286 EX BUFORD TINIKA 951774 8 PAWS 2.142 1.857 GOOD BURGESS SHELENA 892140 8 STARS 2.857 3.0 GOOD CALAHAN CHERRY 899103 9 NAV 3.571 3.571 EX CARTER ERICA 896872 7 7WOND 3.571 3.429 EX COGSHELL LAKISHA 899047 8 STARS 2.714 3.286 EX COMBS BEVERLY 899099 7 7WOND 3.285 3.0 GOOD COOPER SHANDTELL 168677 7 7WOND 0.428 1.5 EX COTTRELL LAKENYA 935376 9 NAV 3.167 3.167 EX COVINGTON HENRY 905510 9 AFROSH 2.714 1.571 GOOD CRAFT BRANDON 907074 7 7WOND 4.0 4.0 PERFECT CUNNINGHAM CASEY 165867 7 UNTOUC 1.857 1.714 GOOD DANIEL ROBERT 959568 9 AFROSH 2.285 1.571 GOOD DAVIS DEERICA 924963 7 7WOND 2.857 3.143 GOOD DEDNER TAMEKIA 899412 8 STARS 3.428 3.286 EX DEPRIEST GILLAN 909808 7 7WOND 3.428 3.286 EX DINWIDDLE CARLA 894060 7 UNTOUC 1.571 1.143 GOOD DIXON NIHISSA 890167 7 UNTOUC 3.0 3.667 PERFECT DRAKE DEDE 894505 7 UNTOUC 1.571 0.286 GOOD DUNCAN SHAWN 912593 7 7WOND 3.428 3.714 EX FLOWERS ANGELA 164265 9 NAV 0.143 0.143 POOR FLOWERS DIONDRA 896585 7 UNTOUC 3.714 3.286 EX FLOWERS KELANI 899888 7 UNTOUC 3.571 3.429 EX FRANKS SHARONDA 155075 9 NAV 3.5 3.5 GOOD FURGUERSON BILLY 900054 9 NAV 2.43 2.143 AV GARMON SHAMARRA 920200 8 PAWS 3.0 3.0 EX GIBSON ANDREW 163180 9 NAV 1.571 1.571 POOR GIBSON SIOBHAN 926399 8 STARS 3.0 2.714 EX GILL DARYL 900156 7 7WOND 3.428 2.0 EX GRIST RATHA 953000 9 NAV 3.571 3.571 GOOD HALL ALVIS 900405 9 AFROSH 3.285 3.429 EX HALL KIM 900424 7 UNTOUC 2.857 2.0 GOOD HAMMOND DAQUAN 908896 7 UNTOUC 2.0 1.286 EX CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM ~ FNAME .IQI. SIB IEAM GPA 1 9W GPA 2 9W ATT. HAMPTON BRANDON 900455 7 7WOND 4.0 3.333 EX HARRIS DEMARIUS 908916 9 NAV 1.857 1.429 EX HARRIS KIM 900539 8 STARS 2.857 3.0 GOOD HOLLEY TERRENCE 900820 8 PAWS 1.857 2.0 GOOD HOWARD April 164'150 7 7WOND 2.0 0.857 AV HURD CEDRIC 166967 9 NAV 3.285 2.429 GOOD HYMES KAREN 929676 7 7WOND 3.428 3.0 EX IRELAND CHERONDA 900980 8 PAWS 3.857 3.857 EX JACKSON LAFANTA 951955 7 UNTOUC 2.285 3.143 EX JACKSON TARSALON 901039 8 PAWS 2.428 2.571 PERFECT JOHNSON CAMEL.A 164'195 8 PAWS 2.857 3.0 EX JOHNSON MISTI 914\"147 7 UNTOUC 2.714 3.429 EX JOLLY LISA 907959 7 7WOND 3.714 3.714 EX JORDAN JAMES 892787 8 STARS 2.857 2.857 GOOD JORDAN YULANDA 166700 9 NAV 3.333 2.5 GOOD KING DEON 930003 7 7WOND 3.71\"1 3.429 GOOD LANIGAN ANTONIO 166701 9 AFROSH 3.0 3.714 EX LEE DWAYNE 901634 7 7WOND 3.429 2.286 PERFECT LONGLEY YOLANDA 901796 7 UNTOUC 3.429 3.429 EX LOVE JANA 901802 7 UNTOUC 2.587 2.833 EX LOVE NASHA 896558 8 STARS 2.285 3.143 GOOD LOVE TASHANA 155183 7 UNTOUC 2.285 1.714 EX  i MADISON LATRESHA 895011 7 7WOND 1.428 0.571 POOR MARBLEY NINA 891703 7 7WOND 3.571 3.571 GOOD t.4ARTIN ELONDA 914314 7 UNTOUC 2.285 2.143 GOOD MCCUNTON GREGORY 952953 8 PAWS 2.142 2.0 GOOD MCCUNTON KENYU 952952 9 NAV 3.142 2.0 GOOD MCCRARY SHAWNECE 902107 8 PAWS 3.142 3.286 GOOD MCGILL CHASTITY 926191 8 STARS 2.142 2.857 EX MCMILLAN JACQUELYN 902190 7 UNTOUC 3.5 3.0 EX MILLER ROBIN 959747 7 UNTOUC 4.0 4 EX NORFLEET ROSALYN 162033 9 NAV 1.285 1.857 EX PARKER CHINNAILL 951421 7 7WOND 2.0 2.286 GOOD PARKER TERRELL 902833 8 STARS 1.857 1.286 GOOD PATRICK BRODERICK 937179 9 AFROSH 2.428 1.571 GOOD PATRICK TOYRAN 896311 7 7WOND 3.714 4.0 EX PORTER ALBERT 153682 9 NAV 2 0.741 AV PORTER DERICKO 153892 9 NAV 0.857 0.857 AV PRIVETT JOHNA THAN 952864 9 NAV 3.714 3.429 EX RAFTER MARCUS 903156 9 NAV 1.285 1.571 EX RAY STEVE 903211 7 UNTOUC 3.0 2.857 EX REED LATIA 890134 8 STARS 2.714 3.143 EX ROBINSON LAWANDA 896142 7 UNTOUC 1.571 1.714 GOOD ROBINSON SHERELL 951097 7 7WOND 3.571 3.714 GOOD ROGERS STANLEY 911352 8 STARS 2.714 2.429 EX SASU ELIZABETH 960732 8 PAWS 2.428 3.667 EX SEBOURN AMANDA 916190 9 NAV 3.714 4.0 EX SHAVERS MAURICE 892971 8 PAWS 3.714 3.5 EX SHERRER MATOSHA 903709 8 STARS 2.142 3.286 EX SHERRER MONICA 903710 9 AFROSH 1.857 1.857 EX I - ~ II CLOVERDALE JR. HIGH AFTER 50-IOOL PROGRAM 111 ~ FNAME ll2! ~IEAM GPA 1 9W GPA 2 !1W AIL SIDERS DANIEL 931301 7 UNTOUC 2.142 1.857 EX Sil.AS CARL 937573 7 UNTOUC 3.0 2.143 GOOD SIMMONS I WILMON 903748 7 7WOND 2.714 1.571 GOOD SIMS SHARRA 903n1 8 STARS 3.0 3.60 EX SMITH CANDICE 959569 7 7WONO 3.857 3.714 EX SMITH DENISHA 925214 7 7WOND 3.428 4.0 EX SPEARMON CEDRIC 95233.tl 9 AFROSH 1.857 1.429 EX I SPEARMON Cl.EDIUS 932336 8 STARS 2.714 3.0 EX SPROUSE TIFFANY 903968 7 7WOND 2.857 3.571 EX 11 STOVER NATALEA 894752 7 7WONO 3.428 3.143 EX 11 STRONG CRYSTAL 926'179 7 UNTOUC 2.142 2.0 EX SUWVAN KIM 1679'12 8 STARS 3.0 2.571 EX SUMMERS MARQUIS 904148 9 NAV 2.428 2.0 EX TATUM STEPHANIE 9onos 7 UNTOUC 2.571 1.857 GOOD I! TERRELL LAKUA 914268 9 NAV 1.429 1.429 GOOD Ii THOMAS ERICKA 9096.tlS 7 7WOND 4.0 4 GOOD II THOMAS TINA 935n2 7 UNTOUC 2.587 3.286 EX I TURNER TARA 904454 7 7WOND 2.0 1.429 EX ,, TWITTY LENARD 951283 9 NAV 2.833 2.833 EX lYLER EARNEST , 908876 8 PAWS 0.714 0 .0 POOR WAL.KER SHELLEY 904573 11 8 PAWS 3.142 3286 EX II WATERS SCHEKISA 901319 9 NAV 2.428 2.0 GOOD WEBB LAKIESHA 913292 9 NAV 1.428 2286 GOOD WHALEY FRANK 891875 8 PAWS 2.0 0.714 GOOD J!I WHITE NAMONA 931658 7 7WOND 3.142 3.1 '13 EX fl WILDER VICTORIA 904841 7 7WONO  .O -1.0 EX I WIWAMS AMANDA 897438 7 7WONO 2.429 2.429 GOOD J! WIWAMS ANTOINETTE 8922'13 7 UNTOUC 1.714 2.1'13 EX WIWAMS BRIAN 16'1240 9 NAV 1.714 1.857 GOOD WIWAMS OOREY 892078 9 AFROSH 3.5 2.429 GOOD II WIWAMS JAMIE 890520 8 PAWS 2.571 2.571 EX ii WIWAMS PATRICE 951273 8 STARS 3.285 2.71.tl GOOD WIWAMS SHEVONNE 917345 8 STARS 2.571 3.1'13 EX 11 WIWAMS TAMIKA 892186 7 UNTOUC 0.857 1.143 GOOD \\,I WIWAMS TERRENCE 904956 9 NAV 3.857 3.1 '13 GOOD WITT SHAOONDRIA 905025 7 7WOND 3.428 3.0 EX ,\nI WOODLEY TAMEKA 905061 8 PAWS 3.33 3.5 EX WOODS ANTONIETTE 905064 7 7WOND 1.428 1.714 GOOD WOODS CLAUDIA 896273 7 7WONO 3.428 3286 EX WOODS KEISHA 896646 9 AFROSH 3.428 3.1 '13 EX 11 WOODS MY1A 905069 8 STARS 2285 3.143 EX WRIGHT KEVIN 162553 8 PAWS 1.571 0.857 POOR I , . , 11 .   J ~:~liOlli. SQ[JTHWEST._..lllNIQR._filGH ?Rr:JC::,111_ CHARITY SMITH TE ACHi: R_ _,. .A...,N\"\"N._.E~T._..T.. E ..._. B... .,Au:Ru.N,...E-S_.,__ l. Please in::!i::ate the r.t:.'7::)e::- of .stu:ients referred for ~nch grndc level by se:-:, \n~:'!::e 3nd:classification. -------,,,.......,..-,-~~----------:-::-:-:-:-:..:=-~\n-:,-\n,,..,,-\n,...,..-:...,.....,,-------r-----:---------- Totu I Cirau2 :!tl:i8Efl l\u0026lt;i:Fffr.\n.:._:, Enrollment t~ i i't::!: I l!hl te i ut:-:2r -:-ota 1 C'. :s:::i\n\".-:'i I i-------- '.:r2cie 5 l aci'. \\Jtli t8 j D ~r12r : :-1,:\n1 2 I :=:0.~10 I e Jhale Ferna1,s !\n-!a , f: r2ma le ri2fe:-red ! R::::1. I .,~I J\nI I ! ! I I ! I I I I i I ! i 7 183 32 7 1 9 7 4 0 I 3 I 0 I 33 I 32 ' 1 I I ---  I I I i I I I I .3 178 52 i 4 ! 18 i 15 6 0 i 0 I 0 39 I 36 I 3 I I\n' ----- I I i I i I I ! :\n169 44 8 26 8 2 1 0 0 37 29 8\nI : I I i i i ' i I I 7C.~.L 530 128 I 1 9 I 63 ' 30 12 1 ! 3 0 109 97 ! 12 I ,, Tctal students re-12r::cd: 109 ~. :otal recoraed ab.sei'lc-es: 63 Total da.ys assigned: 358 i~umber of studen:s not ::~:, ~ting ~ssignmen: t: :ssP: 9 RECEIVE,... i~urn~er :f r2pe5t2~3: 2~?te - 4 JUN 1 4. 1994 ------ NEW FUTUf .. Grcde 9 4 ?h:::me 5 School SOUTHWEST JR. Number of :e2cher sonfe~~~ses: Srade 7 4 Grad2 8 Gr\":2 9 -------- Grade 7 I 122 G:-ade 8 96 G:-ade 9 71 l~tervention and Follow-up Activities: Please describe in nar:--ative formthevarious interven:.ion strategies and fol1ow-up plans and/or contacts that have occurred with students as~igned to the ln-Schc~l Suspension Program. ISSP OBJECTIVES: 1. To help students evaluate his/her behavior by completing suspension learning packets. 2. To use self-discipline to improve academic and social performance. ~v\u0026amp;luation: Please describe in narrative form the aeneral reaction of the following\n~cups to the In-School Suspension Program: stuaents who have been referred, teache~s 2nd administrative staff, parents, and the In-School Suspension teacher. The overall acceptance of the program has been excellent. Students have responded very positively to the learning packets with intent to avoid return visits. Teachers, administrators, counselors, parents, case managers, and significant others have complimented the program with exceptional reviews . . Support is evidenced by written comments, physical presence, and student work and reactions. -, ~ota1 visits to ISSP by: School cd~inistrators --=2=3 _______ _ J . School counselors ____ .....:.7 ______ _ Teachers 140 .., J. O the: ( pi ease spec i f y ) _p=a.::r-=e\n.\nn\n:_\nt::\n.\ns::\n..__---'1 _ _ Attiti onal Comments: This year we are attempting to work closer with case management and the counseling staff by making contact for individual students and requesting personal visits. We have provided teachers with suggested strategies to help support students who have been assigned with personal invitations to stop in and visit with students during their period of assignment. Our aim is to remove students from the mainstream in order to work on unacceptable behavioral characteristics, keep them on schedule, provide them with positive alternatives, and return them equipped for academic success in the classroom. I School dist-rict pcrrticipation Provides experts in non-academic fields to assist in planning preventive programs, providing in-service training, and designing after care support systems in the school. Immediate accessibility for referral when youth are identified who need social or health services. Provides assistance from the broader community in addressing crisis situations that occur during the school day. Creates a more direct link between the school and the home. Enhances the parent's, youth's and community's perception of schools as caring places. Allows teachers to focus more clearly on the academic needs of the students. Creates a healthier, happier student body. Provides a caring supportive adult to assist with non-academic problems Provides a coordinated plan for delivering needed educational, social and health services to the youth or their family Ensures someone is responsible for following up on referrals to outside agencies to be sure they are provided. Establishes a more direct link between the school and the home. Increases the opportunities for youth to obtain the social and academic skills needed for later succcess. Youth-cente-red fr family-o-riented flt(. ? Coo-rdinated se-rv1ces Provides direct linkage between youth-serving agencies and the public schools. Facilitates coordinated service among numerous agencies serving the same youth or family. Increases the opportunities for agencies to assist in developing preventive programs for youth. Allows for earlier identification of problems and more appropriate referrals to needed services. Provides a person to assist with removing barriers to effective use of services and to provide follow up after services are completed. Provdies more accurate information about the nature and extent of problems confronted by youth for use in future planning and program development. Young Professionals Clubs Support Groups School visits from convicts Field trips Participation in Little Rock Civitan Club's \"Rainbow of Love\" bowling tournament Worthen Bank sponsors day at Wild River Country A.A. and Alanon Community connection 1/ /tff.'l\u0026gt; GOA.LS A'-\"D OBJECTIVES REPORT In the Spring of 1992, the Director of Case Management met with participating CMST Agency Supervisors and Case Managers to develop Goals and Objectives for the CMST Project. The major Goal identified is:  ENHANCE ACADE~IC PERFORMANCE OF CMST STUDENTS Four objectives are established as a way to realize the Goal: Objective 1  50% of students on CMST caseloads will increase GPA by at ]e?.st .2 per semester during involvement with CMST. Objective 2  50% of students on CMST caseloads will not be absent more than 12 days per semester. Objective 3  A positive success plan for beh\niviori\\l improvement will be developed by Case Manager, Teache: Team, Vice Principal. Parent(s) and student for all students on CMST caseloads with a history of suspension and/or expulsion. Plan development will begin October 1, 1992 anc will continue at the rate of one each week until !)Ian has been developed for all students on the Case Manager's caseioad with histo1\n of suspension and/or expulsion. Objective 4  All students identified as parents will be considered automatically referred to CMST for services, and no repeat pregnancies will occur within this population during the year. Outcome data were collected at the end of each school semester du ring the 1992-1993 school year and 1993-1994 school vear. The outcomes for some students were excluded from consideration in the following circumstances:  Never received signed consent for services.   Referred c?.ses where no need for Case Mana2ement services existe d.  Cases in which services were terminated prior -to November l during the Fall semester, and prior to April l during the Spring semester of each school year.  Cases where data were unavailable due to missing school records. The results for all other students follow. . . - CL FH PH SW / Ttls .~alysis: . . FALL 9.2 I SPRI:--\nG 93 I FALL 93 I SPRl!'.G 94 Tot Tot % Tot % Tot Tot % Cases \u0026gt;.2 I Tot Cases \u0026gt;.2 Cases \u0026gt;.2 l Tot Cases 58 82 64 44 248 19 33% 94 27 29% 53 17 32% 63 33 40% 100 31 31% 58 17 29% 71% 25 39% 117 30 26% 79 34 43% 98 16 36% 99 26 26% 58 13 22% 59 93 38% ~10 114 28% 248 81 33% 291 The objective of 50% of CMST students increasing GPA by at least .2 per semester was not achieved. In the Fall 93 semester, Pulaski Heights reached 43%, the highest percentage achieved in any semester. Significant increases in number of cases considered occurred each spring semester. This occurs as the number of cases referred increases caseload sizes as the school year progresses. It is also noted that there is a significant decrease in the percentage of students meeting the GPA outcome objective. This may be due to increased caseload sizes during the spring sei,1ester. Staff also cite a tendency for students to work only hard enough during the spring semester to assure passing to the next grade level. Tot % \u0026gt;.2 17 27% 17 24% 23 23% 19 32% 76 26% r. - - T - . l FALL 92 SPRI!'iG 93 . FALL 93 SPRING 94 Tot + % Tot + % Tot + % Tot + % Cases Att Cases Att Cases Att Cases Att CL 70 34 49% 96 62 65% 75 43 57% 73 29 40% FH 93 31 33% 104 40 38% 66 18 27% 75 16 21% PH 74 33 45% 120 65 54% 108 66 61% 100 45 45% 11 ' SW 72 28 39% 101 28 28% 69 23 33% 74 27 36% ,!: Ttls 309 126 41% 421 195 46% 318 150 47% 322 117 36%\n' Analysis: There is a wide range in these figures, from 65% at Cloverdale in Spring i 93 to 21 % at Forest Heights in Spring 94. Also the totals for Springs 94 i were 36%, a decrease from both the Spring 93 figure of 46% and the Fall I 93 figure of 47%. It is noted that staff resignations during the Spring 94 Iii semester left 2 of 4 positions vacant for several months at Forest Heights. !:,I !I ! Iii I II I ' . II II II i - -- .. I ! - - - . -. FALL 92 SPRl~G 93 I FALL 93 SPRING 94 ~ Tot + % Tot + % Tot + % Tot + % Cases Pia Cases Pia Cases Pia Cases Pia ' - CL 26 FH 51 PH 35 SW 34 Ttl 146 s .nalysis: n n n n 17 65% 47 28 60% 40 35 88% 53 46 14 27% 68 _., ..,. 34% 39 10 26% 40 3 18 51% 54 33 61% 45 43 96% 60 55 2 6% 59 2 3% 36 36 100 42 41 % 51 35% 2~S 86 38% 160 124 78% 195 145 Overall very good improvement from one school year to the next, especially for Southwest. Forest Heights is the notable exception, and this primarily due to staff vacancies. 87% 8% 92% 98% 74% L School Year 1992-93 School Year 1993-1994 Total Total w/ Tot.al Total w/ Parents 2nd Preg Parents 2nd Preg 11 1 15 1 bts 10 2 12 1 ights 10 3 12 5 est 11 1 4 0 ~ Totals 42 7(17%) 43 7(16%) Analysis: Outcomes are essentially the same for each year. Planning, Research and Evaluation Program Evaluation Primary Leader: Dr. Henry P. Williams Secondary Leader: Dr. Robert L. Clowers Program Name: Plannio\u0026amp; and Evaluation Services Program Description: Purpose: Scope and Content: Participants/Beneficiaries: Program Goals: Evaluation Criteria: The Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (PRE) operates as a quasi-independent unit which provides information and technical assistance to the Superintendent and Board for strategic planning. To provide overall planning activities for the District and to provide information required for District and building level decision making. The scope of activities included in Planning and Evaluation services include: semi-annual Educational Equity Monitoring visits\nCoordination of the Planning and Budgeting process\nCoordination of the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (AMPT was discontinued following the spring 1994 administration)\nCoordination of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition\nCoordination of the School Climate/Human Relation Survey\nCoordination of the Arkansas Direct Writing Assessment\nCoordination of Home Schooling tasks\nconducts studies and prepares reports as identified by the Board\nMaintains archival records\nMaintains records of elementary students withdrawn from the district. Participants and beneficiaries includes students, building level principals and staff, administrators, the Board of Directors, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and other parties involved in the court approved desegregation case. To provide appropriate data and technical assistance for planning and implementing equitable learning experiences for all students. 1.0 Completed semi-annual report of findings in the thirteen (13) monitoring categories. 1.1 Copies of completed documents. 2 1.2 List of local team members. 1.3 Agenda of completed training sessions and list of team members who received training. 1.4 Individual School Profiles are available through the AS/400 at the central office. 1.5 Completed monitoring schedule for all schools. 1.6 Completed composite report for each visit. 1. 7 Semi-annual reports are prepared and distributed as scheduled. 2.1 Planning and budgeting process is conducted as outlined in the Management Tool. 2.2 AMPT is administered as scheduled. 2.3 Stanford Achievement test is administered as scheduled. 2.4 Surveys are administered as scheduled. 2.5 All Arkansas Writing Assessment tasks are completed as designed and scheduled. 2.6 Home School tasks are completed according to Act 42 of 1985. 3. 0 Studies are conducted as designed and reports are published and distributed as required. 3.1 Assessment reports are published and distributed to appropriate persons. 3.2 Reports are published and distributed to appropriate persons. 3.3 The archival records are maintained and available for inspection. 3.4 The records are stored on microfilm for immediate Evaluation Results Objective 1: 3 retrieval. 4.0 Administration of School Climate/Human Relations Survey. To conduct semi-annual E.ducational Equity Monitoring visits with the assistance of the local school biracial committees. E.ducational Equity Monitoring teams comprised of an Evaluation Specialist along with local school biracial committee members conduct monitoring visits each semester of each school year. The outcome of each monitoring visit is a consensus report of the findings of the monitoring visit. These reports are on file in the PRE Department. Each school in the district was visited each semester during the 1993-94 school year. Principals are required to form the local school biracial committee for their building and then send a copy to PRE. At the beginning of each school year, PRE conducts an inservice/training for local school biracial committee participants. The inservice is typically conducted in October prior to the monitoring visits. School principals are also given instructions at the start of the school year to input information into the AS/400 which is used as part of the school profile. Monitoring schedules are established between the Evaluation Specialist assigned to monitor the school and the school principal. The monitoring visits are then conducted. The consensus reports are later summarized and compiled for a semester report. The individual consensus reports are copied and distributed to selected administrators and the building principals for feedback, as needed. The semester reports are distributed to selected administrators, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and Joshua Intervenors. Discussion: The objective of conducting semi-annual E.ducational Equity Monitoring visits with the assistance of the local school biracial committee members was met. The monitoring visits serve as a cardinal form of feedback to the building principal and other LRSD administrators regarding the educational equity concept at the building level. Objective 2: To provide assistance that promotes the planning process of the LRSD. Please note that strategies listed under this objective include the planning and budgeting process along with the administration of various districtwide tests, a school climate survey, and home school tasks. 'IT II [I II I -I - ------ --- 4 A planning and budgeting process manual (the \"Gray Book\") is prepared by the summer of each newly started fiscal year and serves as an overall guide to the planning and budgeting process for the upcoming fiscal year. A \"Management Tool\" is similarly prepared for guidance in preparation of the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The Superintendent's Council meets regularly to review the management tool, which is filed at the end of each month with the court. In addition to the management tool, the office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation also coordinates the compilation of a Program Budget Document (PBD), which is filed quarterly with the court. The PBD includes achievement information for the District's desegregation and nondesegregation programs. Training sessions regarding the PBD process are coordinated through PRE. The Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (AMPT) was coordinated through PRE as scheduled {spring 1994 was the last administration of the AMPT, however). The Stanford Achievement test, Eighth Edition, was administered during spring 1994 as scheduled. The Arkansas Direct Writing Assessment was also administered as scheduled. The School Climate survey was conducted in Spring 1994 among students, certified staff, and a random sampling of parents. Home schooling tasks, which principally relate to the distribution of requested home school application and forwarding of an enrollment list to the Arkansas Department of Education, was conducted through PRE. Discussion: The objective of providing assistance to promote the planning process of LRSD was met. The District is now in its second year of following a Planning and Budgeting process as directed by the court. The staff time required for the production of the Management Tool and the PBD has taken staff resources away from other projects or studies as described in this evaluation. In the 1993-94 school year, only one Evaluation Specialist was utilized to inservice District staff with respect to the planning process. As the planning and budgeting process becomes more institutionalized, it is anticipated that the number of professional staff in PRE that provide inservice training will increase. The program planning and budgeting process continues to be refined, and mid-stream adjustments in process may necessarily occur to respond appropriately to the needs of the District. Objective 3: To conduct educational research improving the teaching and learning process. PRE provides the results of the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) and other reports as identified above to appropriate building principals and various LRSD administrators. Administrative summaries, group skills analysis, and historical information with respect to the Stanford Achievement test are provided to building level and other LRSD administrators. The majority of special requests for information have centered around the SAT because of the role it plays in the assessment of LRSD students. PRE also compiled an analysis of the 1994 SAT test results, the 1994 AMPT test results, and the School Climate/Human Relations survey. 7 5 Discussion: PRE met the objective of conducting educational research to improve the teaching and learning process. The test and survey results that are shared with principals, LRSD administrators, and other LRSD staff should assist with improvements in the teaching and learning process if the findings from the reports are used. Requests for data and special reports related to the SAT test results appear to be on the increase and sometimes strain staff resources. Additional staff could be used to increase the extent of educational research that is conducted for the LRSD\nhowever, no recommendations will be forthcoming at this time to request additional staff. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Objective 1: The attainment of this goal is sometimes hampered by members of the local school biracial committee who cancel their monitoring visit. In such instances, PRE Evaluation Specialists have had to reschedule the site visit(s). Objective 2: Providing assistance that promotes the planning process will be refined over time as the process is institutionalized. This objective, with specific respect to the planning process, is at times hampered because of the time constraints and reliance on various administrators to submit information on a timely basis. For example, the PBD diskettes sometimes come in after a specified due date. It should be noted that Planning, Research, and Evaluation lost a secreterial position in the 1993-94 school year. It is expected, however, that further understanding of the planning process would help alleviate some of time crunch. District staff also need additional training in WordPerfect as it relates to the entry of data for the PBD. Objective 3: The extent to which educational research may be conducted by PRE is limited by current staff size. PRE does, however, provide technical assistance to other LRSD units as needed to help promote the District's overall educational research effort. Only one of PRE's six specialists is on a 12 month contract (4 are on a 10.5 and one is on an 11 month contract)\nas a result, educational research and/or the preparation of varying studies may be delayed until the fall semester begins. Recommendation(s) Recommendation 1: The Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department needs to conduct and/or coordinate continuous training with respect to the planning and budgeting process. Objective 1: To provide program managers and other District staff with the necessary understanding to further institutionalize the District's planning and budgeting process. Evaluation Criteria: PRE will plan and offer/coordinate program planning and budgeting workshops for appropriate staff. Required PBD information will be submitted in a timely L 6 manner consistent with information due dates. Expected Benefits: Program managers and District staff will have a greater understanding of the program planning and budgeting process. Information related to the overall cycle of the planning and budgeting process will be provided in a timely manner. Impact Analysis: Additional time will need to be scheduled for program managers or appropriate staff to attend the workshops where such information will be presented. This recommendation will have a positive effect on the Desegregation Plan as the concept of following a planning and budgeting process becomes more institutionalized. This recommendation is consistent with a court order requiring the District to conduct training sessions so that the planning and budgeting process may be more readily understood. Resources Analysis: No additional hiring of personnel is anticipated. Support staff from the Instructional Resource Center\nPlanning, Research and Evaluation\nand selected principals and administrators are the personnel of choice to assist with facilitation, training and presentations. Force Field Analysis: The primary supports of the recommendation will be those administrators most closely linked to the program planning and budgeting process. Likely detractors of the recommendation will be those in the District who view the planning process as cumbersome and time consuming (the Program Budget Document as one example). General Implementation Plan: Note: the following topics, time lines, and facilitator coordination represent a general implementation plan, as no specific dates are set. The Planning and Budgeting Process Program Evaluation Program Budget Document Business Cases Financial and Manpower Reports Word Perfect Training for Staff Spring \u0026amp; Fall Spring \u0026amp; Fall Fall Fall Fall Each semester Coordinate through PRE Coordinate through PRE Coordinate through PRE Coordinate through PRE Coordinate through PRE PRE Staff Note: Where possible, specific times and dates will be scheduled to coincide with times in the school year that are of specific or timely interest to the particular topic. Additional workshops may be added as needed. Recommendation 2: Increase utiliz.ation of the Planning, Research, and Evaluation professional 7 staff to conduct inservices or individualized training with respect to the planning and budgeting process. Objective 2: To increase utilization of PRE's professional staff with respect to providing inservice workshops or individualized assistance in relation to the District's planning and budgeting process. Evaluation Criteria: The number of professional PRE staff providing or ass1sung with inservice training on various aspects of the planning and budgeting process will increase over the 1993-94 level. Expected Benefits: Program managers and District staff will have a greater understanding of the program planning and budgeting process. Information related to the overall cycle of the planning and budgeting process will be provided in a timely manner. Impact Analysis: Additional time will need to be scheduled for program managers or appropriate staff to attend the workshops where such information will be presented. This recommendation will have a positive effect on the Desegregation Plan as the concept of following a planning and budgeting process becomes more institutionalized. This recommendation is consistent with a court order requiring the District to conduct training sessions so that the planning and budgeting process may be more readily understood. Resources Analysis: No additional hiring of personnel is anticipated. Force Field Analysis: The primary supports of the recommendation will be those administrators most closely linked to the program planning and budgeting process. Likely detractors of the recommendation will be those in the District who view the planning process as cumbersome and time consuming. General Implementation Plan: PRE Evaluation Specialists will be trained throughout the school year in varying aspects of the program planning and budgeting process. The Director of PRE will provide initial guidance in training personnel in the utilization of the process\nthe current Evaluation Specialist who is involved with the Program Budget Document and the Management Tool will serve as a peer tutor within the department. IN-DEPTH PROGRAM EVALUATION Program Description: Plant Services includes resources to identify, plan and execute maintenance/repair programs equitably so that Little Rock School District students can receive efficient, functional and effective education. Specifically, facilities includes maintenance programs to maintain/repair all District facilities in an equitable condition commensurate with financial resources and District priorities. Purpose: The purpose operation's necessary to critical as management. of the Plant Services is part of the base costs to maintain the buildings and grounds support the educational mission. This program is it encompasses all aspects of real property Scope and Content: The Plant Services Program encompasses the repair of all existing facilities, grounds and other real property, the maintenance thereof, new construction to support academic initiatives, all real estate actions to include leases, purchasing of property, selling of property, easements, grants, rights-of-way and licenses. It is extended to include the base operation costs of utility payments covering electric, water, gas, refuse, entomology and any other miscellaneous services. It includes long-range planning, responsibilities with regard to new construction, maintenance, acquisition and closing of facilities. Participants/Beneficiaries: The Plant Services Program is a base operations program that supports all persons that work for the Little Rock School District, are educated by its programs, or visits its facilities. Program Goals: To equitably maintain and academic programs, student support. Evaluation Criteria: repair facilities to support enrollment and administrative The evaluation criteria for the objectives listed in the Plant Ser~ices Program consists principally of historical records 1 indicating requests and completions of maintenance and repair work. They do not require a relative measure of success, but merely to report numbers of requests made and completions and the percent thereof. Evaluation Results: There is no measurable scale of success against which the evaluation can be made. The objectives reported in the Plant Services Program Budget Document, as stated previously, merely report the percent of completion of requests made of the program. There is no set goal that can be equated to measure this quantity. The amount of work completed has too many variables to establish a set percent to be achieved in any given reporting period. This is due to the complexity of the requests, the nature of the requests, the total number and the resources allocated to complete that goal, coupled with the priority. Objective U: To maintain all school facilities such that they are in a safe, operational condition to meet the academic needs of the various programs and to repair as necessary commensurate with resources. Discussion fl: This objective will never be met based on the level of funding that this Directorate presently received. The evaluation criteria is simply a tracking of the number of requests received against the number of requests completed. As more and more deficiencies are identified and more and more new work is identified to support academic programs, the disparity in funding will cause the percentage to decrease tremendously. Since the percentage reported on the program budget document only accounts for completion versus requests, and does not show the backlog and the subsequent monetary impact of that backlog, the way the Plant Services Report is established, it is of no useful value in the reporting procedure. Obstacles to Goal Attainment: There is one principal obstacle to the desired goal attainment of an equitable Facilities Program, and that is resources. The Plant Services Directorate is far below the national and regional averages, and as such, falls further behind as its backlog of maintenance and repair increases on a yearly basis. The amount of work identified district-wide to keep our buildings in a good 2 state of repair, and at an educational standard to support our programs, is mounting every year. With level or decreased funding each year, the backlog continues to increase. It is only through a higher funding level that we will be able to maintain our facilities to meet our operational needs. Recommendation: A careful evaluation of both the facilities and Plant Services' program would result in a recommendation that the Facilities Program be funded at a prescribed percent of the total district budget, this percent to be determined based on the regional and national average and a pre-determined decrease of the existing backlog of maintenance and repair. Only by clearly identifying how this backlog will be decreased, will we be able to establish a rate of success and a comparable measure thereof. A business case is recommended with this study, and the overall recommendation will likely result in an increase in the budget. DCE/rlh/pe2 3 Ii L. 1) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The program being evaluated as outlined in the nondesegregation portion of the Program Budget Document does not give an overall view of the Plant Services Program. The Program Budget Document merely responds to specific areas of concern and does not adequately see nor measure the program. The program is general engineering support to the entire district. As stated on page one (1) of this document, it encompasses all aspects of the engineering program to support the many facilities. It goes far beyond the specific item outlined in the Budget Document. - 2) The data that has been used to analyze this program is simply a tally of work order requests as made by the Facilities' Managers and as recorded by the Plant Services Directorate. All recommendations listed here are considered in the support area. DCE/rlh/pe2 4 Pupil Transportation Services Program Description: This program includes (1) the management, maintenance, and supervision of over 300 buses valued at more than eleven million dollars\n(2) the personnel management, training, and supervision of 334 employees\n(3) supervision of over 3,500 bus stops and 14,000 students while being transported daily to and from school\n(4) management of an annual budget of $7,354,396.24\n(5) providing transportation for field trips, athletic transportation and after school programs as requested by others. Historical data available at the Transportation Departmeflt were reviewed tor this report. Recommendation l: The Program Budget Document (PBD) for Pupil Transportation Services should be rewritten to utilize evaluation criteria that are reflective of performance standards. Area Classification: support Area Recommendation 2: outsource the student transportation system to a private concern. Area Classification: Support Area l Extended Evaluation Pupil Transportation Services Prog~am Description: Department provides transportation services to support basic academic programs, Special Ed Programs/Activities, and Athletics. Purpose: The purpose of Pupil Transportation Services is to provide transportation to and from school for students living in the LRSD who reside two miles or more from the school of assignment, to provide transportation for students with Individual Education Plans (IEP) identifying need for specialized transportation, and to support, extracurricular and co-curricular activities to the degree that resources will allow. Scope and Content: This program includes (1) the management, maintenance, and supervision of over 300 buses valued at more than eleven million dollars\n(2) the personnel management, training, and supervision of 334 employees\n(3) supervision of over 3,500 bus stops and 14,000 students while being transported daily to and from school\n(4) management of an annual budget of $7,354,396.24\n(5) providing transportation for field trips, athletic transportation and after school programs as requested by others. Participants/Beneficiaries: The primary beneficiaries are students who live more than two miles from their school of assignment. Other beneficiaries are students with courtesy stops, students who need transportation for field trips, athletic practices, and/or extended day programs. Program Goals: To provide safe, efficient and reliable transportation for the students of the Little Rock School District. Evaluation criteria: 1.0 Procurement request 1.1 Procurement request 1.2 Requisition signed 1.3 Buildings polled on materials recei ed 2.0 Report fleet requirements 2.1 Report fleet requirements 2.2 Report fleet requirements 2.3 First day routes printed 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 Report-Staffing (no evaluation criteria) (no evaluation criteria) Report year-end mileage Summer check sheets completed Summer check sheets completed Summer check sheets completed Summer check sheets completed Summer check sheets completed Checks entered in State Police Log Summer check sheets completed All buses identified by route transported All buses identified for auction memo to procurement State Board Log sheets submitted Evaluation Results: The overall transportation system failed but that will not be reflected in evaluation results because the evaluation criteria do not establish performance expectations. Performance criteria should include as a minimum, on-time to school, number of bus breakdowns, number of chargeable accidents, attendance rate for drivers, and number buses available daily. ODjective 1.0: To conduct routine office functions. Discussion 1. o: All forms such as bus cards, discipline reports, and time sheets were obtained and distributed to the school by supervisors. These were received later than normal due to the lateness of the decision on outsourcing. ODjective 2.0: To maintain an appropriate operational fleet. Discussion 2.0: The fleet requirements are determined by the number of routes to be run at the same time. This requirement must be adjusted based upon the number of drivers funded by the budget. If only 260 drivers are available, then 260 buses will be required even if 275 buses are required by the number of established routes. The balancing depends on the number of buses available in the fleet and the number of drivers authorized. Last year, 281 buses were in the fleet. No new buses were added. The personnel count of drivers and aides was fixed at 311. The number of drivers in the ?econd semester never reached the allocated 273 drivers. As a result, routes were late due to not enough drivers. To be a Bus Driver, a person must hold a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) with a school endorsement. Even though potential drivers completed training, they had to wait up to one month to be tested by the State Police. This is a continuing problem in maintaining the appropriate number of drivers. Objective 3.0: To maintain appropriate vehicle servicing. Discussion 3. o: The fleet is aging. No replacement plan exists. New buses are bought when money is available. Although all buses passed inspection, buses continue to breakdown and require extensive maintenance that is not covered by warranties. This increases the cost in operating the fleet. In order to keep a fleet in good operational order, a replacement plan should be implemented to insure that all buses will be available most of the time. The district puts more than four million miles on buses annually. If the standard of replacing a bus every 150,000 miles is maintained, then the district should plan to replace 27 buses each year or markedly reduce the number of miles put on the buses annually. In order to reduce the number of miles _placed on buses means that services need to reduced in serving field trips, athletics and extended day or charge these programs for replacement of the buses. The length of routes and the number of routes must be reduced and/or money set aside for replacement buses in relation to the number of miles used annually. Obstacles to Goal Attainment Ol:\u0026gt;jective 1: To conduct routine office functions. Based upon the evaluation criteria in the Program Budget Document, this objective was achieved. Objective 2: To maintain an appropriate operational fleet. Based on the evaluation criteria, this objective was achieved. However, strategy 2.5 hire and train new drivers did not have evaluation criteria which should have been as a minimum maintaining a driver count of at least 273 drivers. This strategy failed in the spring of 1994 due to a shortage of at least 40 drivers. Therefore, the Objective 2 failed to maintain an appropriate operational fleet. Objective 3: To maintain appropriate vehicle servicing. Based on the evaluation criteria this objective was achieved. However, due to the age of the fleet, the current maintenance staff was unable to keep up with repairs needed to keep a sufficient number of buses available to support the routing system. Therefore, the appropriate vehicle servicing was not maintained during the school year and this objective was not achieved. Recommendations: The Pupil Transportation Services Program Budget Document (PBD) Evaluation Criteria are not appropriate evaluation criteria. Manpower shortages and equipment failure due to age caused the Pupil Transportation Services to fail to meet the stated program goal. Recommendation 1: The Program Budget Document (PBD) for Pupil Transportation Services should be rewritten to utilize evaluation criteria that are reflective of performance standards. Evaluation criteria: The new criteria will include, but not limited to, attendance rate for drivers, rate of vacancies, rate of employees on long term leave, rate of drivers on light duty, number of buses available daily, number of wrecker pulls, number of buses over 100,ooo/1so,ooo number of miles to support extracurricular and co-curricular activities, number of miles to support regular transportation by route, number of chargeable accidents per million miles, number of workman compensation claims, per-cent of not-on-time buses, and number of patron/parent complaints by category. Expected Benefits: These kinds of evaluation criteria will allow the district to establish realistic improvement goals for the Transportation Department. Impact Analysis: Negatives: 1. The change from the current PBD to the new one would be obvious. 2. Some individuals may not want to deal with data that shows whether or not the Department is doing a good job. Positives: 1. Facts will be available to evaluate the department. 2. Decisions can be made on facts rather than on what we feel is true. 3. The actual costs to support various activities will be easy to calculate. 4. Action plans for improvement can be developed and evaluated objectively. I l I ', ,1 ,1 !\n, 11 I' !! I' I' I' 11 I'  II I ' 111 Risks: The risk of not implementing this solution is to ignore the Dneeepda rttmo ehnat.v e clear planning guidance for the Transportation Timing: The rewrite should take place before the January report, so administrators have the information available to assist in decision making in the Spring of 1995. Resource Analysis: Personnel: No additional personnel will be required. Time of the administrators to gather the base data will be required but could be accomplished by reporting time. Financial: No additional cost will be required. Force Field Analysis: The Director of Transportation will welcome the opportunity to mdeavkeinlogp. a PBD that is based on data needed for decisionThose most opposed to the solution are those who want to keep the actual costs of extra curricular, co-curricular and athletic transportation hidden in the Transportation Department budget. General Zmplementation Plan: Milestone Direct Transportation to rewrite PBD Write PBD Review PBD Submit PBD with appropriate report Date 12/21/94 01/6/94 01/09/94 01/13/94 Recommendation 2: Outsource the system to a private concern. Person Clowers Cheatham Mayo Cheatham student transportation Expected Benefits: The district could save one million dollars or more. I Impact Analysis: The district is aware of the concern that exists among the bus drivers. The concern expressed has focused on job security. Those who have appeared in protest are those who will remain with the district anyway. The district will maintain special education routes and therefore about 80 drivers and aides. The proposal for outsourcing requires that those currently employed by the LRSD be employed by the contractor. Negatives: 1. The transition to a private contractor will require extra time for district administrators to turn over the operation which will no doubt have unpredictable inconveniences\n2. Bus driver reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the loss of their jobs\nPositives: 1. Parent satisfaction will increase as indicated by a reduction in the number of complaints\n2. Currently employed drivers will maintain their jobs and benefits\n3. Buses will be on-time more often than they are now\n4. Accidents will decrease\n5. The number of buses out-of-service for repairs will decrease\n6. The cost of student transportation for the next three years will be less than that projected by LRSD\nand, 7. A schedule for replacement of equipment will be strictly followed providing students with badly needed new buses. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing costs to the district, increasing complaints by patrons, and a generally poor image of the district's transportation system. The risks of implementation of this solution are the unfounded presumptions that the costs will be greater than calculated and people will lose their jobs. Transition will strain our current management capability considering increased activities associated with the start up of the school year. ' I I I ' I ', I' II I 11.: ' ' I ' ,I I I I Timing It is critical that the decision be made before February 1, 1995 so it may be implemented by the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution 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 identified of the change, and a number of other task as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. Resource Analysis: Personnel No additional costs for personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. No one will lose his or her job, however. Financial A savings of 1 million dollars is the estimated benefit over the next three years under this plan. The District will maintain the special education routes and a smaller maintenance facility already available. Even with these costs, outsourcing will reduce overall costs. Revenue Source The money normally allocated will be used to pay for outsourcing. Implementation of this proposal creates a yearto- year cost-reducing strategy for the 1995-96 budget. Force Field Analysis: Primary supporters of this proposal will be those directly affected by the solution - patrons and administrators within the District. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student service. Those more opposed to the solution will be the bus drivers who fear losing their jobs and those who fear private sector managing public sector services. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. The strongest statement in favor of oursourcing is that service will improve while reducing costs. - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROCUREMENT AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT EXTENDED PROGRAM BUDGET EVALUATION PROGRAM NAME: PURCHASING SERVICES, NON-DESEGREGATION FOR YEAR 9394 Program Description: The Procurement Department is organized to administer a centralized procurement function in the accomplishment of the acquisition of materials, services, and equipment in support of District operations in the most efficient, effective, and economical manner possible. The Centralized Procurement and Materials Management function interacts with all segments of the District. Purpose: The purpose of this program is to aid the Procurement Department in implementing, revising, and evaluating purchasing, property accounting, central warehouse operations, and property disposal procedures in order to best serve the District. Scope and Content: The program encompasses several functions that are the responsibility of the Procurement Department. These general functions include: Coordinating all District purchases of equipment, supplies, and services in such a manner that the maximum value will be obtained for the money expended\nEstablishing, administering, and coordinating central materials management encompassing property accounting and property disposal and\nOperating the Central Warehouse in an efficient and effective manner to assure prompt delivery and availability of frequently used supplies and materials utilized by schools/departments within the District. Participants/Beneficiaries: The beneficiaries of this program are all schools and departments within the District, vendors in the business community, district patrons and taxpayers. Program Goals: Support schools and administrative offices through cost effective procurement and efficient handling of all materials.  Evaluation Criteria: 1.1 Document recommendations and approved changes to the organizational structure of the department. 2.1 Copies of certification certificates are to be included in an employees personnel file. 3.1 Maintain a log of all vendor office visits. 1 I 17 l Ii 'I I I I 1' II ! I I : I I 1, I l I t I I I !: 1, I I l lW Evaluation Criteria (continued): 3.2 Document in bid files all specification changes and recommendations for change. (Requested to be removed per instructions in Dr. Mayo's memo dated 10/24/94) 4.1 Document attempts to identify shortcomings and defects with the current automated system in continued efforts to obtain a modern, professional purchasing management system. 5.1 Procurement Director to provide written recommendation. 5.2 Document verification of completed inventories. 6.1 Monitor user suggestions on order and delivery of supplies. 6.2 Suggestion from available to all schools/departments. 6.3 Monitor historical levels of inventory and correct as needed. 7.1 Monitor user suggestions on order and delivery of forms. 7.2 Request to the Procurement Director for the addition 4o the inventory of new standardized forrn(s). Evaluation Results: OBJECTIVE 1: REFINE THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE TO EFFECTIVELY ACCOMPLISH ALL FUNCTIONS REQUIRED OF A CENTRALIZED PROCUREMENT AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT OPERATION. DISCUSSION: Procurement filled a custodial position in November of 1993. custodian works 1/2 day at Procurement five days a week. The selection process for this position is documented and on file in the Department. No other changes were made in 93-94. OBJECTIVE MET. OBJECTIVE 2: HAVE ALL BUYER POSITIONS BECOME FAMILIAR WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED PURCHASING PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES. DISCUSSION: Two employees, Darral Paradis and Gretchen Spinelli, successfully completed the course work and examination to receive certification from NIGP (National Institute of Governmental Purchasing) as CPPB's (Certified Professional Public Buyers) in July of 1994. All buyers in the Department now have this national certification. 2 Evaluation Results (continued): In addition, Charles Neal, Procurement Director, served on the Board of Directors, and Gail Hester was chairperson of the membership committee for the Arkansas Chapter of NIGP. OBJECTIVE MET. OBJECTIVE 3 : EVALUATE NEW PRODUCTS AND SEEK TO OBTAIN THE MAXIMUM ULTIMATE VALUE FOR EACH PURCHASING DOLLAR EXPENDED. DISCUSSION: No evaluation results\nvendor log project is continuing into 1995. This cannot be fully implemented until the Department completes a planned mass mailing of vendor applications to businesses on our current vendor list. The purpose of this mailing would be to allow potential vendors an opportunity to identify comrnodi ty i terns they have available for sale. This information would then be put in the Automated Procurement Management System so that when the District is in need of a particular commodity, a listing of potential vendors could be made imrnediately available. Shortfalls in the current system have not allowed for this mailing to be accomplished. In addition, Procurement requested that strategy 3.2 be removed per instructions provided in Dr. Mayo's letter dated 10/24/94. This strategy is a routine operating function within the Department. OBJECTIVE NOT MET. OBJECTIVE 4: ENHANCE DEPARTMENT PRODUCTIVITY AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION CAPABILITY BY UTILIZING A FULLY AUTOMATED PROCUREMENT, INVENTORY, AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. DISCUSSION: A complete analysis of shortcomings in the current purchasing system has been completed by the Procurement Department. An outside consultant is currently working on enhancements which we have as a goal to be on line by the end of the 94-95 fiscal year. The current system does not provide purchasing management with performance information necessary to effectively aid the Department in decision making. When needed, this information is gathered manually. Some examples of needed system information are: 1) Cost savings as a result of competitive bidding\n2) average dollar amount of purchase orders\n3) number of purchase orders processed per month by commodity and by dollar amount\n4) number of active vendors and\n5) average time from requisition receipt to delivery, etc. OBJECTIVE NOT COMPLETELY MET, WORK IS IN PROGRESS. 3 l Evaluation Results (continued): OBJECTIVE 5: PROVIDE TOTAL PROPERTY ACCOUNTING AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENT FOR THE DISTRICT FROM INITIAL ACQUISITION TO FINAL SALVAGE DISPOSITION. DISCUSSION: Procurement has developed a list of deficiencies in the current CIMS software relating to fixed assets programs. An outside consultant is currently performing a review of this list and will be working with us to develop enhancements to meet our needs. This work is about 70% completed. For instance, summary management reports are not available at this time that give the total number and types of assets and associated dollar amounts for specific sites in the District. currently to determine this information, an entire site inventory is run and the desired data is manually sorted. The fixed asset property accounting section performed physical inventories at Stephens and Ish Elementary schools because of anticipated closings. NO other schools were inventoried due mainly to computer software problems encountered with the fixed assets module of CIMS, plus shortage of staff to validate physical inventories at each site in a timely and effective manner. It's imperative that the District, at any given time, have accurate information available detailing assets on-hand at all sites. The Chicot Elementary fire illustrates this point as the asset information maintained by the Procurement Department was provided to the insurance companies to aid in loss evaluation. The Department currently relies on school/department personnel to verify the assets recorded in the property system. NO validations of these inventories are made by Procurement due to lack of personnel as mentioned above. This objective is not being met due mainly to computer system deficiencies and shortage of staff. In order to fully accomplish this objective, these two areas must be addressed. A prograrraning consultant is being used to address the system problems and the personnel issue may develop into a business case. The computer system deficiencies have been identified and corrective measures approved and are presently in progress. The personnel position is that of a property accounting secretary and has previously been approved but hiring has not been initiated. 4 Evaluation Results (continued): OBJECTIVE 6: MAINTAIN A CENTRAL WAREHOUSE OF COMMONLY USED OFFICE AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES UTILIZED BY THE DISTRICT. In maintaining the warehouse, emphasis is placed on attaining maximum efficiency while maintaining effectiveness. In this regard, the Procurement Department has a goal to deliver requested school/office supplies within 48 hours of receipt of electronic requisitions from schools/departments\nhowever, the current system does not provide the capability to accumulate the information to measure this goal. This problem will be corrected with program enhancements planned for installment by the end of the 94-95 fiscal year. Since Procurement initiated electronic requisitioning in 1992-93, the number of requisitions received has been dramatically reduced due primarily to the schools/departments on-line requisitioning capability. Prior to 1992-93, all schools/departments typed their supply center requisitions. Requisitions were forwarded when created to Procurement via inter-office mail. This usually resulted in several a day depending on staff requests received by the school/department bookkeeper. Electronic requisitioning allows schools/departments to accumulate their request on one system requisition throughout the day. This electronic request is then processed by Procurement on-line the next work day. The chart below reflects this trend: Number of warehouse Requisitions Processed School Year 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 # of Requisitions 11,372 11,221 4,568 5,000 5 ,, ,.....,.. Ii I l i, I ' 1, l I i I l I 1, ,1 II Ii I 1, i 11 Evaluation Results (continued): The Procurement Department received five (5) requests/suggestions from schools/departments for new product additions to the warehouse during 93/94. All five were added to the supply center inventory as new catalogue items. The chart below reflects the total number of products carried in the supply center over the last four years and our progress in reducing uneconomical inventory: School Year 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 Total Number of Stock Items Carried 896 852 843 819 The Procurement Department has reduced supply center inventory costs to more economical levels each year. The chart below reflects ending inventory values over the last four years:  School Year 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 Ending Inventory Amount $ 345,879 362,531 319,030 308,997 DISCUSSION: Overall, this objective is being met with varying degrees of efficiency and economy. However, there are computer system deficiencies that restrict the retrieval of management information to enhance the achievement of this objective. In order to fully accomplish this objective, these data gathering deficiencies must be corrected. A prograrmning consultant is currently being used to review the system problem. Solutions are planned to be installed by the end of the 94-95 fiscal year. 6 I II I ,I . .... Evaluation Results (continued): OBJECTIVE 7: MAINTAIN A CENTRAL WAREHOUSE OF FREE-PRINTED FORMS UTILIZED BY THE DISTRICT. The Procurement Department received requests from schools/departments for six new printed forms to be added to inventory during 93/94. All six were added to the inventory. DISCUSSION: Objective met. Obstacles to Goal Attainment: 1. Objective Achieved. 2. Objective Achieved. 3. Objective Not Achieved. Project is ongoing into 94-95. 4. Objective Not Achieved. Project is ongoing into 94-95. 5. Objective Not Achieved. The Department is currently 70% complete in evaluating the current system for improvements required to fully accomplish this goal. This evaluation is expected to be completed by fiscal year end 1995. Also, shortage of staff has not allowed Procurement to validate physical inventories at schools/departments. Procurement has one (1) employee to accomplish all property accounting for the District including validation of school/department inventories. Procurement currently relies on school/department personnel to verify assets for their locations. Work backlog is a problem in several other key Property Accounting responsibility areas due to the shortage of staff. These areas include: a) Inputing asset data into the Fixed Asset System\nb) tagging new assets\nc) preparing for surplus property sales\nd) coordinating and accounting for excess property inter-district movements and\ne) accounting for donated property to the District. 6. Objective Not Achieved. Procurement is currently 70% complete in evaluating the current computerized inventory system for improvements needed in order to fully accomplish this goal. This evaluation is expected to be completed by fiscal year end 1995. 7. Objective Achieved. 7 Ii I I I 1, I II I ,I I I II I I! 11, I I II ' I I Recommendations: Recommendation 1: There are several areas under the Procurement Department's responsibility where procedural changes should be addressed. A new objective regarding these procedural changes should be added to our program budget document. These changes are required to improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of purchasing within the District. Objective 1: Define, develop, and implement relevant purchasing procedures and measures to enhance those functions required of an effective and efficient centralized procurement and materials management operation. This objective is needed in order to introduce cost containment and savings measures, improve relations with vendors, and lessen the potential for fiscal abuse. Several strategies would need to be added to this objective: 1. Delegate approval for local purchases under a predetermined dollar amount and guidelines to the school/department level (This constitutes spending approval only and does not eliminate the requirement for a written purchase order). 2. Incorporate activity fund purchases with vendors into the District's Centralized Automated Procurement system. 3. Develop procedures and dollar limits by which employees may be reimbursed for certain incidental expenditures. 4. Incorporate an invoice pre-audit function within the Department to verify contractual terms, conditions, and prices plus reduce the time required for payment of vendor invoices. Evaluation Criteria: The following would be the corresponding evaluation criteria for each new strategy previously listed. 1. Compare the number of purchase orders prepared by Centralized Procurement with the number of local small purchase orders prepared by school/departments. (If effective, the number of purchase orders prepared by Procurement should decrease and reduce the time required for schools/departments to make local small dollar purchases). 2. Purchasing transactions with vendors are documented with a standard District purchase order. 3. Monitor the number of reimbursement requisitions received by Procurement with previous years. This number should be reduced as a result of implementing this procedure. 8 Evaluation Criteria (continued): 4. Monitor contractual terms, conditions, and pricing plus measure time elapsed between receipt of goods and payment. (Also, verify that vendor invoices are mailed to Procurement). Expected Benefits: There are several benefits that would result if these changes were implemented: 1) More purchasing flexibility for schools/departments for local small dollar purchases. 2) Reduced paperwork, i.e., schools/departments would prepare on-site a local purchase order for small dollar purchases directly to vendor. 3) Vendors will receive one uniform purchase order from the district regardless of the fund being utilized. 4) Reimbursement to employees would be streamlined. 5) Reduced handling of invoices by mailing to one central location. 6) Days elapsed between receipt of goods and payment would be reduced. 7) Take advantage of vendor early payment discounts. 8) Improve relations with business community. 9) Greater utilization of Centralized Procurement System 10) Establishes more positive control over spending discipline. 11) Reduces the potential for improper spending practices. IMPACT ANALYSIS: These proposed changes would have no effect on the desegregation plan or court orders. There are political factors to overcome in that areas of responsibi1ity would be shifted from one department to another in some cases. Some risks associated with not implementing these procedures would be 1) continuing danger of deteriorating relations with the business community and 2) continuing danger of fiscal improprieties or improper expenditure of public funds. In order to successfully implement in a timely manner, some detailed coordination with user groups will be required. RESOURCES ANALYSIS: These proposed changes would require no changes in staffing to the Procurement Department. Training would be minimal and conducted in-house. FOR.CE FIELD ANALYSIS: The majority of Schools/Departments are in favor of these changes. A few principals may perceive the changes in activity fund procedures as an attempt by Procurement to control these funds. some personnel in the Business Office may also be reluctant to make changes. Procurement plans to overcome these obstacles by having group sessions involving affected users to discuss shortcomings, potential pitfalls, and benefits. The goal Will be to stress the changes as improving efficiency and Productivity for the entire District. 9 GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: Following are the proposed timelines for implementation: 1/95 - 2/95 3/95 3/95 - 4/95 3/95 - 4/95 4/95 - 5/95 6/95 7/95 7/95 Activity Meet with Business Office personnel to discuss proposed changes Pre-audit function implemented Meet with principal advisory council to review procedural changes Update procedure manual Train LRSD personnel on local purchase order Implement local purchase order process Incorporate activity fund purchases with District's centralized automated procurement system Implement revised employee reimbursement procedure Business Case is recommended ___yes _x_no Person(s) Responsible Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Controller Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Controller Director of Procurement Director of Procurement Purchasing Supervisors Director of Procurement Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Controller Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Controller Plan Modification is recommended _x_yes __ no Overall recommendations are likely to have what type of budgetary impact: No budgetary impact _x_ Increased costs Decreased costs 10 ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION MAGNET PROGRAM Program Description: Purpose: Scope and Content: The purpose of the program is to meet the growing needs of disadvantaged students and to improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate by incorporating Early Childhood Education programs into the elementary schools. The program provides experiences for young children which meet their needs and stimulate learning in all developmental areas- physical, social, emotional, and intellectual. Priority for identification of program sites will be given to areas that have a very high concentration of low income students and in schools that are difficult to desegregate. The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program will be available to children from ages six weeks to four years old. The program will serve as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting students to comply with desegregation reguirements. To provide a unique opportunity to explore and develop excellent early childhood education services to children and parents by providing complete continuity of education and childcare from early infancy through grade six. The program serves as a demonstration center for training college students as well as for inservice observation. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program operates 12 months of the year, Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., with the exception of holidays. A fee of $60.00 per week is charged for students between the ages of six weeks and three years old. There is no charge for the four-year-old program during regular school hours (7:55 a.m. - 2:35 p.m.). The developmental program revolves around an active learning philosophy with a full spectrum of activities designed to stimulate children at different levels of development. The program is licensed by the Department of Human Services. It is staffed with certified early childhood teachers and has the following teacher/child ratio: 6 weeks to 24 months - 1 adult to every 2 children A total of 5.50 adults for 10 children. 24 months to 36 months - 1 adult to every 4 children A total of 4.50 adults for 17 children. 36 months - 1 adult to every 6 children A total of 3 adults for 18 children. Snacks are served in the mornings and in the afternoons and well-balanced hot meals are available through food services. l I I ii I j I I II II I It I I I I  I 11 I I I Rockefeller Early Childhoood Education Magnet Program Page 2 Participants/ Beneficiaries: Program Goals: Evaluation Criteria: The participants served Childhood Magnet program identified as being between through the Rockefeller Early are students who have been the ages of six weeks and four years old. October 1 is the date used for student placements. To meet the needs of disadvantaged students and to improve racial balance in schools that are difficult to desegregate. The early childhood education program at Rockefeller School will capitalize upon the school's high quality early childhood education as a desegregation tool. The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program evaluation will consist of the following evaluation criteria: 1. Documentation of academic achievement and enrollment. 2. Partnership agreements developed between Rockefeller, U.A.L.R., and area colleges. 3. Documentation showing the use of Rockefeller for: 4. Training, lnservices, and Observations. Documentation showing the program receives the same attention as K-6 in: supervision, support, staff development, resource allotments, accountability, monitoring, and evaluation. 5. Number of children staying in the program. 6. The number of siblings attending Rockefeller K-6. 7. 8. 9. Documentation of meetings to review policies and recommendations made. Classroom observations, monitoring reports and documentation of work sessions. Documentation of inservice and orientation for parents. 10. Documentation of inservice evaluations. 11. Documentation of Task Force meetings. I Rockefeller Early Childhoood Education Magnet Program Page 3 Evaluation Results: Objective 1 : Discussion 1: E.P.S.F. Evaluation results reflect data gathered from several sources. These data have been compiled and analyzed and yield the following results. To establish Rockefeller as academic achievement of attracting students to requirements. a model for disadvantaged comply with improving the students and desegregation 1 . Documentation of academic achievement and enrollment. An analysis of students who participated in compared to students who did not participate in using Post E.P.S.F. results, eligibility, and in the K-3 Summer School program. the program the program participation According to the E.P.S.F. 1993-94 Post Assessment findings of 40 kindergarten children at Rockefeller School the following is a analysis of 32 students who participated in the program compared to eight students who did not participate i\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1212","title":"Little Rock School District School Staffing Detail, Little Rock School District Information Services,","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":["1994/1995"],"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--Information Services--Arkansas--Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School employees","School administrators","School principals"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District School Staffing Detail, Little Rock School District Information Services,"],"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/1212"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nJU 1 4 1996 Office of Desegreg.,tion Mon:toring Little Rock School District SCHOOL STAFFING DETAIL LRSD Information Services DISTRICT SCHOOL STAFFING DETAIL REPORT l 7-Apr-96 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE 94 BADGETT 186.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 MOORE, Sf-IlRLEY J 02 NELSON, WILBURLENE R CATEGORY TOTALS: ELEM.CLSRM.TCH. 01 ALBERT, REJEANA J 01 CAMPBELL, ETIIEL J 01 CHILDS, SANDRA D 01 MCGOWAN, DORIS J 01 MCLENNAN, ANNE 01 SINGER, PATRICIA B 01 TRAYLOR, KA Tl-ILEEN A 01 TRIMBLE, BETTY J 01 WOOD, CRYSTAL A CATEGORY TOTALS: GUIDANCE 01 GREGORY, PATRICIA A CATEGORY TOTALS: LIB/AV. 01 WATSON, MERLYN F CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHER PROF. 02 MAHAN, MARSHAL CATEGORY TOTALS: PRIN 01 GOLSTON, MARY R CATEGORY TOTALS: SEC.CLSRM. TCH. 06 ADAMS, JANET L 06 KOVACH, LILLIAN R Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 0.40 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.10 JOB CODE SEC PRIN MEDIA CL ELEMV ELEM III ELEMVI ELEM! ELEM II ELEM IV 4 YR OLD ELEM VI KINDER-REG CNSLR-ELEM LIBRN-ELEM NURSE ELE PRIN MATH-CI-IP I MATH SPEC SALARY $15,229.39 $5 ,372.40 $20,601.79 $36,876.00 $25,695 .00 $30,733.00 $36,876.00 $30,512.00 $34,467.00 $195,159.00 $30,733.00 $30,733.00 $34,540.67 $34,540.67 $4,978.4Q $4,978.40 $57,067.14 $57,067.14 $16,268.00 $3,125.50 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 PACK, JANET E 0.60 G\u0026amp;T $16,344.00 01 PEARSON, BOYCE 0.50 MUSIC $17,233.50 01 PRUITT, GAYLA R 1.00 SPE-M-HAND $24,892.00 06 ROWE,MARYM 0.80 READING $26,513.60 01 VALUE, TERRIL 0.50 SPEECH $15,627.50 01 WY A TT, JANICE K 0.50 SPE-N/CATG $12,817.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.40 $132,821.60 SERV.WKRS. 02 MCCRUEL, LESLIE L 1.00 CUST-HEAD $14,342.00 02 WILLIAMS, LARRY L 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,229.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $23,571.00 TCHR.AIDES 02 GRAY, KATHRYN M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,837.04 02 MERRILL, ANNETTE M 0.40 LAB ATTEND $4,164.40 02 PHILLIPS, THELMA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,837.04 02 SCRUB BS JR, WALTER 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 WATSON, MURIEL C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.40 $36,660.48 YEARLY TOTALS: 24.40 $536,133.08 95 BADGETT 180.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 MOORE, SHIRLEY J 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,719.88 02 NELSON, WILBURLENE R 0.40 MEDIA CL $5,721.62 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $21,441.50 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 ALBERT, REJEANA J 1.00 ELEMV $28,043 .0Q 01 CAMPBELL,ETHELJ 1.00 ELEM III $37,221 .00 01 DANIEL, SUSAN J 1.00 KINDER-REG $23,443.00 01 MCGOWAN, DORIS J 1.00 ELEM I $31,832.00 01 MCLENNAN, ANNE 1.00 ELEM IT $37,221.00 01 PARR,LISA Y 1.00 4 YR OLD $21,883.00 01 SINGER, PATRICIA B 1.00 ELEM IV $31,609.00 01 TRAYLOR, KATHLEEN A 1.00 4 YR OLD $35,600.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This re11ort does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSl) 1-NVORMA\"l'\\ON S\\l.RV\\C\\l. l)\\l.P\"l'. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 2 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 01 TRIMBLE, BETTY J 1.00 ELEM VI $35,600.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 9.00 $282,452.00 GUIDANCE 01 GREGORY, PATRICIA A 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $31,832.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $31,832.00 LIB/AV. 01 POSITION,VACANT 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 OTHER PROF. 02 JANSSEN, MARY JANE 0.20 NURSE $3,009.92 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.20 $3,009.92 PRIN 01 GOLSTON, MARY R 1.00 ELEPRlN $58,502.38 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $58,502.38 SEC.CLSRM.TCH. 06 ADAMS, JANET L 0.40 MATH-CHPI $16,420.40 06 CRAWFORD, CARMELIA A 0.10 MATH SPEC $3,290.50 01 GUNDERMAN, JANICE G 1.00 SPE-N/CATG 01 JOHNSON, BONITA ANN 0.40 G\u0026amp;T 01 PEARSON, BOYCE 0.60 MUSIC $21,360.00 01 PRUITT, GAYLA R 1.00 SPE-M-HAND $17,290.00 06 ROWE,MARYM 0.60 READING $20,557.80 01 VALUE, TERRI L 0.50 SPEECH $16,179.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.60 $95,097.70 SERV.WKRS. 02 MCCRUEL, LESLIE L 1.00 CUST-HEAD $14,784.00 02 WILLIAMS, LARRY L 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,539.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $24,323.00 TCHR.AIDES 02 BARNES, KENNETH 1.00 AIDE-4YR $11,255.14 02 GRAY, KATHRYN M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,903.37 02 MERRILL, ANNETTE M 0.40 LAB ATTEND $3,511.60 02 PHILLIPS, THELMA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,903.37 02 SCRUBBS JR, WALTER 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 06 SNOWDEN, KIMBERLY A 1.00 AIDE-SP ED $2,296.32 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 3 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 WATSON, MURIEL C 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.40 $49,691.80 YEARLY TOTALS: 26.60 $566,350.31 96 BADGETT 215.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 NELSON, WILBURLENE R 0.40 MEDIA CL $5,823.32 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 SEC PRIN CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $5,823.32 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. OJ ALBERT, REJEANA J 1.00 ELEMV $28,853.00 01 CAMPBELL, ETI-IEL J 1.00 ELEM ID $38,031.00 OJ DANIEL, SUSAN J 1.00 KINDER-REG $24,254.00 OJ MCGOWAN, DORIS J 1.00 ELEM I $32,642.00 OJ MCLENNAN,ANN E 1.00 ELEM II $38,031.00 OJ PARKER, TAMMY L 1.00 KINDER-REG $10,764.19 OJ PARR, LISA Y 1.00 4 YR OLD $22,693.00 OJ SINGER, PATRICIA B 1.00 ELEM JV $32,419.00 OJ TRAYLOR, KA TIILEEN A 1.00 4YROLD $36,411.00 OJ TRIMBLE, BETTY J 1.00 ELEM VI $36,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 10.00 $300,509.19 GUIDANCE OJ GREGORY, PATRICIA A 0.80 CNS LR-ELEM $26,113.60 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.80 $26,113.60 LIB/AV. OJ WAKELYN, JOAN 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $28,773.29 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $28,773.29 OTHER PROF. 02 JANSSEN, MARY JANE 0.20 NURSE $3,501.28 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.20 $3,501.28 PRIN OJ GOLSTON, MARY R 1.00 ELE PRIN $59,592.95 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $59,592.95 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. OJ GUNDERMAN, JANICE G 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $22,693.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. '-,R.S-0 ,NVOR.l'J\\\"-,:,oN S\\l.RV,c\\l. l\u0026gt;\\l.\\\u0026gt;'T. Sa.\\a.1 .. y = 'Base Sa.\\ary + Sti1lc.nds(docs not include \\1cncfits) 4 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 JOHNSON, BONITA ANN 0.40 G\u0026amp;T $10,050.00 01 NORMAN, ANN C 0.40 MUSIC $14,134.80 01 PRUITT, GAYLA R 1.00 SPE-M-HAND $26,746.00 01 VALUE, TERRI L 0.50 SPEECH $16,584.50 06 WROTEN, MYRTHENE R 0.50 MATH-CJ-IP! $16,858.00 06 WROTEN, MYRTHENE R 0.50 MATH-CHP I $16,858.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.30 $123,924.30 SERV.WKRS. 02 MCCRUEL, LESLIE L 1.00 CUST-HEAD $15,264.00 02 WILLIAMS, LARRY L 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,907.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $25,171.00 TCHR.AIDES 02 BARNES, KENNETH 1.00 AIDE-4YR $11 ,527.57 02 GRAY, KATHRYN M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,040.43 02 HARPER, KA TINA ERICA 0.40 LAB ATTEND $3,849.26 02 PHILLIPS, THELMA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,040.43 02 SCRUBBS JR, WALTER 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663 .00 06 SNOWDEN, KIMBERLY A 1.00 AIDE-SP ED $10,407.00 02 UWADINEKE, NNANTA C 1.00 AIDE-SP ED $10,411.00 02 WATSON, MURIEL C 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,663.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 7.40 $69,601.69 YEARLY TOTALS: 28.10 $643,010.62 94 BALE 297.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 HENDRICKS, LUCY M 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 02 NELSON, WILBURLENE R 0.40 MEDIA CL $5 ,372.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $22,567.05 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BRANCH, MARTHA A 1.00 ELEM! 01 BROWN, CLARA J 1.00 ELEM I $28,104.00 01 CONLEY, FRANCES J 1.00 ELEM II $24,892.00 01 DOCKERY, MAE K 1.00 ELEMV $31 ,255.00 01 GADDY, ELLISTINE 1.00 ELEM IV $36,876.00 Note: EmJJloyees with no salary are not currently active on JJayroll. This reJJort does not include, MetrOJJOlitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all emJJloyees currently active on JJayroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ StiJJends(does not include benefits) 5 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 01 GEURIN, RAMONA 0 1.00 KINDER-REG $34,467.00 01 HUTTO, MARYE 1.00 KINDER-REG $33,945.00 01 JACKSON JR, JOSEPH 1.00 ELEM VI $37,157.00 01 JOHNSON, CARTHORIA 1.00 4 YR OLD $35,009.00 01 JOHNSON, DELMA J 1.00 ELEM III $34,246.00 01 POSITION, OPEN 1.00 ELEMV 01 ROGERS, CHARLENE I 1.00 KINDER-REG $38,763.00 01 SINGH, DONNA F 1.00 ELEM VI 01 TALLEY, HELEN J 1.00 ELEM II $32,359.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 14.00 $367,073.00 GUIDANCE 01 ROUSE, WARREN J 0.80 CNS LR-ELEM $29,500.80 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.80 $29,500.80 LIB/AV. 01 SCHOFIELD, SANDRA 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $37,836.31 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,836.31 OTHER PROF. 02 GIBSON, JOCELYN M 0.40 NURSE $4,219.09 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $4,219.09 PRlN 01 WILSON, LEVANNA M 1.00 ELE PRIN $49,985.43 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 1.00 $49,985.43 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 COLLINS, PEGGY S 1.00 MUSIC $26,437.00 06 CRAWFORD, CARMELIA A 0.10 MATH SPEC $3,179.70 01 GENTRY-HEARD, RENEE' 1.00 SPE-M/RET $32,861 .00 01 MCBRIDE, BARBARA L 1.00 SPEECH $28,846.00 01 PADILLA, PAULA A 0.60 G\u0026amp;T $21 ,511.20 01 PLEDGER, OSHIE L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $36,876.00 01 RICKETTS, MELISSA K 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $22,724.00 01 SHENEP, CYNTHIA K 0.60 SPEECH $18,271.20 06 STILES, DONNA M 0.60 MATH-CHPI $21 ,005.40 06 YEAGER, JUDITH A 1.00 READING $35,270.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 7.90 $246,981.50 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. '-,l\\S-0 \\NVO\"R.MA.T\\ON S.RV\\C DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 6 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY SERV.WKRS. 02 BLEDSOE, STANLEY 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,199.00 02 FLOWERS, MARTIIA L 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,203.00 02 POSITION,VACANT 0.50 CUS-PmME CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $25,402.00 TCHR.AIDES 02 ClilLDS, FRANCES C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 EASTERLY, SHEILA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 lilLL, CAROLYN 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 HORNER, BOBBIE RAY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,136.00 02 HUDSON, MARY B 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 MILLER, VANESSA C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,051.20 02 OWENS, ROMUNDA L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,159.00 02 SCARBROUGH, VALARIE 0.60 LAB ATTEND $6,246.60 02 SESSION, MARCIA J 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,338.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.60 $71,575.20 YEARLY TOTALS: 37.60 $855, 140.38 95 BALE 308.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 HENDRICKS, LUCY M 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 02 SITLINGTON, CAROL W 0.40 MEDIA CL $6,005.43 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $23,200.08 ELEM.CLSRM.TCH. 01 BROWN, CLARA J 1.00 ELEM! $29,177.00 01 CONLEY, FRANCES J 1.00 ELEM II $25,935.00 01 DOCKERY, MAE K 1.00 ELEMV $32,358.00 01 FUNK, PA ULA R 1.00 ELEM VI $20,262.00 01 GADDY, ELLISTINE 1.00 ELEM lV $37,221.00 01 GEURIN, RAMONA 0 1.00 4YROLD $35,600.00 01 HUTTO, MARYE 1.00 KINDER-REG $35,074.00 01 JACKSON JR, JOSEPH 1.00 ELEM VI $38,315.00 01 JOHNSON, CARTIIORIA 1.00 4YROLD $35,337.00 01 JOHNSON, DELMA J 1.00 ELEM III $35,377.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 7 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 MORRIS, CHRISTY S 1.00 ELEM I 01 NELSON, JOANNE 1.00 ELEMV $37,221.00 01 ROGERS, CHARLENE I 1.00 KINDER-REG $39,126.00 01 TALLEY, HELEN J 1.00 ELEM II $33,473.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 14.00 $434,476.00 GUIDANCE 01 ROUSE, WARREN J 1.00 CNS LR-ELEM $37,221.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,221.00 LIB/AV. 01 SCHOFIELD, SANDRA 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $35,863.98 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $35,863.98 OTHER PROF. 02 POSITION, VACANT 0.40 NURSE CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 PRlN 01 ANDERSON, BARBARA A 1.00 ELE PRJN $44,427.13 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $44,427.13 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 COLLINS, PEGGY S 1.00 MUSIC $27,496.00 06 CRAWFORD, CARMELIA A 0.10 MATH SPEC $3 ,290.50 01 GENTRY-HEARD, RENEE' 1.00 SPE-M/RET $33,979.00 01 MCBRIDE, BARBARA L 1.00 SPEECH $29,927.00 01 PADILLA, PAULA A 0.60 G\u0026amp;T $22,198.80 01 PLEDGER, OSIIlE L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $37,221.00 01 RICKETTS, MELISSA K 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $23,747.00 01 SHENEP, CYNTIIlA K 0.60 SPEECH $18,928.80 06 STILES, DONNA M 0.60 MATH-CHP I $21,202.20 06 YEAGER, JUDITII A 1.00 READING $36,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 7.90 $254,401.30 SERV.WKRS. 02 CHARLES JR, EARL 1.00 CUSTODAN $3,698.46 02 THOMAS, JOHNNY 1.00 CUST-IIEAD $14,529.74 02 WILLIAMS, GARY DEAN 0.50 CUS-PffiME $924.62 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $19,152.82 TCHR.AIDES Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all em1lloyees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 BRADFORD, OLLIE M 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 CHILDS, FRANCES C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 EASTERLY, SHEILA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 HILL, CAROLYN 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,911.00 02 HORNER, BOBBIE RAY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,387.70 02 I-illDSON, MARY B 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 MILLER, VANESSA C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,242.10 02 OWENS, ROMUNDA L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 AIDE-SVA 02 SCARBROUGH, VALARIE 0.60 LAB ATTEND $6,246.60 CATEGORY TOTALS: 9.60 $78,842.40 YEARLY TOTALS: 38.80 $927,584.71 96 BALE 338.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 HENDRICKS, LUCY M 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 02 SilUNGTON, CAROL W 0.40 MEDIA CL $6,005.43 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $23,200.08 ELEMCLSRM. TCH. 01 BALENKO, MARYE 1.00 ELEM! $36,411 .00 01 BROWN, CLARA J 1.00 ELEM! $29,988.00 OJ CONLEY, FRANCESJ 1.00 ELEM II $26,746.00 OJ CUNNINGHAM, LISA D 1.00 ELEM Ill $31,548.00 OJ DOCKERY, MAE K 1.00 ELEMV $33,169.00 01 FRANCIS, LYNDA S 1.00 ELEM IV $25,935.00 01 FUNK, PA ULA R 1.00 ELEM Ill $21 ,072.00 OJ GEURIN, RAMONA 0 1.00 4 YR OLD $36,411.00 01 HUlTO, MARYE 1.00 KINDER-REG $35,884.00 01 JACKSON JR, JOSEPH 1.00 ELEM VI $39,126.00 01 JOHNSON, CARTIIORIA 1.00 4 YR OLD $36,147.00 01 LITTELL, TERRI S 1.00 KINDER-REG $31,609.00 01 NELSON, JOANN E 1.00 ELEMV $38,031.00 01 TALLEY, HELEN J 1.00 ELEM II $34,283.00 01 TARKINGTON, RONALDSTEVE 1.00 ELEM IV $28,367.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 9 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 UNDERWOOD-MORAVEC, LEIGH A 1.00 ELEM VI $29,927.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 16.00 $514,654.00 GUIDANCE 01 ROUSE, WARREN J 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $38,031.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $38,031.00 LIB/AV. 01 SCHOFIELD, SANDRA 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $39,021.39 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $39,021.39 OTHER PROF. 02 FLEMING, JIMMIE M 0.40 NURSE $7,469.78 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $7,469.78 PRIN 01 ANDERSON, BARBARA A 1.00 ELE PRIN $48,307.81 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $48,307.81 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 COLLINS, PEGGY S 1.00 MUSIC $28,306.00 01 GENTRY-HEARD, RENEE' 1.00 SPE-M/RET $34,790.00 01 MCBRIDE, BARBARA L 1.00 SPEECH $30,737.00 01 PADILLA, PAULA A 0.60 G\u0026amp;T $22,685.40 01 PLEDGER, OSHIE L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $38,031.00 01 RICKETTS, MELISSA K 1.00 SPE-DEAF $24,558.00 01 SHENEP, CYNTHIA K 0.60 SPEECH $19,414.80 06 STILES, DONNA M 0.50 MA TI-1-CHP I $18,073.50 06 STILES, DONNA M 0.50 MATH-CIIP I $18,073.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 7.20 $234,669.20 SERV.WKRS. 02 PHILLIPS, RAYMOND E 1.00 CUST-IlEAD $9,245.69 02 POSITION, VACANT 0.50 CUS-PfTTME 02 POSITION,VACANT 1.00 CUSTODAN CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $9,245.60 TCHR.AIDES 02 BRADFORD, OLLIE M 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,663.00 02 CHILDS, FRANCES C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663 .00 02 EASTERLY, SIIEILA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663 .00 02 HILL, CAROLYN 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $11,163.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) JO YEAR SlTE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 HORNER, BOBBIE RAY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,583.50 02 HUDSON, MARY B 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 02 MJCKLES, BRUCE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,183.00 02 MJLLER, VANESSA C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,366.70 02 OWENS, ROMUNDA L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,663.00 02 RUTH, PAULA L 1.00 AIDE-SP ED $10,663.00 02 SCARBROUGH, VALARIE 0.60 LABATfEND $6,397.80 CATEGORY TOTALS: 10.60 $95,672.00 YEARLY TOTALS: 41.10 $1,010,270.86 94 BASELINE 322.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 JAMES, TERRIE J 0.40 l'v1EDIA CL $4,656.00 02 JONES, ANNETfE L 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,719.88 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $20,375.88 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BROOKS, LETITIA R 1.00 ELEM IV $25,695.00 01 BULLINGTON, STACEY L 1.00 ELEM I $23,286.00 01 BURCHFIELD, VICKI 1.00 4 YR OLD $31,255.00 01 CARTER, CHARLES R 1.00 ELEM IV $26,739.00 01 DEATON, BETTY K 1.00 ELEMV $30,512.00 01 GLASON, DIANNE M 1.00 ELEM III $25,695.00 01 HARDESTY, PATTY J 1.00 ELEMil $32,600.00 01 HARRIS, LORETTA M 1.00 ELEMV $36,655.00 01 1-flJFFMAN, CAROLYN A 1.00 ELEM III $24,892.00 01 JAMES, MARILYN K 1.00 KINDER-REG $31 ,255.00 01 LAMB, ANITA J 1.00 ELEM II $33,162.00 01 MJTCHELL, MARIA A 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,710.00 01 SELF, ELAINE M 1.00 4 YR OLD $29,649.00 01 SMJTH, DELWIN H 1.00 ELEM VI $22,483.00 01 TAPPAN, DONNA M 1.00 ELEM I $24,089.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 15.00 $427,677.00 GUIDANCE 01 AKERS, SHARRA D 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $32,861.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) II YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $32,861.00 LIB/AV. 01 NALLEY, MARGARET R 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $32,892.84 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $32,892.84 OTHER PROF. 02 MCKENZIE, MILLY 0.40 NURSE $12,180.80 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $12,180.80 OTHR CLSRM.TCH. 01 FOWLER, MILLICENT K 0.50 SPE-LD $18,036.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.50 $18,036.50 PRIN 01 CI-IEATIIAM, MARY J 1.00 ELE PRIN $58,650.38 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $58,650.38 SEC.CLSRM TCH. 06 BURCHETT, CARLETTA D 0.40 READING $10,896.00 06 DANESHMANDI, KA TIIRYN D 0.10 MATH SPEC $2,964.90 06 MCDONALD, MARY J 0.60 MA TH-Cl-IP I $23,257.80 01 NORMAN, ANN C 1.00 MUSIC $33,162.00 01 POTEET, LISA B 0.50 SPEECH $14,824.50 01 SMITI-1, EUNICE D 1.00 SPE-M/RET $39,867.00 06 SMITH, WILLIAM 0 1.00 READING 01 WHITTAKER, NONA M 0.50 G\u0026amp;T $20,335.00 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 5.10 $145,307.20 SERV.WKRS. 02 FOSTER, BARRON J 1.00 CUSTODAN $11,202.00 02 HARRIS, BEYERL Y 1.00 CUSTODAN $11,202.00 02 RENDEL, RAYL 1.00 CUST-1-IEAD $15,360.0? CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $37,764.00 TCHR.A.IDES 02 BRANCH, PAULA E 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,159.00 02 CALDWELL, JOSEPHINE B 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,306.40 06 CANNON, SHIRLEY L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,159.00 02 CASEY, DOROTIIY A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,306.40 02 CONLEY, TINA A 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 HUSSEY, PAULINE K 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,306.40 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. l...RSO \\N\"FORMA..\"f\\ON S.RV\\C\\,, l)\\,,\\\u0026gt;\"f. Sa\\ar)' = Base Sa\\ar)' + Stipends(does not include benefits) 12 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 JACKSON, CONNIE M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,306.40 02 MOORE-FUDAIL, DONNA K 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,159.00 02 RUNYAN, JUDITH A 0.60 LABATfEND $6,246.60 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.60 $68,360.20 YEARLY TOTALS: 37.00 $854,105.80 95 BASELINE 300.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 AKBAR, FATIMAH K 0.40 MEDIA CL $4,017.38 02 DELONEY, GLORIA M 1.00 SEC PRIN $9,168.23 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 1.40 $13,185.61 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BOWMAN, ROSE H 1.00 ELEM VI $21,072.00 01 BROOKS, LETITIA R 1.00 ELEM IV $26,746.00 01 BURCHFIELD, VICKI 1.00 4YROLD $32,358.00 01 COLLINS, KELI JO 1.00 KINDER-REG $23,443.00 01 DEATON, BETTY K 1.00 ELEMV $31,609.00 01 GLASON, DIANNE M 1.00 ELEM III $26,746.00 01 HARDESTY, PATTY J 1.00 ELEM II $33,716.00 01 HARRIS, LORETTA M 1.00 ELEMV $37,809.00 01 HUFFMAN, CAROLYN A 1.00 ELEM Ill $23,908.83 01 JAMES, MARILYN K 1.00 KINDER-REG $32,358.00 01 LAMB, ANITA J 1.00 ELEM! $33,473.00 01 MITCHELL, MARIA A 1.00 KINDER-REG $30,798.00 01 SELF, ELAINE M 1.00 4YROLD 01 SMITH, DELWIN H 1.00 ELEM VI $23,504.00 01 WEA VER, SHERRY ELLEN 1.00 ELEM I $20,262.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 15.00 $397,802.83 GUIDANCE 01 AKERS, SHARRA D 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $33,979.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $33,979.00 LIB/AV. 01 KOEHLER, CA THERINE E. 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $24,116.08 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $24,116.08 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 13 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FIE JOB CODE SALARY OTHER PROF. 02 ANSLEY, MARTIIA A 0.20 NURSE $1,728.38 02 JACKSON, PAMELA 0.10 NURSE $2,489.20 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.30 $4,217.58 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 FOWLER, MILLICENT K 0.50 SPE-LD $18,610.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.50 $18,610.50 PRIN 01 DEAN, LONNIE S 1.00 ELE PRIN $62,294.15 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $62,294.15 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 06 BURCHETT, CARLETTA D 1.00 READING $28,306.00 06 DANESHMANDI, KA TIIRYN D 0.10 MATIISPEC $3,073.70 01 HUDSON, LINDA S 1.00 SPE-M/RET $33,169.00 01 KEARNEY, MAPLE J 0.50 G\u0026amp;T $17,283.50 06 MCDONALD, MARY J 0.60 MATII-CHP I $23,475.60 01 NORMAN, ANN C 1.00 MUSIC $34,526.00 01 POSITION,VACANT 0.50 SPEECH CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.70 $139,833.80 SERV.WKRS. 02 GUYTON, WAVERLY A 1.00 CUSTODAN $2,138.87 02 HARRIS, BEYERL Y 1.00 CUSTODAN $11,202.00 02 RENDEL, RAY L 1.00 CUST-HEAD $15,782.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $29,122.87 TCHR.AIDES 02 BRANCH, PAULA E 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 CALDWELL, JOSEPHINE B 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,366.79 06 CANNON, SHIRLEY L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 CASEY, DOROTIN A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,366.70 02 CONLEY, TINA A 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 HUSSEY, PAULINE K 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,366.70 02 JACKSON, CONNIE M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,366.70 02 MOORE-FUDAIL, DONNA K 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $9,229.21 02 PINKERTON, ANGELIA R 0.60 LAB ATTEND $272.30 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. \\...l\\.SD U-1.l'Ol\\.MA\"HON S'El\\.VlC'E D'EVl:. Sa\\ary = Base Sa\\ary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 14 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.60 $62,201.31 YEARLY TOTALS: 36.50 $785,363.73 96 BASELINE 313.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 AKBAR, FATIMAH K 0.40 MEDIA CL $4,731.50 02 DELONEY, GLORIA M 1.00 SEC PRIN $13,818.70 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $18,550.20 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BOWMAN, ROSE H 1.00 ELEM VI $21 ,883.00 01 BURCHETT, CARLETTA D 1.00 ELEM I $29,117.00 01 BURCHFIELD, VICKI 1.00 4 YR OLD $33,169.00 01 CLEVENGER, SARA J 1.00 KINDER-REG $24,314.00 01 COX,SUSANM 1.00 ELEM IV 01 DEA TON, BETTY K 1.00 ELEMV $32,419.00 01 GLASON, DIANNE M 1.00 ELEM III $27,556.00 01 HUFFMAN, CAROLYN A 1.00 ELEM III $26,746.00 01 JAMES, MARILYN K 1.00 KINDER-REG $33,169.00 01 LAMB, ANITA J 1.00 ELEM I $34,283.00 01 PEARSON, MARVA D 1.00 ELEM VI $34,790.00 01 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 ELEM II 01 SELF, ELAINE M 1.00 4 YR OLD $31 ,548.00 01 TATIJM, VALERIE L 1.00 ELEM IV $12,136.09 01 THOMAS, BRENDA SUE 1.00 KINDER-REG $20,262.00 01 WHITLOW, ALECIA A 1.00 ELEM II $20,515.31 CATEGORY TOTALS: 16.00 $381,907.40 GUIDANCE 01 AKERS, SHARRA D 1.00 CNS LR-ELEM $34,790.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $34,790.00 LIB/AV. 01 KOEHLER, CA THERINE E. 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $27,110.07 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $27,110.07 OTHER PROF. 02 WALKER, TERRI LYNN 0.20 NURSE $4,538.60 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 15 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 CRISWELL, DONICA M CATEGORY TOTALS: PRIN 01 COX, ELEANOR V CATEGORY TOTALS: SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 COLE, BETTY J 01 GOACHER, TINA D. OJ KEARNEY, MAPLE J 06 MCDONALD, MARY J 06 MCDONALD, MARY J 01 NORMAN, ANN C CATEGORY TOTALS: SERV.WKRS. 02 HARRIS, BEYERL Y 02 POSITION, VACANT 02 RENDEL, RAY L CATEGORY TOTALS: TCHR.AIDES 02 BAKER, ROBIN 02 BRANCH, PAULA E 06 CANNON, SHIRLEY L 02 CASEY, DOROTHY A 02 CONLEY, TINA A 02 COOPER, JUANITA 02 HUSSEY, PAULINE K 02 MOORE-FUDAIL, DONNA K 02 PINKERTON, ANGELIA R 02 REAMS, BERNARD 02 WOODLEY, CLIFTON D CATEGORY TOTALS: YEARLY TOTALS: Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FIE 0.20 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.60 3.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 10.60 38.30 JOB CODE SPE-LD ELE PRIN SPEECH SPE-M/RET G\u0026amp;T MATII-CHP I MA TI-1-CHP I MUSIC CUSTODAN CUSTODAN CUST-IIEAD AIDE-REGLR AIDE-4YR AIDE-REGLR AIDE-SVA AIDE-4YR AIDE-REGLR AlDE-SVA AIDE-REGLR LABAlTEND AIDE-REGLR AIDE-SVA SALARY $4,538.60 $12,157.00 $12,157.00 $56,824.29 $56,824.29 $17, 141.50 $22,693.00 $17,688.50 $19,968.00 $19,968.00 $21 ,202.20 S 118,661.20 $11,541.00 $16,224.00 $27,765.00 $9,341.76 $10,663.00 $5,491.30 $10,663.00 $9,172.94 $5,491.30 $10,663 .00 $5,289.60 $8,816.00 $5,704.01 $81,295.91 $763,599.67 This re\\}ort does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 94 BOOKER 602.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 12 LACEY JR, JESSE I 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $52,028.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $52,028.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 12 DA VIS, VELLA D 1.00 MEDIA CL $14,903.50 12 JOYNER, TISA S 1.00 SEC PRIN $14,246.21 12 POWELL, MARYE M 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $46,344.36 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 12 ABBOTT, JO ANN 1.00 ELEM Ill $29,950.00 12 ARMSTRONG, MARTIIA A 1.00 ELEM PE $38,763.00 12 AUSTIN, CLARA D 1.00 ELEM IV $40,670.00 12 BAKER, MICHELE LYNN 1.00 ELEM IV 12 BONDS, WILMA B 1.00 KINDER-REG $30,191.00 12 BURRUSS, MERILYN P 1.00 ELEM III $31 ,556.00 12 CLARK, DENISE W 1.00 ELEMV $24,892.00 12 COLFORD, SUSAN 1.00 ELEM VI $34,206.00 12 DORER, ROBERT A 1.00 ELEM PE $33,162.00 12 ELLINGTON, LORETTA 1.00 ELEM Ill $28,104.00 12 FARLEY, JENNIFER D 1.00 ELEM I $22,073.19 12 GIPSON, DEBRA ELISE 1.00 ELEM II 12 HARDING, CASSANDRA D 1.00 ELEM IV $25,635.00 12 HARRIS, PAULA R 1.00 ELEM VI $22,483.00 12 HESTIR, JOANN 1.00 ELEM! $36,073.00 12 HIGDON, TAMMY 1.00 ELEM II $30,452.00 12 JEFFRIES, VEARLON L 1.00 KINDER-REG $37,458.00 12 JOHNSON, MAYREAN S 1.00 ELEMV $40,670.00 12 JONES, ALICIA R 1.00 ELEM! $28,846.00 12 KELLEY, CLEMENTINE 1.00 ELEMV $40,670.00 12 KELLEY, LOIS W 1.00 ELEMil 12 KELLY, EVELYN 1.00 ELEM II 12 LEHNHOFF, DENNA N 1.00 ELEMV $36,876.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on llayroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 17 II' YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 LOTTON, MARY R 1.00 ELEM MUS $40,670.00 12 NEWCOMB, DARYL D 1.00 ELEMVI $29,930.00 12 SARLO, THOMAS C 1.00 ELEM ART $34,467.00 12 TAYLOR, CAROLYN W 1.00 ELEM IV $32,359.00 12 WALKER, BERTIIENA C 1.00 ELEM I $34,246.00 12 WALLS, BOBBIE J 1.00 KINDER-REG $28,846.00 12 WEIR, NANCY L 1.00 ELEMVI $35,009.00 12 WHITE, DISHOUNGII 1.00 ELEM III $25,695.00 12 YOUNG, MICHELLE L 1.00 KINDER-REG $23,527.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 32.00 $897,479.19 GUIDANCE 12 BISHOP, NANCY L 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $31 ,536.00 12 DOOLEY, VIVIAN K 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $32,058.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $63,594.00 LIB/AV. 12 BURNS, PATRICIA M 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $37,012.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,012.40 OTHER PROF. 12 ALLEY, MARYL 1.00 SPEC INS $40,670.00 12 SCOTT-JOHNSON, UVITA L 1.00 NURSE $27,301.00 12 SMITH, MARY A 1.00 SPEC INS $37,458.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $105,429.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 12 PLEASANT, CARWIN J 1.00 ORCHESTR CA TE GORY TOTALS: 1.00 PRIN 12 SIMMONS, CHERYL A 1.00 ELE PRIN $54,600.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $54,600.00 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 12 BLEDSOE, RITA L 1.00 MUSIC $40,670.00 12 BROWN, MARTHA C 1.00 MA Tll-COMPT $16,380.60 12 DICKERSON, KAYE H 1.00 READING $31 ,255.00 12 HUIE, CAROLYN K 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $36,073.00 12 KARP, ROSE MARIE 1.00 READING $32,861.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropo\\itan Schoo\\, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. L.. ,- ' ~'Q.~~ ,N\"l--o'Q.\"N'\\\"\"'-~'oN -s:v.R.v,c-v nv.~ ~a\\ay,~ - Bn,\"4.e ~ .. ,,\\.u-...., + ~,,,,~n,\\\"4.(,lne\"4. not. \\nc\\ud~ 1-\u0026lt;ten'-f\"U ..... ') YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 KINDER, JAMES B l.00 ART $24,892.00 12 MCGUIRE, STEPHEN K 0.33 SPE-N/CATG $12,361.14 12 MCMORRAN, MARYE 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $38,763.00 12 MEYERDIRK, CAROL A 1.00 IN CP SP $38,763.00 12 WI-IlTE, GLORIA A 1.00 MATII-COMPT $40,670.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 9.33 $312,688.74 SERV.WKRS. 12 BROWN, LAWRENCE 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 12 HAYES, OMAH 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,907.00 12 MARSHALL, JAMES A 1.00 CUST-HEAD $16,895.80 12 TROTTER, DANIEL L 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,907.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $51,243.80 TCHR.AIDES 12 CHARLESTON, SANTONIA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,428.96 12 CURRY, VIRGINIA E 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,428.96 12 HARRELL, ALICE L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,428.96 12 MIDDLETON, PATSY A 1.00 LAB ATTEND $10,411.00 12 OLIVER, ORA D 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,428.96 12 WOODS, BRENDA L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,256.48 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.00 $47,383.32 YEARLY TOTALS: 63.33 S 1,667,802.81 95 BOOKER 554.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 12 LACEY JR, JESSE J 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $52,333.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $52,333.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 12 DA VIS, VELLA D 1.00 MEDIA CL $15,145.18 12 JOYNER, TISA S 1.00 SEC PRIN $14,737.80 12 POWELL, MARYE M 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 CATEGORY TOT AL.S: 3.00 $47,077.63 ELEM.CLSRM.TCH. 12 ARMSTRONG, MARTHA A 1.00 ELEM PE $39,126.00 12 AUSTIN, CLARA D 1.00 ELEM IV $41 ,051.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 19 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 BAKER, MICHELE LYNN 1.00 ELEM IV $21,072.00 12 BONDS, WILMA B 1.00 KINDER-REG $31,285.00 12 BURRUSS, MERILYN P 1.00 ELEM III $32,662.00 12 COLFORD, SUSAN 1.00 ELEM VI $35,337.00 12 DORER, ROBERT A 1.00 ELEM PE $33,473.00 12 ELLINGTON, LORETTA 1.00 ELEM III $29,177.00 12 FAIR, DIXIE W 1.00 ELEM II $32,358.00 12 FARLEY, JENNIFER D 1.00 ELEM I $24,314.00 12 HARDING, CASSANDRA D 1.00 ELEM IV $26,685.00 12 HARRIS, PAULA R 1.00 ELEM VI $23,504.00 12 HESTIR, JOANN 1.00 ELEM I $37,221.00 12 IDGDON, TAMMY 1.00 ELEM II $31,548.00 12 JEFFRIES, VEARLON L 1.00 KINDER-REG $38,619.00 12 JOHNSON, MA YREAN S 1.00 ELEMV $41,051.00 12 JONES, ALICIA R 1.00 ELEM! $29,927.00 12 KELLEY, CLEMENTINE 1.00 ELEMV $41,051.00 12 KELLY,EVELYN 1.00 ELEM II $21,072.00 12 LEHNHOFF, DENNA N 1.00 ELEMV $37,221.00 12 LOFTON, MARY R 1.00 ELEM MUS $41 ,051.00 12 NEWCOMB, DARYL D 1.00 ELEMVI $31,021.00 12 POSITION,VACANT 1.00 ELEMV 12 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 ELEM II 12 SARLO, TIIOMAS C 1.00 ELEM ART $35,600.00 12 TAGGART, MICO RENEE 1.00 ELEM III 12 TAYLOR, CAROLYN W 1.00 ELEM IV $33,473.00 12 WALKER, BERTHENA C 1.00 ELEM I $35,377.0Q 12 WALLS, BOBBIE J 1.00 KINDER-REG $31,021.00 12 WEIR, NANCY L 1.00 ELEM VI $35,337.00 12 WIDTE, DISI IOUNGH 1.00 ELEM III $26,746.00 12 YOUNG, MICHELLE L 1.00 KINDER-REG $25,611 .00 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 32.00 $942,991.00 GUIDANCE 12 DOOLEY, VIVIAN K 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $34,263.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternathe Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 20 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 WOODHAM, MICHELE E 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $33,169.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $67,432.00 LIB/AV. 12 BURNS, PATRICIA M 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $38,190.30 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $38,190.30 OTHER PROF. 12 ALLEY, MARYL 1.00 SPEC INS $41,051.00 12 MOOREHEAD, KENNITI-1 D 1.00 SPEC INS $32,419.00 12 SCOTT-JOHNSON, UVITA L 1.00 NURSE $28,104.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $101,574.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 12 TENISON, MARY JOB 1.00 ORCHESTR CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 PRIN 12 SIMMONS, CHERYL A 1.00 ELE PRIN $56,095.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $56,095.00 SEC.CLSRM. TCH. 12 BLEDSOE, RITA L 1.00 MUSIC $41 ,051.00 12 BROWN, MARTHA C 0.60 MA 11-l-COMPT $10,212.12 12 DICKERSON, KAYE H 1.00 READING $32,358.00 12 HUIE, CAROLYN K 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $37,221.00 12 KARP, ROSE MARIE 1.00 READING $33,979.00 12 KINDER, JAMES B 1.00 ART $26,989.00 12 MCGUIRE, STEPHEN K 0.33 SPE-N/CATG $12,744.27 12 MCMORRAN, MARYE 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $39, 126.00 12 MEYERDlRK, CAROL A 1.00 IN CP SP $39,126.00 12 WlllTE, GLORIA A 1.00 MA Tl 1-COMPT $41,051.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.93 $313,857.39 SERV.WKRS. 12 BROWN, GEORGE 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,229.00 12 BROWN, LAWRENCE 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 12 HAYES,OMAH 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,245 .00 12 MARSHALL, JAMES A 1.00 CUST-IIEAD $17,375.80 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $51,383.80 TCHR.AIDES Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 21 J YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 CHARLESTON, SANTON1A \\ _()() AlUE-S'\\JA $1,'.i1'.~-'.W, I 12 CURRY, VIRGrNIA E 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,513.38 12 MIDDLETON, PATSY A 1.00 LAB ATTEND $10,911.00 12 OLIVER, ORA D 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,513 .38 12 POSITION,VACANT 1.00 AIDE-SVA 12 WOODS, BRENDA L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,513.38 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.00 $40,964.52 YEARLY TOTALS: 62.93 $1,711,898.64 96 BOOKER 618.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 12 HALL, DONNA R 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $37,230.52 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,230.52 CLERC/SEC'Y. 12 DA VIS, VELLA D 1.00 MEDIA CL $15,145.18 12 JOYNER, TISA S 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,229.39 12 POWELL, MARYE M 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $47,569.22 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 12 ARMSTRONG, MARTI IA A 1.00 AUXTEACIIR $39,936.00 12 AUSTIN, CLARA D 1.00 ELEM rv $41 ,86 1.00 12 BAKER, MICHELE LYNN 1.00 ELEM IV $22,937.00 I 12 BROWN, MARTI IA C 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,177.00 12 COLFORD, SUSAN 1.00 ELEM VI $36,147.00 12 DORER, ROBERT A 1.00 ELEM PE $34 ,283.00 12 ELLINGTON,LORETTA 1.00 ELEMIH $29,988.00 12 FAIR, DIXIE W 1.00 ELEM II $33,169.00 12 FARLEY, JENNIFER D 1.00 ELEM I $25,125.00  12 1-IALLUM, AMY LEIGI I 1.00 ELEM III $20,262.00 12 HARDING, CASSANDRA D 1.00 ELEM IV $25,165.16 12 IIARRrS, PAULA R 1.00 ELEM VI $25,368.00 12 HESTIR, JOANN 1.00 ELEM! $38,031.00 12 HIGDON, TAMMY 1.00 ELEM II $32,358.00 12 HIPPS, DEBORAH S. 1.00 ELEMV $23 ,443.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all em1lloyees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVlCE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Sti1lends(does not include benefits) 22 ~ = _.._.. ~-- --- YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 12 JEFFRIES, VEARLON L 1.00 KINDER-REG $39,430.00 12 JOHNSON, MAYREAN S 1.00 ELEMV $41 ,861.00 12 JONES, ALICIA R 1.00 ELEM I $30,737.00 12 KELLEY, CLEMENTINE 1.00 ELEMV $41 ,861.00 12 KELLY, EVELYN 1.00 ELEM II $21 ,883.00 12 LEHNHOFF, DENNA N 1.00 ELEMV $38,031.00 12 NEWCOMB, DARYL D 1.00 ELEM VI $31,832.00 12 SARLO, THOMAS C 1.00 ELEM ART $36,411.00 12 TAGGART, MICO RENEE 1.00 ELEM II $21 ,072.00 12 TAYLOR, CAROLYN W 1.00 ELEM IV $34,283.00 12 TUCKER, TRACYSELBY 1.00 ELEM III $25,064.00 12 WALKER, BERTHENA C 1.00 ELEM I $36,188.00 12 WALLS, BOBBIE J 1.00 KINDER-REG $31 ,832.00 12 WEIR, NANCY L 1.00 ELEM VI $36,147.00 12 WlllTE, DISHOUNGH 1.00 ELEM III $27,556.00 12 YOUNG, MICHELLE L 1.00 KINDER-REG $27,496.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 31.00 $978,934.16 GUIDANCE 12 DOOLEY, VIVIAN K 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $36,188.00 12 WOODHAM, MICHELE E 1.00 CNS LR-ELEM $33,979.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $70,167.00 LIB/AV. 12 BURNS, PATRICIA M 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $39,021 .39 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $39,021.39 OTHER PROF. 12 ALLEY, MARYL 1.00 SPEC CNS $41 ,861 .00 12 MOOREHEAD, KENNITH D 1.00 SPEC CNS $33 ,229.00 12 SCOTT-JOHNSON, UVITA L 1.00 NURSE $29,177.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $104,267.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 12 BLEDSOE, RITA L 0.50 ORCHESTR $20,930.50 12 CRIPPS, JOSEPH D 1.00 ORCHESTR $29,177.00 12 MEYERDIRK, CAROL A 1.00 lN CP SPEC $39,936.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $90,043.50 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 23 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FIE JOB CODE SALARY PRIN 12 SIMMONS, CHERYL A 1.00 ELEPRIN $57,267.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $57,267.00 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 12 ARMSlRONG, ERMA L 1.00 READING $37,221.00 12 BLEDSOE, RITA L 0.50 MUSIC $20,930.50 12 BURRUSS, MERILYN P 0.60 MATH-COMPT $12,259.08 12 HUIE, CAROLYN K 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $38,031 .00 12 KARP, ROSE MARIE 1.00 READING $34,790.00 12 KINDER, JAMES B 1.00 ART $27,799.00 12 LOFTON, MARY R 1.00 MUSIC $41 ,861 .00 12 MCGUIRE, STEPHEN K 0.33 SPEECH $13,011.90 12 MCMORRAN, MARYE 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $39,936.00 12 WHITE, GLORIA A 1.00 MATH-COMPT $41,861 .00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.43 $307,700.48 SERV.WKRS. 12 BROWN, LA WREN CE 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,956.00 12 HAYES,OMAH 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,554.00 12 MARSHALL, JAMES A 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,855.80 12 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 CUSTODAN CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $43,365.80 TCHRAIDES 12 CHARLESTON, SANTONIA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,687.82 12 CURRY, VIRGINIA E 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,687.82 12 MAYWEATHER, LOUISE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,990.06 12 MIDDLETON, PATSY A 1.00 LABATI\"END $11 ,163.00 12 OLIVER, ORA D 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,687.81. 12 WOODS, BRENDA L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,687.82 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.00 $48,904.34 YEARLY TOTALS: 62.93 $1,824,470.41 94 BRADY 387.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 SITLINGTON, CAROL W 0.40 MEDIA CL $5,909.60 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 24 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 WHERRY, JACQUELINE L 1.00 SEC PRIN $16,845.06 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $22,754.66 ELEM.CLSRM.TCH. 01 CROMEDY, GERALDINE 1.00 ELEM II $33,162.00 01 DUGAN, FRANCES R 1.00 KINDER-REG $36,876.00 01 ELAM, MARSHAL 1.00 ELEM III $26,739.00 01 HANNAHS, BARBARA I 1.00 ELEM VJ $35,049.00 01 HARKEY, JANE A 1.00 ELEM IV $30,733.00 01 lllMSTEDT, KIMBERLY H 1.00 ELEM III $26,498.00 01 KOON, BETTY R 1.00 ELEM II $31 ,797.00 01 LESTER, SANDRA L 1.00 ELEMV $25,936.00 01 MCCLURKAN, EDWINA Y 1.00 4YROLD $40,670.00 01 OLIVER, SHELLY R 1.00 ELEM III $32,600.00 01 ROSE, SHERRY L 1.00 ELEM I $35,852.00 01 SUMNER, FRANK.IE B 1.00 ELEM II $35,009.00 01 TEETER, KATHRYN A 1.00 KINDER-REG $25,635.00 01 TOLBERT, IRMA J 1.00 KINDER-REG $27,301.00 01 VARDAMAN, TAMIL 1.00 ELEM VJ $24,892.00 01 WAMBLE, FAUSTINE 1.00 ELEMV $28,846.00 01 WASHINGTON, MARY A 1.00 ELEM I $36,876.00 01 WELLS-SAFFOLD, MISlYE ELIZABETII 1.00 ELEM I $20,074.00 01 YOUNG, EVA M 1.00 ELEM IV CATEGORY TOTALS: 19.00 $554,545.00 GUIDANCE 01 GAMBLE, SUSANNE 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $33,140.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $33,140.00 LIB/AV. 01 NUNLEY, GLORIA A 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $30,709.43 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $30,709.43 PRIN 01 MENKING, MARY A 1.00 ELE PRIN $55,402.67 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 SSS,402.67 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 BRADLEY, ROZALYN M 0.50 SPEECH $18,438.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 25 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 06 CHARLES, KA TI-ILEEN M 0.60 READING $20,848.80 01 CROSBY, SUSAN M 1.00 MUSIC $27,240.00 01 GORDON, JANICE L 0.50 SPE-N/CATG $18,438.00 01 HODGES, BARBARA L 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $35 ,551.00 06 KOVACH, LILLIAN R 0.40 MATH SPEC $12,502.00 06 MCGEE, SUZANNE B 0.60 MATH-CHPI $22,125.60 01 MCINTYRE, GORDON L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $32,339.00 06 SHELLS, GENEVA S 1.00 READING $40,670.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.60 $228, I 52.40 SERV.WKRS. 02 ATKINSON, ARISTAL 1.00 CUSTODAN $11,078.00 02 FOSTER, DONALD 1.00 CUST-IIEAD $14,495.60 02 WILLIAMS, WILLIE F 0.50 CUS-PffiME $2,476.75 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $28,050.35 TCHR.AIDES 02 HARDY, KATHRYN C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $9,210.83 02 JONES JR, EARNEST L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,549.60 02 MOORE, PATSY A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,701.52 02 NICHOLS, VALARIE R 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,837.04 02 O'NEAL, EARNEST L 0.80 LAB ATTEND $7,724.00 02 TAYLOR, WON D 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 WIGHT, LINDA M 1.00 AID-TITL 6 $10,411.00 02 WILLIAMS, SARAH M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5 ,837.04 02 WOFFORD, HELEN L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.80 $70,093.03 YEARLY TOTALS: 41.30 $1,022,847.54 95 BRADY 389.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 NELSON, WILBURLENE R 0.60 MEDIA CL $8,582.44 02 WHERRY, JACQUELINE L 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,336.65 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.60 $25,919.09 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 AV ANT, MELISSA ANNE 1.00 ELEM TV $20,262.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LR.SD lNVORMA.TlON Sll.RVlCE DEPT. Sa\\arv = Base Sa\\ar-v + Stipends(does not include benefits) 2,\n-~.._,_ .... ~~ .. _.. _ . ............. -- . ~-----. - - -- - -- YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 CHARLES, KA TI-Il.,EEN M 1.00 KINDER-REG $35,884.00 01 CROMEDY, GERALDINE 1.00 ELEM II $33,473.00 01 DUGAN, FRANCES R 1.00 KINDER-REG $37,221.00 01 ELAM, MARSHA L 1.00 ELEM Ill $27,799.00 01 HANNAHS, BARBARA I 1.00 ELEM VI $36,188.00 01 I-llGHT, REBECCA R 1.00 ELEMV $27,556.00 01 JOHNSON, JENNIFER L 1.00 ELEMV $29,117.00 01 JONES, PAMELA K 1.00 KINDER-REG $37,221.00 01 KOON, BETTY R 1.00 ELEM II $32,905.00 01 MCCLURKAN, EDWINA Y 1.00 4 YR OLD $41,051.00 01 MILLER, ERMA D 1.00 ELEM! 01 OLIVER, SHELLY R 1.00 ELEM III $33,716.00 01 ROSE, SHERRY L 1.00 ELEM! $36,998.00 01 TIIOMAS, RICHELLE L 1.00 ELEM II $21,072.00 01 TOLBERT, IRMA J 1.00 KINDER-REG $28,367.00 01 VARDAMAN, TAMIL 1.00 ELEM VI $26,989.00 01 WASHINGTON, MARY A 1.00 ELEM I $37,221.00 01 YOUNG,EVAM 1.00 ELEM IV $17,779.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 19.00 $560,819.50 GUIDANCE 01 GAMBLE, SUSANNE 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $34,257.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $34,257.00 LIB/AV.- 01 NUNLEY, GLORIA A 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $31,828.84 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $31,828.84 PRIN 01 RAPER, BETTY G 1.00 ELE PRIN $42,555.17 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $42,555.17 SEC.CLSRM TCH. 01 CROSBY, SUSAN M 1.00 MUSIC $28,306.00 06 DANESHMANDI, KATHRYN D 0.10 MATIISPEC $3,073.70 01 GORDON, JANICE L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $37,221.00 01 HODGES, BARBARA L 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $36,694.00 06 MCGEE, SUZANNE B 0.60 MATII-CIIP I Note: Em1\u0026gt;loyees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 27 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 MCINlYRE, GORDON L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $33,453.00 01 PEEK, PEGGY R 0.50 SPEECH $16,179.00 06 POSITION, VACANT 0.40 READING 06 SHELLS, GENEVA S 1.00 READING $41,051.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.60 $195,977.70 SERV.WKRS. 02 ATKINSON, ARISTAL 1.00 CUSTODAN $11 ,539.00 02 HOWARD JR, WILL H 1.00 CUST-IIEAD $13,660.09 02 WILLIAMS, TRACEY N 0.50 CUS-PffiME CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $25,199.09 TCHRAIDES 02 BRANCH, ERIC 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,826.47 06 HARDY, KATHRYN C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,159.00 02 MOORE, PATSY A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,903.37 02 NICHOLS, VALARIE R 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,903.37 02 O'NEAL, EARNEST L 0.80 LAB ATTEND $7,925.60 02 PALMER, TARLISA 0.50 AIDE-REGLR $5,205.50 02 TAYLOR, WONE D 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 WILLIAMS, SARAH M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,903 .37 02 WOFFORD, HELEN L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.30 $66,648.68 YEARLY TOTALS: 41.00 $983,205.07 96 BRADY 388.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 NELSON, WILBURLENE R 0.60 MEDIA CL $8,734.99 02 WHERRY, JACQUELINE L 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,336.65 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.60 $26,071.64 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 CROMEDY, GERALDINE 1.00 ELEM II $34,283.00 01 DUGAN, FRANCES R 1.00 KINDER-REG $38,315.00 01 EVANS, REBECHA M 1.00 ELEM I $26,746.00 01 GALYEAN, NANETTE R 1.00 ELEM III $18,467.97 01 HANNAHS, BARBARA I 1.00 ELEM VI $36,998.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. \\ ,llSl'\\ \\Nl'OllMA'HON SV:llV\\C'll. Dll,\\\u0026gt;'T ~~,~ .. v = l\\~q,e Sa\\arv + Sth,en,l\u0026lt;il.(tloe~ not include benefit\"') , .. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 01 IDGHT, REBECCA R 1.00 ELEMV $28,367.00 01 JOHNSON, DELMA J 1.00 ELEM III $36,188.00 01 JONES, PAMELA K 1.00 KINDER-REG $38,031.00 01 KOON, BETTY R 1.00 ELEM II $33,716.00 01 MCCLURKAN, EDWINA Y 1.00 4YROLD $41 ,861.00 01 OLIVER, SHELLY R 1.00 ELEM III $34,526.00 01 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 ELEM IV 01 ROSE, SHERRY L 1.00 ELEM I $37,809.00 01 STEVENS, SHANNA M 1.00 ELEMV $21,316.00 01 11-IOMAS, RICHELLE L 1.00 ELEMII $21 ,883.00 01 TOLBERT, IRMA J 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,177.00 01 VARDAMAN, TAMIL 1.00 ELEM VI $28,853.00 01 WASHINGTON, MARY A 1.00 ELEM I $38,031.00 01 YOUNG, EVAM 1.00 ELEM IV $21 ,883 .00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 19.00 $566,450.97 GUIDANCE 01 GAMBLE, SUSANNE 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $35,067.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $35,067.00 LIB/AV. 01 NUNLEY, GLORIA A 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $32,660.96 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $32,660.96 PRIN 01 KEOWN, ADAL 1.00 ELEPRIN $45,268.37 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $45,268.37 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 CROSBY, SUSAN M 1.00 MUSIC $29,117.00 01 GORDON, JANICE L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $38,03] .0() 01 HODGES, BARBARA L 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $37,505.00 01 MCINTYRE, GORDON L 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $34,263.00 01 PEEK, PEGGY R 0.50 SPEECH $16,584.50 06 SHELLS, GENEVA S 0.50 READING $20,930.50 06 SHELLS, GENEVA S 0.50 READING $20,930.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 5.50 $197,361.50 SERV.WKRS. Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 29 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 ABERNATIN, RAYMOND 1.00 CUST-HEAD $8,803.48 02 ATKINSON, ARISTAL 1.00 CUSTODAN $ I 1,981.00 02 COTTON, PARIS JOSEPH 0.50 CUS-PffiME $2,005.19 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.50 $22,789.67 TCHR.AIDES 02 BRANCH, ERIC 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,041.85 06 HARDY, KATIIRYN C 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 MOORE, PATSY A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,040.43 02 NICHOLS, VALARIE R 0.80 LAB ATTEND $4,006.83 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 AIDE-SVA 02 TAYLOR, WONE D 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 02 WILLIAMS, SARAH M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,040.43 02 WOFFORD, HELEN L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,663.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 7.80 $52,866.54 YEARLY TOTALS: 39.40 $978,536.65 94 CARVER 602.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 12 BARKSDALE, MARY D 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $42,421.93 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $42,421.93 CLERC/SEC'Y. 12 FRANKLIN, PHYLLIS P 1.00 SEC PRIN $14,737.80 12 MORRIS, NELDA J 1.00 MEDIA CL $14,326.00 12 SIMPSON, BElTI R 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $46,258.45 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 12 BENNETT,A 1.00 ELEMVl $33,443.00 12 BUCK, VIRGINIA S 1.00 ELEM IV $28,344.00 12 BURNEY, MARY C 1.00 ELEM! $26,437.00 12 BYRD, DEBORAH H 1.00 ELEM VJ $25,635.00 12 CURTIS, JULIE B 1.00 ELEM II $29,147.00 12 DOYNE, ANGELA K 1.00 KINDER-REG $34,748.00 12 FLEMING, LINDA K 1.00 ELEM VJ $31 ,255.00 12 GLENN, BETTY 1.00 ELEMV $38,763.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. u~su \\NFORMA'l'\\ON Sl!.RVlCI!. Dl!.l\"'l'. Sa\\an, = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 30 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 12 GLENN, LINDA F 1.00 ELEM I $29,649.00 12 HAMILTON, CLAUDIA J 1.00 ELEM II $36,876.00 12 HARRIS, RHONDA F 1.00 ELEM IV $22,483.00 12 HARRISON, KATHLEEN A 1.00 KINDER-REG $26,498.00 12 HOOKER, MELBA J 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,388.00 12 JESTER, JULIE D 1.00 ELEM IV $23,286.00 12 JOSEPH, JUNE D 1.00 ELEM II $20,877.00 12 KELLEY, BRYANA D 1.00 ELEM Ill $25,695.00 12 LANGLEY, DIANNE W 1.00 ELEM III $29,950.00 12 MACK,LISAK 1.00 ELEM II $30,994.00 12 MANNING, DEBRA A 1.00 ELEM ART 12 MUNNS, PATRICIA A 1.00 ELEM VI $25,695.00 12 PACE, TEATA D 1.00 ELEMV $25,133.00 12 PENN, PRISCILLA J 1.00 ELEMIII $22,483.00 12 ROBERTS, M MARTHA 1.00 KINDER-REG $26,498.00 12 SKUBAL, EUNICE L 1.00 ELEM I $22,483.00 12 WASHINGTON, KIMBERLY V 1.00 ELEM IV $22,483.00 12 WA ITS, RONDA M 1.00 ELEMV $22,483 .00 12 WILLIAMS, MARY ANNE K 1.00 ELEMV $27,782.00 12 WILSON, CYNTHIA L 1.00 ELEMIII $24,892.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 28.00 $743,400.00 GUIDANCE 12 AMMEL, LINDA G 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $29,930.00 12 TA TIJM, KA THY R 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $31,255.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $61,185.00 LIB/AV. 12 BELOTTI, VIRGINIA M 0.50 LIBRN-ELEM $16,188.89 12 THOMPSON, CAROLE 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $31,018.27 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.50 $47,207.16 OTHER PROF. 12 CRUM, JANES 1.00 INT/SPEC $34,748.00 12 CURTIS, MARY J 1.00 NURSE $31,556.00 12 MANNON, ROBERTA A 1.00 SPEC INS $28,846.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $95,150.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 31 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY OTHR Cl.BRM. TCH. 12 GREENLEE, KAREN ESTELLE 1.00 CUR SPEC $33,443.00 12 POSITION, VACANT 0.40 SPE MATII 12 SCOTT, Y ANA II 1.00 CUR SPEC $36,354.00 12 TIIOMAS, VANNETIA J 1.00 SPE MATII $25,936.00 12 UNDERWOOD-MORAVEC, LEIGH A 1.00 S/SPEC $28,043.00 CATEGORY TOT AI.B: 4.40 $123,776.00 PRIN 12 GUINN, MARYE 1.00 ELE PRIN CATEGORY TOTAI.B: 1.00 SEC. CI.BRM. TCH. 12 ANDREWS, SHARON F 0.40 G\u0026amp;T $8,149.92 12 ROBERTSON, LEETA D 1.00 MUSIC $20,074.00 12 SPANN, MEREDITII J 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $34,246.00 12 SWEAT, JESCENA 1.00 PE SPEC $30,452.00 12 VALUE, TERRIL 0.50 SPEECH $15,627.50 12 WALKER, SHIRLEY D 0.50 SPE-N/CATG $17,374.00 CATEGORY TOT AI.B: 4.40 $125,923.42 SERV.WKRS. 12 HASAN, ABDULLAH H 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,263.05 12 JONES, BETTY L 0.50 CUS-P/TIME $2,049.75 12 MACK, ROBERT 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,375.80 12 ROLAND, MIL TON 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,523.00 12 WOODS III, ROBERT L 0.50 CUS-PmME $2,476 .75 CATEGORY TOTAI.B: 4.00 $39,688.35 TCHR.AIDES 12 BAKER, PATRICIA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 12 BOYD, DARRELL L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,206.08 12 EFIRD, WENDY L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR 12 GIBSON, SUSANY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,061.44 12 GRIMMITI, BONNIE S 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,159.00 12 HARSHAW, HERRIN F 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,367.68 12 JOHNSON, IRENE B 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,245.12 12 MAYWEATHER, ELNORA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,367.68 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Leaming Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. 'UC::.\" ,NVO~l't.1\\1'..\"T,oN ~v.uv,c-v. '\\\"\\V.t\u0026gt;'T ~'A\\!.uv = 'I\\!,,~'-\" ~a\\arv + S.ti.t1iend!-1.(does not include henefits) 32 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 POSITION, VACANT I.DO LABATfEND 12 SANDERS, PATRICIA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 12 WINFREY,VEARLEAN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,367.68 CATEGORY TOTALS: 11.00 $65,596.68 YEARLY TOTALS: 63.30 $1,390,606.99 95 CARVER 593.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 12 SCOTT, Y ANA H 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $39,815.88 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $39,815.88 CLERC/SEC'Y. 12 HILL, JERRI L 1.00 SEC PRIN $11,020.57 12 MORRIS, NELDA J 1.00 SEC PRIN $13,637.14 12 SCHILLING, PAULA B 1.00 MEDIA CL $7,775.71 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $32,433.42 ELEM. CLSRM. TCH. 12 BENNETI,A 1.00 ELEM VI $34,567.00 12 BUCK, VIRGINIA S 1.00 ELEM IV $29,420.00 12 BURNEY, MARY C 1.00 ELEM I $27,496.00 12 BYRD, DEBORAH H 1.00 ELEM VI $26,685.00 12 CURTIS, JULIE B 1.00 ELEMII $30,231.00 12 DOYNE, ANGELA K 1.00 KINDER-REG $35,884.00 12 FLEMING, LINDA K 1.00 ELEM VI $32,358.00 12 GLENN, BETTY I.DO ELEMV $39,126.00 12 GLENN, LINDA F 1.00 ELEM I $30,737.00 12 HAMILTON, CLAUDIA J I.DO ELEM II $37,221.00 12 HARRIS, RHONDA F 1.00 ELEM IV $23,504.00 12 HARRISON, KATHLEEN A 1.00 KINDER-REG $22,102.21 12 HOOKER, MELBA J 1.00 KINDER-REG $30,474.00 12 JESTER, JULIE D 1.00 ELEM IV $25,368.00 12 JOSEPH, JUNE D 1.00 ELEM II $22,937.00 12 LANGLEY, DIANNE W 1.00 ELEM III $31,041.00 12 MANNING, DEBRA A I.DO ELEM ART $28,367.00 12 MUNNS, PATRICIA A I.DO ELEM III $26,746.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 33 Ill YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FIE JOB CODE SALARY 12 PACE, TEATA D 1.00 ELEMV $27,232.00 12 PENN, PRISCILLA J 1.00 ELEM III $23 ,504.00 12 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 ELEMil 12 ROBERTS, M MARTI-IA 1.00 KINDER-REG $27,556.00 12 SKUBAL, EUNICE L 1.00 ELEM I $23,504.00 12 TI-IOMAS, VANNETIA J 1.00 ELEM VI $28,043.00 12 WASHINGTON, KIMBERLY V 1.00 ELEM IV $23,504.00 12 WA TIS, RONDA M 1.00 ELEMV $23,504.00 12 WILLIAMS, MARY ANNE K 1.00 ELEMV $28,853.00 12 WILSON, CYNTIIIA L 1.00 ELEM III $24,719.30 CATEGORY TOTALS: 28.00 $764,683.51 GUIDANCE 12 AMMEL, LINDA G 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $31,021.00 12 TATIJM, KATI-IY R 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $32,358.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $63,379.00 i LIB/AV. 12 BELOTTI, VIRGINIA M 0.50 LIBRN-ELEM $16,756.29 12 THOMPSON, CAROL E 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $32,140.76 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.50 $48,897.05 OTHER PROF. 12 CRUM,JANES 1.00 INT/SPEC $35,884.00 12 CURTIS, MARY J 1.00 NURSE 12 MACK, LISAK 1.00 SPEC INS $32,095.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $67,979.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 12 DIMASSIMO, SUELLEN I-I 1.00 SPEMATII $28,853.00\n12 RUNION, DIANNE C 1.00 CUR SPEC $37,809.0Q ! 12 SMITH, MARY A 1.00 CUR SPEC $38,6 I 9.00 12 STEWART, EDIE GARNER 0.60 SPE MATH $15,525.00 12 UNDERWOOD-MORAVEC, LEIGH A 1.00 S/SPEC $29,117.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.60 $149,923.00 PRIN 12 BARKSDALE, MARY D 1.00 ELE PRIN $49,533.95 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $49,533.95 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. ,~su ,NVOR.'M.-..\",ON S11.Rv,c11. 011.l'\"\\' . Sa\\arv = Base Sa\\ar-y + Stipcnds(docs not include benefits) 34 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 12 HARRIS,KARENR 1.00 MUSIC $29,459.39 12 SPANN, MEREDITH J 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $35,377.00 12 STEWART, EDIE GARNER 0.40 G\u0026amp;T $10,350.00 12 SWEAT, JESCENA 1.00 PE SPEC $31,548.00 12 TARPLEY, GLYNDA C 1.00 SPE-N/CATG 12 VALUE, TERRIL 0.50 SPEECH $16,179.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.90 $122,913.39 SERV.WKRS. 12 FOSTER, DONALD 1.00 CUST-HEAD $14,997.60 12 HASAN,ABDULLAIIH 1.00 CUSTODAN $11,078.00 12 JONES, BETTY L 0.50 CUS-PffiME $2,049.75 12 ROLAND,MILTON 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,891.00 12 WOODS ID, ROBERT L 0.50 CUS-PffiME $2,561.25 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $39,577.60 TCHR.AIDES 12 BAKER, PATRIClA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,911.00 12 BURCH, CLAIRE E 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,440.04 12 EFIRD, WENDY L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 12 GIBSON, SUSANY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,290.52 12 GRIMMITT, BONNIE S 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 12 HARRIS, TYRONE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,019.60 12 JOHNSON, IRENE B 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,440.04 12 JOHNSON, JOE A 1.00 LAB ATTEND $21,008.00 12 MAYWEATHER, ELNORA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,440.04 12 SANDERS, PATRIClA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 12 WINFREY,VEARLEAN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,440.0l! CATEGORY TOTALS: 11.00 $100,222.28 YEARLY TOTALS: 64.00 $1,479,358.08 96 CARVER 631.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 12 SCOTT, YANA H 1.00  A/PRINELE $41,827.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $41,827.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 35 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY CLERC/SEC'Y. 12 CLARK, ALICE KAY 1.00 SEC PRIN $14,246.21 12 HILL, JERRI L 1.00 SEC PRIN $11,790.46 12 SCHILLfNG, PAULA B 1.00 MEDIA CL $10,008.71 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $36,045.38 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 12 BUCK, VIRGfNlA S 1.00 ELEM IV $30,231.00 12 BURNEY, MARYC 1.00 ELEM! $28,306.00 12 BYRD, DEBORAH H 1.00 ELEM VI $27,496.00 12 CRUM,JANES 1.00 ELEM-DEV $36,694.00 12 CURTIS, JULIE B 1.00 ELEM II $31,041.00 12 DOYNE, ANGELA K 1.00 KfNDER-REG $36,694.00 12 FLEMING, LINDA K 1.00 ELEM VI $34,263.00 12 GLENN, BETTY 1.00 ELEMV $39,936.00 12 GLENN, LINDA F 1.00 ELEM! $31,548.00 12 HAMILTON, CLAUDIA J 1.00 ELEM II $38,031.00 12 HARRIS, RHONDA F 1.00 ELEM IV $24,314.00 12 HARRISON, KATHLEEN A 1.00 KfNDER-REG $28,367.00 12 HOOKER, MELBA J 1.00 KfNDER-REG $31,285.00 12 JESTER, JULCE D 1.00 ELEM IV $26,179.00 12 JOSEPH, JUNE D 1.00 ELEM II $23,747.00 12 MACK,LISAK 1.00 ELEM-DEV $16,281.12 12 MCKENDRY, SARAH A 1.00 ELEM II $21,072.00 12 MORGAN, HOLLY ELIZABETII 1.00 ELEM VI $21,072.00 12 MUNNS, PATRICIA A 1.00 ELEMirl $27,556.00 12 PACE, TEATA D 1.00 ELEMV $29,117.00 12 PENN, PRISCILLA J 1.00 ELEM Ill $24,314.00 12 ROBERTS, M MARTHA 1.00 KfNDER-REG $28,367.00 12 SKUBAL, EUNICE L 1.00 ELEM! $24,314.00 12 STEW ART, EDIE GARNER 0.40 ELEM-DEV $10,674.00 12 STEWART, EDCE GARNER 0.60 ELEM-DEV $16,011.00 12 SUNDERMAN, ANGIE D 1.00 ELEM ART $23,443.00 12 THOMAS, VANNETIA J 1.00 ELEM VI $28,853.00 12 WASHINGTON, KIMBERLY V 1.00 ELEM IV $22,593.38 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. '-.l\\.SO Uol.VOl\\.MA.\"l:'\\ON S~l\\.V\\C~ O~l\u0026gt;'l'. Ra\\arv = lla~e Sa\\arv + Stinend~(does not include henefits) :Jr. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 WATT'S, RONDA M 1.00 ELEMV $24,314.00 12 WIBTE, LETICIA MILLER 1.00 ELEM-DEV $31,825.00 12 WILLIAMS JR, ORVEN E 1.00 ELEM III $21,883.00 12 WILLIAMS, MARY ANNE K 1.00 ELEMV $29,664.00 12 WILSON, CYNTIIlA L 1.00 ELEM III $26,746.00 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 32.00 $896,23 I. 50 GUIDANCE 12 AMMEL, LINDA G 1.00 CNS LR-ELEM $31,832.00 12 TATIJM, KATIIY R 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $33,169.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $65,001.00 LIB/AV. 12 BELOIB, VIRGINIA M 0.50 LIBRN-ELEM $17,172.35 12 IBOMPSON, CAROLE 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $32,972.88 CATEGORY TOTALS: I.SO $50,145.23 OTHER PROF. 12 CURTIS, MARY J 1.00 NURSE $33,472.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $33,472.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 12 DIMASSIMO, SUELLEN II 1.00 MATI-l SPEC $29,664.00 12 RUNION, DIANNE C 1.00 LANG SPEC $38,619.00 12 SMIIB, MARY A 1.00 CUR SPEC $39,430.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $107,713.00 PRIN 12 BARKSDALE, MARY D 1.00 ELE PRIN $53,423.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $53,423.00 SEC.CLSRM. TCH. 12 MURRAY, flMMY A 1.00 MUSIC $25,529.77 12 SPANN, MEREDIIB J 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $36,188.00 12 SWEAT, JESCENA 1.00 PE SPEC $32,358.00 12 TARPLEY, GLYNDA C 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $29,927.00 12 VALUE, TERRIL 0.50 SPEECII $16,584.50 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 4.50 $140,587.27 SERV.WKRS. 12 FOSTER, DONALD 1.00 CUST-HEAD $15,477.60 12 JONES, BETTY L 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,291.40 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 37 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 12 POSITION, VACANT 0.50 CUS-PffiME 12 ROLAND, MIL TON 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,065.94 12 WOODS Ill, ROBERT L 0.50 CUS-PmME $2,638.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $36,473.44 TCHR.AIDES 12 BAKER, PATRICIA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $11,163.00 12 BURCH, CLAIRE E 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,589.56 12 EFIRD, WENDY L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 12 GIBSON, SUSAN Y 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,440.04 12 GRIMMITT, BONNIE S 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 12 HARRIS, TYRONE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,265.24 12 JOHNSON, IRENE B 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,589.56 12 JOHNSON, JOE A 1.00 LAB ATTEND $21,566.00 12 MA YWEA TIIER, ELNORA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,589.56 12 SANDERS, PA TRJCIA A 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 12 WINFREY,VEARLEAN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,589.56 CATEGORY TOTALS: 11.00 $102,781.52 YEARLY TOTALS: 64.00 $1,563,700.34 94 CENTRAL 1,650.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 01 JAMES, BRENDA F 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $40,247.00 01 PETERSON, MICHAEL W 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $42,403.00 01 ROUSSEAU, NANCY L 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $39,300.50 01 WA TIS, DARRELL J 1.00 AIPRIN SEC $32,745.67 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $154,696.17 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 ADAIR, GLADYS M 1.00 SECATT $16,703.06 02 BRIGGS, DEMETRIA G 1.00 SEC PRIN $14,737.80 02 HEGGS, URSELLA W 1.00 SECATT $15,719.88 02 O'NEAL, JANE 1.00 REG $20,804.00 02 POSillON, VACANT 1.00 PBX 02 RODGERS,FRANCESE 1.00 SEC PRIN 02 ROSENBERGER, BETTY C 1.00 MEDIA CL $14,774.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. '~~\"\"' ''NVO~'M \"'-\"'t',ON 'S\\t.,'Q.V\"\"\\CV. \"0'.V\"T ~a\\a.-v - T\\a~(.'\u0026gt; ~a\\a..--v + Sti.'(le.ndN.(dae.!ol not. i.nc\\ude benefits) -.A YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 SIEGEL, TERESA T 1.00 B/KEEPER $13,755.72 02 STELL,LINDAM 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,229.39 02 TINKLE,BETIY 1.00 SECATT $16,211.47 02 WILLIAMS, CAROLYN J 1.00 SEC GUID $14,182.05 02 WILLIAMS, KELLY D 1.00 SEC PRIN $13,264.13 CATEGORY TOTALS: 12.00 $155,381.50 ELEM.CI..SRM. TCH. 01 CLAY, SHERRI L 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,950.00 01 POST, JULIA A 1.00 KINDER-REG $24,330.00 01 THOMPSON, FLORA DEAN 1.00 KINDER-REG $40,670.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $94,950.00 GUIDANCE 01 BLAIR,SAMK 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $47,775.69 01 CALLAWAY, ELIZABETII W 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $37,159.73 01 GRAVES, JESSICA A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $41,791.36 01 IVEY, DELORES S 1.00 CNSLR-SECD 01 JOHNSON, LYNDA P 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $37,787.20 01 WATSON, PATRICIA A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $39,756.94 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.00 $204,270.92 LIB/AV. 01 ALVERSON JR, RAYMOND A 1.00 ASTLIBR $37,836.31 01 DUMAS, ELAINE K 1.00 LIBRN-SECD $37,836.31 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $75,672.62 OTHER PROF. 02 FELLS, JACKIE 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,794.00 02 JOHNSON, BENNY D 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,794.00 02 MOBLEY, KA TIILEEN H 1.00 NURSE $25,695.00 02 SIMS, JEROME E 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,794.00 02 SMITH, FLOYD 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,794.00 02 SMITH, JERRY 1.00 SIB SOFR $11 ,794.00 CATEGORY TOT AI..S: 6.00 $84,665.00 OTHR CI..SRM. TCH. 02 FIELDS, WILLIE J 1.00. AIRFRCE $28,887.30 01 JARMON, MYRA M 0.50 SPE-LD $17,233.50 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 39 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 MCDONALD, TIIOMAS A 0.20 ORCHESTR $8, 128.00 01 ROBERTSON JR, TI-IOMAS A 1.00 AIRFRCE $33,765.41 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 2.70 $88,014.21 PRIN 01 HOWARD, RUDOLPH 1.00 SEC PRTN $62,986.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $62,986.40 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 ALLMON, TERRY L 1.00 GEOMTRY-IN 01 ARJCK, JOYCE A 1.00 COORDED $48,744.80 01 BAXLEY, MARY A 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $29,477.00 01 BECKER, MARY C 0.80 ENGLSH-DEV 06 BECKER, MARY C 0.20 READING 01 BENNETT, TIMOTI-IY P 1.00 SPANISH $21 ,680.00 01 BLACKMAN, TONY 1.00 ORAL COM $27,387.00 01 BLESSING, DONALD K 1.00 SPE-M/RET 01 BOONE, EDDIE L 1.00 BOYS PE 01 BOYETT, EDWARD B 1.00 SOC STU $24,892.00 01 BRACK, ROBERT L 1.00 MUSIC $40,670.00 01 BROADNAX-TI IRASHER, BEYERL Y 0.80 ENGLSH-REG $32,536.00 06 BROADNAX-TIIRASHER, BEVERLY 0.20 READING $8, 134.00 01 BROWN, JAMES 0.80 BLDTRAD $35 ,077.87 01 BROWN, JAMES A 1.00 SOC STU $35,759.00 01 BYRNE, ROISIN 1.00 SPANISH $10,278.00 01 CALDWELL, CHERYL D 1.00 ALGEBRA-I 01 CALDWELL, SUZANNE 0 1.00 SPANISH $35,799.00 01 CALLAWAY, NORMAN M 1.00 ISSP $44,524.90 01 CARUTH, PHYLLIS V 1.00 TRJG $40,670.06 01 CHAMBLISS, PATRJCIA A 1.00 FRENCH $35,852.00 01 CLOUD, GAYLE H 1.00 LATIN $35,270.00 01 COBB, JEANT 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $32,005.00 01 COLBURN, MELISSA A 1.00 GLOBAL $34,467.00 01 COLE, JENNIE B 1.00 FRENCH $33,403.00 01 COLLINS, ROBIN R 1.00 HOME ECO $29,433.89 01 COON, SUEL 1.00 ART $37,960.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"fn,s re\\)ort does not ,ndude, Metro\\lo\\itan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY OJ CORTINEZ, KATIIERINE 1.00 SOC STU $35,009.00 01 COX, BERNIE L 1.00 SOC STU $50,046.30 01 CREWS, MARY M 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $32,058.00 01 DANIEL, BRANTON P 1.00 SCI TECH $36,876.00 06 DA VIS, ROBIN L 0.20 READING $5,769.20 01 DA VIS, ROBIN L 0.80 ENGLSH-REG $23,076.80 OJ DEITZ, SANDY G 1.00 CALCULUS $33,403.00 OJ DENNlS,AUDRA T 1.00 SOC STU OJ DONHAM, MELISSA C 1.00 BIOLOGY $35,759.00 01 DYER, JACQUELIN W 1.00 CHEMSTRY OJ EASTER, MARION 0 1.00 ENGLSI I-REG $40,670.00 OJ EVANS, KATIIRYN S 1.00 VOCBUS ED $25,365.05 OJ FITZPATRICK JR, OLIVER 1.00 SOC STU $36,078.00 OJ FUTRELL, BRENDA J 1.00 MARKETCOR $48,744.37 OJ GADBERRY, SARAH E 1.00 AM 1--llST $38,763.00 OJ GADDY, HELEN B 1.00 SPE-MIRET $40,670.00 OJ GATES, KATHY 1.00 GEOMTY-REG OJ GRAHAM, HARRYETTE 1.00 HOME ECO $43,847.34 OJ GRAY,JOEA 1.00 SOC STU $25,989.00 OJ HAMMONS, KAREN A 0.80 ENGLSH-REG $24,361.60 06 HAMMONS, KAREN A 0.20 READING $6,090.40 01 HARDIN, GWENDOLYN E 1.00 GEOMTY-REG $34,467.00 01 HARGIS, ALISON C 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $27,782.00 OJ HENDERSON, SHERRY LOU 1.00 SVFART $23,653.55 01 HESSELSCIIWERDT, RONALD F 1.00 EX IND 01 1--llLL, SHEKETA G 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $29,388.0Q 01 HOFFMAN-MCDERMOTT, MICHELLE G 0.80 ENGLSII-REG 06 HOFFMAN-MCDERMOTT, MICHELLE G 0.20 READING OJ HOGAN, SUSAN P 1.00 ART $19,940.39 OJ HOLLADAY, KATHLEEN T 1.00 ORAL COM $35,347.50 06 HOOPER, BEVERLY R 0.20 READING $5,620.80 01 HOOPER, BEVERLY R 0.80 ENGLSH-REG $22,483.20 01 HUFFORD, GARY W 1.00 CHEMSTRY $27,542.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(docs not include benefits) 41 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 KEARNEY, LESLIE A 1.00 GERMAN $35,270.00 01 LANCE, CHARLES H 1.00 JOURNALI 01 LOYA, SAMUEL T 1.00 SPANISH-AD $23,957.00 06 LUCY, PHYLLIS R 0.20 READlNG $5,829.40 OJ LUCY, PHYLLIS R 0.80 ENGLSH-REG $23,317.60 01 MARSH, EDWARD W 1.00 COMP ST 01 MAYS, GRACIE C 1.00 BIOLOGY $35,270.00 01 MCDONALD, DOROTIIY L 1.00 ENGLSH-REG 01 MCFADDEN, ELIZABETII K 0.20 FRENCH $5,781.40 OJ MCGUIRE, STEPHEN K 0.34 SPEECH $12,735.72 01 MCLENDON, JOANNE B 1.00 HEALTH $40,670.00 01 MCLENNAN, FREDIE D 1.00 IND err $44,259.19 OJ MCMURRAY, VICTOR C 1.00 AMIIIST $28,846.00 01 MEADOWS, MARKE 1.00 OTHRSCI $30,23 I .00 OJ MOGSTAD, BONNIE L 1.00 ARTD 06 MONCRIEF, GWEN V 0.20 READlNG 01 MONCRIEF, GWEN V 0.80 ENGLSH-DEV 01 MOORE, KENT L 1.00 PRE-ALGR $29,649.00 01 NASH, DORIS L 1.00 ORAL COM $35,466.00 01 NASH, L ANGEL 0.80 ENGLSH-DEV $24,361.60 06 NASH, LANGEL 0.20 READlNG $6,090.40 01 PAXTON, VERONICA J 0.80 ENGLSII-DEV $22,033.60 06 PAXTON, VERONICA J 0.20 READlNG $5,508.40 01 PEDIGO, MARY J 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $40,670.00 01 PETERS, DIANE E 1.00 AMERGOV $36,876.00 01 PIERCE, MAUREEN 1.00 HOME ECO $35,752.78 01 POSITION, VACANT 0.60 OFRLAN 01 POSillON, VACANT 1.00 BIOLOGY 06 PREWIT, MARY J 1.00 READlNG $40,670.00 OJ RAMSEY, KA TIILEEN E 1.00 BIOLOGY $30,994.00 01 ROBlNSON, CONSTANCE F 1.00 voe BUSED $43,847.34 01 RUTLEDGE, MARILYN F 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $27,301.00 06 SAIN, LLOYD 0.20 READING Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. 'Th\\s .-e\\\\ort does not ,ndude, Met.-o\\)oUtan Sc.boo\\, and A\\te.-native Lea.-ning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll.  - ' ., - .._ \"'- ._,.  ., .... ..,.,_, 'n-  ...,. '' ,,.  ...., . ..-,, .. - YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY = 01 SAIN, LLOYD 0.80 ENGLSH-DEV 01 SCHLESINGER, DEBRA S 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $29,562.50 01 SHOFNER, KIRBY E 1.00 BIOLOGY $26,498.00 01 SIEGEL, LARRY B 1.00 AM HIST $39,758.55 01 SMITH, DA YID M 1.00 ENGLSII-REG $28,043.00 01 SNODGRASS, AMY L 1.00 BIOLOGY $26,498.00 01 TAYLOR, ROBERTM 1.00 OTHRSCI $28,043.00 01 TAYLOR, TRAVIS F 1.00 BAND $22,367.00 06 THOMPSON, LOIS B 0.20 READING $7,001.80 01 THOMPSON, LOIS B 0.80 ENGLSH-DEV $28,007.20 01 THOMPSON, NANCY K 1.00 voe BUS ED $44,347.34 01 VENABLE, GLORIA 0 1.00 voe BUSED $43,847.34 01 WATSON, BILLYN 1.00 MATH $41,421.00 01 WEBB JR, CECIL H 1.00 COORDED 01 WHITE, DIANE B 1.00 SPANISH $31,255.00 01 WILDER, BARBARA A 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $32,118.00 01 WILLIAMS, BETTYE F 1.00 ISSP $39,456.00 01 WILLIAMSON, MARGARET A 1.00 SPE-M/RET $37,627.00 01 WILLIS, EULA M 1.00 voe BUS ED $42,541.36 01 WILSON, NANCY L 1.00 ART $38,763.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 98.94 $2,735,363.48 SERV.WKRS. 02 BOWMAN, RUTIIIE M 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 02 BRIGGS, BOBBY C 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 02 CLOUD JR, WILLIAM L 1.00 BLDG ENG $22,598.00 02 DOBBINS JR, ALBERT L 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,907.00 02 DUNHOO, KERVIS R 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,229.00 02 FAGAN, ROSIE L 1.00 A-HEADCUS $13,728.00 02 GIVENS, WILLIE T 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,875.00 02 HUDSON,HAROLD 1.00 CUSTODAN $6,843.20 02 JACKSON, KENNETI-1 RAY 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,199.00 02 JOHNSON, GRACE E 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,684.92 02 MCKISICK, DERRICK 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,523.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 43 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 POSITION, VACANf 1.00 CUSTODAN 02 ROBERTS, JOIIN A 1.00 BLDG ENG $15,033.20 02 TIMMONS, CAL VIN 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 14.00 $166,222.32 TCHR.AIDES 02 HILL, DARLENE 0.20 LAB ATTEND $1,763.20 02 LLOYD, OTTIMJS C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,367.68 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.20 $8,130.88 YEARLY TOTALS: 150.84 $3,830,353.50 95 CENTRAL 1,565.00 ASST. PRIN-NT 01 JAMES, BRENDA F 1.00 A/PRINSEC $43,606.00 01 PETERSON, MJCIIAEL W 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $43,707.00 01 ROUSSEAU, NANCY L 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $41,625.50 01 WA TIS, DARRELL J 1.00 A/PRIN SEC CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.00 $128,938.50 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 ADAIR, GLADYS M 1.00 SECATI $17,194.65 02 BRIGGS, DEMETRIA G 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,229.39 02 BROOKS, RUBYE V 1.00 PBX $11,199.57 02 HEGGS, URSELLA W 1.00 SECATI $16,211.47 02 O'NEAL, JANE 1.00 REG $21,382.00 02 ROSENBERGER, BETTY C 1.00 MEDIA CL $15,013.58 02 SIEGEL, TERESA T 1.00 B/KEEPER $14,737.80 02 STELL, LINDA M 1.00 SEC PRIN $16,211.47 02 STONE, MARY J 1.00 SEC PRIN $19,562.26 02 TINKLE, BETTY 1.00 SECATI $17,194.65 02 WILLIAMS, CAROLYN J 1.00 SEC GUID $14,312.45 02 WILLIAMS, KELLY D 1.00 SEC PRIN $12,264.95 CATEGORY TOTALS: 12.00 $190,514.24 ELEM.CLSRM.TCH. 01 CLAY, SHERRIL 1.00 KINDER-REG $31,041.00 01 POST, JULIA A 1.00 KINDER-REG $25,368.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This re\\\\Ort does not include, Metro\\lo\\itan Schoo\\, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 THOMPSON, FLORA DEAN 1.00 KINDER-REG $41 ,05 1.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $97,460.00 GUIDANCE OJ BLAIR, SAMK 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $48,216.22 OJ CALLA WAY, ELIZABETII W 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $38,381.25 01 GRAVES, JESSICA A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $44,258.11 OJ JOHNSON, LYNDA P 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $39,515.19 01 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 CNSLR-SECD 01 WATSON, PATRICIA A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $40,128.89 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.00 $210,499.66 LIB/AV. 01 ALVERSON JR, RAYMOND A 1.00 ASTLIBR $38,190.30 01 DUMAS, ELAINE K 1.00 LIBRN-SECD $38,190.30 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $76,380.60 OTHER PROF. 02 ADAMS, DONALD D. 1.00 SIB SOFR $9,047.34 02 FELLS, JACKIE 1.00 SIB SOFR $12,143.00 02 MOBLEY, KATIILEEN II 1.00 NURSE $26,498.00 02 SIMS, JEROME E 1.00 SIB SOFR $12,143.00 02 SMITII, FLOYD 1.00 SIB SOFR $12,143.00 02 SMITII, JERRY 1.00 SIB SOFR $12,859.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.00 $84,833.34 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 02 FIELDS, WILLIE J 1.00 AIR FRCE $30,439.46 01 JARMON, MYRA M 0.60 SPE-LD $21 ,360.00 OJ MCDONALD, IBOMAS A 0.20 ORCHESTR $8,363.20 01 ROBERTSON JR, TIIOMAS A 1.00 AIR FRCE $34,368.6S CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.80 $94,531.31 PRlN 01 HOW ARD, RUDOLPH 1.00 SEC PRJN $68,493.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $68,493.00 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. OJ ARICK, JOYCE A 1.00 COORDED $49,195.26 01 BAXLEY, MARY A 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $30,551.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 45 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 01 BECKER, MARY C 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $28,853.00 01 BENNETT, TIMOTIIY P 1.00 SPANISH $22,693.00 01 BLACKMAN, TONY 1.00 ORAL COM $29,396.00 01 BLEVINS, PAULETTE 1.00 BIOLOGY $23,443.00 01 BOYETT, EDWARD B 1.00 SOC STU $25,935.00 OJ BRACK, ROBERT L 1.00 MUSIC $41,051.00 OJ BROADNAX-TIIRASHER, BEVERLY 1.00 ENGLSI I-REG $41,051.00 OJ BROWN, JAMES A 1.00 SOC STU $36,087.00 OJ CALDWELL, SUZANNE 0 1.00 SPANISH $36,938.00 01 CALLAWAY, NORMAN M 1.00 BOYS PE $44,869.90 01 CARR, PA TIERSON W 0.60 ALGEBRA-I OJ CARUlll, PHYLLIS V 1.00 TRIG $41,051.00 01 CHAMBLISS, PA TRICIA A 1.00 FRENCII $36,998.00 01 CHERRY, KARLA KIM 1.00 JOURNAL! $28,878.89 OJ CLOUD, GAYLE H 1.00 LATIN OJ COBB,JEANT 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $33,108.00 OJ COLBURN, MELISSA A 1.00 GLOBAL $35,600.00 OJ COLE, JENNIE B 1.00 FRENCH $35,600.00 OJ COLLINS, ROBIN R 1.00 HOME ECO $30,583.17 OJ COON, SUEL 1.00 ART $40,240.00 OJ COOPER, VIRGINIA R 0.40 ARTD $13,487.12 01 CORTINEZ, KA THERINE 1.00 SOC STU $35,337.00 OJ COX, BERNIE L 1.00 SOC STU $50,427.30 OJ DANIEL, BRANTON P 1.00 SCI TECH $38,190.30 OJ DEITZ, SANDY G 1.00 CALCULUS $35,600.00 OJ DONHAM, MELISSA C 1.00 BIOLOGY $36,087.00 OJ DYER, JACQUELIN W 1.00 CHEMSTRY $39,126.00 01 EASTER, MARlON 0 1.00 ENGLSil-REG $41,051.00 01 EVANS, KAlllRYN S 1.00 voe BUS ED $26,476.59 OJ FITZPATRICK JR, OLIVER 1.00 SOC STU $38,248.60 OJ FUTRELL, BRENDA J 1.00 MARKETCOR $49,194.83 OJ GADBERRY, SARAH E 1.00 AM HIST $39,126.00 OJ GADDY, HELEN B 1.00 SPE-M/RET $41,051.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. 'Yn,,.. 'l'C.\\\\Ort doe\" no\\ ,ndude, Me\\'l'O\\\\o\\i\\an Sc.boo\\, and A\\\\e'l'native l...ea .. ninl!, Center and is based on all funds and all em11loyees currently active on payroll. SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 GATES, KATIIY 1.00 GEOM1Y-REG $30,211 .00 01 GRAHAM, HARRYETfE 1.00 HOME ECO $44,258. 11 01 GRAY, JOEA 1.00 SOC STU $27,025.00 01 HALL-JONES, BETSY 1.00 SPE-M/RET $30,211 .00 01 HAMMONS, KAREN A 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $31,548.00 01 HARDIN, GWENDOLYN E 1.00 GEOMTY-REG $35,600.00 01 HARGIS, ALISON C 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $28,853.00 01 HARVEY, CA TI IERINE ANITA 1.00 BIOLOGY $20,427.83 01 HOFFMAN-MCDERMOTT, MICHELLE G 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $24 ,254.00 01 HOGAN, SUSAN P 1.00 ART $26,746.00 01 HOLLADAY, KATI-ILEEN T 1.00 ORAL COM $35,658.50 01 HOOPER, BEYERL Y R 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $29,177.00 OJ HUFFORD, GARY W 1.00 CHEMSTRY $28,610.00 01 KEARNEY, LESLIE A 1.00 GERMAN $36,411 .00 OJ KRATZKE, ROBIN R 0.80 SPANISH 01 LOYA, SAMUEL T 1.00 SPANISII-AD $26,041 .00 01 LUCY, PHYLLIS R 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $30,231.00 01 MARSH, EDWARD W 1.00 COMP ST $21 ,072.00 OJ MAYS, GRACIE C 1.00 BIOLOGY $36,411 .00 01 MCDONALD, DOROTI-IY L 1.00 ENGLSII-REG $40,240.00 OJ MCGUIRE, STEPHEN K 0.34 SPEECH $13,130.46 01 MCLENDON, JOANNE B 1.00 HEALTII $41 ,051 .00 01 MCLENNAN, FREDIE D 1.00 IND err $44,667.08 01 MCMURRAY, VICTOR C 1.00 AMI-DST $29,927.00 01 MEADOWS, MARKE 1.00 OTIIR SCI $31,325.00 01 MOORE, KENT L 1.00 PRE-ALGR $30,737.09 01 NASH, DORIS L 1.00 ORAL COM $36,602.00 01 NASH, L ANGEL 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $32,264.50 OJ PAIGE JR, WILLIE 0.60 EX IND $26,554.87 01 PAXTON, VERONICA J 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $28,610.00 01 PEDIGO, MARY J 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $41 ,051 .00 01 PETERS, DlANE E 1.00 AMER GOV $37,221 .00 01 PEYTON, EMMA J 1.00 COORDED $44,859.24 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD 1.NFORMA TION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Sti1Jends(docs not include benefits) 47 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY OJ PIERCE, MAUREEN 1.00 HOME ECO $36,088.08 OJ PREWIT, MARY J 1.00 READING $41,051.00 01 ROBINSON, CONSTANCE F 1.00 voe BUS ED $44,258.11 OJ RUlLEDGE, MARILYN F 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $28,367.00 OJ SAIN,LLOYD 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $29,927.00 OJ SCHLESlNGER, DEBRA S 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $29,927.00 01 SHOFNER, KIRBY E 1.00 BIOLOGY $27,556.00 01 SIEGEL, LARRY B 1.00 AM HIST $40,932.26 01 SMITH, DA YID M 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $29,117.00 01 SNODGRASS, AMY L 1.00 BIOLOGY $27,556.00 OJ TAYLOR, ROBERTM 1.00 OTHRSCI $29,117.00 OJ THOMAS, AARON BRADY 1.00 BAND $26,851.00 01 THOMPSON, LOIS B 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $35,337.00 01 THOMPSON, NANCY K 1.00 voe BUS ED $44,758.11 01 THREATT, CHRISTO Pl IER ERROL 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $22,784.80 OJ VENABLE, GLORIA 0 1.00 voe BUS ED $44,258.11 01 WATSON, BILLYN 1.00 MATH $41,802.00 OJ WILDER, BARBARA A 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $32,419.00 01 WILLIAMS, BETTYE F 1.00 JSSP $37,221.00 01 WILLIAMSON, MARGARET A 1.00 SPE-M/RET $37,972.00 01 WILLIS, EULA M 1.00 voe BUS ED $42,932.72 01 WILSON, NANCY L 1.00 ART $39,126.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 87.74 $2,965,868.74 SERV.WKRS. 02 BARNEY, NORMAN L 1.00 CUSTODAN $5,525.41 02 BOWMAN, RUTIIIE M 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.09 02 BRIGGS, BOBBY C 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 02 CLOUD JR, WILLIAM L 1.00 BLDG ENG $23 ,270.00 02 DUNHOO, KERVIS R 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,539.00 02 FAGAN, ROSIE L 1.00 A-HEADCUS $14,112.00 02 GIVENS, WILLIE T 1.00 CUST-IIEAD $17,875.00 02 HARRIS, DEBORAH A 1.00 CUSTODAN $1,515.03 02 HUDSON,HAROLD 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,907.00 Note: Em\\lloyees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"fh,s re\\\\ort does not ,ndude, Metro\\\\olitan Schoo\\, and A\\ternati.ve Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. . . - .. \u0026lt;.\n,... ..... .. ... ~ ...... .-..u, .. \"\"\"''I.ow\".-...-~-\" YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE 02 JACKSON, KENNETT I RAY 02 JOHNSON, GRACE E 02 POSITION, VACANT 02 ROBERTS, JOHN A 02 TIMMONS, CALVIN CATEGORY TOTALS: TCHR.AIDES 02 HILL, DARLENE 02 LLOYD, OTTIMIS C CATEGORY TOTALS: YEARLY TOTALS: 96 CENTRAL 1,528.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 01 JAMES, BRENDA F 0 I MORRIS, WILLIE C 01 ROUSSEAU, NANCY L 0 I WHITEHORN, DANIEL W CATEGORY TOTALS: CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 ADAIR, GLADYS M 02 ALLMON, CHARLOTTE 02 BRIGGS, DEMETRIA G 02 HEGGS, URSELLA W 02 O'NEAL, JANE 02 POSITION, OPEN 02 ROSENBERGER, BETTY C 02 SIEGEL, TERESA T 02 STELL, LINDA M 02 STONE, MARY J 02 TINKLE, BETTY 02 WILLIAMS, CAROLYN J CATEGORY TOTALS: ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 14.00 0.20 1.00 1.20 139.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12.00 JOB CODE CUSTODAN CUSTODAN CUSTODAN BLDG ENG CUSTODAN LAB ATTEND AIDE-SVA A/PRINSEC A/PRIN SEC A/PRIN SEC A/PRIN SEC SECJ\\TT SEC PRIN SEC PRIN SECATT REG PBX MEDIA CL B/KEEPER SEC PRIN SEC PRIN SECATT SECGUID SALARY $8, 199.00 $15,475.20 $14,534.00 $149,019.64 $1 ,847.20 $6,440.04 $8,287.24 $4,074,826.27 $45,647.00 $45,010.29 $42,666.50 $41 ,212.40 $174,536.19 $17, 194.65 $12,807.05 $15,719.88 $15 ,057.44 $21 ,382.00 $15,013 .58 $15,229.39 $16,703.06 $21 ,382.00 $17,194.65 $14,804.04 $182,487.74 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 49 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE 01 LEFLER, LYNN C 01 POST, JULIA A 01 TIIOMPSON, FLORA DEAN CATEGORY TOTALS: GUIDANCE 01 BLAIR,SAMK 01 CALLAWAY, ELIZABETII W 01 GRAYES, JESSICA A 01 HA WTIIORNE, PEGGY CARNAHAN Ol JOHNSON, LYNDA P CATEGORY TOTALS: LIB/AV. 01 ALVERSON JR, RAYMOND A 01 DUMAS, ELAINE K CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHER PROF. 02 FELLS, JACKIE 02 GUY,KIMT 02 LOVE, HOWARD LOUIS 02 SIMS, JEROME E 02 SMITII, ANDREA 02 SMITII, FLOYD CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 02 FIELDS, WILLIE J 01 MCDONALD, TIIOMAS A 01 ROBERTSON JR, TIIOMAS A 01 WILLIAMS, GARY D CATEGORY TOTALS: PRIN 01 HOWARD, RUDOLPH CATEGORY TOTALS: SEC.CLSRM. TCH. 01 ARICK, JOYCE A Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.60 2.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 JOB CODE KINDER-REG KINDER-REG KINDER-REG CNSLR-SECD CNSLR-SECD CNSLR-SECD CNSLR-SECD CNSLR-SECD ASTLIBR LIBRN-SECD SIB SOFR NURSE SIB SOFR SIB SOFR SIB SOFR SIB SOFR AIRFRCE ORCHESTR AIRFRCE SPE-LD SEC PRIN COORDED SALARY $24,314.00 $26,179.00 $41,861.00 $92,354.00 $49,151.78 $39,255.61 $45,131.39 $32,265.05 $40,388.47 $206,192.30 $39,021.39 $40,144.91 $79,166.30 $13,248.00 $22,693.00 $12,143.00 $12,492.00 $10,833.00 $12,492.00 $83,901.00 $31,042.70 $8,525.40 $34,970.81 $21,587.40 $96,126.31 $69,665.00 $69,665.00 $50,152.92 'l'bh ..-e\\)ort does not ,ndude, Met..-o\\)o\\\\t.an Schoo\\, and A\\te..-native Learning Center and is based on al\\ funds and al\\ employees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE OJ BAXLEY, MARYA 0 J BECKER, MARY C 0 I BENNETT, TIMOTIN P 01 BLEVINS, PAULETTE 0 I BOYETT, EDWARD B 0 I BRACK, ROBERT L 01 BROADNAX-TIIRASHER, BEVERLY 0 I BROWN, JAMES A 01 CALDWELL, SUZANNE 0 01 CALLAWAY, NORMAN M 0 I CARR, PA TIERSON W 01 CARUTII, PHYLLIS V 01 CHAMBLISS, PATRICIA A 01 CHERRY, KARLA KIM 0 I COBB, JEAN T 01 COLBURN, MELISSA A 0 I COLE, JENNIE B 0 I COLLINS, ROBIN R 01 COON, SUE L 0 I COOPER, VIRGINIA R 0 I CORTINEZ, KA TIIERINE 0 I COX, BERNIE L 01 DANIEL, BRANTON P 01 DEITZ, SANDY G 01 DONHAM, MELISSA C 01 DYER, JACQUELIN W 01 EASTER, MARION 0 01 EVANS, KA TI-IRYN S 01 FAKOURI, CATIN H 01 FITZPATRICKJR,OLIVER 0 I FUTRELL, BRENDA J 01 GADBERRY, SARAH E 01 GADDY, HELEN B Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 JOB CODE ALGEBRA-I ENGLSH-DEV SPANISH BIOLOGY WORLDH MUSIC ENGLSH-REG SOC STU SPANISH BOYS PE ALGEBRA-I TRIG FRENCH JOURNAL! ENGLSH-REG GLOBAL FRENCH HOME ECO ART ARTD SOC STU SOC STU SCI TECH CALCULUS BIOLOGY PHYSICS ENGLSII-REG voe BUSED ORAL COM SOC STU MARKETCOR AM IIlST SPE-M/RET SALARY $31 ,36 1.00 $29,664 .00 $23,504.00 $24,254.00 $26,746.00 $41 ,861.00 $41,861.00 $36,897.00 $37,748.00 $45,706.90 $29,117.00 $41,861 .00 $37,809.00 $29,752.17 $33,919.00 $14,564.40 $36,411.00 $31 ,456.45 $41 ,051 .00 $12,581.20 $36,147.00 $51 ,267.15 $39,021.39 $36,411 .00 $36,897.00 $39,936.09 $41,861.00 $20,642 .19 $10,095.48 $40,869.55 $50, I 52.49 $39,126.00 $41,861.00 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) st YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 GATES, KATIIY 1.00 GEOMlY-REG $32,136.00 01 GILLIAME, JOHN W 0.60 CHEMSTRY $7,770.30 01 GRAHAM, 1-IARRYEITE 1.00 HOME ECO $45,131.39 01 GRI\\Y,JOEA 1.00 SOC STU $26,885.00 01 HALL-JONES, BETSY 1.00 SPE-M/RET $31,021.00 01 HAMMONS, KAREN A 1.00 ENGLSII-REG $32,358.00 01 HARDIN, GWENDOLYN E 1.00 GEOMlY-REG $36,411.00 01 HARGIS, ALISON C 1.00 ENGLSII-REG $30,737.00 01 HARVEY, CATHERINE ANITA 1.00 BIOLOGY $22,126.00 01 HOFFMAN-MCDERMOTT, MICHELLE G 1.00 ENGLSI-1-REG $25,064.00 01 HOGAN, SUSAN P 1.00 ART $27,556.00 01 HOLLADAY, KATHLEEN T 1.00 ORAL COM $35,033.00 01 HUFFORD, GARY W 1.00 CHEMSTRY $29,420.00 01 KALB, MARTI IA MELINDA 1.00 ORAL COM $22,693.00 01 KEARNEY, LESLIE A 1.00 GERMAN $37,221.00 01 LIGON, MARIANNE WYNNE 1.00 LATIN $25,935.00 01 LOY A, SAMUEL T 1.00 SPANJSII-AD $27,926.00 01 MARSH, EDWARD W 1.00 COMP ST $22,937.00 01 MAYS, GRACrE C 1.00 BIOLOGY $37,221.00 01 MCDONALD, DOROTHY L 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $41,051.00 01 MCGUIRE, STEPIIEN K 0.34 SPEECH $13,406.20 01 MCLENDON, JOANNE B 1.00 HEALTH $41,861.00 01 MCLENNAN, FREDIE D 1.00 IND err $45,624.74 01 MCMURRAY, VICTORC 1.00 AMHIST $30,737.00 01 MEADOWS, MARKE 1.00 OTHRSCJ $32,136.00 01 MONZON, VICTORIA 1.00 SPANISH $21,622.90 01 MOORE, KENT L 1.00 PRE-ALGR $31,548.00 01 NASH, DORIS L 1.00 ORAL COM $37,412.00 01 NASH, L ANGEL 1.00 ENGLSI I-DEV $33,791.00 01 PAIGE JR, WILLIE 1.00 EX IND $45,131.39 01 PAXTON, VERONICA J 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $29,420.00 01 PEDIGO, MARY J 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $41,861.00 01 PETERS, DIANE E 1.00 AMERGOV $38,031.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. 'l'h,s re\\)ort does not ,nc\\ude, Metro\\)o\\\\tan Schoo\\, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all em11loyees currently active on 11ayroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY OJ PEYTON, EMMA J 1.00 COORD ED $47,941 .82 OJ PIERCE, MAUREEN 1.00 HOME ECO $36,961.36 OJ POSITION, VACANT 1.00 ENGLSH-REG 01 PREWJT, MARY J 1.00 READING $41,861.00 01 ROBINSON, CONSTANCE F 1.00 voe BUS ED $45,131.39 OJ RUTLEDGE, MARILYN F 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $29,177.00 OJ SAIN, LLOYD 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $30,737.00 01 SCHLESINGER, DEBRA S 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $30,737.00 01 SHOFNER, KIRBY E 1.00 BIOLOGY $28,367.00 OJ SIEGEL, LARRY B 1.00 AM HlST $41 ,829.55 01 SNODGRASS, AMY L 1.00 BIOLOGY $28,367.00 01 THOMAS, AARON BRADY 1.00 BAND $28,715.00 01 THOMPSON, LOIS B 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $36,147.00 01 THOMPSON, NANCY K 1.00 voe BUS ED $45,631.39 01 THREATT, CHRISTOPHER ERROL 1.00 ENGLSH-DEV $24,087.20 01 VENABLE, GLORIA 0 1.00 voe BUS ED $45,131.39 01 WATSON, BILLYN 1.00 MATH $42,612.00 01 WILDER, BARBARA A 1.00 ALGEBRA-I $33 ,229.00 01 WILLIAMS, BETTYE F 1.00 ISSP $38,031 .00 01 WILLIAMSON, MARGARET A 1.00 SPE-M/RET $38,781.00 OJ WILLIS, EULA M 1.00 voe BUS ED $43,806.00 01 WILSON, NANCY L 1.00 ART $39,936.00 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 86.34 $2,998,997.31 SERV.WKRS. 02 BARNEY, NORMAN L 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,523.00 02 BRIGGS, BOBBY C 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,956.09 02 DUNHOO, KERVIS R 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,907.00 02 FAGAN, ROSIE L 1.00 A-IIEADCUS $14,303.80 02 GIVENS, WILLIE T 1.00 CUST-HEAD $18,355.00 02 HUDSON, HAROLD 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,245.00 02 JACKSON, KENNETH RAY 1.00 CUSTODAN $8,523.00 02 POSITION, OPEN 1.00 CUSTODAN 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 CUSTODAN Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on llayroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 53 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 POSITION.VACANT 1.00 CUSTODAN 02 TIMMONS, CAL VIN 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,956.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 11.00 $99,768.80 TCHR.AIDES 02 LLOYD, OTilMIS C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,589.56 02 l'vlERRILL, ANNETTE M 0.20 LAB ATTEND $1 ,867.47 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.20 $8,457.03 YEARLY TOTALS: 134.34 $4,091,651.98 94 CHICOT 519.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 01 CLEVELAND, ELLEAN D 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $44,102.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $44,102.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 LUCY, BRENDA F 0.60 l'vlEDIA CL $8,595 .60 02 TUCKER, LOUISE 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 02 WALKER, CONNIE S 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,719.88 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.60 $41,510.13 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 DIMASSIMO, SUELLEN H 1.00 ELEMV $27,782.00 01 EANS, SYL VERENE G 1.00 ELEM II $31 ,797.00 01 HARRIS, BRENDA G 1.00 ELEM! $20,074.00 01 HOLLINGSWORlH, JUDY A 1.00 ELEMlll $30,512.00 01 ISBELL, PAl'vlELON J 1.00 ELEM IV $33,403.00 01 JOHNSON, DEBRA J 1.00 ELEM II $26,739.00 01 JOHNSON, JORGE A 1.00 ELEMV $23 ,286.00 01 KERR, PAULA D 1.00 KINDER-REG $24,892.00 01 LAMBERT, BRENDA L 1.00 ELEM III $28,104.00 01 MALLETT, ORA D 1.00 ELEM VI $23,286.00 01 MILLER, ELIZABETH W 1.00 ELEM IV $35,049.00 01 MIMS, RICHARD L 1.00 ELEM VI $36,655.00 01 MIMS, SANDRA J 1.00 4 YR OLD $39,064.00 01 MORGAN, SHIRLEY A 1.00 ELEM II 01 MURPII, KATIE F 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,388.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"I:\\\\,., Te\\)ort doe., no\\ ,ndude, Me\\TO\\)o\\i\\an Sc\\\\oo\\, and A\\\\ernative Lcarnin\\!, Center and is based on all funds and all em1lloyees currently active on llayroll . .. ~ ... .. - -- YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE 0 I NEAL, LINDA K 0 I PETilJS, IDA M 01 POSITION, VACANT 01 POSITION, VACANT 0 I ROSE, SARA G 0 l SABO, DEBBIE L 0 l SHANKS, BETI-1 L 01 SIMPSON, KIMBERLY D 0 l WELLS, JEANNIE L 0 l WILLIAMS, ERMA J CATEGORY TOTALS: GUIDANCE 0 l BALMAZ, BETIYE M 01 SMITI-1, ALMA F CATEGORY TOTALS: LIB/AV. 0 l CRAVEN, ERNESTINE C CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHER PROF. 02 HAYMAN, KIMBERLY B CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 BROWN, KATI-ILEEN M l-ilCKS, KA TI-ILEEN F JOHNSON, BRENDA F PRIN 01 01 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0 l PRESLAR, OTIS M CATEGORY TOTALS: SEC.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BAILEY, JACK H 01 BEDOW, LAURA M 06 GERSHNER, VICKI M 06 HARPER, Sl-ilRLEY B Note: Em1lloyees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 25.00 1.00 0.80 1.80 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.20 1.00 1.00 2.20 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.20 JOB CODE ELEM! ELEMVI ELEM III ELEM I ELEM Ill KINDER-REG ELEMV ELEM I ELEM II ELEM IV CNSLR-ELEM CNSLR-ELEM LIBRN-ELEM NURSE SPE-VISUAL SPE-LD SPE-LD ELE PRIN PE SPEC SPE-M/RET READING MATI-1 SPEC SALARY $21,680.00 $35,270.00 $26,498.00 $31,255.00 $31,556.00 $20,074.00 $29,255.04 $27,542.00 $633,161.04 $32,339.00 $24,795.20 $57,134.20 $35,961.73 $35,961.73 $10,840.00 $10,840.00 $6,949.60 $38,763.00 $30,512.00 $76,224.60 $59,233.62 $59,233.62 $16,825.80 $33,664.00 $36,876.00 $8,134.00 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 55 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 06 1-llCKS, BARBARA A 1.00 MA TH-Cl-IP I $30,753.00 OJ IGWE, CARRIE MOORE 0.50 SPE-N/CATG $13,369.50 01 LOVE, VICKI L 1.00 SPE-M/RET 06 MADDOX, CYNTIIIA I 1.00 READING $32,861.00 01 MATLOCK, NANCY S 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $32,600.00 01 MCILROY, nLL M 1.00 SPEC ED $29,147.00 01 TORAN, STEVE A 1.00 MUSIC $28,104.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 9.30 $262,334.30 SERV.WKRS. 02 MORGAN, LULA 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,245.00 02 SMlTH, RUFUS 1.00 CU ST-HEAD $1 6,838.20 02 STORAY, JAMES 0.50 CUS-PmME $2,130.75 02 SUMMONS, ELOISE W 1.00 CUSTODAN $14,534.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.50 $43,747.95 TCHR.AIDES 02 BOYD, KA TI-ILEEN 1.00 AIDE-REGLR 02 CUNNINGS, GEORGIA L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 DALE, SUSAN M 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 HOOD, KAYE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,438.40 02 MCDOWELL, PATSY L 1.00 LAB ATTEND $10,411.00 02 MlTCHELL, DIONNE E 1.00 AIDE-SVA $2,719.20 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 AIDE-REGLR 02 THOMAS, MATTIE M 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 TIDWELL, CATHY V 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 WATKINS, RENEE L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,051.20 02 WILLIAMS, KIMBERLY D 1.00 LAB ATTEND $10,411.00 02 WILLIAMS, SHERRY A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,734.40 02 WILLIAMS, SHERRY A 1.00 AIDE-SVA $2,840.64 CATEGORY TOTALS: 13.00 $83,249.84 YEARLY TOTALS: 60.90 $1,347,499.41 95 CHICOT 480.00 ASST.PR IN-NT 01 CLEVELAND, ELLEAN D 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $45,408.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"fh,s '\"\"-\\\\Ort does not inc\\ude, Me\\l\"O\\\\o\\i\\an Schoo\\, and A\\\\ernative Lea.-ning Center and is based on al\\ funds and al\\ employees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE CATEGORY TOTALS: CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 LUCY, BRENDA F 02 TUCKER, LOUISE 02 WALKER, CONNIE S CATEGORY TOTALS: ELEM.CLSRM.TCH. 0 l BRYANT, GEORGIE H 0 l BUTLER, TERRI L 0 l EANS, SYL VERENE G 0 l HARRIS, BRENDA G 0 l HOLLlNGSWORIB, JUDY A 01 ISBELL, PAMELON J 01 JOHNSON, JORGE A 01 KERR, PAULA D 0 l MALLETT, ORA D 0 l MILLER, ELIZABETH W 01 MIMS, RICHARD L 01 MIMS, SANDRA J 0 l MURPH, KA TIE F 0 l NEAL, LINDA K 0 l PETTUS, IDA M 0 l ROSE, SARA G 01 SABO, DEBBIE L 0 l SHANKS, BEIB L 0 l SIMPSON, KIMBERLY D 01 WELLS, JEANNIE L 0 l WILLIAMS, ERMA J 01 WILLIAMS, FLORA V CATEGORY TOTALS: GUIDANCE 0 l BALMAZ, BETTYE M 0 l SMIIB, ALMA F CATEGORY TOTALS: Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 I.DO I.DO I.DO 3.00 1.00 1.00 I.DO 1.00 I.DO I.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.OD I.DO 1.00 I.OD 1.00 I.DO 1.00 I.DO 1.00 22.00 I.DO I.OD 2.00 JOB CODE MEDIA CL SEC PRIN SEC PRIN ELEMV ELEM II ELEM II ELEM I ELEM III ELEM IV ELEMV KINDER-REG ELEM VI ELEM IV ELEM VI 4 YR OLD KINDER-REG ELEM I ELEM VI ELEM III KINDER-REG ELEMV ELEM I ELEM II ELEM IV ELEM III CNSLR-ELEM CNSLR-ELEM SALARY $45,408.00 $15,013.58 $17,194.65 $17,203.07 $49,411.30 $25,125.00 $32,905.00 $21,072.00 $31,609.00 $34,526.00 $24,314.00 $25,935.00 $24,314.00 $36,188.00 $37,809.00 $40,240.00 $30,474.00 $22,693.00 $36,411.00 $27,556.00 $32,358.00 $32,662.00 $21,072.00 $32,662.00 $28,610.00 $29,988.00 $628,523.00 $33,453.00 $33,169.00 $66,622.00 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 57 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY LIB/AV. 01 CRAVEN, ERNESTINE C 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $37, 130.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,130.40 OTHER PROF. 02 HAYMAN, KJMBERL YB 0.80 NURSE $ I 7,986.40 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 0.80 $17,986.40 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 BROWN, KATHLEEN M 0.20 SPE-VISUAL $7,176.80 01 HICKS, KATill.,EEN F 1.00 SPE-LD $39,126.00 01 JOHNSON, BRENDA F 1.00 SPE-LD $31,609.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.20 $77,911.80 PRIN 01 PRESLAR, OTIS M 1.00 ELE PRIN $59,592.95 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $59,592.95 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 BAILEY, JACK H 0.60 PE SPEC $17,470.20 01 BEDOW, LAURA M 1.00 SPE-M/RET $34,790.00 06 GERSHNER, VICKJ M 1.00 READING $37,221.00 06 HARPER, SHIRLEY B 0.50 MATIISPEC $20,525.50 06 HICKS, BARBARA A 1.00 MATI-I-CllP I $31,852.00 01 JOHNSON, MARILYN F 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $28,367.00 01 LOVE, VICKJ L 1.00 SPE-M/RET $28,991.67 06 MADDOX, CYNTI-IIA I 1.00 READING 01 MATLOCK, NANCY S 1.00 G\u0026amp;T $33,716.00 01 MCll.,ROY, ITLL M 1.00 SPEC ED $30,231.00 01 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 MUSIC 01 POTEET, LISA B 0.50 SPEECH $15,916.0D CATEGORY TOTALS: 10.60 $279,080.37 SERV.WKRS. 02 MORGAN, LULA 1.00 CUSTODAN $10,554.00 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 CUSTODAN 02 POSITION, VACANT 0.50 CUS-PffiME 02 SMITH, RUFUS 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,318.20 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.50 $27,872.20 TCHR.AIDES Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"\"f\\1.,s re\\\\ort does no\\ ,ndude, Me\\ro\\)o\\\u0026gt;\\an Sc\\1.oo\\, and /11.\\ternaHve uarninl!, Center and is based on all funds and all em11loyees currently active on 11ayroll. CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 CHRISTIANSON, ALICE 1.00 ATDE-REGLR $7,533.71 02 CUNNINGS, GEORGIA L 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 DALE, SUSAN M 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 ESTRADA, EL VIA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,183.00 02 ORA Y, ALICE REDDEN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $2,995 .74 02 HARDIN, ELLAN M 1.00 AIDE-SVA $2,995 .74 JO IIOOD, KAYE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,745.84 02 MARTS, GLENDA RAE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,183 .00 02 MCDOWELL, PATSY L 1.00 LAB ATTEND $10,4 I 1.00 10 MITCHELL, CLEO EDNA 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,788.20 02 RENFRO, SHARON 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 SCALES, KECIS D 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,183.00 02 THOMAS, MATTIE M 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 02 TIDWELL, CA THY V 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $I0,4 I 1.00 02 WATKINS, RENEE L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $6,753.08 02 WILLIAMS, KIMBERLY D 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,411.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 16.00 $116,238.31 YEARLY TOTALS: 63.10 $1,405,776.73 96 CHICOT 455.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 01 CLEVELAND, ELLEAN D 1.00 A/PRIN ELE $46,449.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $46,449.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 LUCY, BRENDA F 1.00 MEDIA CL $15,013.58 02 TUCKER, LOUlSE 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 02 WALKER, CONNIE S 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,694.66 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $49,902.89 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BRYANT, GEORGIE H 1.00 ELEMV $29,117.00 01 DA VIS, LANITA J 1.00 ELEM I $23,504.00 01 EANS, SYL VERENE G 1.00 ELEM II $33,716.00 01 HARRIS, BRENDA G 1.00 ELEMI $2 I ,883.00 01 HOLLINGSWORTII, JUDY A 1.00 ELEM III $32,419.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 59 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 01 ISBELL, PAMELON J 1.00 ELEM IV $30,911.42 01 JOHNSON, JORGE A 1.00 ELEMV $25, 125.00 01 KERR, PA ULA D 1.00 KINDER-REG $26,746.00 01 MALLETT, ORA D 1.00 ELEM VI $25,125.00 01 MILLER, ELIZABETH W 1.00 ELEM IV $36,998.00 01 MIMS, RICHARD L 1.00 ELEM VI $38,619.00 01 MIMS, SANDRA J 1.00 4YROLD $41 ,051.00 01 MURPI I, KA TIE F 1.00 KINDER-REG $31 ,285.00 01 NEAL, LINDA K 1.00 ELEM  $24,558.00 01 PETilJS, IDA M 1.00 ELEMVI $37,221.00 01 ROSE, SARA G 1.00 ELEMIII $28,367.00 01 SABO, DEBBIE L 1.00 KINDER-REG $33 ,169.00 01 SHANKS, BETH L 1.00 ELEMV $33,473.00 01 SIMPSON, KIMBERLY D 1.00 ELEM! $21 ,883.00 01 WELLS, JEANNIE L 1.00 ELEM II $33,473.00 01 WILLIAMS, ERMA J 1.00 ELEM IV $29,420.00 01 WILLIAMS, FLORA V 1.00 ELEM III $30,798.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 22.00 $668,861.42 GUIDANCE 01 BALMAZ, BETTYE M 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $34,263.00 01 SMITI-I, ALMA F 1.00 CNSLR-ELEM $33,979.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $68,242.00 LIB/AV. 01 CRAVEN, ERNESTINE C 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $37,961.49 CATEC.ORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,961.49 OTHER PROF. 02 APPLEWI IITE, ELIZABETH H 0.80 NURSE $14,523.52 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.80 $14,523.52 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 BROWN, KATHLEEN M 0.20 SPE-VISUAL $7,561.80 01 HICKS, KATHLEEN F 1.00 SPE-LD $39,936.00 01 JOHNSON, BRENDA F 1.00 SPE-LD $32,4 I 9.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.20 $79,916.80 PRIN Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"l:'\\\\'- T'!.\\'Ort doc not ,nc\\ude, Met.-o{'ol\u0026gt;tan Schoo\\, and A.\\te.-nati.ve Lea.-ninv, Cente.- and is based on a\\\\ funds and a\\\\ em1lloyees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE 01 PRESLAR, OTIS M CATEGORY TOTALS: SEC.CLSRM. TCH. SERV.WKRS. TCHR.AIDES OJ OJ 01 06 06 06 06 06 06 01 01 01 01 01 BAILEY, JACK H BANKS, RICKEY D BEDOW, LAURA M BURGIN, JOHNS BURGIN, JOHN S GERSHNER, VICKI M GERSHNER, VICKI M HICKS, BARBARA A HICKS, BARBARA A JOHNSON, MARILYN F LOVE, VICKI L MA lLOCK, NANCY S MCILROY, JILL M POTEET, LISA B CATEGORY TOTALS: 02 DRANE, WALTER II 02 MORGAN, LULA 02 POSITION, VACANT 02 SMITH, RUFUS JO SWIFf, ETHEL LEE CATEGORY TOTALS: 02 CHRISTIANSON, ALICE 02 CUNNINGS, GEORGIA L 02 DALE, SUSAN M 02 ESTRADA,ELVIA 02 FIELDS, LEOLA H JO GRAY, ALICE REDDEN 02 HARDIN, ELLAN M 10 HOOD, KA YE Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 10.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 4.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 JOB CODE ELE PRIN PE SPEC MUSIC SPE-M/RET READING READING READING READING MATH-CHP I MATH-Cf-IP I SPE-N/CATG SPE-M/RET G\u0026amp;T SPEC ED SPEECH CUSTODAN CUSTODAN CUS-PffiME CUST-HEAD CUSTODAN AIDE-REGLR AIDE-4YR AIDE-REGLR AIDE-SVA LAB ATTEND AIDE-SVA AIDE-SVA AIDE-SVA SALARY $60,683.52 $60,683.52 $17,956.20 $27,556.00 $35,600.00 $10,127.10 $10,127.10 $19,015.50 $19,015.50 $16,331.00 $16,331.00 $29,177.00 $34,526.00 $31,041.00 $26,113.60 $292,917.00 $14,096.50 $10,863.00 $17,798.20 $8,523.00 $51,280.70 $8,816.00 $10,663.00 $10,663.00 $4,387.70 $10,663.00 $5,108.60 $3,065.16 $5,991.48 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends{does not include benefits) 61 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 MARTS, GLENDA RAE 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,387.70 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 AIDE-SVA 02 RENFRO, SHARON 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 02 SCALES, K.ECIS D 1.00 AIDE-SVA $4,387.70 02 THOMAS, MA l11E M 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 02 TIDWELL, CATIIY V 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 02 WATKINS, RENEE L 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 02 WILLIAMS, KIMBERLY D 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $10,663.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 16.00 S 121,448.34 YEARLY TOTALS: 63.50 $1,492,186.68 94 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY 376.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 HIGGINS, NETTIE 1.00 SEC PRIN $17,194.65 02 PHILLIPS, PENNY D 0.40 MEDIA CL $5,372.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $22,567.05 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BETTON, SHERRI L 1.00 KINDER-REG $20,074.00 01 BUETTNER, SALLY G 1.00 KINDER-REG $24,892.00 01 ELLIS, EDDIE M 1.00 ELEMV $36,876.00 01 EPPERSON, BECKY J 1.00 KINDER-REG $30,753.00 01 HALL, DONNA R 1.00 ELEM VI $33,664.00 01 KLING, ALISA D 1.00 ELEMil $20,074.00 01 MCCARTHER,GERALDINE 1.00 ELEMV $33,142.00 01 MCCLAIN, MARION K 1.00 ELEM! $24,029.00 01 MCCULLOUGH, JOYCE M 1.00 ELEM II $32,339.00 01 MILLER, GLORIA K 1.00 4 YR OLD $30,452.00 01 PENNY, JACQUELINE F 1.00 ELEMVI $25,695.00 01 ROLAX, SHIRLEY A 1.00 4 YR OLD $40,670.00 01 SIMPSON, ANGIE M 1.00 4 YR OLD $30,753.00 01 SMJTH, ARBRADELLA B 1.00 ELEM III $29,930.00 01 SNOWDEN, SALLIE R 1.00 ELEMI $28,043.00 01 STUART, DOROTI-IY J 1.00 ELEM! $28,344.00 01 TRIPCONY, WALDA D 1.00 ELEM IV $28,344.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. 'l:h, ..-e,,ort does no\\ ,ndude, Met..-o\\\\o\\i\\an Sehoo\\, and A\\terna\\ive Learninv. Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on llayroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CA TECORY FUND EMPLOYEE 0 I VANECKO, ALICE F 0 I WILSON, SANDRA D CATEGORY TOTALS: GUIDANCE 0 I MOSBY, LORRAINE L CATEGORY TOTALS: LIB/AV. 0 I NORMAN, CHERRY G CA TE GORY TOTALS: OTHER PROF. 02 CURRY, JOANN CATEGORY TOTALS: OTHR CLSRM. TCR 0 I WATERS, DORIS Z CATEGORY TOTALS: PRIN 01 FIELDS, FREDERICK L CATEGORY TOTALS: SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 06 CRAWFORD, CARMELIA A CUNNINGHAM, ELLEN S FLANAGAN, VETA SERV.WKRS. TCHR.AIDES 01 06 01 06 01 LEIGH, MARGARET A NAGEL, DlANA K SIMS, SIIlRLEY C CATEGORY TOTALS: 02 DEDMON, NANCY A 02 HOBBS, BARBARA A 02 WILLIAMS, JEFFERY CATEGORY TOTALS: 02 CRISS, PAULINE W 02 DRIVER, OCIE A 02 GREGORY, NEA C Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. FTE 1.00 1.00 19.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.50 0.60 1.00 0.40 1.00 3.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 JOB CODE ELEM Ill ELEM rv CNS LR-ELEM LIBRN-ELEM NURSE SPE-LD ELE PRIN MATH SPEC SPEECH READING G\u0026amp;TSPCLST MA TI-1-CHP I MUSIC CUSTODAN CUST-HEAD CUSTODAN AIDE-4YR AIDE-4YR AIDE-SVA SALARY $32, 118.00 $530,192.00 $36,876.00 $36,876.00 $30,729.95 $30,729.95 $9,635.60 $9,635.60 $29,649.00 $29,649.00 $40,815.43 $40,815.43 $3, 179.70 $17,635.00 $17,864.47 $25,9 16.00 $26,498.00 $91,093.17 $8,891.00 $17,260.60 $7,976.20 $34,127.80 $10,411.00 $10,411.00 $6,507.60 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 63 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 lllLL, DARLENE 0.40 LAB ATTEND $3,526.40 02 JACKSON, BENNIE 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $8,396.00 02 LANGSTON, CALVIN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $5,790.40 02 MCCLINA, MARY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,101.60 02 RAND, ALICE C 0.20 LAB ATTEND $2,082.20 02 SANDERS, NORMA J 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 SO LEE, DEBORAH L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,959.60 CATEGORY TOTALS: 8.60 $72,596.80 YEARLY TOTALS: 40.00 $898,282.80 95 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY 405.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 PlllLLIPS, PENNY D 1.00 SEC PRIN $1,125.32 02 POSITION,VACANT 0.40 MEDIA CL CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $1,125.32 ELEM. CLSRM. TCH. 01 BETTON, SHERRI L 1.00 KINDER-REG $21,072.00 01 BUETTNER, SALLY G 1.00 KINDER-REG $25,935 .00 01 CARTER, CHARLES R 1.00 ELEM III $27,799.00 01 ELLIS, EDDIE M 1.00 ELEMV $37,221.00 01 EPPERSON, BECKY J 1.00 KINDER-REG $31,852.00 01 HALL, DONNA R 1.00 ELEMVI $34,790.00 01 JOHNSON, DEBRA J 1.00 ELEM II $27,799.00 01 LA YER, MARSHA A 1.00 4 YR OLD $21,072.00 01 MCCARTHER,GERALDlNE 1.00 ELEMV $34,263.00 01 MCCLAIN, MARION K 1.00 ELEM I $25,064.00 01 MCCULLOUGH, JOYCE M 1.00 ELEM II $33,453 .00 01 MILLER, GLORIA K 1.00 4 YR OLD $31,548.00 01 PENNY, JACQUELINE F 1.00 ELEMVI $26,746.00 01 ROLAX, SHIRLEY A 1.00 4YROLD $41,051.00 01 SNOWDEN, SALLIE R 1.00 ELEM I $29,117.00 01 STUART, DOROTHY J 1.00 ELEM I $29,420.00 01 TRIPCONY, W ALDA D 1.00 ELEM IV $14,403.54 01 VANECKO, ALICE F 1.00 ELEMIII $32,419.00 Note: Emp\\oyees with no sa\\ary are not currently active on payro\\l. '\"'\" Te\\\\Ort does. not ,n\u0026lt;:.\\u\u0026lt;le, Me\\TO\\)O\\itan Sc\"oo\\, an\u0026lt;l A\\ternative \\...earning Center and is based on al\\ funds and al\\ employees currently active on payroll. FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 WILSON, SANDRA D 1.00 ELEM IV $21,883.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 19.00 $546,907.54 GUIDANCE 01 MOSBY, LORRAINE L 1.00 CNS LR-ELEM $37,221.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $37,221.00 LIB/AV. 01 NORMAN, CHERRY G 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $31,849.36 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $31,849.36 OTHER PROF. 02 CURRY, JOANN 0.40 NURSE $9,956.80 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $9,956.80 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 PACE, KATIE L 1.00 SPE-LD $39,126.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $39,126.00 PRIN 01 FIELDS, FREDERICK L 1.00 ELE PRIN $42,149.05 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $42,149.05 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 CUNNINGHAM, ELLEN S 0.60 SPEECH $21,846.60 06 FLANAGAN, VETA 0.60 READING $18,515.66 06 KOVACH, LILLIAN R 0.10 MATH SPEC $3,345.30 01 LEIGH, MARGARET A 1.00 G\u0026amp;TSPCLST $26,969.00 01 SIMS, SlllRLEY C 1.00 MUSIC $27,556.00 06 WROTEN, MYRTHENE R 0.50 MATII-CHP I $16,452.50 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.80 $114,685.06 SERV.WKRS. 02 ABERNATIIY, RAYMOND 1.00 CUSTODAN $6,948.10 02 DEDMON, NANCY A 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,229.00 02 HOBBS, BARBARA A 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,260.60 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.00 $33,437.70 TCHR.AIDES 02 CRISS, PAULINE W 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,411.00 02 GRAYES, CURTIS G 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $8,835.97 02 GREGORY, NEA C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,875.25 02 HILL, DARLENE 0.40 LAB ATTEND $3,694.40 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 65 ,. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 JACKSON, BENNIE 1.00 AIDE-4YR $8,816.00 02 LANGSTON, CAL VIN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,142.78 02 MCCUNA, MARY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,489.35 02 RAND, ALICE C 0.20 LAB ATTEND $2,082.20 02 SANDERS, NORMA J 1.00 AIDE-4YR $9,285.49 02 SOLEE, DEBORAH L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $8,050.05 02 WILSON, RHONDA RUTI-1 0.50 AIDE-SVA $1,673.20 CATEGORY TOTALS: 9.10 $73,355.69 YEARLY TOTALS: 40.70 $929,813.52 96 CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY 453.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 PHILLIPS, PENNY D 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,719.88 02 SMITH, CLAUDIA 0.40 MEDIA CL $4,185.59 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.40 $19,905.47 ELEM.CLSRM. TCH. 01 BETTON, SHERRI L 1.00 ELEM II $21,883.00 01 BUETTNER, SALLY G 1.00 4 YR OLD $26,746.00 01 COKELEY, GWENDOLYN D 1.00 ELEM VI $33,453.00 01 DUDECK, DJUNA C. 1.00 ELEM I $23,504.00 01 ELLIS, EDDIE M 1.00 ELEMV $38,031.00 01 EPPERSON, BECKY J 1.00 KINDER-REG $32,662.00 01 JOHNSON, DEBRA J 1.00 ELEM II $28,610.00 01 MCCARlHER, GERALDINE 1.00 ELEMV $35,074.00 01 MCCLAIN, MARION K 1.00 4 YR OLD $26,969.00 01 MCCULLOUGH, JOYCE M 1.00 ELEM VI $34,263.00 01 MILLER, GLORIA K 1.00 KINDER-REG $32,358.00 01 PENNY, JACQUELINE F 1.00 ELEM II $27,556.00 01 ROGERS, CHARLENE I 1.00 ELEM I $39,936.00 01 ROLAX, SHIRLEY A 1.00 4 YR OLD $41,861.00 01 SHUFFIELD, KELLY L 1.00 KINDER-REG $29,117.00 01 SNOWDEN, SALLIE R 1.00 ELEM I $29,927.00 01 STUART, DOROTIIY J 1.00 ELEM III $30,231.00 01 TRIPCONY, WALDA D 1.00 ELEM IV $30,231.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan .. School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll . , ~ ~ ,~ c-..a.._ 1'\"\"'C,c-..~ ~ '1t.v,c-v. ~ 'P\"'(' ~._, __ - - n-..,c- c:..-,-- -+ C:..'t\\vu.,.,,,,..,(,\\n,, ... ,,nt. \\..,.c-,,,,,,. ,.,,, . .,,,.nt ...\" \\ YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 01 VANECKO, ALICE F 1.00 ELEM IIl $33,229.00 01 WILSON, SANDRA D 1.00 ELEM IV $22,693.00 OJ WINE, KIMBERLY ANN 1.00 KINDER-REG $20,262.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 21.00 $638,596.00 GUIDANCE 01 JAMES, SANDRA S 0.50 CNSLR-ELEM $13,748.00 01 MOSBY, LORRAINE L 1.00 CNS LR-ELEM $38,031.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: I.SO $51,779.00 LIB/AV. OJ NORMAN, CHERRY G 1.00 LIBRN-ELEM $32,681.48 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 1.00 $32,681.48 OTHER PROF. 02 CURRY, JOANN 0.40 NURSE $10,374.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $10,374.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 PACE, KATIE L 1.00 SPE-LD $39,936.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $39,936.00 PRlN 01 FIELDS, FREDERICK L 1.00 ELE PRIN $43,239.62 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $43,239.62 SEC. CLSRM. TCH. 01 BROWN: ADRIENNE 0.30 SPEECH $10,437.00 06 DANESHMANDI, KATHRYN D 0.50 READING $15,774.00 06 DANESHMANDI, KATIIRYN D 0.50 READING $15,774.00 06 DANESHMANDI, KATHRYN D 0.50 MATI-1-CIIP I $15,774.00 01 DOCKETT-WILSON, TAMMI Y 1.00 MUSIC $26,746.00 01 LEIGH, MARGARET A 1.00 G\u0026amp;TSPCLST $27,779.0~ 06 SEBOURN, KAREN L 0.60 MATH SPEC $16,679.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4.40 $128,963.40 SERV.WKRS. 02 DEDMON, NANCY A 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,539.00 02 HOBBS, BARBARA A 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,740.60 02 JOHNSON,SYLVESTER 1.00 CUSTODAN $7,129.57 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 3.00 $34,409.17 TCHR.AIDES Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD lNFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Stipends(does not include benefits) 67 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY 02 CRISS, PAULINE W 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,663.00 02 DOSS, TIMMY F 1.00 AIDE-REGLR $9,907.00 02 FEE, STEPHANIE A 0.50 AIDE-SVA $1 ,673.20 02 GREGORY, NEA C 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,182.30 02 1-IlLL, DARLENE 0.60 LAB ATTEND $5,793.00 02 JONES, TIFFANI R 1.00 AIDE-4YR $5,271.11 02 LANGSTON, CALVIN 1.00 AIDE-SVA $6,416.90 02 MCCLINA, MARY 1.00 AIDE-SVA $7,662 .90 02 SANDERS, NORMA J 1.00 AIDE-4YR $10,663.00 02 SO LEE, DEBO RAJ I L 1.00 AIDE-SVA $8,236.95 CATEGORY TOTALS: 9.10 $73,469.36 YEARLY TOTALS: 43.80 $1,073,353.50 94 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 647.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 01 DUERR, DONNA P 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $37,540.00 01 PATTERSON, DAVID H 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $42,711.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $80,251.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 ENOCH, LYDIA L 1.00 REG $19,481.62 02 MARTINEK, DARLENE B 1.00 SEC PRIN $15,719.88 02 RELFORD, YOLANDA L 0.60 MEDIA CL $8,058.60 02 WASHINGTON, ESTHER M 1.00 SECATT $17,194.65 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.60 $60,454.75 GUIDANCE 01 GOLDSBY, LA VERNE G 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $41,791.36 01 JONES, JACK A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $41 ,250.121 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $83,041.50 LIB/AV. 01 ABLES, FRANCES M 1.00 LIBRN-JR $41,729.11 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $41,729.11 OTHER PROF. 02 BAILEY, JOHNNY 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,473.00 02 COGSHELL, CARL L 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,794.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. -Y\\\u0026gt;\\ Tc\"'art \\.\\t,e.\" na\\ \\nc\\ude., Me\\ro{',,\\itan Sc.boo\\., and A.\\tel\"native \\....earnin1!. Center and is based on all funds and all em11loyees currently active on 11ayroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE 02 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 PRIN CURRY, JOANN CATEGORY TOTALS: BULLOCK, PATRICIA A CATEGORY TOTALS: 0 I BRADFORD, GAYLE B SEC.CLSRM. TCH. 01 01 01 01 01 01 06 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 06 01 01 01 01 01 01 CATEGORY TOTALS: ANDRESS, WILLIAM S ANDRUS, GEORGE C BENSON, JESSIE J BEST, CHARLOTTE V BRAGG, ALLEN R BURNETTE, DENNIS R CAPOOT, MICHAEL G CAPOOT, MICHAEL G CHAMBERS, ANIBONY D CRIPPS, JOSEPH D CRISWELL, DONICA M DAVIDSON, KATHY L DA VIS, MARCUS D DA VIS, PHYLESIA DOSS, GAILP EARLEYWINE, SONY A G ESTES, WILLIAM E GAINES, SARA E GILBERT-WISE, M BARBARA GULLETT-SHELNUTT, TAMARA J HAMILTON, ORALYN S HARRIS, ANNlTilA J HARRIS, SHARON D HAWKING, NANCY G HUNT, SAMUEL Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. ITE 0.60 2.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 JOB CODE NURSE SPE-LD SEC PRIN SOC STU ART MATII MATII LIFE SCI ENGLSII-REG MA TI-I-Cl-IP I MATI-I EXPITE BAND SPE-N/CATG LNGFNDS B/GPE MATII SPE-N/CATG ENGLSH-REG CIVICS MATII READlNG ENGLSH-REG LNGFNDS HOME ECO ISSP PHY SCI MATH SALARY $14,453.40 $37,720.40 $31,255.00 $31,255.00 $60,762.00 $60,762.00 $28,043.00 $29,649.00 $23,527.00 $24,832.00 $21 ,680.00 $4,336 .00 $29,260.40 $] 1,550.80 $22,483.00 $24,286.00 $28,943.00 $28,398.00 $33,913.00 $27,441.00 $23,233.00 $34,748.00 $27,622.00 $25,695.00 $39,527.09 $29,201.00 $27,823.00 $30,660.00 This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 69 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 0l JOHNSON, JOHN C 1.00 B/GPE $32,842.00 0l JONES, GWENDOLYN DIANN 1.00 PHY SCI 06 KINSEY, TERRY D 1.00 READING $28,043.00 0l KIRCHNER, LESSIE A 1.00 LIFE SCI $21,680.00 0l LAMB, CAROLYN F 1.00 B/GPE 01 LOVELACE, DOROTIN J 0.40 VOCCOR 0l MAYBERRY, BONNIE B 1.00 VOCCOR $40,384.41 0l MCFADDEN, CHARLES 1.00 LNGFNDS $22,483.00 01 MCKENNA, JULIANN E 1.00 ART 01 MILLIGAN, JENNIFER H 1.00 ERTHSCI $28,585.00 01 MITCHELL, SANDRA A 0.20 SPEECH $6,307.20 01 MOHUNDRO, THOMAS S 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $26,437.00 01 MOSELEY, FRAN N 1.00 SOC STIJ 01 NIEDERBRACH, JAY A 1.00 VOC/MUSIC $25,695.00 01 OSHIRO, NIDIA 1.00 SPANISH $20,074.00 01 PARKER, PA TT! J 1.00 voe BUS ED 06 PIKE, PERRY R 1.00 MATH-CHP I $25,133.00 0l POORE', PATRICIA A 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $24,089.00 06 POSITION,OPEN 1.00 COMP ST 01 RALEY, BEVERLY A 1.00 SPE-M/RET $40,670.00 01 RUSH, LA WREN CE R 1.00 CIVICS 0l SAMONS, KATHRYN M 1.00 LNGFNDS $21,680.00 01 SEAWOOD, GREGORY E 1.00 AM HIST 01 SIMON, THERESA L 0.60 FRENCH $16,862.40 01 SMITH, SUSAN M 1.00 ERTHSCI 01 STARLING, LILLIAN L 1.00 HEALTH $38,763 .00 01 TOMLINSON, E. LIANNE 1.00 COMP LIT $25,540.23 06 VAN PELT, SHARON E 1.00 READING $28,846.00 0l WARREN, JUDITH L 1.00 AMHIST $28,292.00 01 WEBB, THOMAS C 1.00 MAUI 06 WICKLIFFE, ALICE E 1.00 READING $33,664.00 01 WOLFE, CAROLYN S 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $31,255 .00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 53.80 $1,144,176.53 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. \"\\\"h,s Te.\\'ort doe.snot inc\\ude., Me.tro\\'o\\itan Schoo\\, and Ac\\ternative Learnin1?, Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll . .. -  - SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY SERV.WKRS. 02 FISHER, KENNETT-I L 1.00 BLDG ENG $22,598.00 02 GREENE,GREGORY 1.00 CUSTODAN $2,446.39 02 LEAKS, AL VESTER 1.00 A-HEADCUS $13,360.00 02 POSITION, VACANT 0.50 CUS-PffiME 02 SIMPSON, MJTCIIELL 0.50 CUS-PffiME $2,307.25 02 WASHINGTON, DWIGHT B 1.00 CUST-IIEAD $16,934.20 02 WILLIAMS, HENRY L 0.50 CUSTODAN $3,633.50 02 WILLIAMS, SYLVIA 1.00 CUSTODAN CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.50 $61,279.34 TCHR.AIDES 02 WILLIAMS, BRUCE B 0.40 LAB ATTEND $4,164.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $4,164.40 YEARLY TOTALS: 73.90 $1,604,834.03 95 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 635.00 ASST.PRIN-NT 01 DUERR, DONNA P 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $38,814.00 01 PATTERSON, DAVID H 1.00 A/PRIN SEC $44,017.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $82,831.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 AKBAR, FATIMAH K 0.60 MEDIA CL $6,026.07 02 ENOCH, LYDIA L 1.00 REG $20,037.35 02 JACKSON, ERMA JEAN 1.00 SEC PRIN $13,687.96 02 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 SECATT CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.60 $39,751.38 GUIDANCE 01 GOLDSBY, LA VERNE G 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $42,182.72 01 JONES, JACK A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $42,510.47 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $84,693.19 LIB/AV. 01 ABLES, FRANCES M 1.00 LIBRN-JR $42,120.04 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $42,120.04 OTHER PROF. 02 CURRY, JOANN 0.60 NURSE $14,935.20 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD lNFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary= Base Salary+ Sti1\u0026gt;ends(does not include benefits) 71 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY 02 MARTIN,DUNCANERAC 1.00 S/8 SOFR $10,833.00 02 MCTIER, JR., DONALD 1.00 SIB SOFR $11,794.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.60 $37,562.20 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 BULLOCK, PATRICIA A 1.00 SPE-LD $32,358.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $32,358.00 PRIN 01 MASON, CASSANDRA N 1.00 SEC PRIN $52,526.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $52,526.00 SEC.CLSRM TCH. 01 ALLEN,CLARENCE 1.00 AM HIST $26,746.00 01 ANDRESS, WILLIAM S 1.00 SOC STU $26,685.00 01 ANDRUS, GEORGE C 1.00 ART 01 BENSON, JESSIE J 1.00 MATI-1 $30,737.00 01 BOSTIC, KELVIN 1.00 MATI-1 $25,296.80 01 BRIDGFORTI-1, MARY CATI-IERINE 1.00 SOC STU $23,199.00 01 BURNETTE, DENNIS R 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $26,305.00 01 CRISWELL, DONICA M 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $23,504.00 01 DAVIDSON, KATI-TYL 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $25,314.00 01 DA VIS, MARCUS D 1.00 B/GPE $31,133.00 01 DOSS, GAILP 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $29,456.00 01 GAINES, SARA E 1.00 MATTI 01 GARDNER, ANN BEENE 1.00 LNGFNDS 01 GULLE1T-SHELNUTT, TAMARA J 1.00 ENGLSII-REG $25,935.00 01 HAMIL TON, ORAL YN S 1.00 LNGFNDS $26,746.00 01 HARRIS, ANNITI-IA J 1.00 HOME ECO $36,968.88 01 HARRIS, SHARON D 1.00 ISSP $30,840.00 01 HUNT, SAMUEL 1.00 MATTI $30,798.00 01 JEFFERS, MICHAEL A 1.00 PHY SCI $21,072.00 01 JONES, XERLO1T A L 1.00 VOCCOR $22,675.04 06 KINSEY, TERRY D 1.00 READING $29,117.00 01 KIRCHNER, LESSIE A 1.00 LIFE SCI $22,693.00 01 LAMB, CAROLYN F 1.00 B/GPE $36,030.00 01 MCFADDEN, CHARLES 1.00 LNGFNDS $23,504.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. 'l:h,, '\u0026lt;C.\\\"Ort doe\" no\\ \\nc\\ude, Me\\To\\,o\\i\\an Sc.boo\\, and A\\\\e'\u0026lt;native \\..,c.arnin\\?, Center and is based on a\\\\ funds and a\\\\ employees currently active on payroll. CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY --------- 01 MJTCIIELL, SANDRA A 0.20 SPEECH $6,528.40 01 MOGSTAD, BONNIE L 1.00 ART $25,875.00 01 NESMIIB, ESTELLA 1.00 MAIB-CIIP I $21,883.00 01 NIEDERBRACH, IA YA 1.00 VOC/MUSIC $26,746.00 01 OSHIRO, NIDIA 1.00 SPANISH $21,072.00 01 POORE', PATRJCIA A 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $25,125.00 01 POSillON,VACANT 1.00 MATI-I 01 POSillON, VACANT 1.00 EXPITE 01 RALEY, BEVERLY A 1.00 SPE-M/RET $41,051.00 01 REEDY, JAMIE LYNN 1.00 MATII $20,262.00 01 RHODES, BERNESTINE 1.00 voe BUS ED $26,476.59 01 RUSH, LA WREN CE R 1.00 CIVICS $24,278.95 01 RUSSELL, ANIBONY D 1.00 ERIBSCI $20,835.00 01 SAMONS, KA 11-IRYN M 1.00 ENGLSII-REG $22,693.00 01 SIMON, 11-IERESA L 0.40 FRENCH $9,604.10 01 SKIDGEL, RONNY L 1.00 MAIB $31,017.00 01 SMITH, SUSAN M 1.00 ERTHSCI $29,928.00 01 STARLING, LILLIAN L 1.00 HEALTH $39,126.00 01 TAYLOR, TRAVIS F 0.60 BAND $14,019.00 01 TOMLINSON, E. LIANNE 1.00 COMP LIT $26,610.39 06 VAN PELT, SHARON E 1.00 READING $29,927.00 01 WARREN, JUDIIB L 1.00 CIVICS $29,360.00 06 WICKLIFFE, ALICE E 1.00 READING $35,540.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 4S.20 $1,102,712. IS SERV.WKRS. 02 FELLS, CORINTI-IIS 1.00 CUSTODAN $9,595.9! 02 FISHER, KENNETI I L 1.00 BLDG ENG $23,270.00 02 GREENE, GREGORY 1.00 CUSTODAN $11,078.00 02 JONES, Cl IRIS L 0.50 CUS-PffiME $935.76 02 JONES, JAMES L 0.50 CUS-PffiME $946.90 02 LEAKS, AL VESTER 1.00 A-HEADCUS $13,919.80 02 WASHINGTON, DWIGHT 8 1.00 CUST-HEAD $17,375.80 02 WILLIAMS, HENRY L 0.50 CUSTODAN $3,633.50 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. This report does not include, Metropolitan School, and Alternative Learning Center and is based on all funds and all employees currently active on payroll. LRSD INFORMATION SERVICE DEPT. Salary = Base Salary + Stipends(does not include benefits) 73 YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FfE JOB CODE SALARY CATEGORY TOTALS: 6.50 $80,755.68 TCHR.AIDES 02 WILLIAMS, BRUCE B 0.40 LAB ATTEND $4,164.40 CATEGORY TOTALS: 0.40 $4,164.40 YEARLY TOTALS: 65.30 $1,559,474.04 96 CLOVERDALE JR HIGH 637.00 ASST. PRIN-NT 01 PATTERSON, DAVID H 1.00 A/PRTN SEC $45,058.00 01 POSITION, VACANT 1.00 A/PRTN SEC CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $45,058.00 CLERC/SEC'Y. 02 AKBAR, FATIMAH K 0.60 MEDIA CL $7,097.26 02 CROWDER, CLEDA C 1.00 BK/SEC $17,194.65 02 ENOCH, LYDIA L 1.00 REG $20,594.32 02 HERVEY, SCHARLOTIE A 1.00 SECATI $13,755.72 CATEGORY TOTALS: 3.60 $58,641.95 GUIDANCE 01 GOLDSBY, LAVERNE G 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $43,056.00 01 JONES, JACK A 1.00 CNSLR-SECD $43,383.75 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.00 $86,439.75 LIB/AV. 01 ABLES, FRANCES M 1.00 LIBRN-JR $42,951.13 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $42,951.13 OTHER PROF. 02 CURRY, JOANN 0.60 NURSE $ I 5,561.00 02 MARTIN, DUNCAN ERAC 1.00 SIB SOFR $11 ,153.00 02 MClYER, JR., DONALD 1.00 SIB SOFR $12,143.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 2.60 $38,857.00 OTHR CLSRM. TCH. 01 BULLOCK, PATRICIA A 1.00 SPE-LD $33,169.00 CA TE GORY TOTALS: 1.00 $33,169.00 PRIN 01 MASON, CASSANDRA N 1.00 SEC PRTN $53,698.00 CATEGORY TOTALS: 1.00 $53,698.00 Note: Employees with no salary are not currently active on payroll. '\"l:'- '\"\"-\\'\u0026lt;\u0026gt;rt\"\"'\"' not \\ndude, Met.-o\\'o\\itan Schoo\\, and A\\te.-naUve \\..earnin\\?. Center and i,i based on a\\\\ funds and a\\\\ employees currently active on payroll. YEAR SITE STUDENTS CATEGORY FUND EMPLOYEE FTE JOB CODE SALARY SEC.CLSRM. TCH. OJ ALLEN, CLARENCE 1.00 AM HIST $27,556.00 01 ANDRESS, WILLIAM S 1.00 SOC STU $27,496.00 OJ BENNETT,A 1.00 LIFE SCI $36,127.00 01 BENSON, JESSIE J 1.00 MATH $26,947.25 01 BOSTIC, KELVIN 1.00 VOCCOR $27,409.67 01 BURNETTE, DENNIS R 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $26,685.00 01 CAMPANALI, JON M 1.00 LIFE SCI $21 ,316.00 01 CHAMBERS, ANTHONY D 1.00 EXPITE $31 ,943.78 01 COVERT, MARY JO 1.00 ENGLSH-REG $23,443.00 01 CRISWELL, DONICA M 0.50 SPE-N/CATG $12,157.00 01 DA VIS, MARCUS D 1.00 B/GPE $31 ,370.00 01 DOSS, GAILP 1.00 SPE-N/CATG $30,267.00 01 EURE, ANNAC 1.00 ART $20,262.00 01 GATELY, LAURA S. 1.00 MATH $25,064.00 01 GULL\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1185","title":"Little Rock School District Studies and Reports","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":["1994-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Education--Curricula","Educational statistics","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Studies and Reports"],"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/1185"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n~~W\u0026amp;JQJ wooru~u LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDIES AND REPORTS January 1994 REPORTS AND STUDIES RESPONSE SHEET RANK EACH ITEM RESPONSE USING THE FOLLOWING SCALE: Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent 5 Superior DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM GOALS STUDY OR REPORT MISSION STATEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND OBJECTIVES QUALITY OF FUNDING TOTAL AND GOALS SUPPORT SUPPORT ATTAINMENT RECOMMENDATIONS SOURCE RESPONSE --- Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit - Recommendations Educational Equity Monitoring Recommendations --- School Climate/Human Relations Survey Stanford Achievement Test, - - Eighth Edition COMMENTS MAY BE RECORDED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. Date: To: From: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 February 2, 1994 Superintendent's Cabinet Sterling lngraritsociate to the Deputy Superintendent Reports and Recommendations Enclosed are brief summary reports and recommendations for the following: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit of 1990 Educational Equity Monitoring School Climate/Human Relations Survey Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Additional supporting information is on file in the Planning, Research and Evaluation office. These reports will be discussed at the cabinet meeting on Friday, February 4, 1994, at 8:00 a.m. bjg REPORTS AND STUDIES RESPONSE SHEET RANK EACH ITEM RESPONSE USING THE FOLLOWING SCALE: 1 = Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 = Excellent 5 Superior DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM GOALS STUDY OR REPORT MISSION STATEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND OBJECTIVES QUALITY OF FUNDING TOTAL AND GOALS SUPPORT SUPPORT ATTAINMENT RECOMMENDATIONS SOURCE RESPONSE Arkansas Minimum - Performance Test I - Curriculum Audit Recommendations -- Educational Equity Monitoring Recommendations - School Climate/Human Relations Survey - Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition COMMENTS MAY BE RECORDED ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE. SECTION NUMBER One Two Three Four Five TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME TWO STUDIES AND REPORTS Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Curriculum Audit Recommendations Educational Equity Monitoring Recommendations School Climate/Human Relations Survey Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION ONE ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST Spring 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Review of Arkansas Minimum Performance Test Data Findings and Recommendations Since its inception in 1988, the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT) has been administered each spring to all third, sixth, and eighth grade students. The MPT was initiated by an act of the Arkansas Legislature through the \"Education Assessment Act of 1979,\" and later expanded by the \"Competency Based Education Act of 1983. 11 Until 1993, the State of Arkansas required eighth grade students to pass the MPT before they could be promoted to the ninth grade. Eighth grade students were given three opportunities to pass the test. Beginning in 1993, failure of the MPT could no longer serve as the sole basis for retaining a student in the eighth grade. In 1994, the MPT will not be administered in Grade 3, and only one administration will occur for Grades 6 and 8, respectively. This report reviews the test data and other materials the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has on file relative to the MPT, provides a general outline of the information available, and discusses findings and recommendations concerning the test data and related materials vis-a-vis the needs of the district. The following reports are provided by the State of Arkansas via Data Recognition Corporation and are on file in the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department for the years 1988-93 and/or appropriate school buildings. MPT Data Review Page 2 1. Individual student Report. Individual student reports are available for each student tested. In Grade 3, these reports provide information about student performance in reading and mathematics. In Grades 6 and 8, these reports provide information about student performance in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. The primary purpose of this report is to determine whether or not the student has mastered a subject area and to identify those specific objectives which the student did or did not master. Therefore, the report lists for each objective tested, the number of questions correctly answered and a notation indicating mastery or non-mastery of the objectives. These reports are on file in the appropriate school buildings. 2. Classroom Roster Report. The Classroom Roster Report is available for each class tested. Each roster lists mastery results by objective for each student. Students are listed in alphabetical order. The purpose of the roster is to aid educators in identifying problem objective areas for groups of students. At the eighth grade level, the roster is an alphabetical list of all eighth grade students who were tested. 3. Grade a Pass/Not Pass Roster. The Pass/Not Pass Roster lists all eighth-grade students within each school. It provides each student's scale score and pass/not pass status for each subject area and the total test. (Note: A Grade 8 Not Pass Roster is also available. It is similar to the Pass/Not Pass Roster except that it lists only students who did not pass.) 4. School Summary Report. For Grade 3, the School Summary Report lists the number and percent of all students who mastered each objective. For Grades 6 and 8, the School Summary Report lists the number and percent of students by each socioeconomic status (SES} group within the school who mastered each objective. For Grades 3, 6, 8 the School Summary Report lists the number and percent of students by sex, race, and race by sex within the school who passed the [subject area) test. The Grades 6 and 8 School Summary Report also lists the number and percent of students by each socioeconomic status (SES} group who passed the test. No report is available which lists the number and percent of Grade 8 students by sex, race, and race by sex within the school who passed the total test. 5. District Summary Report. The District Summary Reports are similar to the School Summary Reports except the results have been aggregated to the district level. No report is available which lists the number and percent of Grade 8 students by sex, race, and race by sex within the school who passed the total test. MPT Data Review Page 3 The above descriptions of the reports are taken from the Arkansas Minimum Performance Testing Program Test Results Interpretation Manual 1993 (Interpretation Manual) published by the Arkansas Department of Education. Additional reports prepared by the Planning, Research, and Evaluation staff include the following: 1. Five Year Summary Reports (1989-1993). These reports provide the number of students tested, the number who passed, and the percent passed by race by gender for each school. At Grade 3, the reports are available for reading and mathematics. At Grades 6 and 8, for reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. 2. Five Year summary Reports (1989-1993) by Categories of Schools. This report is the same as described in Number 1 above, except it is available for the following grades and categories of schools: Incentive Schools (Grades 3 and 6)\nMagnet Schools (Grades 3, 6, and 8), and Area Schools (Grades 3 and 6). 3. Grade 8 Summary Reports after the Third Administration. These reports are available for individual years 1989 through 1993, respectively. No five year summaries are available. These summaries provide race and gender information for students who failed the test, but not for those who passed. 4. District summary of Objectives Not Mastered, 1989-1993 for Grades 3, 6, and a. This report provides a summary of the objectives not mastered over a five year period. It does not provide an analysis by race and gender of objectives not mastered. In addition to the above referred to reports, the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department has on file MPT manuals, copies of various Arkansas statutes which concern the testing program mandated by the State, and other miscellaneous MPT related materials. In the \"Foreword\" of the Interpretation Manual, the purposes of the \"Competency Based Education Act of 1983 11 are MPT Data Review Page 4 delineated\none of the purposes is to \"give students, parents, and teachers a general idea of how well students are doing in basic skill areas.\" The following findings and suggested recommendations are the result of a review of the available MPT test data and related materials described previously in this report. FINDING ONE A review of the passing percentages for the 1992-93 MPT administration shows that at all three grade levels, in all subject areas tested, at least 85% of the white students who were tested displayed mastery. Eighty-five percent of the tested black students showed mastery in only sixth grade reading. The average disparity between the passing percentages of black students and white students is as follows: Grade 3: -14% Grade 6: -17% Grade 8: -21% Since one of the primary goals of the LRSD is to close the disparity between the academic achievement of black students and white students, this finding should be of particular interest to those who are involved in instruction or instructional planning. RECOMMENDATIONS for FINDING ONE 1. Provide remediation for those students in need of said. Do not require students who have mastered specific objectives to mark time while providing additional instruction to those in need. MPT Data Review Page 5 2. Structure a close working relationship among instructional supervisors, the Staff Development Department, classroom teachers and the PRE Department so that test data can be adequately reviewed and interpreted, effective strategies to alleviate the disparity can be pinpointed, and demonstrations of \"what works\" can be shared with teachers. FINDING TWO Thirty-nine percent of the MPT objectives on tests of the three grade levels have never been mastered by at least 85% of the students at the respective grade level in at least one year from 1989 through 1993. -~~~f~ERCENT OF NON-MASTERED KPT OBJECTIVES t_ ~o 1 ~~f{ ,\nJ'' COMBINED TOTALS for 1989-1993 ,~~~?~:/-\".' tpp l~: 1 GRADES 3, 6, and 8 JI\"' Number of Non-mastered Percent of Objectives/Number of Non-mastered =O=b. i..~ ~c~t=i~v~~s~---------O=b. i.~. ~c~t~i~v~~s '1j\nJ1 READING 15/70 21% MATHEMATICS ~ -J?it:LANGUAGB ARTS V~~/' SCIENCE ~p SOCIAL STUDIES ,)' 16/64 GRADES 6 and 8 16/30 ( 33/36) 30/45 RECOMMENDATIONS for FINDING TWO 22% 53% 92% 67% 1. The PRE report entitled District summary of Objectives Not Mastered, 1989-1993 for Grades 3, 6, and 8 should1be distributed to instructional supervisors and MPT Data Review Page 6 principals to guide decisions which will have an impact on instruction. 2. Each principal should also analyze the percentages of students in his/her particular school and identify areas of strengths and weaknesses. 3. Instructional supervisors should work closely with teachers and other appropriate personnel to develop instructional strategies for identified objectives. 4. Consideration should be given to systematically assessing students at the beginning of the school year to determine if they have mastered specific objectives. 5. Provide instruction to students who have not mastered objectives. 6. Provide appropriate instruction to those students who have mastered objectives, including enriching activities. FINDING THREE Finding Three concerns available data. No data are available by race and gender or by race by gender for those students who passed the total Grade 8 MPT in any given year. This report is not provided by the state, but is available from Data Recognition for a fee. RECOMMENDATION for FINDING THREE since there is a great deal of emphasis on the achievement of black students as compared to that of white students, it is recommended that this report be made available to the district, at state expense, if possible. MPT Data Review Page 7 However, if the state chooses not to order the report, then the district should consider bearing the expense. FINDING FOUR When a five year period of MPT results is analyzed, the \"Classroom Rosters\" for Grades 3 and 6 and the \"Roster of Grade 8 Students\" could possibly indicate problem areas for particular groups. RECOMMENDATION for FINDING FOUR 1. Principals, instructional supervisors, and other appropriate central office administrators should review the available data and develop effective strategies to address areas of concern. According to the Interpretation Manual, perhaps \"modification of the instructional program may be warranted in a skill area in which a substantial number of students did not master the objective or the set of objectives matched to the Goal Area.\" It is important that MPT test results be disseminated to the school board of directors, to parents, students, school district personnel, and the general public in a ~mel manner. STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION TWO CURRICULUM AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS December 1990 v0rr\nii?~' ., * 1-,w\n,r ?If ,r CURRICULUM AUDIT/REVIEW ,'lf'1b1\" ~,\\ A review of selected curriculum programs was conducted during the first semester of the ) 1993-94 school year. The Deputy Superintendent and appropriate curriculum directors,/ supervisors, and coordinators facilitated the review. The following plan of action was developed and implemented so that appropriate program changes, deletions, and/ or new programs could be recommended to the Superintendent. Plan of Action 1. Scheduled and held meetings with appropriate staff to develop a plan of?ctifoor n~  established goal\n,fo\nt, fi~  2. Established goal for project\nand f, .?.?~ ~ 3. Identified items needed for the project: .1,..Ji/' ~ i)), /-r~,, ,  \"No More Excuses: A Plan to Increase Learning for All Students in the LRSD\"  Recommendations from the Curriculum Audit (December 21, 1990) conducted by the National Academy of School Executives (NASE). A status report related to the Audit recommendations is attached.  Revised curriculum and curriculum-related policies  Supervisors' assessment of implementation of the revised policies and curriculum\ninservices held\nschool/office visitation  Curriculum debriefing session\nfeedback end-of-year with selected supervisors  Achievement test results  Annual staff development report  Feedback - implementation of Abacus  Customer Satisfaction Survey results  Results - on-site visits of Deputy Superintendent with building principals\nimplementation and utilization of revised curriculum Curriculum Audit/Review - Page 2  Areas impacted/budget reduction  Monitoring reports  Academic Support (Compensatory Education, Chapter 1)  Student placement (G/T, AP, Special Education, Regular, race, gender)  Promotion/retention policy 4. Developed Review and Assessment Process: Procedures were established to review and analyze data in order to make recommendations for Fast Track Evaluations. These evaluations would assist staff in determining programs that needed to be modified or deleted, as well as the development of new programs. / ,, . .v1 D ' ~ iJJr 7fP ~ a. Organize and label fmdings, reports, etc. ot:?:: r\"' b. Review and analyze findings, reports, objectives of programs and achievement tests. c. Relate the data back to the findings in order to determine:  Did we meet our objectives?  How effective were we in meeting our objectives?  What evidence is available to support our conclusions?  Identify factors that facilitated attainment of goal(s).  Identify obstacles that prevented goal(s) attainment.  Make recommendations for 1994-95.  Report recommendations, expected benefits, and outcomes to the Superintendent. Attachment A RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTED FROM NASE Recommendation No. 1 The Little Rock School District Board of Directors created and adopted the following policies:  A policy which establishes the purpose for the curriculum and programs of the district\n A policy which sets minimum goals and objectives for all student learning outcomes\n A policy which requires congruence and harmony among the curriculum goals and objectives, teacher delivery techniques and strategies, and district-wide testing programs and assessment\n A policy which requires textbooks ( content and activities) to be aligned with the adopted curriculum outcomes established by the LRSD Board of Directors\n A policy which outlines a clear procedure for the development of curriculum and that includes Board adoption\n A policy which requires equity and coordination across schools in curriculum outcomes, offerings, and activities, including policy guidelines for determining school-based modifications\n A policy which requires test results information to be disaggregated to help improve individual and group instruction and achievement\n A policy which requires at least one goal in each school's annual improvement plan to be directly related to assessment data and student achievement\n A policy which requires the Board to use the achievement data in their goal-setting process\nand  A policy which establishes a sequential linkage among data gathering, planning, goal development, curriculum development, and budgeting. Recommendation No. 2  Reorganize the administrative structure for effective instructional . management . . ~ ~ ~ Recommendation No. 3 -~ ~ r:iil  Separate and consolidate key curriculum and instruction operations from School Operations The curriculum functions separated from School Operations are: curriculum design, program implementation, staff development training, and school curriculum delivery. The Board approved the reorganization of the central office administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development and appropriate supervision of schools. To that end, the Associate Superintendent devoted her time primarily to curriculum design and development and staff development. The job roles of the curriculum supervisors were redefined to include more programmatic responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum (1991). \"No More Excuses\" was approved by the Boa{ci\"' of Directors in 1991. \"No More Excuses\" became the vehicle for implementing Board policies that were recommended by NASE . . - ~~ ,,. f}..,~r J ,I~ h M,, t~ ~ ~TV r1 Recommendation No. 4 ~- An acknowledgement was made by the Board that the proper way for the schools to address disparities in academic achievement is first to have a written curriculum that is comprehensive, relevant, challenging, and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12 and then to teach the curriculum effectively to all students, setting forth clear expectations and using strategies that have been proven successful for student learning. Recommendation No. 5 Authorization by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for LRSD students which incorporates the characteristics in Recommendation No. 4. q _A f!Jt ~ fJ#'f Jfe Attachment B NASE RECOMMEND A TIO NS NOT IMPLEMENTED # / 1. The development of a policy which establishes a sequential linkage among data gathering, planning, goal development, curriculum development, and budgeting. 2. A policy which establishes criteria for decisions on school facility remodeling, replacement, and closure. / Further curriculum revision has been delayed, as the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) is in the process of writing curriculum frameworks based on adopted Arkansas Learner Outcomes. Each accredited school shall use these curriculum frameworks to plan instruction leading to the Learner Outcomes. The LRSD consulted with the ADE in order to revise our curriculum in harmony with state Learner Outcomes and the national goals. The revision process will now proceed in accordance with the curriculum development of the ADE. The ADE, with advice from public schools and institutions of higher education, will devise an assessment system that will measure progress toward meeting Learner Outcomes. We are in the process of revising our language arts and foreign language curriculum, using the newly-adopted curriculum frameworks. The Board adoption of the Program Planning and Budgeting process addresses the issues raised in these recommendations. STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION THREE EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS 1992-93 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING - 1992-93 RECOMMENDATIONS The task of monitoring is only the initial phase toward attaining the desegregation goals. A review of previous monitoring reports reveals several recurring areas of concern. The following recommendations are provided to help the district improve the recurring areas of concern. 1. Conduct inservice for all staff on the requirements of the court approved desegregation plan. Periodic follow-up 2. sessions should be conducted. All new staff members should lfl vr\nreceive inservice relative to plan requirements. ~? Special attention should be given to: op?f' *' * central office administration /f * Building principals * Counselors * Extracurricular activities sponsors Specific training activities should include: * Equitable placement of students by race and gender in school programs - roles and responsibilities of school personnel * Discipline management and alternatives to suspension procedures Link expectations for implementing the LRSD Desegregation-7 I Plan and for achieving desired Plan outcomes to the performance evaluation process. I J EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1992-93, RECOMMENDATIONS Page 2 All district personnel must receive clear directions relative to their responsibilities for implementing the desegregation plan and for achieving the desired plan outcomes. 3. Implement and maintain consistent expectations for the maintenance of school records across the district. 4. Implement at each building specific methods for communicating to students information relative to honors and awards requirements, extracurricular requirements and discipline expectations. 5. Develop and implement a plan for equitable staffing in schools that do not meet the staffing goal for black staff members. The plan should include inservice to assist personnel in developing strategies for improvement. 6. Develop and implement a plan for utilizing all groups of parents in the school program. Principals who have effective methods of achieving parental involvement with continued worthwhile committee productivity, should be encouraged to share these strategies with other principals. 7. Review facilities where special education and gifted and talented education classes are located to ensure that the locations are comparable to other programs. Special attention should be given to: * Condition of portable buildings * covered walkways to portable buildings EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1992-93, RECOMMENDATIONS Page 3 * Restroom facilities for students housed in portable buildings * Size of instructional space * Science facilities at Mabelvale, Southwest and Central * Air conditioning and roof at Parkview STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION FOUR SCHOOL CLIMATE/ HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT SCHOOL CLIMATE/HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT The annual survey of attitudes toward school climate/human relations was conducted during the second semester of the 1993 school year. Students and teachers at each organizational level were surveyed concerning their perceptions of school climate/human relations in the Little Rock School District schools. The first ten ranked items (areas of greatest priority) for each responding group indicated that three of the items ranked were identical for students and teachers with a slight difference in relative standing. The items were: * Students treat other students with respect. * Students treat teachers with respect. * Students in our school are excited about learning. Students at all three organizational levels also identified these items among the ten items of greatest priority. * Teachers treat students with respect. * Slow learners receive as much praise as more advanced learners. * The school rules are fair. Teachers at all three organizational levels identified these items among the ten items of greatest priority. * Parents voluntarily visit the school. * Parents promote the school's instructional program. SCHOOL CLIMATE/HUMAN RELATIONS SURVEY SUMMARY REPORT - Page 2 * Students in our school are satisfied with their progress. The items can be grouped to focus on the following issues: * Lack of demonstrated respect between students and teachers. * Lack of fairness and consistency relative to school rules and discipline. * Lack of satisfaction by students and teachers relative to student progress . . * Lack of student interest in learning. * Lack of positive recognition and high expectations for slow learners by teachers. * Lack of parent participation in the schools. RECOMMENDATIONS: To improve the areas of greatest priority for students and teachers the following suggestions are offered. * Continue staff development for certified and support staff in the areas of: Educational Equity Multicultural curriculum Delivery Discipline and Classroom Management * Provide parent-teacher training in non-violence and socialization skills. * Provide conflict resolution training for students, certified staff, support staff, and parents, where appropriate. * Infuse social skills in the regular elementary curriculum. * Initiate more positive teacher and principal contact with parents (home visits and phone contacts). * Promote interactive learning, with the teacher serving as facilitator. STUDIES AND REPORTS SECTION FIVE STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST Eighth Edition Spring 1993 ~ ~~ .d ~i 1/~\n~ 1 , ,1 ?! ~\u0026amp;?t1/ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION Spring 1993 The Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition was administered to approximately 18,781 students in grades one through eleven. Scores were reported for total reading, total mathematics, language/English, science, and social science. The following is a compilation of administrative summary test results analyzed by schools and organizational levels. ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS When achievement results were reported as individual school summary totals, students scored at or above the 50th percentile in the following grades and areas reporting: Badgett in grade 3 language\nBale in grade 4 mathematics, and in grade 6 social science\nBaseline in grade 2 mathematics, and in grade 6 mathematics, language, science and social science\nBooker in grade 2 mathematics and language, in grade 4 mathematics, language, science and social science\nin grades 5 and 6 in all domains\nBrady in grade 6 mathematics\nCarver in all subject areas 1 through 6\nChicot in grade 4 mathematics, language and social science, and in grade 6 language, science, and social science\nCloverdale in grade 1 mathematics, in grade 2 all reporting subject areas, in grade 3 all subject areas except reading, in grade 4 all areas except language, in grade 5 mathematics and social science, and in grade 6 all reporting areas\nDodd in grade 5 mathematics, in grade 6 all reporting areas\nStanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 2 Fair Park in grades 2 and 3 mathematics, in grade 5 mathematics, in grade 6 all reporting subject areas except reading\nForest Park in all subject areas grades 1 through 6\nFranklin in grades 1 and 2 mathematics and grade 1 science\nFulbright in grades 3 through 6 in all reporting subject areas, in grades 1 and 2 reading and language, and in grade 2 mathematics\nGarland in grade 6 mathematics and social science\nGeyer Springs in grade 3 mathematics and science, in grade 4 mathematics and language, in grade 6 all reporting subject areas\nGibbs in grades 2 through 6 in all reporting areas\nIsh in grades 2 through 6 mathematics, in grades 2 and 5 science, in grades 4 and 5 social science\nJefferson in grades 2 through 6 in all subject areas, in grade 1 mathematics\nMabelvale Elementary in grade 1 science, in grade 4 mathematics, in grade 6 science and social science\nMcDermott in grades 1 through 6 all reporting areas except grade 5 reading\nMeadowcliff in grades 2, 3, 5 and 6 mathematics, and grade 5 language\nMitchell in grades 4 and 6 mathematics\nOtter Creek in grades 2 through 6 in all reporting subject areas\nPulaski Heights Elementary in grade 1 mathematics, language, and science, in grade 2 mathematics and science, in grades 3 and 4 all subject areas, in grade 5 mathematics and social science, in grade 6 language, science and social science\nRightsell in grade 1 reading and language, in grade 2 all subject areas, in grade 4 mathematics, and in grade 6 mathematics\nStanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 3 Rockefeller in grade 2 mathematics, in grade 3 mathematics and social science, in grades 5 and 6 science\nRomine in grade 1 all reporting areas except reading, in grade 4 all areas except reading, in grade 5 mathematics and language, and in grade 6 all reporting subject areas\nStephens in grade 1 mathematics and language, and in grade 6 mathematics\nTerry in grade 1 all reporting areas, in grade 2 mathematics and language, in grade 3 all areas except reading, in grade 4 all reporting subject areas, in grade 5 mathematics, in grade 6 all reporting subject areas\nWatson in grades 4 and 6 mathematics,  in grade 5 science and social science, in grade 6 mathematics and social science\nWestern Hills in grade 1 reading, in grades 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mathematics, in grades 2, 3, and 4 language, in grade 5 science and social science\nWilliams Magnet in all grades reporting 1 through 6\nWilson in grade 1 all reporting areas, in grade 4 language and social science\nWoodruff in grades 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mathematics, in grade 3 language, in grades 3 and 4 science and grades 3, 4, 5, and 6 social science. When scores were examined by race, white students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subject areas at the following schools: Badgett, grade 3 Bale, grade 3 Baseline, grade 2 Booker, Grades 1 through 6 Brady, Grades 1, 2 and 3 Carver, all grade levels Chicot, grade 4 Cloverdale, grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 Dodd, grade 6 Fair Park, grades 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 Forest Park, all grade levels Franklin, grade 5 Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 4 Fulbright, all grade levels Geyer Springs, grade 3 and 6 Gibbs, all grade levels Jefferson, all grade levels Mabelvale, grades 1, 3, and 4 McDermott, all grade levels Meadowcliff, grades 4, 5, and 6 Otter Creek, all grade levels Pulaski Heights, all grade levels Rockefeller, grades 1, 3, 4, and 6 Romine, grades 1, 2, 4, and 5 Stephens, grade 4 Terry, all grade levels Washington, all grade levels Watson, grades 4 and 5 Western Hills, all grade levels Williams, all grade levels Wilson, grades 1, 2, 3, and 5 Woodruff, grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Black students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subject areas at: Carver, grades 1 and 2 Cloverdale, grades 2 and 6 Dodd, grade 6 Rightsell, grade 2 Romine, grade 6 Williams, grades 1, 2, 4, and 6 Wilson, grade 1 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The individual school summary totals showed that students scored at or above the 50th percentile in the following grade levels and subject areas reported. Dunbar in all areas reported except grade 7 reading and grade 9 mathematics\nForest Heights in grade 8 language\nMann in all areas reported except grades 8 and 9 in mathematics\nPulaski Heights in all areas reporting with the exception of grade 9 in reading and mathematics. When scores were examined at the junior high level, white students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 5 areas reported. The schools that indicated white students not scoring at the 50th percentile were: Cloverdale in grades 7, 8, and 9 reading and mathematics, grade 7 language, grade 9 science\nMabelvale in grade 9 mathematics\nSouthwest in grades 7 and 9 mathematics Black students scored below the 50th percentile in all reporting areas. The exception was: -- Mann grade 9 language SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The individual school summary totals showed that students scored at or above the 50th percentile at the following grade levels and subject areas reported. Central in all areas except grade 10 and 11 mathematics\nParkview in all areas except grade 11 mathematics\nWhen scores were analyzed by race at the senior high schools: White students scored at or above the 50th percentile in all subject areas and at all grade levels except at Central grades 10 and 11 mathematics\nat Fair grade 11 mathematics, and at McClellan grades 10 and 11 mathematics. Black students scored below the 50th percentile in all areas except language, grade 10 at Parkview. The administrative summary reports that presented quartile groupings revealed that 3,550 students were grouped in quartile one in total reading grades one through six and 1,975 of those students were at the primary level. For total mathematics, 2,032 students were grouped in quartile one with 1,400 of those students representing grades one through three. At the secondary level, for total reading, 2,417 students were in quartile one, and for total mathematics 2,848 were grouped in quartile one. Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 6 A comparative analysis of 1991-92 and 1992-93 districtwide basic and complete battery data indicated that percentile ranks for white students at the elementary level were above the 50th percentile. Percentile ranks for black students were below the 50th percentile for both years. Total percentile scores were above the 50th percentile for grade 6 basic and complete battery, and in grade 4 for 1993. At the secondary level, the 1993 basic and complete battery percentile scores were fairly consistent with those of 1992. Percentile scores for white students remained above the 50th percentile. Scores for black students at this level were below the 50th percentile. The attached graphs (Exhibits A-U) were derived from the administrative summary data and will provide a visual display of the data. RECOMMENDATIONS: After reviewing administrative summary data, it is recommended that consideration be given to: * Placing greater emphasis on effective reading and mathematics instruction at the primary level and reading and mathematics instruction and assistance at the secondary level. * Establishing a systematic procedure for the teaching of listening skills at the primary level and grades 7 and 8. * Teaching organizational techniques and study skills. * Integrating the teaching of language (mechanics, usage, writing skills) in all subject areas and organizational levels. * Integrating scientific experiments and manipulatives as a part of daily science lessons to peak student interest . * Using a variety of enriching materials and resources to expand science and social science instruction. * Providing extra class activities in all subject areas to enable students to assume responsibilities through selfdirected learning. * Stimulating student interest with homework that is meaningfully directed through assignments that enhance school achievement. Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition Spring 1993 Page 7 Providing in-depth workshops and inservices related to mathematics and science during the summer to provide teachers with effective strategies for enriching the curriculums. Implementing a districtwide well-organized year-long inservice program with continuous supervisory assistance to beginning teachers in curriculum planning, classroom management and discipline management. Planning staff development and inservice programs to meet the developing needs of teachers and staff. Encouraging principals and teachers to share workable ideas and techniques at the building level and districtwide. Standardized test results being used for diagnostic purposes, not for determining student grades or segregating students in different classes. Constructing teacher-made tests to focus on student growth in higher order thinking through comprehension, analysis, application, and problem solving. Understanding that student achievement should not be solely assessed on Stanford test results.  Specific to test data 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 L:.A.1\\1LHl A. READING PERCENTILE RANK READING PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 a: 140 C: ~\" l 20 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK 0 34 29 29 33 27 39 WHITE Q 67 63 67 68 64 75 OTHER Q 61 64 61 60 51 74 160 Cl a: 140 .C,: 0 j 20 BLACK 0 WHITE~ OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 35 29 27 33 26 37 63 62 63 67 63 74 66 63 57 60 58 67 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 READING PERCENTILE RANK READING PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 a:: 140 C Cl 0 if 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER Q GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 29 30 33 67 71 65 58 73 72 ~., 60 a::  '\n: 40 .C. 0 if20 BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER [J GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 31 29 30 70 67 68 72 73 63 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 READING PERCENTILE RANK READING PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 tC .. '\n40 .C. ~ ~ 20 BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER D GRADE 10 GRADE 11 35 32 75 68 74 66 ~.. 60 tC i4o C.. u ~ 20 BLACK D WHITE E) OTHER [J GRADE 10 GRADE 11 35 34 72 69 64 66 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK -\"\" 80 .C. a: 60 J\n40 ~ l\"l. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE [2l OTHER CJ GA. 1 GR. 2 GA. 3 GA.4 GR. 5 GA. 6 35 49 42 52 46 49 70 79 73 76 74 74 65 84 84 79 71 81 100 .,. 80 .C. a: 60 1 C Cl 40 ~ Cl ll. 20 0 GA. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR.4 GA. 5 GA. 6 BLACK 0 40 46 46 49 43 48 WHITE (d 70 77 76 73 71 74 OTHER Cl 74 87 80 76 83 75 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK .,, 80 .C,: a.,: 60 ~ 40 .~, \"- 20 BLACK 0 WHITE 12) OTHER CJ GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 35 32 25 63 65 54 63 72 89 .,, 80 .C,: a.,: 60 ~ 40 0 .~, \"- 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OHIER Q GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 36 30 23 64 59 57 75 87 68 LITTLE , ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK MATHEMATICS PERCENTILE RANK ~., 60 a: 140 .C, u BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER Q GRADE 10 GRADE 11 31 28 61 58 73 65 10~----------r---------, 60 -- .,, ~ 50 a: ., 40 - ~ 30 - u i 20 10 - GRADE 10 GRADE 11 BLACK 0 26 32 WHITE [) 56 . 59 OTHER 0 58 62 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 EXH\\B\\T G LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK ~ 60 a\": ~\" 40 C \"0 ~ 20 - ,,,,- GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK D 3? 38 35 41 39 44 WHITE Ld 68 70 68 73 68 71 OTHER CJ 61 67 63 68 60 67 80-.----,----.--.------.------,----, 70 ~ 60 a\": 50 140 C ~ 30 i20 10 - 0 --L..J_-4\"-_L..J.._jl-Lf'L-..-L..l--1-J\u0026lt;f--i--'-'---'-'--'4-'-'-J.....LJ.-'+'-.....LJ_--'--'--f__.__..__, GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK D 32 39 38 35 38 41 WHITE E) 63  70 70 65 67 68 OTHER CJ 68 64 68 64 66 64 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK .,, 80 .C. a: 60  ~ 40 ~  11. 20 - BLACK D WHITE l2J OTHER 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 34 38 40 68 71 70 63 78 88 .,, 80 .C, a: 60 ~ ~ 40 .0. ll. 20 BLACK D WHITE (J OTHER 0 GRADE 7 33 64 70 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 38 42 69 73 81 69 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 EXH\\B\\T \\ LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK LANGUAGE PERCENTILE RANK so~-----~-----~ ~., 60 - - rr 140 C 0 ~ ~ 20 - BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER[] GRADE 10 GRADE 11 37 32 71 66 73 66 70--,---------.---------, 60 .,, ~ 50 rr ~40 - ~ 30 u i 20 10 BLACK 0 WHITE E'.) OTHER Cl GRADE 10 GRADE 11 34 35 68 66 59 61 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 LA.l\\ltH l J SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK .,, 80 .C. a: 60 ~ ~ 40 ~ a\".. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE 12) OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR.4 GR. 5 GR. 6 31 35 32 40 35 44 66 70 70 74 73 75 55 61 66 74 59 78 .. a: .. ~40 .C. 0 BLACK 0 WHITE E:) OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 27 32 30 34 33 43 59 65 67 68 70 74 49 67 63 66 74 75 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SCiENCE PERCENTILE RANK .,,, 80 .C, a: 60 Cl ~ 40 u !. 20 BLACK D WHITE [21 OTHER [J GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 31 34 38 74 72 66 70 74 79 .,,, 80 C., a: 60 Cl ~ 40 .~. 0.. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE [J OTHER Q GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 31 34 38 65 68 72 75 77 69 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 LA.I IIL.H I L. SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK ~,. 60 - re 140 C., ~ ~ 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER 0 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 31 31 74 67 75 59 60 .,, ~ 50 re ~ 40 - ~ 30 u ~ 20 10 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 BLACK 0 32 32 WHITE E) 67 68 OTHER 0 64 58 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 LAI \\IUl 1 1111 SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK 100 .,. 80 C Cl a: 60 .! \n: C ., 40 .~, 0.. 20 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR.4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK 0 33 46 42 48 WHITE 12] * * 68 78 72 77 OTHER CJ 68 73 60 77 80.----.-----.---.---,-----,-----, .,. 60 - .C. a: BLACK D WHITE EJ OTHER 0 GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 35 38 37 48 * * 67 68 65 76 61 69 70 72 * At grades 1 and 2 Science and Social Science objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT. 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 EXHIBIT N SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK 100 100 80 80 -\" -\" .C, .C. a: 60 a: 60 .! .! C ., 40 0 C 0\" 40 ., ~ 0.. 0.. 20 20 0 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 BLACK D 39 34 36 BLACK D 35 34 36 WHITE 0 70 74 68 WHITE Q 72 72 73 OTHER Q 64 85 87 OTHER [ill 80 83 71 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 L-1..a aaUl l V SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK SOCIAL SCIENCE PERCENTILE RANK 80~-----~------~ 70 -\" 60 - c ~ 50 140 C .~, 30 a. 20 - 10 I BLACK 1 WHITE CJ OTHER 0 GRADE 10 34 67 69 GRADE 11 34 68 67 -\" 60 .C. IC .. 0 .~. a. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE E'J OTHER 0 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 30 36 66 69 57 72 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK -\" 60 .C, a: .C. u \u0026amp;'. 20 - BLACK 0 WHITE CJ OTHER Q GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 35 34 34 41 35 46 70 70 69 73 68 75 62 72 71 71 61 75 .,, 60 .C, a: .C. u if 20 - BLACK 0 WHITE El OTHER CJ GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 36 34 36 38 34 43 67 69 70 68 65 73 74 73 69 67 71 72 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 100 80 80 -\"' -\"' .C, .C, a: 60 a: 60 ..! ~ C  40 u C 40 . u .~, 0.. ., a. 20 20 0 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 GRADE 9 BLACK D 32 33 35 BLACK 0 35 32 34 WHITE l2J 67 72 66 WHITE Q 69 66 70 OTHER CJ 65 75 88 OTHER (J 75 84 71 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 L.1\\.1111:51 I 1-1 BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK BASIC BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 80 -\"' .C, a: 60 - ..!! \nC .. 40 u  0.. 20 0 GRADE 10 BLACK D 36 WHITE [2l 73 OTHER CJ 79 GRADE 11 33 68 71 00~------~-----~ 70 - -\"' 60 C\n. . 50 '\n: 40 C ~ 30 - ., a.. 20 10 - 0 __,____.__\"\"--1\"--'-=~'---'---L----L--\"+-=..=~___, GRADE 10 34 68 64 GRADE 11 36 70 69 1993 LITTLE ROCI( SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 .,. 80 .C, a: 1 C u\" 40 0\".. 20 0 GR. 1 GR.2 GR. 3 GR.4 GR. 5 GR. 6 BLACK 0 28 33 32 40 34 45 WHITE 12) 67 72 69 75 70 76 OTHER [J 58 73 70 72 61 77 .,, 60- c a\": '\n\"\n40 C u\" BLACK 0 WHITE tJ OTHER CJ GR. 1 GR. 2 GR. 3 GR. 4 GR. 5 GR. 6 31 33 34 36 32 43 64 70 70 68 67 75 67 74 68 67 72 73 1993 LITTLE ROCI\u0026lt; SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1992 COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK 100 .,,_ 80 .C,: a: 60 .! \n, C: ., 40 u ~., a.. 20 - 0 GRADE 7 GRADE 8 BLACK 0 31 32 WHITE l2J 69 74 OTHER [J 66 78 GRADE 9 35 68 89 .,,_ .C,: 80 a: 60 .! ~ 40 .. a.. 20 BLACK 0 WHITE Q OTHER 0 GRADE 7 GRADE B GRADE 9 33 30 34 71 68 73 78 86 73 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST COMPARISON BY RACE 1993 1992 tXHIBIT U COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK COMPLETE BATTERY PERCENTILE RANK .,, .C, 80 a: 60 .! C ~ 40 0\".. 20 BLACK D WHITE EJ OTHER D GRADE 10 GRADE 11 34 32 74 70 80 69 .,, 60 .C, a: C C) ~ ~ 20 BLACK D WHITE El OTHER 0 GRADE 10 GRADE 11 32 34 70 72 65 70\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_532","title":"Little Rock Schools: Brady Elementary","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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Brady Elementary School, 34.75244, -92.36317"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/1996"],"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","Brady Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Brady Elementary"],"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/532"],"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\nenlightening experiment c- X nie Mackey demonstrates hnuu Kqo John- various colored gels on flashiinhfe ^\u0026lt;1 through ors Wednesriau 1^^  \"^snl'ghts reflect off other cni nrsrl^ Oamocrat-GazMa^teve Kessee schooirmh aSsS^FSis'^ will be presented tonight to eachReady to graduate Adrian Bernard (center) calls on Brady Elementary School in Little Rock. Chappell's mother. Chappell Mosbv (right) for an opinion on how he looks as Ronyha (left) Mosby, was helping the children, including Rick they prepare for graduation Thursday from the sixth grade at Gottschalk (second from left) and Kenneth Aaron.\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\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_566","title":"Little Rock Schools: King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary","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":["1994"],"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","King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary"],"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/566"],"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\nFEB- 4-94 FRI 14:45 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS . No. LR-C-82S66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No, 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion for clarification of King Interdistrict School assignments or, in the alternative, to enforce the agreement of the parties [doc.#1952]. The LRSD states that the parties had drafted an Agreement whereby those LRSD white students who lived outside the King Interdistrict School attendance zone but who had received notice of assignment to that school before August 19, 1993 would be allowed to attend King. However, the attorney for the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua), Mr, John Walker, subsequently withdrew his consent to the Agreement, stating among other things- that several issues would prevent him from signing the Agreement the parties had contemplated.* The LRSD seeks an order enforcing the agreement of the in emphasis and aticndance Mr. Walker states that a larger number of pupils are being assigned to King from outside the Kina attendance zone than the numner he was given, and that Joshua oannoi be a party \"to assignment practices which allow decline in emphasis and .attendance at the ineenltvc schools nor can wo support practises which distort the double funding requirement and desegresatiun requirement of the plan. See Exhibit 4, LRSD's motion for olarification or, in the alternative, to enforce agreement of parties. siJEB-.4-94 FRI 14:45 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 parties based upon its detrimental reliance Otherwise, the LRSD Seeks clarification of the following issues: ^''nejner LRsp white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the court- approved desegregation plans or the spirit and intent the parties in developing those plans\nWhether LRSD white students of 2 . response to question number 1 above is a_ - irmative, whether those LRSD white studeni-.a who are whether those lrsd white students attend King Interdistrict School will permanently assigned or assigned only for the school year\nallov/ed to or in the be 1993-94 3, lrsd white students, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, W 111 ho no VIVI 4-,r^ ____j _ .. ___  Whether students, will be permitted to attend King during the 1994-95 year and beyond\nschool 4. If the answers to the foregoing questions are in the affirmative, whether the LRSD criteria to determine under LRSD white students Interdistrict School\nwill be permitted to develop what circumstances, if any, will be permitted to attend King to 5 . Whether provisions can be made to M-to-M transfer overcome the loss of , . moneys to be sustained by LRSD through permitting LRSD white students to occupy seats which could filled by Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) white students (either this year or in future years)\nand otherwise this 6. Whether provisions can be made for the potential T be incurred by the LRSD in transporting eligible LRSD white students from scattered areas of the city to King. expenses Joshua has filed a response to the LRSD's motion in which it supports the motion for clarification but opposes the alternative request to enforce the agreement of the parties. The Court denies LRSD's motion to enforce the Agreement or for clarification, but addresses herein the King Interdistrict School assignments and issues the following orders. LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the desegregation plans or theFEB- 4-94 FRI 14:46 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans. Regardless of the provisions contained in the August 19, 1993 Agreement, a chief objective of the desegregation plans is that the interdistrict schools be racially balanced. the ideal goal being a student enrollment ration of 50 percent black to white. In this regard, the plans envision that white students attending an LRSD interdistrict school will be recruited primaril from the PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County\nthe plans do not state that only white students from the PCSSD will be allowed to attend King of the interdistrict schools. or any other The LRSD can hardly claim surprise at the Court' conclusion in this regard. At the June 1993 hearing, this Court, while acknowledging that the desegregation plan. envision that white 9, students for the interdistrict schools would be recruited primarily from the PCSSD, stated II [l]et's... work hard to recruit the white students from the county and the black students from the district for [King], and some white students as well from the Little Rock School District for King and make it a successful school, a high quality school that we all want,\" Transcript, at 197. At the August 12, 1993 budget hearing, the Court stated \"I know it's important to get the county students [to King], but also, there might be some Little Rock white students who would like to attend and who could attend under our guidelines that exist.\" Transcript, at 17-13. The Court went on to observe that a lot of questions would be cleared up if there were a firm policy on admitting LRSD white students to King, to which Interim Superintendent Estelle Matthis replied. If I think you're -3-FES- 4-94 FRI 14:46 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 exactly right, your Honor, II Id. at 18. However, despite the persistent urging of this Court and its Monitor, the LRSD did not develop such a policy. This lack of follow-through evidences pervasive pattern of failure to plan and perform that has been Characteristic 6f the LRSD throughout the history of this case. According to figures (attached) which the districts have supplied to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the LRSD has record of placing white intradistrict transfer tudents (and black intradistrict transfers as well) at its interdistrict schools For a a example, Romine Interdistrict School had a total October 1 enrollment for the 1S92-93 school year of 361 students\n62, of the school's 84 white tudents were intradistrict transfers. similarly, Washington has a total October 1 enrollment for the current 1993-94 school year of 721. Of the school's 270 white students. 175 are intradistrict transfers, Likewise, the PCSSD has also accepted intradistrict transfers of both black and white students into its Baker Interdistrict School. Not only has the LRSD always accommodated intradistrict transfers, but the LRSD has promised that LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School. According to the LRSD's 1993-94 calendar of events (issued in pamphlet form), interdistrict schools are II open to their attendance zones and M-to-M transfers from PCSSD and intra district transfers from other LRSD schools. The Court also notes that the King recruitment plan. dated H March 20, 1993, states that it was If designed to enroll black children from the immediate area and white children from Pulaski County as -4- FES- 4-94 FRI 14:47 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 well as Little Rock.\" (Emphasi added.) Thi recruitinent plan designates the major target audiences for recruitment activities. Those audiences include not only PCSSD and the west Little Rock areas of Chenal Valley and Taylor Loop, but also the neighborhood surrounding King, additional zoned areas within the district, and magnet school non-placements. This plan also specifically targets children of employees at the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the state Capitol complex, which is consistent with language in the desegregation plan that touts the location of King as recruiting a plus for this school which is to \", ..serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little LRSD Desegregation Plan, at 148. Neither the Rock. desegregation plans, the LRSD King recruitment plan, recruitment and public relations materials, nor hearing testimony have suggested that recruitment for King would be limited only to w'hite students from PCSSD. This Court has repeatedly stressed that it is critical to successful desegregation for the LRSD to keep its promises to the children and their parents. Indeed, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan acknowledges that \"dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of desegregation. ir and that the districts will \"[kjeep the promises they make,\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 66.) When a district accepts children at a particular school, parents should be able to count on the district making good that acceptance right up to the time the child takes a seat at the school. If the LRSD had effectively done its management job by engaging in -5-ample advance forethought and decision-making, strong follow-through, and unambiguous messages to parents. the district could have prevented the consternation and confusion regarding King assignments that the parties now entreat the Court to sort out. The Court hereby directs the LRSD to develop immediately specific guidelines regarding assignments to the King Interdistrict School that, by extension, apply to its other interdistrict schools. Among other things. these guidelines are to reflect past practices and promises and include intradistrict transf er eligibility criteria for both black and white children\nthey must be uff iciently comprehensive to be applicable to all of the district's interdistrict schools\nthey must be clear and unambiguous enough for district workers and parents to understand\nand, while a specific numeric quota or cap is neither required nor desirable, the guidelines must describe that portion or range of intradistrict transfers that an individual interdistrict school can reasonably accommodate. Because the 1994-95 pre-school recruitment and registration period is at hand, the guidelines must be complete and filed with this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. Also within 30 days. the PCSSD is directed to provide the Court with the guidelines which that district uses in placing students in its own interdistrict schools. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1994 . ICT JUDGE -6-INTER- and INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS to Ilie ELEMENTARY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring February 1994 ReceMng Sc boob Sending District LRSD M RSD PCSSD 19e90 199(W1 1991-92 1992-99 199994 190990 199091 199192 199293 199394 190990 199091 1991-92 co LO co CXI B B W B W B W B w B W B W B W B W B W B W B W B W Lr\u0026gt; Baker 59 0 65 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 1992-93 B 6 W 0 199394 B 5 Vi 2 Crystal Hll WA N/A N/A N/A N/A WA 305 0 339 0 WA WA N/A N/A WA N/A 0 0 0 0 WA N/A N/A WA WA WA 0 0 0 0 King Aomlne Washington N/A 165 261 WA 60 11 N/A 155 210 WA 34 203 N/A 151 204 WA 35 196 N/A ,33 180 WA 62 193 86 84 ,53 41 65 ,75 N/A WA WA WA N/A WA WA WA 0 0 WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 2 WA WA 0 73 0 65 0 64 0 37 N/A N/A 0 6, 0 74 0 65 0 65 * InformaBon nol available N/A - Not Applicabia Note: Aietiough Washington Magnei is not among Ihe six elementar/ interdistricl schools named in th desegregation pfan, it nonetheless functions as an inlerdistrict school under the terms of the settlement agreements and court orders. The chart above is based on the number of students each district sent (not received) to interdistrict schools and is extracted from the most recent information available: c co co co CD I l co LU LRSD: NLflSD: PCSSD: Memos dated November 18,1993 and December 6, 1993 from Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. November 26, 1991 memo and June 4,1993 M-to-M transfer listing from Mabie Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation: district reoorts dated October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1993. Memos dated December 11,1990. December 3,1991, January 12.1993, and December 14,1993 from Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services.RECEIVED \u0026lt;30 ri iLED U.S. DlSraCT COURT cASTERM DISTRICT ARKANSAS FEB 7 199A Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 0 4 1594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JAMES Cy\n) ^Vv, McCORMACK, CLERK -.-'JII OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion for clarification of King Interdistrict School assignments or. in the alternative, to enforce the agreement of the parties [doc.#1952]. The LRSD states that the parties had drafted an Agreement whereby those LRSD white students who lived outside the King Interdistrict School attendance zone but who had received notice of assignment to that school before August 19, 1993 would be allowed to attend King. However, the attorney for the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua), Mr. John Walker, subsequently withdrew his consent to the Agreement, stating among other things that several issues would prevent him from signing the Agreement as the parties had contemplated.' The LRSD seeks an order enforcing the agreement of I the parties based upon its detrimental reliance. Otherwise, the LRSD Mr Walker slates that a larger nuinHcr ol pupils are being assigned to King from outside the King attendance zone than the number he was yiven, and that Joshua cannot be a party \"to tissignmcnt practices which allow decline in al I he inceiuivt mphasis and attendance schools nor can we support practices which distort the double funding requirement and desegregation requirement 01 the plan. See Exhibit 4. LRSDs motion for clarification or, in the alternative, to enforce agreement of parlies. 0  J seeks clarification of the following issues: 1. Whether LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the court- approved desegregation plans or the spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans\n2. If the response to question number 1 above is in the affirmative, allowed to whether those LRSD white students who attend King Interdistrict permanently assigned school year\nor assigned School will are be Whether LRSD white only for the 1993-94 students, other than those currently on the list to attend King Interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King during the 1994-95 school year and beyond\n3 . 4 . If the answers to the foregoing questions are in the affirmative, whether the LRSD will be permitted to develop criteria to determine under what circumstances, if any, LRSD white students will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School\n5. Whether provisions can be made to overcome the loss of M-to-M transfer moneys to be sustained by LRSD through permitting LRSD white students to occupy seats which could otherwise be filled by Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) white students (either this year or in future years)\nand 6. Whether provisions can be made for the potential expenses to be incurred by the LRSD in transporting eligible LRSD white students from scattered areas of the city to King. Joshua has filed a response to the LRSD's motion in which it supports the motion for clarification but opposes the alternative request to enforce the agreement of the parties. The Court denies LRSD's motion to enforce the Agreement or for clarification, but addresses herein the King Interdistrict School assignments and issues the following orders. LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the desegregation plans or the -2-spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans. Regardless of the provisions contained in the August 19, 1993 Agreement, a chief objective of the desegregation plans is that the interdistrict schools be racially balanced, the ideal goal being a student enrollment ration of 50 percent black to white. In this regard, the plans envision that white students attending an LRSD interdistrict school will be recruited primarily from the PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County\nthe plans do not state that only white students from the PCSSD will be allowed to attend King or any other of the interdistrict schools. The LRSD can hardly claim surprise at the Court's conclusion in this regard. At the June 1993 hearing. this Court, while acknowledging that the desegregation plans envision that white 9, students for the interdistrict schools would be recruited primarily from the PCSSD, stated tl [l]et's... work hard to recruit the white students from the county and the black students from the district for [King], and some white students as well from the Little Rock School District for King and make it a successful school, a high quality school that we all want. It Transcript, at 197. At the August 12, 1993 budget hearing, the Court stated \"I know it's important to get the county students [to King], but also, there might be some Little Rock white students who would like to attend and who could attend under our guidelines that exist.\" Transcript, at 17-18. The Court went on to observe that a lot of questions would be cleared up if there were a firm policy on admitting LRSD white students to King, to which Interim Superintendent Estelle Matthis replied, I think you're -3-exactly right, your Honor. II Id. at 18 . However, despite the persistent urging of this Court and its Monitor, the LRSD did not develop such a policy. This lack of follow-through evidences a pervasive pattern of failure to plan and perforin that has been characteristic of the LRSD throughout the history of this case. According to figures (attached) which the districts have supplied to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the LRSD has a record of placing white intradistrict transfer students (and black intradistrict transfers as well) at its interdistrict schools. For example, Romine Interdistrict School had a total October 1 enrollment for the 1992-93 school year of 361 students\n62 of the school's 84 white students were intradistrict transfers. Similarly, Washington has a total October 1 enrollment for the current 1993-94 school year of 721. Of the school's 270 white students. 175 are intradistrict transfers. Likewise, the PCSSD has also accepted intradistrict transfers of both black and white students into its Baker Interdistrict School. Not only has the LRSD always accommodated intradistrict transfers, but the LRSD has promised that LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School. According to the LRSD's 1993-94 calendar of events (issued in pamphlet form), interdistrict schools are \"open to their attendance zones and M-to-M transfers from PCSSD and intra-district transfers from other LRSD schools. If The Court also notes that the King recruitment plan, dated March 20, 1993, states that it was \"designed to enroll black children from the immediate area and white children from Pulaski County as -4-v/ell as Little Rock. It (Emphasis added.) This recruitment plan designates the major target audiences for recruitment activities. Those audiences include not only PCSSD and the west Little Rock areas of Chenal Valley and Taylor Loop, but also the neighborhood surrounding King, additional zoned areas within the district. and magnet school non-placements. This plan also specifically targets children of employees at the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the state capitol complex. which is consistent with language in the desegregation plan that touts the location of King as a recruiting plus for this school which is to tl ...serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. II LRSD Desegregation Plan, at 148 . Neither the desegregation plans, the LRSD King recruitment plan, recruitment and public relations materials, nor hearing testimony have suggested that recruitment for King would be limited only to white students from PCSSD. This Court has repeatedly stressed that it is critical to successful desegregation for the LRSD to keep its promises to the children and their parents. Indeed, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan acknowledges that \"dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of desegregation. and that the districts will II [kjeep the promises they make.\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 66.) When a district accepts children at a particular school. parents should be able to count on the district making good that acceptance right up to the time the child takes a seat at the school. If the LRSD had effectively done its management job by engaging in -5-ample advance forethought and decision-making, strong follow-through, and unambiguous messages to parents. the district could have prevented the consternation and confusion regarding King assignments that the parties now entreat the Court to sort out. The Court hereby directs the LRSD to develop immediately specific guidelines regarding assignments to the King Interdistrict School that, by extension, apply to its other interdistrict schools. Among other things, these guidelines are to reflect past practices and promises and include intradistrict transfer eligibility criteria for both black and white children\nthey must be suf f iciently comprehensive to be applicable to all of the district's interdistrict schools\nthey must be clear and unambiguous enough for district workers and parents to understand\nand. while a specific numeric quota or cap is neither required nor desirable. the guidelines must describe that portion or range of intradistrict transfers that an individual interdistrict school can reasonably accommodate. Because the 1994-95 pre-school recruitment and registration period is at hand, the guidelines must be complete and filed with this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. Also within 30 days, the PCSSD is directed to provide the Court with the guidelines which that district uses in placing students in its own interdistrict schools. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1994. ____________ CT JUDGE docket SHEET W -6- COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 'BY A/r INTER- and INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS to the ELEMENTARY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring February 1994 Receiving Schools Sending District LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 19e90 199041 1991-92 1992-93 199344 196940 199041 199142 199243 199344 198940 199041 199142 199243 199344 Baker Crystal Hill King Romine Washington B W B W B B B VI B W B VI B VI B W B VI B W B VI B VI B VI B VI N/A N/A N/A N/A 59 0 65 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 6 0 5 2 N/A N/A 305 0 339 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 86 41 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 152 165 261 60 11 * Information not available 155 210 34 151 35 133 62 84 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 10 0 2 203 204 196 180 193 158 175 N/A N/A 0 73 0 65 0 64 0 37 N/A N/A 0 61 0 74 0 65 0 65 N/A- Not Applicable Note: Although Washington Magnet is not among the six elementary interdistrict schools named in the desegregation plan, it nonetheless functions as an interdistrict school under the terms of the settlement agreements and court orders. The chart above is based on the number of students each district sent (not received) to interdistrict schools and is extracted from the most recent information available: LRSD: Memos dated November 18, 1993 and December 6, 1993 from Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. NLRSD: November 26, 1991 memo and June 4,1993 M-to-M transfer listing from Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\ndistrict reports dated October 1, 1992 and October 1,1993. PCSSD: Memos dated December 11,1990, December 3, 1991, January 12,1993, and December 14,1993 from Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services. IFEB- 4-94 FRI 14:45 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS . No. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court is the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) motion for clarification of King Interdistrict School assignments or, in the alternative. to enforce the agreement of the parties [doc.#1952]. The LRSD states that the parties had drafted an Agreement whereby those LRSD white students who lived outside the King Interdistrict School attendance zone but who had received notice of assignment to that school before August 19, 1993 would be allowed to attend King. However, the attorney for the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua), Mr. John Walker, subsequently withdrew his consent to the Agreement, stating among other things that several issues would prevent him from signing the Agreement as the parties had contemplated.* The LRSD seeks an order enforcing the agreement of the the number he was of ihc plan. Mr. Walker states that a larger number of pupils are being assigned to King from ouLside the King attendance zone than '....... \"\u0026gt;''0''. an!* thnl Joshua cannot be a party \"to aignmcnt practices which allow decline in emphasis and aitcndance at Ihc incentive school* nor cun wc support practices which distort the double funding requirement and desegregaLion riiiircmcnt ihz- nisrt ' Sec Exhibit 4, LRSDs motion for clarification or, in the alternative, to enforce agreement of parties.F.EB- 4-94 FRI 14:45 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 parties based upon its detrimental reliance. Otherwise, the LRSD seeks clarification of the following issues: 1. wnetner LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating f approved desegregation plans or the spirit and intent\"of the parties in developing those plans\nWhether the court- _ If the response to question number 1 above is in the affirmative, whether those LRSD white students who are allowed to attend King Interdistrict School will be permanently assigned or assigned only for the school year\nwhether those Lrsd white students who School will 1993-94 2 . 3, Whether LRSD white students, other than those currently on the list to attend King interdistrict School, will be permitted to attend King during the 1994-95 school year and beyond\n4. If the answers to the foregoing questions are in the affirmative, whether the LRSD will be permitted to develop criteria to determine under what circumstances, if any, LRSD white students will be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School\nto 5. Whether provisions can be made to overcome the loss of M-to-M transfer moneys to be sustained by LRSD through permitting LRSD white students to occupy seats which could otherwise be filled by Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) white students (either this year or future years)\nand in 5. Whether provisions can be made for the potential expenses to be incurred by the LRSD in eligible LRSD white students from scattered city to King. transporting areas of the Joshua has filed response to the LRSD's motion in which it supports the motion for clarification but opposes the alternative request to enforce the agreement of the parties. The Court denies LRSD's motion to enforce the Agreement or for clarification, but a addresses herein the King Interdistrict School assignments and issues the following orders. LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the desegregation plans or theFEB- 4-94 FRI 14:46 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 spirit and intent of the parties in developing those plans. Regardless of the provisions contained in the August 19, 1993 Agreement, a chief objective of the desegregation plans is that the interdistrict schools be racially balanced. the ideal goal being a student enrollment ration of 50 percent black to white. In this regard, the plans envision that white students attending an LRSD interdistrict school will be recruited primaril from the PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County\nthe plans do not state that only white students from the PCSSD will be allowed to attend King of the interdistrict schools. or any other The LRSD can hardly claim surprise at the Court's conclusion in this regard. At the June 1993 hearing, this Court, while acknowledging that the desegregation plans envision that white 9 , students for the interdistrict schools would be recruited primarily from the PCSSD, stated II [l]et's... work hard to recruit the white students from the county and the black students from the district for [King], and some white students as well from the Little Rock School District for King and make it a successful school, a high quality school that we all want.\" Transcript, at 197. At the August 12, 1993 budget hearing, the Court stated II I know it's important to get the county students [to King], but also, there might be some Little Rock white students who would like to attend and who could attend under our guidelines that exist,\" Transcript, at 17-18, The Court went on to observe that a lot of questions would be cleared up if there were a firm policy on admitting LRSD white students to King, to which Interim Superintendent Estelle Matthis replied. I think you're -3-FES- 4-94 FRI 14:46 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 exactly right, your Honor.\" Id. at IS. However, despite the persistent urging of this Court and its Monitor, the LRSD did not develop such a policy. This lack of follow-through evidences pervasive pattern of failure to plan and perforin that has been characteristic of the LRSD throughout the history of this case. According to figures (attached) which the districts have supplied to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the LRSD has a record of placing white intradistrict transfer students (and black intradistrict transfers as well) at its interdistrict schools For example, Romine Interdistrict School had a total October 1 enrollment for the 1992-93 school year of 361 students\nwhite students were intradistrict transfers. 62, of the school's 84 Similarly, Washington has a total October 1 enrollment for the current 1993-94 school year of 721. Of the school's 270 white students. 175 are intradistrict transfers. Likewise, the PCSSD has also accepted intradistrict transfers of both black and white students into its Baker a Interdistrict School. Not only has the LRSD always accommodated intradistrict transfers, but the LRSD has promised that LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School. According to the LRSD's 1993-94 calendar of events (issued in pamphlet form), interdistrict schools are \" open to their attendance zones and M-to-M transfers from PCSSD and intra-district transfers from other LRSD schools. The Court also notes that the King recruitment plan. dated K March 20, 1993, states that it was IT designed to enroll black children from the immediate area and white children from Pulaski County as -4-FEB- 4-94 FRI 14:47 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 well as Little Rock. If (Emphasis added.) This recruitment plan designates the major target audiences for recruitment activities. Those audiences include not only PCSSD and the west Little Rock areas of Chenal Valley and Taylor Loop, but also the neighborhood surrounding King, additional zoned areas within the district. and magnet school non-placements. This plan also specifically targets children of employees at the Arkansas Children's Hospital and the state capitol complex. which is consistent with language in the desegregation plan that touts the location of King as a recruiting plus for this school which is to \" ..serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little LRSD Desegregation Plan, at 148, Neither the Rock.\" desegregation plans, the LRSD King recruitment plan, recruitment and public relations materials, nor hearing testimony have suggested that recruitment for King would be limited only to white students from PCSSD. This Court has repeatedly stressed that it is critical to successful desegregation for the LRSD to keep its promises to the children and their parents. Indeed, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan acknowledges that \"dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of desegregation,\" and that the districts will II [k]eep the promises they make,\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, at 66.) When a district accepts children at a particular school. parents should be able to count on the district making good that acceptance right up to the time the child takes a seat at the school. If the LRSD had effectively done its management job by engaging in -5-ample advance forethought and decision-making, strong follow-through, and unambiguous messages to parents, the district could have prevented the consternation and confusion regarding King assignments that the parties now entreat the Court to sort out. The Court hereby directs the LRSD to develop immediately specific guidelines regarding assignments to the King Interdistrict School that, by extension, apply to its other interdistrict schools. Among other things, these guidelines are to reflect past practices and promises and include intradistrict transfer eligibility criteria for both black and white children\nthey must be sufficiently comprehensive to be applicable to all of the district's interdistrict schools\nthey must be clear and unambiguous enough for district workers and parents to understand\nwhile a specific numeric quota or cap is neither required nor desirable, the guidelines must and, describe that portion or range of intradistrict transfers that an individual interdistrict school can reasonably accommodate. Because the 1994-95 pre-school recruitment and registration period is at hand, the guidelines must be complete and filed with this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this Order. Also within 30 days. the PCSSD is directed to provide the Court with the guidelines which that district uses in placing students in its own interdistrict schools. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1994 . -6- United '^states distric ICT JUDGEINTER- and INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS to the ELEMENTARY INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS Prepared by the Office of Desegregalion IWonitorififl February 1994 HeceMng Schcwfe Sending District LRSD M.RSO PCSSD 1969-90 199091 1991-92 1992^ 1993-94 19e90 1990^ 1991-92 1992^ 1933^ 190990 199091 1991-92 co LO CO LO z: x \u0026lt;r: CQ co CD I I CD Ll) * Baker Crystal Mil King Romine Washington 59 65 79 N/A N/A 165 281 N/A WA N/A N/A N/A 305 339 WA N/A N/A N/A 60 11 * InformaBon not available N/A N/A N/A WA N/A N/A 86 41 N/A N/A N/A 155 210 34 203 151 204 35 196 133 180 62 84 65 193 158 175 N/A N/A Vf N/A N/A 73 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A M/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 65 64 37 N/A N/A 61 74 N/A- NotAppticabJe 1992-93 N/A N/A 10 65 1993-94 152 65 Note: Although Washington Magnet is not among the six elemenlar/ inlerdistricl schools named in Iha desegregation plan, it nonetheless lunctions as an interdsstrict school under the terms of the settlement agreemenls and court orders. The chart above is based on the number of students each district sent (not received) to interdistrict schools and is extracted from the most recent information available: LRSD\nNLHSD: PCSSD: Memos dated November 18,1993 and December 6, 1993 from Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. dat^^Octo^ a/^^CW^b^^^ I^W Ransfer listing from Mabie Bynum, Assistant Superintendwit for Desegregation\ndistrict reports Mernos dated December 11,1990. December 3,1991, January 12,1993, and December 14,1993 from Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services. B W B W B W 0 B W 0 0 B 0 0 B 0 0 W 0 0 B 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 B 0 W 0 B 4 0 W 0 B 8 0 0 W 0 4 B 6 0 0 0 W 0 0 B 5 0 0 0 0 W 2 0 2'3 d.A IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Cfiica cf Dcsanr LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1'fr/f P/o. C^ il^\nf* ' '  i* IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Chico of Desegr :vi- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1Ciiics oi Desegregation 2 2 1994 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASrs WESTERN DIVISION a 2 0 1594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JI ./st iMv iLO t'I1 , l^ 'PLAINTIFF Ey\nV.\nrx LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN For its motion, plaintiff. Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans require the establishment within LRSD of three interdistrict schools Romine, King and Stephens. The plans require that two of those schools, King and Stephens, be located in the downtown Little Rock area. Romine and King schools have been established as interdistrict schools. 2. Since the parties agreed that LRSD would establish the King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools in the downtown Little Rock area. there have been significant changes in factual conditions which warrant modification of that agreement. First, Washington Elementary School, which the parties agreed would be an incentive school. presently operates as an interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. Second, there has been a significant movement of population out of the area in which the parties planned RECEIVPT) tPR 2 2 Office ot Desegregation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,. Moniwnnfl EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS' WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL T ourxT T /-.RKAnSAS gu APR 20 PH 5= 53 plaintiff U.S BY. CfJ\nA... DcFUT'i C-Liia DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION TO DESIGNATE KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL A MAGNET SCHOOL For its motion, plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The parties filed a joint motion on February 13, 1992 seeking to designate Crystal Hill, King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools as magnet schools. The court \"acknowledge(d) that the 1 magnet designation has been powerful recruiting tool\". but a preferred to consider the issue on a case-by-case basis so as not to risk damage to \"the image of magnet schools as champions of distinctive, quality programs that are thoroughly and thoughtfully planned, implemented and maintained. Order, March 5, 1992. The H court approved the designation of the Crystal Hill Interdistrict School as a magnet school, but deferred ruling on the King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools. 2. During the summer before King begin operating as an interdistrict school, LRSD again asked the court to designate King a magnet school. Docket #1861 The court noted that \"the King facilities and programs hold great promise for achieving magnet caliber\", but expressed concern about delays in the development ofKing Interdistrict School and granted magnet status \"only provisionally\". Order, July 9, 1993, P- 2. The court also established the standard for reviewing future applications for magnet status for King: \"The court will approve full magnet status for the new school at such time that the parties can demonstrate that King is fully functioning interdistrict school a displaying the characteristics of a quality magnet as previously set forth in the case record.\" Order, July 9, 1993 pp. 2-3. 3. King is now a fully functioning interdistrict school which has all of the characteristics of a quality magnet school. Those characteristics are described in Exhibit A to this motion. which is a report on the program status at King prepared by King principal Sadie Mitchell. King should now be designated a magnet school. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying brief, LRSD prays for an order granting it permission to designate the King Interdistrict School a \"magnet school\". 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 By: Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School A Magnet School has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April 1993. 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 Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall ' Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Helleir MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. INTERDISTRICT MAGNET* SCHOOL PROGRAM STATUS FEBRUARY 18, 1994 The Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet* School provides a unic^e, interdisciplinary learning opportunity through \"High - 6th grade students. Intensity Learning\" for over 540 PreK An innovative and exciting theme for each nine weeks is selected. Utilizing the school-wide thematic approach to learning, curriculum and all learning activities are related directly to this the theme. Every student engages in active hands-on learning to meet their individual needs, interests, and abilities. Since the core content areas are taught through themes, tlic interdisciplinary approach encourages students to make the natural the connections in their learning. music, classes. art. physical education. These connections are enriched in Specialists implementing the curriculum. assist and the gifted and talented teachers in correlating and The specialists provide intense support for teachers as well as direct and indirect specialized instruction for students. use of these specialists will provide curriculum specialists and Creative other activities for intensified instructional for teachers through team teaching, teaching, peer teaching, etc. staff development demonstration will be inservice for teachers. Each specialist-directed experience Teachers are expected to replicate through demonstration teaching or specialized content area instruction. The educational program at King Interdistrict Magnet* is centered around the latest educational advances and technology, instructional features include: Added / Integrated Language Arts Program for first grade (Primary Level) - A comprehensive language arts program for first grade students, incorporating reading, writing, listening skills and the latest technology  Windows on Science - A K-8 videodisc-based science program that provides visuals and hands-on activities for a wide variety of science topics / Golden Book Encyclopedia - An electronic encyclopedia for the primary grades that includes pictures, sound, and animation Exhibit A to Motion to * Provisional Designate King School A Magnet School InterdistrictMartin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet* School Program Status February 18, 1994 Page 2 Compton's Electronic Encyclopedia - An electronic version of the well-known encyclopedia, enhanced with animation, sound, and speeches J Videodisc - Interactive software used for instruction in the core areas of the curriculum 7 Automated Library - Access to the library's resources through an electronic catalog and circulation system Portfolio Assessment - Teachers will judge student performance as it is actually being demonstrated by the learner's (oral) presentation, conducting an experiment, the process used to solve problems, etc. Using portfolios, teachers will evaluate specific examples of learners' performances through the use of classroom interactions, projects, writing samples, etc. The portfolios will be used to provide feedback to parents and students and to identify and plan future instructional needs of the students. The instructional program will focus highly on the integration of the revised curriculum. Staff members will maximize instructional time through the following: use of Teaching content of subject areas together - design active linkage between fields of knowledge Maximum use of instructional management system - eliminate the re-teaching of skills previously mastered by students Accelerated progression through the instructional program at fast paced and intensified rates to accommodate individual student needs  School-wide thematic approach to learning - introducing an innovative and exciting theme during each nine weeks Expanded student learning through extension skills contained in revised curriculum All teaching and related activities for students directly tied to the curriculum and/or themes Broad range of curricular experiences that reflect both content focus and an interdisciplinary orientation aMartin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet* School Program Status February 18, 1994 Page 3 Teachers as active curriculiun designers Teachers' decisions directly affecting students in the day-to- day operations of the classroom Highly structured school-wide discipline plan striving for excellence in education, King Interdistrict Magnet* encourages students and parents to become actively involved in the learning process. I \\kingstat.caThese additional programs and activities are organized and being implemented: Science Fairs Quiz Bowl/Invention Convention/Geography Bee/Math Olympiad Will permit students to demonstrate science skills while following guidelines, and learning the elements of display and presentation. Participation in local, state, and national programs encourage mastery of skills, a purpose for learning, and an atmosphere of friendly in- school and inter-school competition. a purpose Economics America Competition Wellness Week Career Week Red Ribbon Week Annual Talent Show Earth Day Art Physical Education Science Laboratory A national program to promote a beginning interest in economic principles._______________ Places emphasis on good health and safety and introduces community resources. Permits students to explore work options and required skills, this encourages students to establish goals.______________________ Provides experiences to promote student participation in a drug-free lifestyle.________ Allows children and staff members to share skills and abilities which otherwise might not be displayed during the school day.__________ Activities to inspire students' interest in the protection and conservation of earth resources. Art as a form of expression and creating will be utilized at all age levels. An art teacher will provide direction and age appropriate activities, as well as introducing multicultural art styles and art history. Planned activities will allow students to release energy, build muscular strength, and practice skills necessary for the proper physical growth of children. These activities will be planned to inspire a lifelong eagerness for physical health. , Under the direction of a science supervisor ---- -- **.*.*** M V XOUX f and in collaboration with classroom teachers, the science laboratory will enable students to see and participate in the wonders of science. Hands-on experiments and visual demonstrations will accomodate diverse student learning styles. The laboratory use will encourage and assist student participation in the annual styles. science fair.rLibrary Media Program The automated library, ind state of the art collection of materials, will allow the library media specialist and staff to instruct students in the skills necessary for information retrieval for the 21st century. The program will begin with literature appreciation in the four-year-old class. It will progress and add information skills as age appropriate. The media center will provide assistance to all staff members in their search for books and media to support learning. The media specialist will work directly with teachers to plan and provide point-of-need instruction for students. She/he will promote reading and Gifted/Talented Program sponsor activities to inspire students to be lifelong library users. All students in K-2 classes will be provided 30 minutes per week of focused observation and enrichment by the gifted specialist and the classroom teacher cooperatively. Identified students in grades 3-6 will be provided 120 minutes of direct instruction by the gifted specialist(s). Gifted specialist(s) will work with classroom teachers and curriculum specialists to maximize classroom learning experience for students. Instructional and learning experiences will be correlated to the instructional themes and appropriate process skills. 56 Station Computer Laboratory The large laboratory will allow for whole class instruction while allowing access to other students doing independent study and staff members during planning time. such relaxed, Four-Year-Old Classes Kindergarten Classes easy access to computers will allow staff and students to incorporate them into their lifestyle. Under the direction of early childhood teachers and in a structured learning environment, children will be provided activities and experiences in which they may choose to participate. Teachers will provide students will basic skills for learning and socialization while allowing for individual levels of growth and Special Education development._________________________ Identified students will be provided a curriculum which is functional and appropriate to their age and physical or mental challenge. This will be provided in a least restrictive environment. Nifty Nutrition/Body Works A healthy body runs on good food and the information -is presented in a lighthearted manner with samples of good foods provided by the cafeteria.CARE Program Parent Center Tutoring Program Mentoring Program Peer Tutoring Music Program Field Trips Newspaper Staff before- and after-school activities and recreation program provides in a secure atmosphere The Pent Center will provide a place for parents and volunteers to visit. parenting, community resources and continuing education win be Information provided. After-school programs will be offered periodically throughout the school supportin^^ewiSorSr^* Minimum Performance and Stanford ^~t. The Computer lab will be , 6th grade students to Test. Achievement during lunch breaks. available for use before school and The use of adult role models models has proven ^^ growth and development of students. Mentors provide support and counseling to students in need. Students helping students is a way of reinforcing learning learning. Both students will benefit from the activity. j^nowledge, and the other''increased^sSf-esSpm. Under the direction of a ' teacher, students will learn integrate different styles of the components a certified music to appreciate and music as well as . . necessary for the creating of . , Activities will concentrate student participation to e\nlove of music and discover children of all music. on active encourage a life time musical talents in socio-economic levels. J ^ield trips will be used to enhance learninc ^roaden cultural experiences, t-n ' hands-on experiences, to provide experiences for knowledge of the SSnX ^he development of coping skills for students. cu specialists will schedule field levels. Each grade level will i variety of local and out of A Martin Luther King cus after targeted 6th grade field trip to the Martin (Memphis, Tennessee). Curriculum . trips for grade experience a town field trips. museum will be established students return from a Luther King Center Will oversee the publication -_ _ , . - ------1 of school event\u0026lt;! jji conjunction with the school events partners.choir Will learn choral presentation and performing as a group. They will represent the school at community functions and perform for their peers and PTA. Art club Science Club Will give students the chance to work on projects which require more time or teacher direction than usual as well as providing student produced art work for special occasion. Science activities especially planned for groups of interested students. School Ambassadors Direct visitors and assist them with euiy needs while they are in the school. Just Say No Club Debate Team Cheerleaders An anti-drug program offering drug education and peer support, training in handling real life situations involving pressure to use drugs. Will allow students to learn the basics of debating and researching a topic. Will give those students not on the team a means of representing the school. They will be an example of proper school pride and behavior. Flag Team Monitors the daily display of our flag and patriotism of the staff and students. Good Times Club (Incentive Program) An incentive program with activities for consistently well behaved students. Gymnastics Team A physical activity which most students can enjoy. Professional guidance can ensure safety student Council and proper gymnastic skills._______________ Gives students a chance to experience the democratic process through the election of officers . It gives those elected the Basketball Team opportunity to learn leadership skills. Sixth graders will compete against other schools in basketball. This increases school pride as well as physical abilities.These programs were added since school started: G.R.A.N.D. The G.R.A.N.D. Program promotes high standards and has effectively applied new concepts and techniques that captures the students attention and instills in them a sense of value that controls the quality of the most crucial of all variables contributing to the realization of goals, i.e., self-esteem coupled with positive control of emotions. This basic concept is the I Monthly Parenting classes Martin's Mentors formula for the G.R.A.N.D. Program and the framework for the longer-term goal of convincing the student to stay in school, set worthy goals, and resist gang activity.________ The King Counselors have established a monthly parenting program. The sessions address various topics such as parenting techniques, discipline, building self-esteem, and test taking and study skills.____________________ Students from fifth and sixth grade classes provide enrichment and tutoring to the primary grades on their Ixinch breaks. on a volunteer basis. This program is Family Life The Family Life Program has a curriculum that is age appropriate and includes information and materials on the following topics: 1) Self-esteem 2) Communication skills 3) Decision making skills 4) Reproductive health care including AIDS education A special teacher, along with the school counselor and nurse, will be working with all the students in the program. Graces Class The 4th, Sth, and 6th grade girls are participating in the Graces program. This Pride program is designed to help the girls develop social skills to conduct themselves in a ladylike manner, and to take care of their bodies. All of these factors will result in promoting the girls' self-esteem._________________________ Club PRIDE is a drug prevention program for 2nd and 3rd grade students at King courages students to reach out to their friends, youn students and the community with an assertive younger Staff choir drug-free message. Club PRIDE builds positive peer power, leadership, teamwork, and effective communication skills. The foundation of Club PRIDE is knowledge of the personal and social effects of drugs._____________________________ Our faculty choir was formed to enhance school spirit and staff relations. The choir will perform at the Brotherhood Program in February and at the Faculty-Parent Talent show in March.Total Number of Students Little Rock Students Pulaski County Students_________ Students Not from Pulaski County Blacks Whites Total Certified Staff BA Degrees BA + working on Masters MA MA + Partners in Education: Arkansas Children's Hospital Women In Energy Twin City Bank Wendy's of Little Rock______ Total No  Volunteer Hours si nr-a B I . r I RECEn\u0026lt;5S0 APR 2 2 1994 C\" cn IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR: Office of Desegregation Monitoring EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR WESTERN DIVISION ANS^ ,cbiSRi'Riiy ?'j?T HKAKSAS 54 APR 20 PH 5:50 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT U^rCiSTKi BY_______ , PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 DEPUTY CbthK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DESIGNATE KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL A MAGNET SCHOOL The parties have previously agreed (Joint Motion, February 13, 1992) and this court has found that the magnet designation has been a powerful recruiting tool. Order, March 5, 1992. In resonse to I b' a previous LRSD motion, the court found that \"the King facilities and programs hold great promise for achieving magnet caliber\", but concerns about delays in the development of King Interdistrict School and the integrity of the magnet designation caused the court to grant only provisional magnet status. King Interdistrict School is now nearing the end of its first year of operation as a fully functioning interdistrict school and has displayed the characteristics of a quality magnet program. Those characteristics are described by King's principal in Exhibit A to the accompanying motion. King is offering a high quality education program in a new facility and is deserving of the magnet designation. Designating King a magnet school will further the goals and expectations set forth in the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans. 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 Bvrx Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief In Support of Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School A Magnet School has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April 1993. 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 1 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Helle:hay 21994 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 2 9 Office of Desegregatoi tv.onucung LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WESTERN DIVISION 8y\n, V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an extension of time until May 12, 1994 in which to respond to Little Rock School District's motions filed on April 20, 1994 and received by undersigned counsel on April 25, 1994 regarding the following: 1) Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan\n2) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School a Magnet\nand 3) Motion for Approval of Four Year Old Program Sites. For their reasons, Joshua states: 1. Undersigned counsel has not had the opportunity to devote the necessary time towards the preparation of response to said motions due to other trials and discovery commitments that had already been previously scheduled. 2. Opposing counsel has been contacted and has authorized counsel to state that they have no objection to this request for extension. 3. Said motion is being made in good faith, and is not being made for the purpose of delay. Wherefore, Joshua respectfully prays the Court to grant theextension of time, up to and including May 12, 1994. Respectfully, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 31^-3153 72206 c-John W. Walker Wa 1  Rak MnC Kd f Bar NoC 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the fo:^going has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel on this .,39 April, 1994. JpHn W. WalkerRECEJVSr\u0026gt; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 1 5 J994 OHica of Cessgrsgaiion Mcniiof.'r? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO\n1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS Notice of Filincr/Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD or \"District\"), for its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines, pursuant to the order of this Court, states: 1. By order filed and entered on February 4, 1994, this Court required the LRSD to develop and file specific guidelines regarding assignments to interdistrict schools in the LRSD. The order provided that the guidelines must be complete and filed within thirty (30) days from the date of the order. As such, the deadline was Sunday, March 6, 1994. 2. On Wednesday, March 2, 1994, counsel for the LRSD requested and was granted ten (10) additional days within which to file the required guidelines. Accordingly, the LRSD had through and including Wednesday, March 16, 1994.LRSD Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines March 16, 1994 Page 2 3 . Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the LRSD Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines as developed by the District's Office of Desegregation and submitted through the Superintendent of the LRSD. 4. Counsel for the LRSD has been authorized by the administration of the LRSD to submit Exhibit 1 as its student assignment guidelines for interdistrict schools located in the LRSD. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines. Respectfully Submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT B- L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing/Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on March 16, the following, except as otherwise indicated: 1994, upon Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 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 First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines It is the intent of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") that LRSD interdistrict schools exist primarily to bring non-black students from surrounding school districts together with black students from the LRSD. LRSD non-biack students may attend interdistrict schools in the LRSD as outlined in the Districts assignment guidelines. The guidelines below will apply to ail interdistrict schools in the LRSD. 1. 2. The assignment guidelines are consistent with both the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Plan with reference to the following sections: a) b) There will be established interdistrict schools which shall seek to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal of these interdistrict schools to be 50 percent black/white. Proposed interdistrict schools shall be phased-in to these ratios over time. (Interdistrict Plan, p.3) This plan will permit the treatment of interdistrict transfers (including the NLRSD) where students are moving from a situation where their race is a greater proportion of the total student body of a school to a school where their race is a lesser proportion of the student body of a school as Interdistrict Majority-to-Minority transfers under the Courts Order. (Interdistrict Plan, p. 11, Potential Interdistrict M-to-M Enhancements) The selection process will be as follows: a) Black students from the schools attendance zone^ will be assigned up to 51% of capacity at each grade level. If demand exceeds capacity, a lottery will be conducted to determine assignments. Students who cannot be assigned because of capacity will be assigned to the closest school with capacity which meets racial balance requirements. Their names will, however, be placed on a waiting list for the school. If the students closest school with capacity is an incentive school, that student may choose to attend that incentive school where such an assignment would not inhibit the initial reservation of seats for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. (However, these students still maintain their option to be assigned to an elementary area school in accordance with desegregation considerations.) ^These guidelines assume that interdistrict schools will be located in predominately black attendance zones.Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines Page 2 b) c) d) Non-black students from the schools attendance zone will be assigned. Non-black students from Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and beyond Pulaski County will be assigned through the Majority-to-Minority transfer process or appropriate State statutes. Seats will be reserved up to 49% of capacity as described by the LRSD Plan, page 147. After the winter pre-registration (normally held in or around February of each year), the number of seats reserved for PCSSD may be reduced to not lower than 40% of capacity or to that percent over 40% which is occupied by PCSSD students on that date. The remaining seats between 40% and 49% may then be made available for LRSD non-black students. However, LRSD non-black students will only be permitted to transfer to an LRSD interdistrict school where it does not cause the racial balance of the sending school to fall outside of acceptable racial balance. Children of staff members will be assigned after attendance zone and PCSSD students are placed. Transfers are subject to desegregation guidelines and the Interdistrict Plan, p. 141, Transfer of Children of Employees. 3. 4. Those LRSD students currently attending an LRSD interdistrict school may remain until they matriculate out of the sixth grade. However, the siblings of those students may not be assigned to an interdistrict school unless such an assignment complies with these Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines. In no event wUl non-black students from the LRSD, PCSSD or elsewhere be aUowed to enroll in an LRSD interdistrict school where to do so would cause that schools enrollment to shift from being majority black (i.e. at least 50% +1) to majority white, thereby negatively affecting the interdistrict M-to-M funding status of that LRSD interdistrict school. IRECSSVED may 1 7 1994 Otfics oi Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS s. DISTRlCTcoJar WESTERN DIVISION E-ASTSPn OiSTRh'TARKANa a. T-i 4 S 3 tots M/.Y 1 \u0026lt; I-'Z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. ,ME3 W. UO. LR-C-82-866 i: OEP CLEiiX PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO LRSD PENDING MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT The Joshua Intervenors do interpose the following regarding the pending motions before the Court: 1) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School a Magnet\n2) Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan\nand 3) Motion for Approval of Four Year Old Program Sites. Joshua has no objection to King Interdistrict School being designated a Magnet school. Because of Little Rock chool District's failure to respond to Joshua regarding the resolution of the Stephen School issue. we respectfully request the Court to defer action on LRSD's other pending motions until after a hearing or after such time the Eighth (Sth) Circuit rules on the pending appeal. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206  ACERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel of record on this 16th day of May, 1994 . ( J- r John W. WalkerIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER FILED district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS JUN 2 8 1994 JAMES By.-. iCORMACK, CLERK OEf^CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are two motions which the Court now addresses: (1) motion by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for approval of four-year old program sites [doc.#2147], and (2) motion of the LRSD to designate King Interdistrict School a magnet school [doc.# 2162]. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that each of these motions should be and hereby is granted. I. The LRSD seeks approval of eight sites for additional four- year-old programs for the 1994-95 school year. In support of its motion, the LRSD submitted on April 21, 1994 a revised list of the sites it has selected to complete its obligations for four-year-old programs during the 1994-95 school year in accordance with this Court's May 1, 1992 order. Objections to the proposed sites which had been raised by the Joshua Intervenors were dropped during a June 7, 1994 hearing on Stephens School. 2 2 2,5In selecting the sites, the LRSD states that it considered schools that are racially imbalanced and difficult to desegregate, and that it also focused on areas which have a very high concentration of low income families. The district also submits that it chose those locations it believes will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance. Based on these considerations, the LRSD selected the following elementary school sites for the additional four-year-old programs: 4 .--Badgett: One additional class added by using space that is available within the building. 2. Bale: One additional class added by using space that is available within the building through the reassignment of classroom space (classroom space used for physical education on rainy days and for psychological testing). 3. Fair Park: One additional class added by installing a trailer, which would free up a classroom within the building. 4. Geyer Springs: One additional class added by offering only two kindergarten classes. The LRSD states that although it added a third kindergarten class after the start of the 1993-94 school year, the majority of students assigned to that class were from outside the school's attendance zones. Accordingly, states the LRSD, other assignments consistent with the desegregation plan should be available in the event non-attendance zone kindergarten students need to be accommodated during the 1994-95 school year. 1 5. Mabelvale: One additional class added by using a room available due to matriculating seventh grade students. 26. Watson: One additional class added by using space within the building obtained through sharing space with the Chapter I teacher (who is present three days a week) and the G/T teacher (who is present two and one-half days a week). 7. Woodruff: One additional class added by using space available within the building, 8. Washington: One additional class added by using space within the building. The-LRSD asks for a court order approving the locations, number of classes, and other terms as set forth above. Noting that these program additions will result in services to the total number of four-year-old children which the LRSD originally committed to serve under the terms of its desegregation plan, the Court grants the motion. II. By order dated July 9, 1993, the Court noted that the development of the King Interdistrict School \"has been rife with delays, including those of site selection, theme identification and development, attendance zone delineation, staff hiring, and student recruitment\nconstruction lags have been such that the building still may not be finished by the date students are to begin the 1993-94 fall term.\" The Court noted that \"[w]hile the King facilities and programs hold great promise for achieving magnet caliber, at this time the Court will only provisionally grant the motion to designate King Interdistrict School a magnet school. The LRSD may recruit students to the school on the basis of its 3provisional status only.\" The Court stated, however, that it would approve full magnet status for the new school at such time that the parties could demonstrate that King is a fully functioning interdistrict school displaying the characteristics of a quality magnet as previously set forth in the case record. In the motion now before the Court, the LRSD states that the King Interdistrict School has become fully functioning a interdistrict school which has all of the characteristics of a qualityHuagnet school. The LRSD asks that the King Interdistrict School be designated a magnet school. The Court notes that during its first year of operation in 1993-94, King failed to achieve an enrollment that is within the racial balance guidelines for interdistrict schools. Black children comprised 65% of King's students, a proportion that lies outside the 40 to 60 percent enrollment ratio target set forth in the desegregation plans. Preliminary LRSD registration figures for the 1994-95 school year dated May 11, 1994 indicate that King's black enrollment is still not within the 40 to 60 percent range. Indeed, none of the LRSD's three elementary interdistrict schools achieved a racially balanced student body during the 1993-94 school year, and the preliminary registration figures show that all three still remain outside racial balance guidelines. Furthermore, all three have an enrollment that is well below each building's capacity. During a hearing on June 7, 1994, the Court urged the LRSD to revise its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines, a document filed March 16, 1994. As written, the guidelines severely restrict 4the district's ability to accept intradistrict transfers of white students into the LRSD interdistrict schools. Broadening the guidelines to promote intradistrict transfers can help the interdistrict schools achieve their full complement of students in racially balanced proportions. In addition, the Court admonishes the parties that they are obligated to continue to aggressively recruit students to the interdistrict schools in accordance with the desegregation plan provisions. -In respects other than enrollment, King appears to be functioning at a level of service and quality consistent with that which characterizes magnet schools. Therefore, the Court approves magnet status for King with the expectation that the LRSD will expeditiously revise its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines to facilitate intradistrict transfers of white students. thus promoting racially balanced school enrollments. Such intradistrict transfers are to be consistent with the desegregation plans and the law of this case. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of June 1994. UNTTED STATES'\" DI UNTT' DISTRICT JUDGE rmS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET W COMPLIANCE WITH BULE 58 AND/OR 7S{a) FRCP ON BY k 5' RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED COURT eastern district ARKANSAS JW 2 8 1994 iCORMACK, CLERK oefclerk LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court are two motions which the Court now addresses: (1) motion by the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for approval of four-year old program sites [doc.#2147], and (2) motion of the LRSD to designate King Interdistrict School a magnet school [doc.# 2162]. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that each of these motions should be and hereby is granted. I. The LRSD seeks approval of eight sites for additional four- year-old programs for the 1994-95 school year. In support of its JAMESJV.^C 14AZ motion, the LRSD submitted on April 21, 1994 a revised list of the sites it has selected to complete its obligations for four-year-old programs during the 1994-95 school year in accordance with this Court's May 1, 1992 order. Objections to the proposed sites which had been raised by the Joshua Intervenors were dropped during a June 7, 1994 hearing on Stephens School. 2 2 2 1In selecting the sites, the LRSD states that it considered schools that are racially imbalanced and difficult to desegregate. and that it also focused on areas which have very high concentration of low income families. The district also submits that it chose those locations it believes will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance. Based on these considerations, the LRSD selected the following elementary school sites for the additional four-year-old programs: -1. Badgett: One additional class added by using space that a is available within the building. 2. Bale: One additional class added by using space that is available within the building through the reassignment of classroom space (classroom space used for physical education on rainy days and for psychological testing). 3. Fair Park: One additional class added by installing a trailer, which would free up a classroom within the building. 4. Geyer Springs: One additional class added by offering only two kindergarten classes. The LRSD states that although it added a third kindergarten class after the start of the 1993-94 school year, the majority of students assigned to that class were from outside the school's attendance zones. Accordingly, states the LRSD, other assignments consistent with the desegregation plan should be available in the event non-attendance zone kindergarten students need to be accommodated during the 1994-95 school year. 5. Mabelvale: One additional class added by using a room available due to matriculating seventh grade students. 26. Watson: One additional class added by using space within the building obtained through sharing space with the Chapter I teacher (who is present three days a week) and the G/T teacher (who is present two and one-half days a week). 7. Woodruff: One additional class added by using space available within the building, 8. Washington: One additional class added by using space within the building. The-LRSD asks for a court order approving the locations, number of classes, and other terms as set forth above. Noting that these program additions will result in services to the total number of four-year-old children which the LRSD originally committed to serve under the terms of its desegregation plan, the Court grants the motion. II. By order dated July 9, 1993, the Court noted that the development of the King Interdistrict School \"has been rife with delays, including those of site selection, theme identification and development, attendance zone delineation, staff hiring, and student recruitment\nconstruction lags have been such that the building still may not be finished by the date students are to begin the 1993-94 fall term.\" The Court noted that \"[w]hile the King facilities and programs hold great promise for achieving magnet caliber, at this time the Court will only provisionally grant the motion to designate King Interdistrict School a magnet school. The LRSD may recruit students to the school on the basis of its 3provisional status only.\" The Court stated, however, that it would approve full magnet status for the new school at such time that the parties could demonstrate that King is fully functioning a interdistrict school displaying the characteristics of a quality magnet as previously set forth in the case record. In the motion now before the Court, the LRSD states that the King Interdistrict School has become fully functioning a interdistrict school which has all of the characteristics of a quality-magnet school. The LRSD asks that the King Interdistrict School be designated a magnet school. The Court notes that during its first year of operation in 1993-94, King failed to achieve an enrollment that is within the racial balance guidelines for interdistrict schools. Black children comprised 65% of King's students, a proportion that lies outside the 40 to 60 percent enrollment ratio target set forth in the desegregation plans. Preliminary LRSD registration figures for the 1994-95 school year dated May 11, 1994 indicate that King's black enrollment is still not within the 40 to 60 percent range. Indeed, none of the LRSD's three elementary interdistrict schools achieved a racially balanced student body during the 1993-94 school year, and the preliminary registration figures show that all three still remain outside racial balance guidelines. Furthermore, all three have an enrollment that is well below each building's capacity. During a hearing on June 7, 1994, the Court urged the LRSD to revise its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines, a document filed March 16, 1994. As written, the guidelines severely restrict 4I the district's ability to accept intradistrict transfers of white students into the LRSD interdistrict schools. Broadening the guidelines to promote intradistrict transfers can help the interdistrict schools achieve their full complement of students in racially balanced proportions. In addition, the Court admonishes the parties that they are obligated to continue to aggressively recruit students to the interdistrict schools in accordance with the desegregation plan provisions. -Inrespects other than enrollment, King appears to be functioning at a level of service and quality consistent with that which characterizes magnet schools. Therefore, the Court approves magnet status for King with the expectation that the LRSD will expeditiously revise its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines to facilitate intradistrict transfers of white students. thus promoting racially balanced school enrollments. Such intradistrict transfers are to be consistent with the desegregation plans and the law of this case. IT IS SO ORDERED this cXP day of June 1994. UNITED STATES'\" I^STI 'RICT JUDGE ANGE WTH THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET M COMPLIANCE BULE 5 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP k 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":"bcas_bcmss0837_638","title":"Little Rock Schools: Meadowcliff Elementary","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":["1994/2005"],"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","Meadowcliff Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Teachers","Educational law and legislation","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Meadowcliff Elementary"],"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/638"],"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\nJune 19, 1994C^- i- '' .! J i I 1 Ik '1 n 'i Ij '! 1 \\. I 'iz OJd-- 'j^' . y-'-' u r\\ \u0026lt;1' d-L. 'J /t I '-. ?. ..I yl X {^x 'Tii citjUi-eyd. () ^'- '^y^.C /' V \\J, 0 V FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 2005  3B Bonus plan for teachers hits snag LR teacher association says Meadowcliff project may breach contract BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE A pilot project to award what could be thousands of dollars in bonuses to Meadowcliff Elementary School teachers developed a hitch Thursday night when leaders of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association warned of a potential contract violation. At least 50 district teachers, including several from Meadowcliff at the meeting in support of the pilot project, looked on as the Little Rock School Board voted unanimously to delay a decision on ftmding die program until the boards Sept. 8 meeting. The program, entering its second year, offers teachers financial rewards based on the achievement gains made by their pupils on standardized tests. Grainger Ledbetter, executive director of the association, the sole contract bargaining agent for the districts 1,900 teachers, told the School Board that approval of the Achievement Challenge Program without negotiating its terms with the association would constitute a serious violation of the contract and a breach of the cooperative relationship both sides have worked so hard to maintain. Ledbetter said, We urge you to defer action on the Meadowcliff plan tonight and allow the parties to sort out their differences and secure an agreement all parties can live with. Last school year the Achievement Challenge Program resulted in an average 17 percent gain in student achievement and the payment of $134,800 in bonuses to teachers. Individual bonus amounts ranged from $1,800 to $8,600. The bonuses were based on the gains that children made on the Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition, that they took last spring as compared with their scores on a pre-test they took the previous fall. The first year of the pilot program was coordinated by the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock, which had received financing from an anonymous donor. Teacher union leaders knew nothing of the pilot program until a news conference was held this summer to announce the achievement gains and bonuses. Lisa Black, executive director of the foundation, urged the board to continue the pilot project as it will take two to three years to measure its efifect We see this as a real opportunity for testing new ideas, working with the community and working with teachers to show them how much we value their work, Black said. Superintendent Roy Brooks had initially recommended that the board fund the pilot projects second year. He said the pilot had provided immediate and measurable gains in student learning that crossed grade levels and demographics. Brooks proposed that the district pay the bonuses from the savings generated this year by the recent move to trim 100 positions out of the districts adniinistrative staff. Ledbetter said long-standing language in the districts teacher contract obligates the board to negotiate with the association before adopting any board policy inconsistent with the existing contractual agreement. Another provision of the agreement describes a process by which the district or a school can apply for a waiver of the negotiated salary agreement or other provisions of the teacher contract, he said, and noted that the faculties at both Stephens and Rockefeller elementaries had recently used that contractual provision to try out an alternative teacher pay plan. The unions objection to the pilot program comes on the eve of a potential settlement of the 2005-06 teacher contract between the district and the association. Contract negotiating teams are due to meet at 4:30 p.m. today on what representatives on both sides said they expect to be a tentative contract agreement. Please understand how this appears to us, Ledbetter told the board. At the same time the administration wants us to accept a proposal [in the contract talks] that offers no increase whatsoever J for the 600-plus most senior, experienced teachers in the district, the MeadowcUff incentive plan pays significant cash bonuses to teachers in a single school. Ledbetter also questioned the use of the Stanford Achievement Test as the basis for the bonuses. He said that the primary measures of student achievement in Arkansas are the state Benchmark Exams, which also are the basis for each schools compliance with the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Meadowcliff Principal Karen Carter said the school will go ahead with plans to test pupils Monday. At least well have the good data on the students. Thats the important thing, Carter said. I hope we can work with both negotiating teams to come up with a solution. Its a really good pilot program and a good program for our students because we can tell where our students are starting and where they finish. Joyce Mason, a Reading Recovery program teacher at the school, agreed that the achievement data on individual students are critical. We would be really happy if we can get that information every year so that we can work with out children, Mason said. First-grade teacher Kathy Thomas said the data enabled teachers to begin to know for certain which instructional programs work I feel we have already gained a great deal of knowledge, and I would like to think we could continue with this, Thomas said. Brooks said after the board meeting that the'district and association representatives would meet about the matter and he felt confident they could resolve the issue. I know that they want what we want, which is to do what is best for these children. Well work this out, he said. Katherine Wright Knight, president of the teachers as- sociation, said she would meet with Meadowcliff teachers in the next few days to explain the process for attaining a waiver to the salary provisions of the contract.SUNDAY, MAY 23, 2004   EDITORIALS Nothing special Just everyday excellence  's. Nowcliff Elementary in Southwest Little Rock. Nothing special. The Say no to drugs sign is dirty and/or rusting. The timeworn parking lot, like timeworn parking lots everywhere, has cracks in it 'where the more tenacious strains of grasses reach for that big light bulb in the sky. The building is made in la Classique Instruction Elegance, a style familiar to almost every other elementary school you know\none story, a main office, open hallways, with a recess area out back. Even the surrounding neighborhood is blue collar and red brick. Its not upper class or lower class. The houses arent mansions, but they arent shabby, either. A passerby might look at the neighborhood the same -way hed look at the school\nNothing special We parked, walked into the school and met Karen Carterprincipal, guiding light, and tour leader at Meadowcliff. If you cant judge a book by its cover, better not judge an elementary school by its building, either. NOTHING SPECIAL, huh? Every comer we turned, we found something special The reason we decided to visit the school in the first place was that wed heard some rumors about unusual test scores coming out of Meadowcliff The school -was taken off alert status just this year. At a school where 96 percent of the kids are in the free- or reduced-lunch program, what explains the significant rise in Benchmark tests over the last few years? In 2000-01, you see, only 9 percent of the schools fourth-graders scored at or above the 50th percentile in math. In 2002-03, that figure jumped to 51 percent. Wha-? And thats only one example. We had to check this out Call it part curiosity and part suspicion. OTHING SPECIAL. Thats the first impression you get when you drive into the parking lot of Mead- NE ANSWER to this poser is reading. The focus at Meadowcliff seems to be reading, reading, and more reading. Which is a good thing, a good thing, and more of a good thing. Teachers everywhere will tell you\nIf you cant read, you cant study science or history or even much math, Reading is where it starts. Its the first among equals in education skills. Maybe life skills, too. Principal Carter and the schools literacy coach, Deeann Morgan, have bought into an approach to reading that (1) helps those who are behind, but (2) doesnt hold back those kids who are ahead, -which, we decided in the end, ought to be (3) copied by more schools. It aU starts at The Board. In the reading room-which is part library and part NFL draft war room teachers have tags for each childs name, and each is color-coded by grade. The kids start out reading on Level A, and when they master it, they move on to you guessed itLevel B. Then C. No skipping D or E All the way up to Z. The pattern of the colors on The Board shows where everybody is, whos reading ahead of the class, and, very important, whos behind. Those who are behind are spotted early, and get extra help. The books in the library/war room are separated according to level of difficulty, but a child gets to pick which book he wants to read at his level Theres no You need to read this toda-y in the program. The kids get to choose. Which is important Picking the subject is key to reading, or writing. Trust us. Some people call this Empowerment Others would call it Individual Interest We call it Common Sense. We aU do best at what we like most At Meadowcliff, the kids are tracked on The Board, and arent allowed to slip through any cracks. Principal Carter tells the story of a young man who hated school- :ven be-fore third gradeand just wouldnt do the work. She brought him into the library, sat him down, and asked him what it was he liked. Trucks, he said. She snapped up a truck book on Level A, he began to read, and it took. A school year later, hes reading ahead of his grade level Deeann Morgan puts her hands on her hips and looks up at the boari She assumes an expression not unlike some weve seen on Army commanders faces when they look over an Operations Order. Staring at The Board, she says, Its everybodys job to move these kids, Move the kids up to higher levels of reading, that is. And thats an order. Arkansas schools need more of this kind of coach. Correction: Arkansas students need this kind of coach. The kind who take their jobs as seriously as the other kind of coaches. And whose success is so much more important. HERES NO limit on Meadowcliffs readers. They may read as far ahead of their class as they can. How about trying Harry Potter next? Lemony Snicket? Its the kids with difficulty who get the special attention. When the educators in the war room started discussing Phonemic Segmentation Assessments, our eyes glazed over. We started looking at artwork on the walk. And listened to the kids on the other side of the room read aloud. In one of the hallways, some kids had clipped newspaper articles and written comments on them. (So young, and already editorial writers!) There were paintings. Handwriting examples.... We moseyed (yes, we mosey) on down to Mrs. Haydens third grade class. At the time, the class was in Centers, which means they were in little groups doing different things. One group was reading Kid Power. In this center, one child is chosen to be the Reader, another the Summa-rizer, another the Word Wizard (whose job it is to point out new or interesting words in the story), another the Question Asker, and so on. This exercise gets the kids to focus on the story, not just one word after another. (Theres more to read- itself among those that used to be in trouing than reading, you know. Theres think- ble. ing, too.) Meadowcliff has something to offer. Over in Mrs. Modicas class, first-grad- We hope those in the states education de- It doesnt breathe, it doesnt smell/ It doesnt feel so veiy well/ I am discouraged with my nose/ The only thing it does is blows Dorothy Aldis Did we say this was first grade.These kids are already reading well enough to analyze poems. We looked around for some Emily Dickinson, but didnt find any. Must save her for second grade.... All this was funded by a federal grant Which was all of $330,000. That sounds like chump change when you look at education budgets and flunk of the impact this money will have on a whole generation of kids at Meadowcliff. Oh yes, we buried the lede: Because of the No Child Left Behind Act remember, kids from under-performing schools get to move to other schools that are doing a better job. And a handful of kids in Little Rock19 in allhave moved to Meadowcliff. (The school is now full at 367 students.) And this is the same Meadowcliff u.ut three years ago, had only 9 percent of its fourth-graders proficient or above in the Benchmark test Some things are going ri^t in Arkansas schools. Not enough things. But the Meadowcliffs are out there, just begging to be recognized and funded andabove ail: opied. Its the way we ourselves like to operate: If you see a good idea, copy it Principal Carter said about a dozen schools participate in this new reading program. We wondered why there werent a couple of hundred more. On our way out, we spotted Mrs. Jones-Flanigans kindergarten class, all in a line, all suspiciously quiet, and most of them smiling at the visitors and doing their dawggonedest not to giggle. They stopped in front of the music class. Apparently, it was That Tune, and the kids kindergartenerswere going to get a music lesson. Nothing special Just another day at an Arkansas school that can count er Jason Valsquez was on the floor, read- partment, and in school boards across the ing a poem, and finding the rhyming state, are paying attention. words: Arkansas Democrat Arkansas ^(BazcUe Established 1878 Established 1819 Arkansas Democrat (gazette Arkansas Newspaper Watter E. Hussman, Jr., Publisher Griffin Smith Executive Editor Paul Greenberg Editorial Page Editor Paul R. Smith V.P./ General Manager Lynn Hamilton V.P./ Operations John Mobbs Advertising Director Larry Graham Circulation Director Estel Jeffery, Jr. Director of Promotions  FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2005  LR School Board OKs bonus plan If students achieve, Meadowcliff faculty eligible for incentive pay BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE A pilot program to pay bonuses to Meadowcliff Elementary School faculty and staff based on the achievement gains of their students won Little Rock School Board approval Thursday. The School Board voted 5-1 for the $179,000 incentive-pay program that was started at the school last year with funds from an anonymous donor. Meadowcliff pupils, who were given the Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition, at the start of the school year and again in the spring, showed an average 17 percent gain on the test. Financial rewards were then distributed to teachers and other staff members based on the gains of the individual children with whom they worked in the classroom or in school programs. A proposal to carry out the Achievement Challenge Pilot Project a second year with district funding created a bit of a stir in recent weeks. Leaders of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, unaware of the program this past year, objected to a second year without first negotiating the parameters of the alternative-pay plan with the association, as is required by language in the teacher contract. The pilot project did become part of the 2005-06 teacher contract negotiations between the district and the association that were completed last week. Teachers and district leaders agreed that the plan could be carried out if Meadowcliff teachers followed the process laid out in the contract for trying an alternative-pay plan. That process requires that at least 75 percent of the teachers at a school vote in support of any kind of alternative-pay plan. Karen Carter, principal at Meadowcliff Elementary, said Thursday that 100 percent of the staff  including certified and non-certified employees  voted in support of the pilot project over the past few days. The School Board vote on funding for the project was the final hurdle. Meadowcliff students have already taken the Stanford Achievement Test, 10th edition. Teachers will use the results from that test to guide their instruction and the pupils will take the test again in May. Were ready to get the scores back so we can start planning what our students need and base our professional development on the areas we need growth in, Carter said after the meeting. Board member Katherine Mitchell cast the sole negative vote, saying that she wasnt against incentives but was against a process that didnt open the alternative-pay plan to employees at other schools. She questioned how long the district must try a pilot program before deciding whether it works. Board President Larry Berkley said the districts purpose in trying the pilot project is to learn from it. Measures of merit have not been universally accepted, he said. We are looking here at a norm-reference test as a sole measure of academic growth and that may not be the best way to do it. It may be some combination of [tests] and those kinds of things are what we are trying to learn. The measure of merit may need to be changed. But we cant learn if we dont try something new. Board member Tony Rose said paying bonuses to some teachers is not unprecedented in the school district and he noted that the district pays teachers for earning certification from the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. Those teachers have demonstrated they have accomplished something, he said. And this is another way for teachers to demonstrate they have accom- | plished something in the class-  room. I I6J  SUNDAY. OCTOBER 16. 2005   Arkansas Democrat (gazette How an Arkansas school found success BY DANIEL HENNINGER THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ITTLE ROCK  This state capital is famous to the nation for the mysteries of its politics and the compulsions of its politicians. By insisting 50 years ago on the continued segregation of Central High School, Gov. Orval Faubus ensured among other things that the handsome, still-functioning Central High would stand today as a national shrine maintained by the National Park Service. Yet another national shrine to political tumult that one may visit in Little Rock is the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum. I came to visit the Meadowcliff Elementary School. Perhaps in time someone will put a plaque in front of it too. About 80 percent of Meadowcliffs students in the K-to-5 school are black, the rest Hispanic or white. It sits in a neighborhood of neat, very modest homes. About 92 percent of the students are definable as living at or below the poverty level, a phrase its principal, Karen Carter, abhors: I dont like that term because most of our parents work at one or two jobs. This refusal to bend to stereotypes likely explains what happened last year at Meadowcliff. Students scores on the Stanford achievement rose by an average 17 percent over the course of one year. They took the Stanford test in September and again in May. Against the national norm, the schools 246 full-year students rose to the 35th percentile from the 25th. For math in the second grade and higher, 177 students rose to the 32nd percentile from the 14th. This is phenomenal. What happened in nine months? Meadowcliff has two of the elements well established as necessary to a schools success-a strong, gifted principal and a motivated teaching staff. Both are difficult to find in urban school systems. Last year this Little Rock public school added a third elementindividual teacher bonuses, sometimes known as pay for performance. Paying teachers on merit is one of the most popular ideas in education. It is also arguably the most opposed idea in public education, anathema to the unions and their supporters. Meadowcliffs bonus program arrived through a back door. Karen Carter, the schools principal, felt that her teachers efforts were producing progress at Meadowcliff, especially with a new reading program shed instituted. But she needed a more precise test to measure individual student progress\nshe also wanted a way to reward her teachers for their effort. She went to the Public Education Foundation of Little Rock. The Foundation had no money for her, and the Little Rock systems budget was a nonstarter. So the foundation produced a private, anonymous donor, which made union approval unnecessary. Together this small group worked out the programs details. The Stanford test resiflts would be the basis for the bonuses. For each student in a teachers charge whose Stanford score rose up to 4 percent over the year, the teacher got $100\n5 percent to 9 percent$200\n10 percent to 14 percent$300\nand more than 15 percent$400. This straight-line pay-for-performance formula awarded teachers objectively in a way that squares with popular notions of fairness and skirts fears of subjective judgment. In most i t'- Arkansas Democrat-Gazene/STEVE KEESEE Meadowcliff Elementary School teachers DeeAnn Morgan (left), the literacy coach, Joyce Mason, the reading recovery teacher, Barbara Beavers, the math coach, and Thessa Arnold, the pre-kindergarten teacher, were among the staff of the school that were honored in June at a news conference because of the school's educational gains. merit-based lines of work, say baseball, its called getting paid for puttie^ numbers on the board. Still, it required a leap of faith. I will tell you the truth, said Karen Carter. We thought one student would improve more than 15 percent. The tests and financial incentives, however, turned out to be a powerfill combination. The August test gave the teachers a detailed analysis of individual student strengths and weaknesses. From this, they tailored instruction for each student. It paid off on every level. Twelve teachers received performance bonuses ranging from $1,800 to $8,600. The rest of the schools staff also shared in the bonus pool That included the cafeteria ladies, who started eating with the students rather than in a nearby lounge, and the custodian, whom the students saw taking books out of Carters Comer, the library outside the principals office. Total cost $134,800. The tests cost about $10,000. The Meadowcliff bonus program is now in its second year, amid more phenomena rarely witnessed in school reform. Last years bonuses were paid for by an anonymous donor\nthis year the school board voted to put the pay-for-performance bonuses on the districts budget. The Little Rock teachers union thereupon insisted that MeadowclifTs teachers vote for a contract waiver\n100 percent voted for the waiver. Another grade school, with private funding, will now try the Meadowcliff model. The Meadowcliff program has the support of both Little Rocks superintendent, Roy Brooks, and Arkansas (flrector of education, Ken James. Superintendent Brooks, who was recruited from the reform movement in Florida, has cut some 100 administrative positions from the central bureaucracy and rerouted the $3.8 million savings back to the schools. At his offices in the capitol buildup. Director James calls himself an advocate of pay for performance for a couple of reasons. Financial incentives of some sort are needed, he says, to stop math and science teachers from jumping ship to -...y s' .w -A  a Arkansas Democral-Gazette/STEVE KEESEE Meadowcliff Elementary School Principal Karen Carter (right) hugs Little Rock School District Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell on June 20 after the school's staff was honored for a 17 percent learning gain. The school's special education teacher Demetria Moragne is at left. industry. And school districts like Little Rocks have to innovate fast because jobs and population are migrating internally, mostly into northwestern Arkansas. The Springdale district alone, he says, near Fayetteville and Bentonville, hired 180 new teachers this year. Little Rock has to find a way to hold its best teachers. The teachers I saw at Meadowcliff Elementary seemed pretty happy to be there. School reform is one of the greatest of the great white whales of American politics. It's by now virtually a mythical beast, chased by specialists, commissions, think tanks, governors. Gov. Bill and Hillary Clinton were famous Arkan-sas school reformers. With No Child Left Behind, President Bush has flung the reform fishing net over the whole country. The biggest urban school systemsNew York, Chicago, LA.get most of the ink. But maybe the solutions are going to be found in places like Little Rock, where talented people can fly beneath the radar long enough to give good ideas a chance to prove themselves. Daniel Henninger is deputy editor o/The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on Opinion- }ournal.com. Copyright  2005 Dow Jones \u0026amp; Company, Inc. OCTOBER 20,2005  ARKANSAS TIMES Our public schools  The Democrat-Gazette reprinted Sunday a column by one of the Wall Street Journals rightwing editorial writers. It trumpeted the first year of an experiment at Little Rocks Meadowcliff Elementary. A secret donor, whose money was laundered through the Little Rock Public Education Foundation, put up almost $135,000 to pay bonuses to teachers whose students Stanford test scores rose at least 4 percent over the last year. Theres been no serious analysis yet of the results, either for score manipulation or by comparison with the important state benchmark tests results. But the Little Rock School Board voted to spend public money to continue the experiment another year at Meadowcliff. And, the Wall Street Journal editorialist disclosed, Another grade school, with private funding, will now try the Meadowclilf project. Thanks for the scoop, WSJ. Thered been nothing in the local paper about this. No public action by the School Board. Its true. Superintendent Roy Brooks confirmed. The secret donor is financing a larger experiment this year at Wakefield Elementary. The pre-test has already been done. Brooks said it was up to the private Public Education Foundation to decide when the public would be informed. This is not district funds here, Brooks said. No, just our building, payroll and kids. Its an arguable ethics violation, too, to hide the source of money spent to influence public policy. Merit pay hasnt been rated a conclusive success anywhere I know of. High-stakes testing is an invitation to cheating (check the best-selling Freakonomics for a primer). Debates rage on merits of the norm-referenced Stanford test used at Meadowclifff and the criteria-based Benchmark Test on which government approval of schools happens to be based. Meadowcliff students did poorly on the latter. Opponents believe merit pay is a back-door way to limit automatic annual pay increases and cripple Max rantley max arktimes.com B teacher unions. Given the fat cats who form the merit pay claque, you can understand the suspicion. So whos the donor? Did he send his own kids to public schools? Is he a voucher buff, working on the uninformed assumption that Little Rock schools  which regularly lead the state in National Merit winners  are wholly failing and need to be eventually privatized? Teachers unions can support merit pay. When its not linked to up-or-down testing of a complex organism, a classroom with disparate learners. When offered to all teachers, without favoritism, on top of an honorable wage. When given for national board certification and extra work. At a minimum, merit pay should be transparent  advance notice of a public meeting to debate the idea before a public vote. Instead, school officials paid obeisance to a shadowy fat cat with a pet project, its wonders now touted uncritically in the right-wing local daily and a national counterpart. Perhaps a tardy debate will follow the Classroom Teachers Associations grievance this week that the district again violated its labor contract. The contract requires a vote by Wakefields teachers (likely pro forma) to approve the supplemental pay deal. It was a given that the Public Education Foundation would become a tool for the Hussmans, Stephenses and Waltons of the world to insinuate their education philosophy into Little Rock public schools. But who knew policy-making power was for sale so cheap? Or that wed get the news from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Its an insult to Little Rock taxpayers. ^WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26 2005 .  Recess now  Sc a workout for pupils at 2 schools BY HEATHER WECSLER ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GA 7FTTE Two elementary schools ttt Arkansas have new playgrounds intended for more than just play. - ' .J- 4)  B'S ^F^Sg.q|'8 -y^T.-SMSsqq-r . tu o q u  EhE \u0026lt;u tE - -q 41 O .2}'.0I) g q^=o.S^ E \u0026gt; S 4\u0026gt; ^.23 cz) ii O *2 t   ^..5 Ct (U o c V) flj (L) Instead of slides, swing sets and jungle gyms, the recreational equipment includes chin bars for pull-ups, poles for climbing, vaults for leaping over, a horizontal ladder for swmging across and a bench for stomach crunches. Meadowcliff Elementary in ! the Little Rock School Disrtrt Md Seventh Street Elementary m the North Little Rock School District installed the new fit- ness areas to help students and visitors exercise each of their muscle groups. This program allows our students, neighborhood and wider community to have access to state-of-the-art equipment to help get us get physicaUy fit, Karen Carter, principal of363-student Meadowcliff, said Tuesday at a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the See PLAYGROUNDS, Page4B w G o 0,  S'a a 8 1) y\u0026gt; OJ 4) 4) - b  - r. -G 4) OP *3 G  'S p fS -S 3^ g g -S g  8 1,2 q I ^^2 v)2t3^ ____________  3 re ^*73 '^^^4)12-2 2^ OGc\u0026gt;.,n4)4)^*3Ot}ne^Pre  -E 8 M B g\u0026gt;B S-q.^'O ragSTiq \" 2 2 S-q\na - O \u0026lt; t/\u0026gt; C J \u0026lt;u  cu .23 0) W5 (U -s g bb -G \u0026lt;u G \u0026gt;xhG 0 3 1) lU S .5  c flj tn o. (?3 re o U TJ 2 re \u0026gt; X y\u0026gt; CT* *5 4) G \u0026lt; O CZ3 G 1) bcH C T3 f  4_i 4-\u0026gt; I G O re re -r\nq \"-f-a o w s i:-q ' g  F- -S O  'c - 8) s si 8.\u0026amp;^.S.2y ,9 S-^ 8.\u0026lt; qa^ l\u0026gt; u (7) .1 73  3 S? *0 j4 O '* c3 a, c zi o Cu bO 5 JS o 0 S-c ^^-0.8 g g g Ejq.2Soq''S-a |2.g|2| g Sb fi 12 \u0026lt; 13 G a \u0026gt;s-y c3 b fv^ 8^yS-S 8 g a(S.S'S'2'o,oa.^ (S.^\u0026gt;!8-|g\n2c^ S .S -s i 8 E g 8. 1^ J hT-g ?c' S 3  8 q \u0026gt; S' m S g go S \"o a? _e \u0026lt;y  s s - o re \u0026gt; o S uz y G 2 S2 E g tT s T ei, B  s, \u0026gt;..2\nq c't - \u0026amp; 6. 5 o\u0026lt;:5 OCUotooxQg) u C G o 0 g f q  tt -G O b u, 3 re U O TJ -Q ipSl E .9\u0026lt;s S \u0026lt;1 3 y *5 r -3 s O o g g.2 ^.9.  4\n-0 \u0026gt; 5-   _e re c q  tD o V)  .2 5'^=3 E:2 o c 2 2 s g \u0026gt; .a 8  o o gL S 4) !- r-  Q m o -Si -c x\n,c * 73 w  ^-2 qz .M ra .z:\n^ S  3 8 E 23 2 -2 05 -t/)'T33XOtnoi-u^ ^J5S2g-5-cg b c/) re G V) re re .2r-Q \u0026lt;l\u0026gt; 4) O O S  G3 .G X -H O re y y _G - \u0026gt; o 13 c G-^ O'*- GxJ Q G G- ^T''^ -SC. re u O G ha re .b re'b.sx: 4) m S.S 8 g* \u0026gt; - 2-S-a q p-g a  8..S2 g.8r s-8 i 5 t*. 1) c S as s to re \u0026gt; JS re  c \u0026gt; 7 S.S'S o.^ S fs--- o I g 2 o U c 2 a u re . 3 tj .3'0 X 3 ilc S23_ 0.0 .\"J q \u0026gt;'''08 o q.? 3 ^Ig ^E q 5 8 3| ~ _r- .^-^V\u0026gt;G=are4) 4)335^ 5oSqwq23o,-o\u0026gt;:\n' 0 ja'n ra 233S3c V) V) CQ o 00 2 2 o u  g\u0026gt; O .3 - 2 iT.^ CZ) G o u CO 3 3 ~  3 .   \u0026gt; Q, . 8 2 g 8E  s-sS'Sg,\" 3 i- (U V3 .2  iu\"? 2 m : re o o O J 5 o w -73 V 2.2 3 G .3 tn tioT3 g: .hj 1 C (/) 1) re a-O XI D - re 0-2 g.a 2   J3  o y \u0026lt;J *** ^ *^ '^ c/T 13 X ' Q. *S 2 o S 1 *3 *G y 4Z flj  8. E ts 9- S O \u0026lt;Z) o ^2 *0 o o  o 1: C ' CL, CX-C CL^  \u0026lt;1J 3 4) c 2 = _ OX) o - 5 2 '2 u S s s p *G S 4) o cn-G \u0026gt; ly G re re -{ C.S S 2 \u0026lt;j c  g .3^-2gS3 -I 8^ t 8 u re G 3 t a c o S) U re .3 \u0026lt;23 LG g  s g c-g-g En^ - S - o.f^ 7 S'! g  ss  ^ -_c\u0026lt;uCQJ?.'bl2^4) C 8,^-2 i'S SB 4) t\"! 73 re O ctT U t/\u0026gt; 'C ^_c '3 O 4) O o 3 'o 2 y -oi \"O *-.  \"h\n31 u c n e 3 u % c\n3 CQ -s E ^\u0026gt;2 31 CG O d\nO *3^ re 13* (U cT.2^ S -n CL^ O h  ? -G CXm .R.X! o  - febu -g, g K g o o .a tZ) ir\u0026gt; 1\u0026gt; 8 \"5 c/\u0026gt; CX4-. tr CQ tu o\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_674","title":"Little Rock Schools: Otter Creek Elementary","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":["1994/2005"],"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","Otter Creek Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School management and organization","School facilities","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Otter Creek Elementary"],"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/674"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n 50137^14137 hJALKER. L3I,m firm 47' 03 MfiV 15 5' JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHIXGTON MARK BERXETTE ACSTIN PORTER. -fS KIM.RERLY R. DlCIuJOX JoH.N vv. Walker, p.a. AiTORXEY At Lw- 1723 Broacw.ay Lit. Rcck. .AKK-W'SaS \nTl'LE?.4(??4E (501) 374-S FAX {SOI) 3'74-4187 2206 758 Via Facsimile - 3242146 May 15, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Roberts: I an advised by Ms. Springer that she made monitoring visit and attended a conference at Otter Creek Elementary school on yesterday wherein the parent/guardian of a seven vear old /almost eight, 6-23-89} first grade student was advised by the 4*k '*|4' U nk J 1 21 ... .... . 1 J .. . X .11 _ *. \"** that her child could not attend summer school, black male who is ADHD principal This student is a and first grade. and,has already repeated the kindergarten His reading skills are not at the level for entry into the second grade according to asssessments by the classroom teacher and other district officials who have tested hl.,., can you or any member of your administrative staff explain by the him. to me how this child who is in desperate need of remediation be passed over for sum.mer school? We believe that the plan contemplated providing ail class members with remediation throughout the year. Although we believe that the majority of the remediation,should take place during the school vear it should not be limited to a certain num.ber of school year, can when there may be some who are left out. students especially I am further advised that the District has all..L.._ seats for kindergarten through third grade summer school and Hotted 900 summer^school for grades four through six will be provided at -- Vie aid not contemplate payment bv any parent cost of $115,00. a for remediation services of their children. to above, according to the principal school. T' ' ' The student referred ---- J- f Would you please provide the does not qualify for summer c\nelection criteria for summer school, the number of slots that have been allotted to each school in the District, whether all schools have det the names, summer school race and gender of the students ermined who will be attending from their respective school and if so, please provide this information from each school, providing summer school for these students, whether these costs are totally state funded, if not, i,.hL the District and what is the budget item. the total costs for what portion will be paid by Also advise if any of costs for summer will come from the desegregation budoet. In501 ?44 WALKER LAL FIRM 4?? po: 04 'Wy' Page 2 May 15, 1997 Letter to Dr. Roberts other words, how is summer state funded? school being funded? Is it completely Please let me hear from you. I would especially like to discuss making sure that this young man at Otter Creek is provided summer school services. Sincerely, 'I w. Walker Walker J W: j s cc\nMs. Katherine Strong05/26/1999 15:20 05/26/1999 12:54 501-324-2023 5014557498 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS OTTER CREEK ELEMENTA PAGE 01/01 PAC 01 School Event Wotificgtion Form Little Rock School District (Upcoming Events) Your name\n, Janis Tucker (Principal) Phone:. 455-7440 Date of Event\nFriday (5/28/99) School\nOtter Creek \"tleinencery Time of Event:(begins}. 8130 a .(ends). 2:25 pm What is the event? Field Day T What is the purpose? Good behavior incentive for students Who is sponsoring the event (school, partner, agency)? Where will it be held?. School Are other district schools involved? .Yes .No X Explain why this event would be a good story opponunity for the newspaper or television stations. What makes this event special? What makes it visual? Include the names of well-known people or organizations. Give as many specific details as you can! The day will begin at 8:30 with eompctative outside sports for which Che winners will be given gold stars to add to their Stars For Tomorrow Ribbons. They will be having a picnic lunch from 11:30 until 12:30. The students will come inside at 12:30 to finish their day wlch a movie with rafreshnents of popcorn and coke until 2\n25 Ph._________________________________________________________________________ An added actraccion to the days festivities will be Mrs. Janis Tucker (principal) and Mrs. Debbie Flores (Media Specialist) dressed up as clowns and skaciBg through the building giving out treats to all the students. This activity was planned for the students as a reward for reaching 10,000 points in our Accelerated Reading program. Our students worked hard to reach 10.000 polncs to see thia event take place Remember to submit your items no later than Thursday of the ygeX prior tP YPUr event- Weekly media advisories are sent to the School Board on Friday afternoon and to the press on Monday morning. Information sent after the event has happened should be submitted on the Good News form. ENJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Via Facsimile - 371-0100 January 17, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JAN 1 8 2002 Re: Little Rock School District n.-. OFFICE OF desegregation monitoring Dear Ms. Marshall: Due to Mr. Walkers absence, he has asked that 1 bring to your attention Joshuas concerns regarding the Little Rock School Districts position about school construction, i.e., increasing school capacities, thus changing racial balances. For instance, the District has taken the position that court approval is not required with respect to the construction of new classrooms at Otter Creek Elementary School. On one hand the LRSD Board of Directors has closed a school which IS majority black due to decreasing enrollment and low capacity, yet on the other hand the District is increasing the capacity of a majority white school in the District. These actions appear to have initiated future plans for making the west Little Rock schools whiter and the schools east of University blacker. Enclosed you will find our correspondence to the District regarding this matter along with Mr. Clay Fendleys response. We also have requested that the District provide to us all future plans for school construction along with any studies regarding capacities and racial balances in its schools as a result of any new construction. We are, therefore, requesting that you and members of your staff investigate these concerns and provide the Court and the other parties with the results of your findings. Thank you for your attention to this request.Sipcerely, /oy C. Springer For John W. Walker JCS/ cc: Mr. Clay Fendley Dr. Kenneth James John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKEE SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 324-2281 January 8, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBEET McHENRY. RA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Mr. Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Babbs: This will serve as a follow-up for additional information regarding comments that surfaced at the parent meeting at Dodd Elementary on last evening. I understood a numbei of parents to say that there are currently new classrooms being constiLicted at Otter Creek Elementary. I did not understand that the millage funds would be used foi the construction of classrooms at any school. What type of analyses have been done by the District to determine whether such construction will not violate your racial balance obligations? Or analyses to determine the need for such construction? Does the District take the position that new construction of classrooms does not require court approval? Would you please provide copies of all information that you. Dr. James, Dr. Stewart, and/or Mr. Eaton have regarding the construction of classrooms at Otter Creek including the number of classrooms, anticipated future capacity, racial balance figures and any and all other documentation that has been created by any District official regarding the construction of classrooms at Otter Creek or construction or anticipated construction for additional classrooms at any other school in the District. Thank you for your cooperation Sincerely. J^y CC.I.-^ SSpprnirnger Behalf of Joshua Z' JCS/ Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM Ill. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-895-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN OF COUNSEL 8.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JOHNC. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendleyfec.net January 11, 2002 Ms. Joy Springer John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Ms. Springer: Mr. Babbs asked the we respond to your letter of January 8, 2002, concerning Otter Creek Elementary. Four new classrooms are being constructed at Otter Creek using millage funds. This project was included in the list of millage projects which was approved by the Board on March 23, 2000 (see CX 739) and which was included in the Appendix to the District's Final Report, March 15,2001. The new classrooms are intended to accommodate growth in the student population resulting from continued development within the existing attendance zone. The proposal for the new construction came from the school's Campus Leadership Team. It should increase capacity by roughly 100 students and is not expected to affect the racial balance at the school, which is currently 55% African-American. Enclosed please find the following: Janis Tucker's December 14, 1998, memo to Doug Eaton regarding requested capital improvements\nA copy of Ms. Tucker's fax to Ms. Sadie Mitchell attaching Ms. Tucker's file concerning the requested capital improvements, and\nA copy of the District's file concerning the requested capital improvements at Otter Creek. A contractor has been selected and construction will begin in the very near future. It is the District's position that construction of the new classrooms does not require Court approval. Please do not hesitate to call if you need any additional information. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. cc: Dr. Ken James Mr. Junious Babbs I Otter Creek Elementary School CAPITAL PROJECTS: OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY We are presently scheduled to get a new air conditioning unit that will prevent our ceilings from leaking. This is already scheduled for the Christmas vacation. We have gravel on our playground area at the present time. This is a continuous problem. We would like to have some sort of new surface for this area. New playground equipment New addition to the school (see attachment) 16000 Otter Creek Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  Fax (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Elementary Schools Capital Projects Project Number 50-94-1 50-97-1 50-98-1 50-98-2 50-98-3 50-98-4 50-98-6 50-98-7 50-98-8 50-98-9 50-98-10 I Category Capital Projects: Otter Creek Elementary Project 50-98-11 50-99-1 50-99-2 50-99-3 I 50-99-4 50-99-5 50-99-6 2 5 1 3 3 1 1 1 T 1 1 5 1 3 5 1 1 1 Code REC REN ADA TEC TEC MMR MMR MMR MMR MMR MMR REN MMR REC REC MMR MMR MMR Project Description New play area fence Parking lot curbing ~ ADA adaptions_________________ Technology upgrade Electrical upgrade Exterior Waterproofing__________ HVAC Replacement Replace HVAC Controls________ Storm Drain System Replace Gutters Replace condensate piping______ Landscaping _____________ Carpet replacement 50%________ Additional Play ground equipment Outside water fountain__________ Rep/RpI Ceiling grid_____________ Replace heat pumps Replace r/r partitions Estimated Cost $2,500 $3,000 $30,000 $220,000 $5,000 $65,000 $100,000 $42,000 $25,000 $6,000 $18,000 $15,000 $18,000 $3,000 $24,000 $100,000 $14,000 Rec Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y capital.xts I I 4 1 1 T I Design, Overhead, Profit I i I otter Creek ES Subtotal 3 i i I i i i i T i T $65,000 1  { _L I $755,500 2/8/99n Otter Creek Elementary School VISION FOR OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY Otter Creek Elementary School was built in 1979. It was part of the Pulaski County Special School District until 1987 when .the school was annexed into the Little Rock School District. The school was named for the subdivision in which it was built and the small creek which marks the south boundary of the grounds. The school continues to provide excellent educational opportunities for ALL students. The teachers, parents and community are committed to ensuring that all students receive a quality education. The student population for Otter Creek is from the attendance zone area surrounding the school and an area off Baseline on the east side of 1-30. This area continues to grow. Not only is the Otter Creek subdivision expanding\nthe area around Otter Creek on Baseline and Stagecoach continue to add new subdivisions and apartment complexes. It is predicted that in the very near future, possibly as soon as the 2000-2001 school year, additional classes will need to be added to the existing building. At the present time, 'the school composition consists of four kindergarten classes, three first grade classes, three second grade classes, two third grade classes, two fourth grade classes, and two fifth grade classes. Additional classes will need to be added for the 2000-2001 school year to accommodate the present situation as well as new students moving into the area. The Campus Leadership team for Otter Creek Elementary would like to see a fence placed around the school grounds. The campus is open^ all sides and this fence would make a more secure environment for the students. On weekends the school is used by teenagers in the area who leave broken bottles, cans, cigarettes and other items that are unsafe for the students. There has also been problems of dogs running onto the school grounds during recess and chasing students. A fence would prevent many of these problems. 16000 Otter Creek Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  Fax. (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 // New Work Project Submission Site:D6P School:_6 ^-(^T Requested By: Ryus [ttcW Location: School: Priority: Project Description: J'J CbC -VIm. pk'y Project Justification: f'S P'tok)\\^ LA/iTb dtiej wkx 'Hu r6't\u0026lt;S 4RtM'h^ ^WT CU-\\4( 5CWf'vV^ Do Not Write Below This Liii! _aciHty^ services Recommendation: Gqnstru^gn: Contract:  In House: i! .'h. ?*S iUj,45u5*:  :'j5z'fE?. 3.  fw*itT 1\"**^ TEW  v.t' X x\u0026gt;rp New Work Project Submission Site:_f@_ School: Date:^/^/^ Requested By: \\ Location: Priority: Project Description: 6VV^n44A(:/ SIa? CcXU^^S Project Justjfieatjonr sF\u0026gt;f CeCU/f^h) VmS0\u0026gt;tS CCU4A.j\u0026gt;(A^ O'FF ' ' -Rak XV -(yiKn WnA aW MttlfS , Oto5 /IzAtTOU i P , J, (yezv4 WtzizY\u0026lt;\n^S ' '-\n'VaSk TH( S IS d(\nuizAe'i^ou s 9^ Kyt pOwAtX 06\u0026lt;r^ t  _ ---------------Qq Write Below This Lini facility Services Recommeadation: o. G.qsstru^.Qn: Contract:  Is House ^C^pitCatr 3X JS'e-pX^.i i,ru WiXf 'J. ^I^Mt tb^s^tr.r^ppy-A' c-?p.-.X' '-Zi v: wi ' '^e^-nni^^w? ' f Kii) J St I Otter Creek Eleivientary School 1 i I FAX I I DATE:  I - II -o TO: i Fa|#: SUBJECT: PHONE#: NU^IBER OF PAGES (including cover): I MEIM) O:- {( iil jr \u0026gt;MPaa^___ -C2^ ii !j ii 16000 Otter cj|eek Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  Pax (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 10 39tfd tflN3W3-13 X33a0 H3I in SBtZ.gstTsg t-S:!! 2002/TTZT0 ourkvcj r\\coui_io \"What capital improvements on this campus or your neighborhood school would help make it better for teaching and learning? ? otter Creek Technology *Security Building improvements Neighborhood school Additional classrooms Teacher aides *AdditJonal reading teachers *Study had More computer technology Increase campus lighting (exterior) Internet access In each class More classrooms *Better music program *More art programs *Security *Additional aides - for tutoring and constructive periods More classrooms Larger playground More pairing More computers *Art program Additional computer lab Computers Technology Update technology Update building A/c-fumace Playground and equipment Auditorium and stage Better quality lighting *These are pot considered capital improvements. I 20 39yd tflN3W333 \u0026gt;133^9 N3I in 86h2SSttT0S t2:TT 2002/TT/r0fi i! .i 1. 2, 3. I ij ii. CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM AGENDA OCTOBER 22, 1999 Yfear Round School 0 ipital Improvements C^pus Leadership Team members for 1999-2000 school year OTTER CREEK CONTINUED: Technology *Security 1 *Aides 1 I vni !R nPTNlON MATTERS Otter Creek Elementary School SS/r i 5 VISION FOR OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY i I OKct Creek Elementary School was built in 1979. It was part of the Pulaski Cotmty Special School District until 1987 when the school was annexed into the Little Rock School District. The school was named for the subdivision in whi^h it was built and the small creek which marks the south boundary of the - groimds. El Th school continues to provide excellent educational opportunities for ALL stucents. The teachers, parents and community are committed to ensnring fkof.'all atliaU students receive a quality education. ! The^mdent population for Otter Creek is from tire attendance zone area surfpunding the school and an area off Baseline on the east side of 1-30, This are^ continues to grow. Not only is the Otter Creek subdivision expanding\nthe area around Otter Creek on Baseline and Stagecoach continue to add new subdivisions and apartment complexes. It is predicted that in die very near fiitijre, possibly as soon as the 2000-2001 school year, additional classes will nee^ to be added to the existing building. At t le present time, the school composition consists of four kindergarten classes, three first gradeclasses, diree second grade classes, two third grade classics, two fourth grade classes, and two fifth grade classes. Additional clashes wffl need to be added for the 2000-2001 school year to accommodate the present situation as well as new students moving into the ii area. Thsj Campus Leadership team for Otter Creek Elementary would like placed around the school grounds. The this [fence would make a more secure enviroru to see a wei hot The - 1J f -  campus is open^on all sides and .ence would make a more secure environment for the students. On ends the school is used by teenagers in the area who leave broken On [es. cans, cigarettes and other items that are unsafe for the students has also been problems of dogs running onto the school grounds during Ann i^nOCinrr -4-^, A 15_____ . recq^s and chasing students. A fence would prevent many of these problems. 16000 Otter c|=ek Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440 . Fax (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 WiN3W3-13 \u0026gt;l33ao d3l in SSFiSShTBS rs-'n s002/tt/t0 E0 aotfd d e 0p 1 S i i CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING November 17,1999 |ri\u0026lt; 1. Prioritize the list for Capital Improvements for Otter Creek for the bond ^sue. 2. pign the form for the Campus Leadership Team for 1999-2000 school year. 3. Zeomee Herts 4. Year-Round Education 5. New business/concems il !i ii i! !l 'i i! 11 il !! :i J ji ii ii I! il i! I- !! i {\u0026gt;0 39yd yiNahQ-Q \u0026gt;i33ao d3i in SSrZ.SStTBS ys:!! 2002/11/10i 1 1 i I Ji J CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 1999 Otter Creek Elementary 9:00 1. 11 Introductions I 2, I^eflect on the 1998-1999 school year 3, Discuss changes for the 1999-2000 school year il 4. ijjook at GUIDELINES FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING I! 5. Questions/Concems 1 { I ii 1) I! il li il II !l SB 39tfd tfiNawaia \u0026gt;133^3 h3i in 86t\u0026gt;ZSStT0S tS-TT SB0S/TX/T0I 1 i 1 D 1 N OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM Our ission at Otter Creek Elementary School is to teach ALL students die essential academic skills at mastery level. The education of our students will empoHver them to be critical, independent thinkers prepared to master the technological advances in the 21st century. This will be accomplished by providing a diverse, equitable, and challenging curriculum. PncmirAging the development of positive social skills in a secure environment will enable themjto become responsible, productive citizens. Through campus leadership : is committed to the achievement of this mission. the st X it Otter|jCreek Elementary is located in the south part of Pulaski County. The schocfl was named for the subdivision in which it was built and the small creek which marks the south boundary of the grounds. The school serves the comi^unity by providing excellent educational opportunities for students in gra( con K-5. Parental involvement is encouraged at the school and the ipiinity provides a wide variety of volunteers on a regular basis. Come out t| Otter Creek and \"check us out\"! 0 1! h Ii ( d ! II I X !} i! }1 ii \u0026lt;\u0026gt;9 ii !i 1 90 39tfd tflN3W3-B \u0026gt;133^0 ^31 in 86t?Z.SStT0S Geipif)ej tSiIT 200S/TT/T010/28/1939 ii 13:42 J 5014550525 OTTER CREEK LWD CO PAGE 01 I 0. c 01 ToJ Fri Otter Creek Elementary School iber 18,1999 xjn: Otter Creek Ci i: Janis Creek Campus Leadership Team TuckerC^ H  Campus Leadership Team meeting on Friday, October 22 at the school. The meeting will begin at 9\n00. Pl. ret ie plan to attead. There are several important decisions we need to make ding the future of our school. I look forward to seeing you then. Th^ you. i T Yes, I will be able to attend the moeting. No, I will not be able to attend tihc meeting. f i I 1 eooo Otter cj -esk Parkway I  Rhone {501} 455-7440  Pax (501) 45S-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 IJ ii i\nL0 39tfd tflN3W313 \u0026gt;i33aD y31i0 86hZSShT0g h5:TT 200S/TT/T0li 1 pTTER Creek Elementary School August 26,1999 ii To:! Campus Leadership Team for Otter Creek Frojn: Janis Tucker I h(^e everyone had a nice summer. We are excited and ready to begin the 19^-2000 school year. {i Ou^ first Campus Leadership Team meeting has been set for September 10 at ^00 at the school. I hope you will all be able to attend, ii , Inks for all you do to make our school a positive experience for all chi^iIren. il You are appreciated. !) ii j! Yes, I will be able to attend the Campus Leadership meeting on Sej^ember 10. 4..- No. I will not be able to attend the Campus Leadership meeting on Sepjtember 10. i! \u0026lt;1 il /? 1! !( Xi 16000 Otter Cr^k Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  8B 39Wd i\u0026gt; W1K3W313 \u0026gt;l33ao ^31 in Fax (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 SShZeShTBS 1?2:TT 2002/TI/TB H y i J -isasfis jisasx\u0026amp;fsss^^^ ssfaiwfiKfjs^- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT b Otter Creek Elementary School December 14, 1998 To: Doug Eaton From: Janis Tucker This is regarding additions, modifications, and renovations we would like to have at Otter Creek Elementary. The air conditioner leak has been worked on for several years. We have been told that in order to correct this problem permanently, the entire air conditioning unit needs to be replaced. This definitely needs to be done because when the weather is warm there is always a leak in one of the halls and we have to keep buckets under this to catch the water. We are requesting that the following improvements/renovations be made: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. New air conditioning unit New carpet for the entire building Stage in the cafeteria Water fountains on the outside of the building Fence around the school property Landscaping at the entrance to the school Larger play area and additional playground equipment Up-date computers and printers for each class New construction: With the increased housing being developed in the Otter Creek attendance zone, it is felt that there will be a need for additional classrooms. A new area needs to be built to add an additional classroom to each grade level. The school now has 3 kindergarten classrooms and 2 of each grades 1-6. The sixth grade will move to the middle school for the 1998-1999 school year. There will be two vacant classrooms. However, by the 2000-2001 school year it is felt the additional rooms will be needed. 16000 otter Creek Parkway Phone 455-7440 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209The people who served on the team to talk about improvements/new construction for Otter Creek Elementary are\nJanis Tucker - Principal Shana Young - Counselor Beverly Kinneman - Teacher Vickye Mitchell - Teacher Ettatricia Clark - Teacher Zeornee Herts - Central Office Denise Nunnley- Parent Greg Stutts - Parent Business/Community - Tommy Hodges Jana Carver Lenora Nunnley - Sixth grade studentFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark .HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY(I922-IP94) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR,, P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMBS A BUTTRY. P..A FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR.. P.A. JAMES C CLARK, JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL IH.'P.A DONALD a. BACON. P.A WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A RICHARD D. TAYLOR P.A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL ill, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER JR. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-605-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR P.A. TONYL. WILCOX, P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W, SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. Daniel l. herrington. p.a MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAYT. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR H.T. LARZELERE. P..A JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A, A.D. MCALLISTER TELEPHONE 870-782-2898 FAX 870-782-2918 January 11, 2002 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX S01-244-5341 fondley@fec.net Ms. Joy Springer John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RECEIVED RE: LRSD V. PCSSD JAN 1 6 2002\nOfRCEOF ) desegregation MONITORING Ig (il'A Dear Ms. Springer\nMr. Babbs asked the we respond to your letter of January 8, 2002, concerning Otter Creek Elementary. Four new classrooms are being constructed at Otter Creek using millage funds. This project was included in the list of millage projects which was approved by the Board on March 23, 2000 (see CX 739) and which was included in the Appendix to the District's Final Report, March 15, 2001. The new classrooms are intended to accommodate growth in the student population resulting from continued development within the existing attendance zone. The proposal for the new construction came from the school's Campus Leadership Team. It should increase capacity by roughly 100 students and is not expected to affect the racial balance at the school, which is currently 55% African-American. Enclosed please find the following\nJanis Tucker's December 14, 1998, memo to Doug Eaton regarding requested capital improvements\nA copy of Ms. Tucker's fax to Ms. Sadie Mitchell attaching Ms. Tucker's file concerning the requested capital improvements, and\nA copy of the District's file concerning the requested capital improvements at Otter Creek. A contractor has been selected and construction will begin in the very near future. It is the District's position that construction of the new classrooms does not require Court approval. Please do not hesitate to call if you need any additional information Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. cc\nDr. Ken James Mr. Junious Babbs I Otter Creek Elementary School CAPITAL PROJECTS\nOTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY We are presently scheduled to get a new air conditioning unit that will prevent our ceilings from leaking. This is already scheduled for the Christmas vacation. We have gravel on our playground area at the present time. This is a continuous problem. We would like to have some sort of new surface for this area. New playground equipment New addition to the school (see attachment) 16000 Otter Creek Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  Fax (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Project Category Number 50-94-1 50-97-1 50-98-1 50-98-2 50-98-3 50-98-4 50-98-6 50-98-7 50-98-8 50-98-9 50-98-10 ' 50-98-11 50-99-1 50-99-2 50-99-3 i 50-99-4 50-99-5 50-99-6 2 5 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 3 5 1 1 1 capital.xIs I I T i + I T I T T I T Elementary Schools Capital Projects Capital Projects: Otter Creek Elementary Project Code REC REN ADA TEC TEC MMR MMR MMR MMR MMR MMR REN MMR REC REC MMR MMR MMR Project Description I Estimated I 1 I I I I T New play area fence Parking lot curbing ADA adaptions Technology upgrade Electrical upgrade Exterior Waterproofing HVAC Replacement Replace HVAC Controls Storm Drain System______ Replace Gutters__________ Replace condensate piping Landscaping Carpet replacement 50% ______ Additional Play ground equipment Outside water fountain _______ Rep/RpI Ceiling grid Replace heat pumps_________ Replace r/r partitions 1 1 Design, Overhead, Profit I T I T I letter Creek ES Subtotal 3 I 4 J. 1 i j T i i I i Cost $2,500 $3,000 $30,000 $220,000 $5,000 $65,000 $100,000 $42,000 $25,000 $6,000 $18,000 $15,000 $18,000 $3,000 $24,000 $100,000 $14,000 $65,000 I T I $755,500 I Rec Y/N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y 2/8/9SOtter Creek Elementary School I? VISION FOR OTTER CREEK ELENIENT.ARY Otter Creek Elementary School was built in 1979. It was part of the Pulaski County Special S chool District until 1987 when .the school was annexed into the Little Rock School District. The school was named for the subdivision in which it was built and the small creek which marks the south boundary of the grounds. The school continues to provide excellent educational opportunities for ALL students. The teachers, parents and community are committed to ensuring that all students receive a quality education. The student population for Otter Creek is from the attendance zone area surrounding the school and an area off Baseline on the east side of. 1-30. This area continues to grow. Not only is the Otter Creek subdivision expanding\nthe area around Otter Creek on Baseline and Stagecoach continue to add new subdivisions.and apartment complexes. It is predicted that in the very near future, possibly as soon as the 2000-2001 school year, additional classes will need to be added to the existing building. At the present time, 'the school composition consists of four kindergarten classes, three first grade classes, three second grade classes, two third grade classes, two fourth grade classes, and two fifth grade classes. Additional classes will need to be added for the 2000-2001 school year to accommodate the present situation as well as new students moving into the area. The Campus Leadership team for Otter Creek Elementary would hke to see a fence placed around the school grounds. The campus is open^on all sides and this fence would make a more secure environment for the students. On weekends the school is used by teenagers in the area who leave broken bottles, cans, cigarettes and other items that are unsafe for the students. There has also been problems'of dogs running onto the school grounds during recess and' chasing students. A fence would prevent many of these problems. 16000 Otter Creek Parkway  Phone (501). 455-7440  Fax. (501) 455-7498  Littls Rock, Arkansas 72209New Work Project Submission School: Siie:_n^__School: 6 C/Tcc/E de0y^^aV/- pate:JI2_/^/_^ Requested ByiJbtyXJk^ Location Priority: Project Description: iV'ttC pmefivV Pr.oj ec-t Justificationir Crvi bUm LA/iYh fky cUvo CiAxzi 5CKap!vv^ _ . \u0026lt; 'vUyA\u0026gt;^w^ 'K'ls. r^LfS 3 L ^p^Vyl/LA V\\^ J Facility Services Re^ -Do Not Wnts Below This Lini ommeadatioa: Gonstruction: Contract IB TTq^ijp\u0026lt; .X Vsr-pd.^u' !i iS^naK  a^j? ^'*^\"***'-**'* .\n -C ^T- '\n^a^Me^Bieat*fflaiWB Wi: .\nsp New Work Project Submission Site: nb^ School:, Q-bfe-r Date:J21_/2S_/1^ Requested By: \\ ku^jWz:h:rLocation: Priority: Project Description: FC/VVc-^ GiLi'i/v^S . Project Ju-stificationr g'eair^tx) V^^sois CtXyvvj^oi^ biJlMAU. O'f'^ ' [KV 4^ak fbsm mvi Rig 1 /% w (, Xy cp^. IS vers' N(\nDu^Aewu^ (pm edw/UtA^Cv P^uwr/ \\j\u0026lt;^ gas\u0026amp; (L/gZvk (3(\nDiz^Aevou SIa 0 oct/r 0^ _ ----------------Qq Write Below 1 his Lin^ Cacijin^ Services Recommeadatio'n: C.qnstruclion: Contract: ' In Hou5e: -EipJitt u.v Ns.r^irsu- 15!^ .n ^v.SSras Ij li Otter Creek Elementary School i FAX ii DATE: i! iI TO: FROM: j FAX#: SUBJECT: PHONE#: NU^dBER OF PAGES (including cover): ij il MB'pJO:- u il ll dfa I i '~l' A A A i /I *  Jiil 8if H 16000 Ottsr C^eek Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  Fax (501) 455-7498 * Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 10 39tfd tflN3W3T3 \u0026gt;l33ao PPI in 86^435^103 VSriT 2002/11/10 \"What capital improvements on this campus or your neighborhood school would help make it better for teaching and learning? . otter Creek ischnology *Security Building improvements *Neighborhood school Additionai classrooms *Teacher. aides *Additional reading teachers *Study hall More computer technology Increase campus lighting (exterior) Internet access In each class More dassroorfls *Better music program *More art programs ^Security *Aciditionaf aides - for tutoring and constructive periods More classrooms Larger playground More parking More corriputsrs *Art program Additionai computer lab Computers Technology Update technology Update building A/c-fumace Playground and equipment Audltoriu^ and stage Better quality lighting *These are not considered capital improvements. I jj il 20 39Vd tflNjWaiH \u0026gt;133a0 33110 8SPlSSt'T0S pZ:!!: 2002/TT/Tai 11 H 9:1 'i\ni jl CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM AGENDA OCTOBER 22, 1999 1. 2, 3, Yfear Round School Otoital Improvements Campus Leadership Team members for 1999-2000 school year ./ fll OTTER CREEK CONTINUED: Technology *Security J *Aides 1 ! Yfil IR DPTWTON MATTERS (r Otter Creek Elementary School r i i I VISION FOR OTTER CREEK ELEMENT.ARY 0tt4 Creek Elementary School was built in 1979. It was part of the Pulaski Special School District until 1987 when the school was Rn-navfid into the Little Rock School District. The school was named for the subdivision in whi^h it was built and the small creek which marks the south boundary of the grounds. Thei school continues to provide excellent educational opportunities for ALL stuc snts. The teachers, parents and community are comTUTtfod to ensuring than aU students receive a quality education. ThsLident population for Otter Creek is from the attendance zone area sun^bunding the school and an area off Baseline on the east side of 1-30, This area continues to grow. Not only is the Otter Creek subdivision expanding\nthe irea around Otter Creek on Baseline and Stagecoach continue to add new sub tivisions and apartment complexes. It is predicted that in the very near fun|e, possibly as soon as the 2000-2001 school year, additional classes will need to be added to the existing burl dur new At |ie present time, the school composiitgi.on consists of four kindergarten Cli cli cli :es, three first gradeclasses, three second grade classes, two third grade les, two fourth grade classes, and two fifth grade classes. Additional les will need to be added for the 2000-2001 school year to accommodate if situafaon as well as new students moving into the area. ThejCampus Leadership team for Otter Creek Elementary would like to see a feuc^e placed around the school grounds. The campus is open'on all sides and thisjfence would make a more secure environment for the students. On ee^nds the school is used by teenagers in the area who leave broken itljes, cans, cigarettes and other items that are unsafe for the .students. Th^e has alM been problems of dogs running onto the school grounds during rec^fs and chasmg students. A fence would prevent many of these problems^ to see a wei boi :1 il T6000 Otter C) iS 50 39tfd i ik Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440  Fax (501) 455-7498 * Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 tflN3W313 \u0026gt;13330 H3I in 86hZ.cS7t0S 7S:TT 2006/TT/t0 Ii i\nij 15 I L CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING November 17,1999 1, Prioritize the list for Capital Improvements for Otter Creek for the bond ^sue. 2. Sign the form for the Campus Leadership Team for 1999-2000 school ^ear. 3. Zeomee Herts 4. Jk ear-Round Education ew business/concerns 5. ! i Ii i! li I! il 0 I! II P0 3SWd aSPiSStTQS tS^rr 6302/TT/T0 I I tfiN3W3n3 xsaao ?43i mI 1 i ' 1. B.LTodiictions CAMPUS LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING SEPTEMBER 10,1999 Otter Creek Elementary 9:00 \u0026gt; J 2, Reflect on the 1998-1999 school year 3. h iscuss changes for the 1999-2000 school year 4. ijjook at GUIDELINES FOR SCHQOT, IMPROVEMENT PLANNING ii 5. (^stions/Concems 0 li I) ii ii il ! il i ( I ii 1 !! ii II jl S0 39W !( Il II ij tfiN3W3\"l3 \u0026gt;13330 H~i in 86i72.SStT0S pSm 2003/TT/T0N 3 Ii I ii KB I D OTTER CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM Our rtns njpal sion at Otter Creek Elementary School is to teach ATI, students the essenf al academic skills at masteiy level. The education of our .stnjmts will \"empower them to be critical, independent thinkers prepared to master the technhlogical advances in the 21st century. This' will be accomplished by providing a diverse, equitable, and challenging curriculum. Encouraging the development of positive social skills in a secure environment will enable themfn become responsible, productive citizens. Through campus leadership the stiff is committed to the achievement of this missinn . iM 5 Ofter|peek Elementaiy is located in the south part of Pulaski County. The schodi was named for the subdivision in which it was built and the small creek which marks the south boundary of the grounds. The school serves the compjiunity by providing excellent educational opportunities for students in ft grad\u0026amp; K-5. Parental involvement is encouraged at the school and the comi^unity provides a wide variety of volunteers on a regular basis. Come out t| Otter Creek and \"check us out\"! I): o ij ii ii i\nj I ii il -! .i if I 14 u 0 -1 ! i N 90 39Wd tfiNdwana \u0026gt;33^0 iH3i in SSt'Z.SStTBS wm 6002/11/1010/20/1959 K13:42 5014550525 OTTER CREK LAND CO PAE Bl J If Creek Elementary School \u0026gt; Oqober 18, 1999 To: Otter Creek C\nFrcm: Janis Th: i TuckerC^q  Leadership Team e will be a Campus Leadership Team meeting on Friday, October 22 at the BchooJ. The meetog will begin al 9:00, Pl. ret w plan to attend. There are several imporiani decisions we need to make ding the future of our school. I look forward to seeing you then. Tb^ you. I I I will be able to attend the moeting. No, I will not be able to attend the meeting Ni li I I 1 I 1 eooo Otter Cj'eek Parkway  Phona (Soil 455-744.0 . Fax (501) 4=5'7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 i i I! LZ yN3W3-l3 \u0026gt;133^0 33110 86PiSS7T0S 72:TT 500S/Tt/T0i \\W W Otter Creek Elementary School ? August 26, 1999 i! To: Campus Leadership Team for Otter Creek FroL\nJauis TuckerS^'T 0 II I hope everyone had a nice summer. We are excited and ready to begin the 19^-2000 school year. li Oudj first Campus Leadership Team meeting has been set for September 10 at ^00 at the school. I hope you will all be able to attend. Thinks for all you do to make our school a positive experience for all chijjdren. ii Yoh are appreciated. ! I( j! Yes, I will be able to attend the Campus Leadership meeting on September 10. 4 No, I will not be able to attend the Campus Leadership meeting Sej^ember 10, on '} 'j /V .ti /i-Cil Si J (/ 7 i I I .. I i I il Si  11 1 -k\u0026gt; 16000 Otter Ci-^k Parkway  Phone (501) 455-7440 - Fax (501) 455-7498  Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 30 29tfd tflN3W373 \u0026gt;133a0 33X10 86hZ.SSfc\u0026gt;T0S 7Z:TT 2002/TT/T01 I ROCK SCHOOL 3 Otter Creek Elementary School December 14, 1998 To: Doug Eaton From: Janis Tucker This is regarding additions, modifications, and renovations we would like to have at Otter Creek Elementary. The air conditioner leak has been worked on for several years. We have been told that in order to correct this problem permanently, the entire air conditioning unit needs to be replaced. This definitely needs to be done because when the weather is warm there is always a leak in one of the halls and we have to keep buckets under this to catch the water. We are requesting that the following improvements/renovations be made: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. New air conditioning unit New carpet for the entire building Stage in the cafeteria Water fountains on the outside of the building Fence around the school property Landscaping at the entrance to the school Larger play area and additional playground equipment Up-date computers and printers for each class New construction: With the increased housing being developed in the Otter Creek attendance zone, it is felt that there will be a need for additional classrooms. A new area needs to be built to add an additional classroom to each grade level. The school now has 3 kindergarten classrooms and 2 of each grades 1-6. The sixth grade will move to the middle school for the 1998-1999 school year-.- There will be two vacant classrooms. However, by the 2000-2001 school year it is felt the additional rooms will be needed. 1 6000 Otter Creek Parkway Phone 455-7440 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 The people who served on the team to talk about improvements/new construction for Otter Creek Elementary are: Janis Tucker - Principal Shana Young - Counselor Beverly Kinneman - Teacher Vickye Mitchell - Teacher Ettatricia Clark - Teacher Zeomee Herts - Central Office Denise Nurmley- Parent Greg Stutts - Parent Business/Community - Tommy Hodges Jana Carver Lenora Nunnley - Sixth grade studentARKANSAS TIMES* APRIL 21,1994\n77i# At^n^as REPORTER  J WHITES NEED NOT APPLY At one LR school, desegregacion proves too successful. BY JUDITH M. GALLMAN Danny Johnson wauled his son Io attend Pulaski llciglils Junior lligli School next year, but dieres no room for his son at the school localise he's while. That's what the school told Johnson on March21 whenhewenitopre-rcgisterliis 11- year-old son Jeremy for next yeiu. It seems die Pulaski I Icighls parenis and school officials have licen so successful al reciuiling whiles dial dicii eni olliiicnl now inns afoul of court-ordered racial guidelines. I lie result is a supreme irony in a majority black school district that has snuggled for years Io hold while parents. Denied admission Io Pulaski Heights, Johnson says he is planning Io buy a house in Conway and enroll his children Ihcte next year, continuing a trend dial has seen Conway explode widi whiles fleeing Little Rock. Ralph I loffman, the principal of Pulaski I Icighls Junior High School, says the school has swung from a lunior high that was roughly 65 IO 67 iXMCCnl black in 1988 Io a school dial's 54 10 5.5 percent black now. Based on pre-regisuadon figures for next year, however, the district projects the junior high will be 51.8 percent black, which, the disuict says, means too few black sludents will be enrolled. The projection prompted Dr. Russ Mayo, associate superintendent for desegregation, todraft a memo saying that,students who pre- registered on or after May 14 will be assigned by the Student Assignment Office. \"Basically, we will reserve vacant seats for black sludenl.s while nonblack stiideiiLs will leceive alternate assignments,'' Mayo wrote in the memo. ''Sludenl.s who cannot be assigned will lx: placed on wailing lisls. The memo also went to four elementary schools, Terry, Fulbright, Forest Park and Oller Creek, Mayo said, liecaasc all will likely slip lie.low the COUI I approved minimum black enrollmeiil iierccniage. Jefferson doesn'tmeet die minimum but a memo wasn't sent there. The school district decision is at variance, however, with the federal court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Ann Brown, federal monitor, says die minimum black enrollment should not fall Iielow 40 [leiccnt for elementary schools and 51 percent for junior high schools. Mayo agrees on 40 (lercent for elementaiy schools, but he insists the iiiinimutn for junior highs is 52.5 pcrccni. More importanlly. Brown believes die court intciideil to set racial guidelines, not quotas, Mayo sees them as a quota from which tlie district may not stray. Mayo said die fieeze is a temporary measure that may be lifted once the district has a clear undcrslandiiig of next year's enrollment. Though the policy apiars Io stale otherwise, Mayo said the district does not intend to exclude wliile studenls who are rightful residenls of a school'.s allendance zones, only those who live outside the attendance zone. But at the same lime, he says only that those in Ilie zone will be put on the waiting list. I Ie also says the district wants Io be sure all sludenis in a school rightfully deserve the assignments. \"rm told that it has not been watched a.s carefully by the Student Assignment Office in die past, Mayo said. Wecannol continue ignoring the plan or the court. Brown said die dish id should look at other oplionsbeforeexcliidiiig while parents, whose loss could harm the racial composition of the whole dish icl. One option is adding portable buildiiigs,aldiotighlhalsiiiipossiblcforsonie of the schools and Mayo counters such additions peipetuate dual education. Some school patrons, parents and teachers worry that die policy will drive whiles Io private schools or other cides. \"Tlieres no such thing as a school loo while in Litde Rock, one parent said. But the School District has now ruled odierwise. And the result may be at least two more transfers Io Conway.  PERCENTAGE OF BLACK STUDENTS ANTICIPATED Pulaski Heights Junior High School 51.8 percent Terry Elementary School 39.9 percent Fulbright Elementary School 43.1 percent Forest Park Elementary School 39.2 percent Jefferson Elementary School 40.4 percent Oller Creek Elemenlary School 44.7 percent If pre-registralion enrollment figures for the 194-95 school year for the above Little Rock schools hold (rue, these schools could end up whh too few black students, which is why additional white students arent being enrolled temporarily. The percentages indicate what percentage of the student body is expected to be black. Elementary schools cant have fewer than 40 percent, but the bottom limit for junior highs is in dispute. The district sets the limit at 52.5 percent\nthe Office of Desegregation monitoring uses 51 percent.Arkansas Democrat ^(j^azctte | T^U^Sa^^JMOVEMBERViggg________________ Suspicious man approached kids in Otter Creek area on 3 occasions ARK.ANs.As DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE g^d a Sept. 28 report of a time Residents of Little Rock's Otter when a man reportedly tried to Creek neighborhood have report- lure a child into a pickup  were ed three incidents to police of a made by Otter Creek residents man approaching children, including one report made by the princi- near the school. On Friday, Little Rock police pal of Otter Creek Elementarj provided the Arkansas Democrat- ' School. Gazette with the Oct. 6 and Oct. 7  Immediately after an Oct. 7 en- reports along with a copy of an counter at the school, when a man alert sent to all Little Rock ele- was reportedly seen trying to take mentary and middle schools. The photographs of a student. Princi- alert was compiled from informa- pal Janis Tucker notified the dis- tion from all three police reports, tricts security office. The incidents reported to police Oct. 6 and Oct. 7 were in- A school district security em- ployee patrolled the school for correctly reported in Saturdays several days aftenvard. edition as if they had both oc- Two other incidents  docu- curred at the school. mented by an Oct. 6 report of a man who exposed himself to a No further sightings have occurred of the man or the pickup child between Aug. 30 and Sept. 22 since the Oct. 7 report, police said.t- 4 * PRipAY, DECEMBER 16, 2005 * Board aims to ease crowded LR school\nOtter Creek attendance zone cropped BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board on Thursday approved plans to shrink the Otter Creek Elementary School attendance zone and correspondingly expand Mabel- vaJe Elementary Schools zone to lirmt overcrowding at Otter Creek. IS necessary to avoid having to add a portable building to the four portable buildings already on the Otter Creek campus, Su- pcrintendent Roy Brooks has said. Otter Creek has 580 students, which is 43 students over capacity. Mabeivale Elementary has 365 students, with room for about 78 more. The application fee for the national teacher certification Board members approved the zone adjustments without any discussion during a meeting in which they asked the staff to program is $2,300 and if a 'te7rh2 Srt fuiMcial help to er is not successful in achieving ^tnct teachers who are m their certification after the first year second md third years of seek- the fee for retaking p^ 1 National assessment in subsequent sec- Teaching ond and third years is $350 per btMtods paj^ majority of teachers zon?Jhft of the Otter Creek nationaUy who seek national cer- Of Interstate 30 tification are not completely suc- ^d includes neighborhoods in cessful the first year^TypicaUv t Yorkton teachers have to reSke^o or J .streets wiU be as- more parts of the as.X=^.^r signed to Mabeivale beginning with the 2005-06 school y.C However, the 103 children living in the affected area and cur- more parts of the assessment. Katherine Wright Knight, ye^. president of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, estimated that there are at least Sachem who\" grandfathered into Otter retake sections of the toe S unger teachers were notified that thev b^SooT, '  tocessMy Younger children and chil- borhoods will be assigned' I Mabeivale, The attendance zone need to --- assessment to attain the credential, which is to program. Approximately 14 na- tionally certified teachers are change already working in the district\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_654","title":"Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary","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":["1994"],"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","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School buildings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary"],"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/654"],"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\nJ d Lari JAN 2 \u0026amp; 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office oi Dassgreganon p/icniioriug NO. 93-3592 PULASKI CTY. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE MOTION TO EXPAND PAGE LIMIT FOR APPELLANTS' BRIEF The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel. for their Motion to Expand the Page Limit for Appellants' Brief, state as follows: 1. Because the three above-referenced appeals have been consolidated, the 50-page limit may be inadequate to permit the Appellants to adequately brief the issues on appeal. 2. A maximum limit of 75 pages would be sufficient. WHEREFORE, Appellants pray that the page limit be increased to 75 pages. Respectfully submitted. r / / / r- David SchoenDAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy postage prepaid to the counsel o of the foregoing has been mailed, f record listed below on this day of January, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 / I Dav^id SchoenIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 1 8 1994 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office of Desegregation Monitoring No. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals from The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NO. 93-3592 M. SAMUEL JONES, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 w. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 371-0808 72201 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School DistrictTABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 ISSUE PRESENTED ON APPEAL 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3 ARGUMENT 5 CONCLUSION 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 14 1SUMMARY AND REOaEST FOR ORAL ARGOTCEMT The Pulaski County Special School District is an appellee in Case No. 93-3592 only. In that matter, the District Court concluded that the present Stephens school site did not qualify under the language of the settlement plans as a potential site for a new interdistrict Stephens school. The Pulaski County Special School District does not believe that oral argument is necessary on this separate issue since the matter largely, if not entirely, involves the District Court's interpretation of the meaning of specific portions of the settlement plans previously approved by this Court. However, should the Court determine to hear argument on this issue, the Pulaski County Special School District would participate in the argument and believes that 15 minutes would be sufficient time to present its case and respond to questions from the Court. Finally, the Pulaski County Special School District is authorized to state that the North Little Rock School District joins with it in presenting the position of appellees' on this issue. 11TABLE OF AUTHORITIES gage CASES: Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, (Sth Cir.1991) .......................... 5 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, (Sth Cir.1990) ................... 6, 11 111PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Pulaski County Special School District does not disagree with the preliminary statement set forth by the Little Rock School District in its brief on the Stephens school site except to say that the order denies the relief sought by the Little Rock School District. 11. 2. I. ISSUE PRESENTED ON APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN REJECTING THE PRESENT STEPHENS SCHOOL SITE AS A POTENTIAL INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL LOCATION BY FAILING TO CONTINUE THE HEARING INITIALLY BEGUN ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE ITS DECISION PRIMARILY REFLECTED ITS OWN REASONED INTERPRETATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS REACHED IN THIS CASE. Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 257 (Sth Cir.1991) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (Sth Cir.1990) 2STATEMENT OF THE CASE Although three cases have been consolidated for appeal before this Court, the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") is appellee only in Case No. 93-3592. That appeal by the LRSD and Joshua seeks to reverse the District Court's order of September 27, 1993, ruling out the old Stephens school site as a potential location for construction of the new Stephens interdistrict school required by the settlement plans. The threshold issue confronted by the District Court was whether the old Stephens site even qualified as a potential candidate for construction of the new Stephens interdistrict school. The pertinent language of the plans interpreted by the District Court is set forth in her order of September 27, 1993, and, for the convenience of the Court, said order is reproduced in the addendum to this brief. The two provisions are that: It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. Desegregation Plan, at 139. (Emphasis added.) LRSD LRSD will build a new Stephens Interdistrict School ... located near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue ... The old Stephens school building will then be closed. Desegregation Plan, at 10. (Emphasis added.) Interdistrict (Ad. p. 2). The District Court, as part of her order, concluded from this language that: 1. The new school would be built at a new site and the old school closed. (Ad. p. 2). 33. 4. That the plans clearly envisioned that the new Stephens school would be near 1-630. (Ad. p. 2) . That constructing the new school at the old site would not further the goals of the desegregation plans. (Ad. p. 2). That the old site is further from 1-630 than any of the other proposed sites. (Ad. p. 3). 2. 5. 6. That to approve reconstruction at the old site would constitute a disputed modification of the Plan. (Ad. p. 3-4). That the purpose of the new interdistrict school is to promote interdistrict desegregation, not to stabilize neighborhoods. (Ad. p. 5). Before the Court's order was entered, several site selection committees were composed and recommendations made all as generally described by the LRSD at pages 4-8 of its brief. In her order declining to approve the old Stephens site, the District Court gave the parties until October 15, 1993, to reach consensus. Thereafter, on October 15, 1993, the PCSSD and NLRSD filed with the Clerk their respective preferences evaluating the sites considered by the various site selection committees. (Ad. p. 18-21). No further formal proceedings have been had regarding selection of a site for Stephens pending this appeal. 4ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN REJECTING THE PRESENT STEPHENS SCHOOL SITE AS A POTENTIAL INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL LOCATION BY FAILING TO CONTINUE THE HEARING INITIALLY BEGUN ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE ITS DECISION PRIMARILY REFLECTED ITS OWN REASONED INTERPRETATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS REACHED IN THIS CASE. In 1991, in the context of articulating the deference to be accorded to and the standard of review to be applied to decisions of the District Court regarding changes in the desegregation plan, the parties were instructed by this Court that\nWe recognize the language of this opinion is somewhat general. It leaves a considerable degree of latitude to the District Court ... The District Court should proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity. Its decisions, whatever they are, are of course subject to review on appeal, but the review will be on an abuse of discretion basis, and we will give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. Appeal of Little Pock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 257 (Sth Cir.1991). This admonition was merely an extension of this Court's earlier directive issued as part of its approval of the settlement plans in 1990. At the end of that decision, this Court reiterated that\nThe District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. 5Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir.1990). The District Court Correctly Interpreted the Plans. When measured against this legal backdrop, the order of the District Court refusing to approve the old Stephens site as an appropriate site for the new intradistrict school is readily sustained. In the first instance, at least, the District Court was required to interpret the meaning of the settlement documents. The Court interpreted the settlement agreements to preclude the use of the old Stephens site for the new interdistrict school. That reading, particularly when evaluated under the abuse of discretion standard, must be sustained. It probably startles this Court to see that both Joshua and LRSD ascribe provisional status to the new Stephens location specified by the Plans. LRSD contends that: \"The relocation of Stephens school is merely 'proposed,' not required.\" (LRSD brief at 11) Joshua echoes this \"proposition\" at page 58 of its brief. \"Although the Plan does use the word \"relocate,\" relocation is merely 'proposed.' Thus, relocation is not absolutely mandated by the Plan.\" PCSSD has been under the impression, after the last several appeals in this case, that what was \"proposed\" in the Plans became what was \"required\" after the \"proposal\" was approved by this Court. That the Plans somehow retain provisional status is 6not an hallucination shared by the PCSSD and would probably likewise surprise the District Court as well. PCSSD submits that what is really being said in the Interdistrict Plan is that Stephens will be relocated, which is precisely what prompted the District Court to italicize the word relocate in her September order, now the subject of this appeal. Nor can it be argued with any reasonable degree of veracity that relocate means to move the facility 10 or 20 feet closer to the freeway on the same campus. Such a strained interpretation of the Plan is not worthy of further argument. That the old Washington school was relocated on the same campus is of no moment to the instant appeal. The Washington reconstruction was done by agreement of all the parties in a phase of the case that preceded the 1989 settlement agreement (See LRSD brief at 12) and was accomplished before the concept of the 1-630 corridor\" became a guidepost for future school construction. Both the reconstruction of Washington and the construction of Carver magnet were both \"done deals\" before the 1989 plans were negotiated and written. They did not then, nor do they now have, anything to do with the 1-630 corridor concept.' What is perhaps more constructive to note is that the new King interdistrict school is built on Interstate 630, can be seen Accordingly, Joshua's argument presented at page 59 of its brief pointing out that Washington is approximately 8 blocks from Interstate 630 is irrelevant. Of course, what Joshua ignores. and what is more salient, is the fact that Washington is but three blocks from Interstate 30 and is visible from that freeway. 7from Interstate 630, and is a school to which PCSSD has always agreed it can successfully recruit its white students. (Ad. p. 7, par. 3). The District Court's interpretation that the Plans \"clearly envision that the Stephens interdistrict school be near 1-630,\" and that \"the current site of the Stephens school is farther from 1-630 than any of the other proposed sites that lie between 1-30 and University Avenue,\" is a reasonable interpretation of the corridor concept and should not be disturbed under the abuse of discretion standard. The LRSD strains mightily to patch together a sustainable issue on appeal by contending that it does not contend it has to construct the new school at the present site, but only that it ma construct a new school at the present site. First, it is clear that for various reasons, including her interpretation of the Plans, that the District Court is not going to approve the old site even should this Court be inclined, for reasons unknown to PCSSD, to add it to the list of \"eligible\" candidates. Thus the relief, if it were granted, would be hollow. Even LRSD recognizes that the school must be located where it can be desegregated, and where PCSSD white students will attend. (Ad. p. 7, par. 5). Second, even though the Plan states that the new Stephens would draw its Black student body largely from the students attending the old Stephens school (LRSD brief at 11), this does not translate into a requirement, and none is contained within 8the Plan, that the school must be located within the present Stephens attendance zone. As a parallel, the Plans provided that PCSSD would build the new Crystal Hill interdistrict school, which it did, and would draw its white student body from the Pine Forest and Oak Grove Elementary attendance zones. However, Crystal Hill was not located in any zone, but upon vacant land actually in the City of North Little Rock. The same scenario has been approved by the Court for the population of the new Clinton interdistrict school. which will draw most of its white student body from a combination of parts of the Sylvan Hills and Oakbrook zones, and which is being built at a site mutually agreed to by all of the parties. (App. 124) Further, there is nothing in the Plan which would prohibit the busing of Stephens students to a new Stephens school. assuming that is even required. The prospect is doubtful because LRSD requires its students to walk to school if they live within two miles of the school. As pointed out by Joshua, Stephens is \"only\" nine blocks from Interstate 630 (Joshua brief at 59). If the new school were located on the freeway, but otherwise in reasonable proximity to old Stephens, the attendance zone for which is 13 blocks long (App. 112), LRSD would not be obligated to bus those children anyway. At page 12 of its brief LRSD represents that \"the parties\" did not intend to exclude the present Stephens site as a new school site. This is not correct. PCSSD's persistent objection 9to utilizing the old site, because of its doubts concerning its ability to recruit there, belies the inclusiveness of this representation. (Ad. p. 6, par. 6, 10, 11, 12, 14-15). It is further eroded by the consistent objections of the North Little Rock School District, articulated for the same reasons. (Ad. 16-17).) The Alleged PCSSD Veto This contention is once again an example of how little the appellants have to work with on this issue. All the District Court said about the PCSSD was that it \"must be satisfied with the site chosen\" (LRSD brief, p. 13), not that it had any direct veto. It is probably true that none of the Plans require that \"PCSSD must be satisfied with the site chosen for the new Stephens interdistrict school\" (LRSD brief, p. 13), but the mere articulation of this argument suggests a revival of the kind of arrogance which some ascribe to the LRSD. (See generally App. 172-180). In endorsing the concept that consensus was desired, this Court wisely observed when it initially approved the settlement plans, that:. This may be especially true in the present context  a protracted, highly divisive, even bitter litigation, any lasting solution to which necessarily depends on the good faith and cooperation of all the parties. especially the defendants. As a practical matter, a remedy that everyone agrees to is a lot more likely to succeed than one to which the defendants must be dragged kicking and screaming. 10Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (Sth Cir.1990). There Was Wo Reason to Continue the June Hearing. Having determined that the old Stephens site was not a permitted site for the new Stephens interdistrict school, and having no other consensual sites before it, it would have been an exercise in futility for the District Court to continue a hearing devoted to whether the old site was an appropriate site. The literal terms of the order stated that the Court would conduct a hearing \"regarding a site for the Stephens interdistrict school\" (App. 100) [Emphasis added.] if the parties are unable to reach a consensus. The Court did not say it would conduct a further hearing regarding the old Stephens site\nindeed, its September 27, 1993, order specifically excluded the old Stephens site. Accordingly, there was then no present reason for a hearing and LRSD and Joshua were therefore deprived of nothing. On October 15, 1993, PCSSD and NLRSD submitted their preferred sites in rank order and those are pending before the District Court. (Ad. p. 18-21). The Court will undoubtedly conduct a hearing on alternative sites either during the pendency of this appeal, or, if the District Court believes it has been temporarily divested of jurisdiction on this issue, after return Ik of this Court's mandate. 11The Deference Argument is Misplaced. LRSD's and Joshua's reliance on cases such as Milliken, Swann and Liddell, and others cited at pages 14 and 15 of LRSD's brief, avail them nothing in the special circumstance of interdistrict schools. After all, it is clear from the Plans, and well known to this Court, that interdistrict schools are joint undertakings between the school districts and, except for the day-to-day operations of the schools, all other significant matters are to be jointly determined by the host and sending districts. (App. 124) Therefore, LRSD's and Joshua's reliance on these cases is pertinent only to the extent that the parties are in agreement on issues such as an appropriate school site. Only then would the teachings and instructions of these cases be apropos, and only if disagreements developed between the agreeing districts and the District Court, a prospect which has not yet emerged on this issue and is unlikely to occur. Stated another way, the holdings of these cases apply with equal force to the reasoned determinations and positions of the PCSSD as the sending district. Accordingly, PCSSD's consistent and well based opposition to the old Stephens site was appropriately given deference by the District Court and reinforces both her order and its underpinnings. 12CONCLUSION The order should be affirmed and this issue returned to the District Court so that a decision regarding an appropriate new site for Stephens near the 1-630 corridor can be made. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By__ _ M. S Atto Special\nuel\\ Jones, 111 (76060) neys/ for Pulasky County chool Di ct 13 On CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE April . 1994, a copy of the foregoing was served on: Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026amp; Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 G:ac31083.030 14 M. S. luel Jones, II ADDENDUMFILED U.S, OtSTRCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP 2 7 b'95 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CAaRrLl Rr.. BbRrI^T\nT^S,. CcLiERh EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By. 6/ OcP.Ct LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 2BCB By Order dated July 1, 1993, this Court granted the parties' request for an extension of ninety days in which to attempt to reach a consensus on a site for the new Stephens Interdistrict School [doc.#1878]. The Court further ordered the parties to submit an alternative site proposal for the new Stephens Interdistrict School by September 15, 1993, if they were unable to reach a consensus. Unfortunately, the parties have not been able to reach a consensus. The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), pursuant to a recommendation of the Stephens Site Selection Committee and subsequent approval by the LRSD Board of Directors, recommends that the new Stephens Interdistrict School be built in the immediate vicinity of the old Stephens school. The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") both object to the LRSD's recommendation.* Neither the Joshua Intervenors nor the Knight * The LRSD contends that the recommendation of the Stephens Site Selection Committee, as approved by the Board of Directon of the LRSD, constitutes s consensus of the represcntAbvei of the parties. Considering the pleadings filed by the PCSSD and the NLRSD regarding the new Stephens Interdistrict School, the Court does not consider the Coomittee's recommendation u constituting a consensus. Intervenors have responded, and the parties have failed to submit an alternative proposal on site for the new Stephens a Interdistrict School. Having carefully considered the matter, the Court hereby rejects the old Stephens school site as the location for the new Stephens Interdistrict School. Both the LRSD and Interdistrict desegregation plans, to which all parties agreed, anticipate that a new Stephens Interdistrict School will be built at a new site and that the old school will be closed: It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. (Emphasis added.) LRSD Desegregation Plan, at 139. LRSD will build a new Stephens Interdistrict School ... located near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue ... The old Stephens school building will then be closed. Desegregation Plan, at 10. (Emphasis added.) Interdistrict Constructing the new Stephens Interdistrict School at the site of the old Stephens School will not further the goals of the desegregation plans. The Court recognizes that the plans say Stephens will be built \"near the 1-630 corridor,\" and that there is no set definition of what that phrase means. Although PCSSD has stated previously in Court and in filings that \"near the 1-630 corridor\" means within \"eye-shot\" of the interstate highway, there is no plan provision or other record that defines the geographic boundary that specifically. In any event, the plans clearly envision that the Stephens Interdistrict School be near 1-630. The current site of -2-the Stephens school is farther from 1-630 than any of the other proposed sites that lie between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition, the Court stresses that the success of the desegregation plans depends greatly upon voluntary interdistrict desegregation. The primary purpose of the interdistrict schools is to promote voluntary movement between the school districts to achiave desegregation and fulfill the plan commitments. Interdistrict schools must be given every chance for success by assuring that each school is as appealing as possible by virtue of such important variables as academic programs, location, accessibility, staff, facility and grounds, and safety. Because the PCSSD will bear the burden of recruiting white PCSSD students to Stephens (indeed, almost half the entire student body), PCSSD must be satisfied with the site chosen for the new Stephens Interdistrict School. Likewise, the NLRSD, while not presently to send students to the new Interdistrict school by virtue of the current racial makeup of the NLRSD's student population, is a party to the case and. as such, is committed to the plan's success, is responsible for helping to uphold the provisions of the agreements, and may eventually be able to send students to the new interdistrict school. NLRSD's objections therefore may not be dismissed. Because the plans clearly envision that the Stephens Interdistrict School be rebuilt near 1-630, and in light of the objections filed by the PCSSD and the NLRSD, locating the Stephens Interdistrict School at the site of the old Stephens school would 3-constitute a disputed modification of the plan. The Court finds that locating the stephens Interdistrict School at the current Stephens school site would not satisfy the standard for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: To modify [a) consent decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions either effective have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree, modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. A Id. at 258, quoting vith approval Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). Here, the Court does not find a defect or deficiency in the plan which impedes the goals set forth therein, either because experience has proven it less effective or disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant 11 fine-tuning\" the plan. The Court praises the work of the site selection committee for their efforts. and commends the Stephens community for their in the site selection process, for their interest in preserving and improving their neighborhood, and for supporting 2 Had there been a eonsenstu, the Court arguably could apply a leas itringent standard of review than that requited for disputed modiCcations. However, because the parties have been unable to reach a consensus, the Court need not address that iuue. -4-their neighborhood school. The Coxirt acknowledges the importance of community input, and has stressed that importance on many occasions, but points out that the purpose of the new interdistrict school is to promote interdistrict desegregation, not to help stabilize a neighborhood. While neighborhood preservation is certainly desirable and may be a worthy goal that can be fostered by a new school, it is not the primary goal that interdistrict schools are designed to achieve. In its July 1, 1993 Order, the Court directed the parties to submit alternative site proposals for the new Stephens Interdistrict School by September 15, 1993 if they were unable to reach a consensus, and set a hearing date of 30, 1993. Because the parties have not submitted an alternative proposal as ordered. the hearing scheduled for September 30, 1993, is cancelled. The parties are hereby given until and including October 15, 1993, in which to reach a consensus on an alternative site for the Stephens Interdistrict School. The LRSD may not leave the old Stephens school building permanently vacant, but either must find a use for the building that benefits the community or ultimately demolish the facility if no community service can be found for it. The Court requires the LRSD to report to the ODM its plans for the building's use. IT IS so ORDERED this _7^ay of September 1993. ___________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5- ~'S DOCUME\u0026gt;r ,vr ?s?SO ON DOCKET SHEET IN jLE 58 AND/OR 73(a) FRCPFILED S.3-\"-CCCC\" i-x/a'SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 3 1993 JAFL R. 3REi'j  S LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ^?laintieW\" V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 1. MOTION TO RESCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION OF STEPHENS INTERDISTRTCT SCHOOL motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: In their original settlement agreement. the parties agreed that two new interdistrict schools would be constructed in LRSD and that the second school would be constructed two years after the first school \"or as soon as reasonably practicable\". J.D.R. 01731-34. The first interdistrict school. then called SK Stephens Elementary School, was to have been \"ready by the 1990-91 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable\". J.D.R. 1731-32. The second interdistrict school, then called King Elementary School, was supposed to have been constructed \"by the 1992-93 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable\". J.D.R. 1733-34. The Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, which required that the second interdistrict school be constructed two years following the first interdistrict school tt or as soon as reasonably practicable\" was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. LRSD V. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990). Ad. 6 8 6 0 2. The Interdistrict Desegregation Plan district approved by the court on May 1, 1992 requires that both Stephens Interdistrict School and King Interdistrict School be constructed by \"a date approved by the Court\". Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, pp. 10, 11. In their May 1, 1991 submission to the district court. the parties proposed that King Interdistrict School be constructed in time for the 1993-94 school year and that Stephens Interdistrict School be constructed in time for the 1994-95 school year. Mr. Bowles has testified on behalf of PCSSD that he believes that sufficient PCSSD white students can be recruited to King Interdistrict School in order to make that school desegregation success, but that he is unsure about how many years it will take before that happens. The court has directed PCSSD to 3. a prepare a recruitment plan for King Interdistrict 4. School. The recruitment of PCSSD students to Romine Interdistrict School has not yet been successful. The court has heard testimony that only eight PCSSD students attended Romine Interdistrict School during the 1992-93 school year. 5. The plan to desegregate the interdistrict schools located in LRSD depends upon the recruitment of PCSSD white students. In the absence of a reasonable likelihood that sufficient PCSSD students can be recruited to Stephens Interdistrict School in accordance with the desegregation plans agreed upon by the parties. the parties would either have to devise new plan for the a integration of the proposed Stephens Interdistrict School or face Ad. 7the prospect of constructing the school which could identifiable. remain racially 6. PCSSD has expressed concern about whether it can successfully recruit PCSSD students to Stephens Interdistrict School and has raised the issue of whether the construction of Stephens Interdistrict School should be rescheduled. Brief of PCSSD for Hearing Scheduled j\nune 8 , 1993 . Although PCSSD did not specifically address the problem of simultaneous recruitment for both Stephens and King, the recruitment issue should be resolved and a recruitment plan should be established before LRSD is required to invest millions of dollars in the construction of Stephens Interdistrict School. 7. The desegregation plans require that King and Stephens be constructed in generally the same area of the city of Little Rock. Until King is established as successful, desegregated interdistrict school, it will be difficult to recruit PCSSD students to Stephens. Moreover, any successful recruitment of a PCSSD students to Stephens could delay the desegregation of King. It makes better sense to firmly establish the first LRSD interdistrict school before placing in competition with it. a second interdistrict school 8. The prospects for successfully establishing two new interdistrict schools in LRSD will be better if the original idea of establishing the second school two years following the first 1) or as soon as reasonably practicable\" is reinstated. The practicability of building the second interdistrict school should Ad. 8depend upon the degree to which the other interdistrict schools in LRSD are desegregated. Stephens Interdist'rict School should be constructed when King Interdistrict School achieves the racial balance contemplated by the desegregation plan or when there exists some other evidence that sufficient PCSSD both Stephens and King can be recruited. students to desegregate WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the \"date approved by the Court\" for the construction of Stephens Interdistrict School in accordance with the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan be established as August, 1995 or as soon as reasonably practicable and that the parties be required to revisit the issue of practicability as soon as the results of the recruitment of PCSSD students to King Interdistrict School for the 1993-94 school year become known. 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 By Christopher Heller \u0026lt; Bar No. 81083 Ad. 9____ /  EDWARD L WRICHT 9O3-I9T7' ROBERT S LiNOSE* 93 I99\u0026gt; RQNAuO a may SAAC A SCOTT WRIGHT. LINDSEY -rlyer e m.y ATTORNEYS AT lIW I tRN DISTRICT ARKANS.4fi\n\" -------- \"l.TER E MAY .AMES M A JOHN G L GORDON S -e .R RR* L maTwewS CaviO m pOwCLl ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD wR PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON ..ENNiNGS -R .,0HN R TISOAUE kathltn GRAVES M SAMUEL .ONES III .OhN WILLIAM SRIVEV KI uEC J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON JR EDGAR J TYLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T COLEMAN JAMES J GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER jR BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER CHARLES L SCHLUMeERGER SAMMYE L TAYLOR Re: 2200 WORTHEN SANK SUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE i little rock. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 JUN a 7 1993 - \u0026lt;Er :gov t joncs MOBBISON \"HOMAS C COUR'WAV 9ETT:ha z BROwnstE'N WALTER McSPACOEN ROGER 0 ROWE (501) 371-1 Z\\a M nancy SELlhOUSE oa^RL R. BRENTS, CLERl^~?=v^\" r30 376 94. aS/-- OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS GEORGE E LUSK jR June 7, 1993 LRSD V. PCSSD Exhibit List for June 8, 1993 Hearing The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court Judge U.S. District Courthouse Little Rock, Arkansas 77201 Dear Judge Wright: WAV lOV SIMMONS MCNffV DE?. JtfARK u PRYOR CLEA I?*'  J\" VI.C.-l\u0026gt;k,AI\u0026gt;RY S MUBR tlckcr lARRY S HUBST Ov A RR'Ce JR TRlClA SIEVERS LEWALLEN JAMES M MOODY JB KATHBYN t. PRYOR J MARK DAVIS KEVIN W KENNEDY KAREN J GARNETT M TODO WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS III WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL O BARNES STEPHEN R LANCASTER The only PCSSD exhibits of which I am aware consist of two letters written during the last year which evidenced the PCSSD's concerns regarding locating the new Stephens Elementary School at the old Stephens Elementary School site. One of the letters was written by Mr. Bowles to the Little Rock School District. The second was a letter to Chris Heller from me which also expressed this concern. We will bring multiple copies of these two letters to the hearing tomorrow. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Jones III tB*i dasoN I MSJ:drl cc: All Counsel Office of Desegregation Monitoring J:drll073.030 Ad. 10 PCSSl March 9, 1993 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1500 Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Bernd: As you know, the Site Selection Committee formed to evaluate sites for construction of the new Stephens Elementary Interdistrict School has voted to recommend the old Stephen's site. When this was discussed as one of the options, PCSSD went on record at that hearing as having serious reservations concerning that site, particularly regarding student access and PCSSD's ability to recruit the necessary number of white students for a new school at that location. Unfortunately, nothing has occurred since that hearing which modifies our concerns. We trust our concerns will be expressed to your Board when they review the Site Selection Committee's recommendation. I recommend you seek Federal Court approval for Stephens and King elementary schools to be listed as interdistrict magnets. In my opinion, this would be excellent for recruitment purposes. Thank you very much. Sincerely Billy u. Bowles Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation ch c Mr. Bobby Lester Mr. Sam Jones Mrs. Ann Brown Ms. Marie Parker Ad. 11EDWARD L WRIGHT '1903 19771 ROBERT 9 LINDSEY . 19 AONAL SAAC - WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT UAW AMCS M JOHN G Lite jOV GOFOON S AATK.es JR. ERA* u MAThCwS OAViO M AOWCUU AOGEA A GLASGOW C DOUGLASSUFOAO JA  ATAlCA J GOSS ALSTON .eSNiNGS .\nA jOMN TISOALt aatmlvn CAavcs M SAMUEL .ONES III JOHN wiLL:am SAIVET \u0026gt;li LEE J MULOAOW WENDELL L GAtFFEN N M NOA7ON jA EDGAA J TVLEA CHAALES C AAlOE CKAALES T COLEMAN .AMES J GLOVEA EDWIN L LOWTHEA jA BEVEALY BASSETT SCHAFFER Charles l Schlumberger 2200 WORTMEN BANK BUIUOING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722013699 (501) 371-0808 FAX iSOn 378 9442 OF COUNSCL ALSTON GCOWQt t UUSK jif March 25, 1993 SAMMVf u avlOA aaltEA  MAy ANNA MiRAt Gibson Gregory t .,cnes M XEITW MOAA'SON NOMAS C COUATWA* BETTINA E BROWNSTEN WALTER MeSAAOOEN 0 AOWE nancy bellhouse may NATE COULTER JOHN O OAVlS JUDY Simmons henry ombeRly wood tucker MARK L RRYOA F COX jR HARRY S hurst JR TROY A RRtCE RATRiciA SIEVERS LEWALLEN JAMES M MOODY JR KATHRYN A J MARK DAVIS tamwcra Rankin harrclson KEVIN W KENNEDY KAREN J GARNETT M TODO wood  GREGORY ACLIN FRED M REAKINS UI WILLIAM STUAAT JACKSON Re: LRSD V. PCSSD r Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge fc Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 L Dear Chris: It is my understanding that your District Site Selection Committee will recommend to the LRSD Board of Directors that the old Stephens Elementary School site be construction of the new Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School. I wanted to reiterate that the PCSSD continues to have grave concerns regarding thia site, primarily associated with the PCSSD's belief that recruitment of white that school would be most difficult. tonight approved for PCSSD students to Further, the District does not believe that this site literally comports with the 1-630 corridor concept, x:_____L___ to understand how a school site this remote from Interstate could be regarded as within that corridor. We are hard-pressed 630 While I understand that any action your board takes this evening will be subject to review by the parties to the school desegregation case and cannot become final until submitted the court, we thought it appropriate to remind LRSD of the District's concerns in this matter. to Ad. 12WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS istopher 5, 1993 . Mr. Marc Page 2 Heller Thank you very much. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS --M. Sa: el Jones III MSJ:drl 54981 (iC. Ad. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT plaintiffs VS NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION REGARDING STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL 1. The PCSSD reaffirms the position it has previously taken regarding the siting of this school, which positions have been made in writing and stated on the record in recent hearings. 2. The PCSSD continues o believe that, as a matter of 3\nlaw, the Stephens School must be relocated to comport with the provisions of the desegregation plans approved by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. PCSSD believes that to justify retention of the present Stephens site reguires showing of substantially changed circumstances as reguired by a Rufo V. Inmates of The Suffolk County Jail 90-954, slip of. (U.S. January 15, 1992) (please see legal discussion of Rufo in PCSSD brief filed February 6, 1992). To date, PCSSD contends that no such showing has been made and it is unaware of any facts which would support such a showing. 3. The PCSSD continues to believe that retention of the present site will not promote voluntary recruiting to the school Ad. 14and that, as a result, prospects for assembling a desegregated student body are diminished and that revenues generated by M to M transfers will not be maximized. 4. The PCSSD is prepared to address these issues further should a hearing be required on this issue. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By. M^S*nuel VTones, (76060) attorneys Ifor Pula^i County /Special S/hool Dirict luel rict Ad. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. FFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 S. -v?o PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION REGARDING STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL 1. The North Little Rock School District endorses the position previously taken by the Pulaski County Special School District opposing the location of the Stephens Interdistrict School at the current location of the Stephens School in Little Rock. i 2. The NLRSD concurs with the PCSSD that, as a matter of law. the current Stephens School site does not comply with the provisions of the desegregation plans in that it lies outside the 1-630 corridor described in the plana. 3. Likewise, the NLRSD agrees that the current Stephens location will not be conducive to the voluntary recruitment of students from the PCSSD. 4. The position of the NLRSD is, and has been, that the recruitment of PCSSD students to the Stephens Interdistrict School xs a condition precedent to the consideration of any other site selection factor. Unfortunately, this does not appear to have occurred. Ad. 16 SEP i 7 13935. As the attached letter of September 7, 1993 reflects, there were several alternative sites which would have been acceptable to the North Little Rock School District but on information and belief none of these locations was chosen. Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TOBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (50JU 375-1122 47 S?-. September 16, 1993 By\nSt^hen W. J^es #78083 Ad. 17! EOWARO L WR'GHT 903 1977) ROBERT S LiNOSE* I9I3-I99I) RONALD A MAY SAAC A SCOTT JAMES M MOODY .OKN G uiLE GORDON S RATHER jR ERRV L MATHEWS CAV'D M POWELL ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS aurORO jR PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON jENNINGS jR ..OHN R TISOALE KATHLYN graves M SAMUEL JONES \u0026gt;11 wOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON jR EDGAR J TYLER CHARLES C PRICE Charles t coleman JAMES J GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER JR BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L. TAYLOR WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2200 WORTHEN BANK BUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL avenue LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 PAX (501) 378-9442 or COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS GEORGE  LUSK. jR October 15, 1993 t WALTER E MAY ANNA MIRAI Gibson GREGORY T jONES H KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E BROWNSTE'N - WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER O ROWE nancy BELLHOUSE MAY jOhn 0 DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER MARK L, PRYOR f COX jR HARRY S hurst JR TROY A PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS LEWALLEN JAMES M MOODY JR KATHRYN A PRYOR J MARK DAVIS KEVIN W KENNEDY KAREN J. GARNETT M TODO WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS (I WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 BARNES STEPHEN R LANCASTER FRED ANDREW WOOD JUDY M ROBINSON Re: Stephens Interdistrict School Site The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Wright: The PCSSD prefers the following locations for the construction of Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School in the order shown below: 1. The Freeway Medical Towers site expanded to the east to Fairpark Boulevard. 2. The University Park site bounded by Rodney Parham to the west and the freeway to the north. 3. The Monarch Mill site. 4. The site behind Ricks Armory on the fringe of the UAMS campus. 5. The old Lee site which the PCSSD does not believe actually qualifies. Ad. 18 y^OSEY S JENNINGS Honorable Susan Webber Wright October 15, 1993 Page 2 we understand that the LRSD is seeking an additional 30 day Iio am/4 __1. . . gytpncinn ___ .--- an aaaizionai 30 dav tSr^eSeH!   \" objecnon to Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS \u0026lt; Samui Jones, III cc: Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Stephen Jones Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Ann Brown MSJ:jdt j:lul30.Q30 Ad. 19 JACK. I VOX \u0026amp; Jones. ? ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCSY TOWER 42S WEST CAPITOL AVE.NUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3472 a- ?0 1)375-1 122 TELECOPIER (501) 375-1027 OMea  11 Muse J.'c e Souff NasnviM* J\u0026lt;*2C3 61*. 2! e'ecocie' o'\n3-i66* 5. 2S9-46M October 15, 1993 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 RE: NLRSD V. PCSSD - Alternative Stephens School Location Dear Judge Wright: In response to your Order of September 27, 1993, the North Little Rock School District would propose the following alternative sites for the location of the Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School in the order presented: 1. The Arkansas Health Department site located north of Ricks Armory and east of the University of Arkansas Medical Center. 2. The site located south of 1-630 and north of 10th Street in the general area of the Freeway Medical - Tower. 3. The Hughes Street site located south of 1-630, north of 12th Street, east of Rodney Parham and west of Hughes Street. 4. The site of the former Monarch Mill. As a preliminary matter, however, we would suggest that it would be appropriate to reconsider whether a new interdistrict school should be built in light of the recent loss of students in the school districts. It may well be that circumstances have changed to such an extent that a new interdistrict school would be ill-advised at this time. As a result. it may be that the construction of such a school should be deleted from the Plan, or, alternatively, delayed for some period of time. Additionally, we would also suggest that it might be appropriate to build a new Stephens School on its current site to replace the present Stephens and Garland schools but to not designate that school as a interdistrict school. that the Desegregation Plan does require We would note the upgrading of facilities at incentive school sites\nthus, such a construction effort would be consistent with that aspect of the Plan. While this would require a Plan modification, it is a possibility that the parties might consider. Ad. 20  Jack. Lyon \u0026amp; Jones. ?,a. Honorable Susan Webber Wright October 15, 1993 Page 2 We have been advised by counsel for the Little HQVC ijeen aavisec Dy counsel for Little Rock School seek an extension of time in which the oarties could further explore reaching ----- School issue.  an extension. _ consensus regarding the Stephens The North Little Rock School District supports such SWJ/tr cc: Mr. James Smith All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown Very truly yours, 60 Stephen W. Jones Ad. 21Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p..a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW. 3400 TOBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3472 (501) 375-1 122 TELECOPIER (501) 375-1027 Nashville Office \u0026lt;11 Music Circle South Nashville. Tennessee 37203 (615) 259-4664 Telecopier (615) 259-4668 April 19, 1994 received APR 2 0 1994 Mr. Michael Gans, Clerk United States Court and Custom House 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Office of Desegregation Monitoring RE\nLittle Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, No. 93-3592 Dear Michael: This letter is to advise the Court that it was the intention of the North Little Rock School District to join in the Brief for Appellee, Pulaski County Special School District. The PCSSD, in the Summary and Request for Oral Argument, does reflect that the NLRSD joins with it in presenting the position of Appellees. However, I wanted to ensure that the Court understood that the NLRSD joined PCSSD with respect to its entire Brief and not solely with respect to its position on oral argument. Your attention to this matter is very much appreciated. Very truly yours. Stephen W. Jones SWJ:le cc: Christopher Heller John Walker M. Samuel Jones III Richard Roachell Ann Brown Elizabeth Boyter\u0026gt; '/ -9 sr? V - NO. JAN s. .-994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 93-3592 OifiC3 of Dasegrsgaiicn fvlonitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK \u0026gt;i ' /acij SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE SECOND MOTION FOR APPELLANTS FOR EXTENSION OP TIME TO FILE THEIR BRIEFS The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Briefs, stated that: 1. The Appellants' Briefs in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on January 27, 1994 . 2. Due to the press of business in counsels' office. an additional extension of time of two weeks is necessary in which to file the briefs for the Appellants. WHEREFORE, Appellants Dale Charles and the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through February 10, Respectfully submitted. 1994.I \\ I c^- David Schoen DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this _Y_ day of January, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 / ( / \\. David Schoenr 2 2 1994 i\nCuica o: \u0026gt;^1 n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASrlvi: WESTERN DIVISION ' 2 G 1594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 'A?. 5 ' 'PLfflNTIFF Ev: V. :Ri\u0026lt; LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN For its motion, plaintiff. Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans require the establishment within LRSD of three interdistrict schools Romine, King and Stephens. The plans require that two of those schools. King and Stephens, be located in the downtown Little Rock area. Romine and King schools have been established as interdistrict schools. 2. Since the parties agreed that LRSD would establish the King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools in the downtown Little Rock area. there have been significant changes in factual conditions which warrant modification of that agreement. First, Washington Elementary School, which the parties agreed would be an incentive school. presently operates as an interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. Second, there has been a significant movement of population out of the area in which the parties plannedto locate interdistrict schools. The schools in that area are experiencing low enrollment. There are many empty seats, including seats at the King and Washington Interdistrict Schools. 3. The modification of the desegregation plans which is most suitably tailored to the changed circumstances is to recognize Washington in place of Stephens as the second required interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. This modification is in compliance with the standards for modification of consent decrees set out in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. ___, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above and in the accompanying brief, LRSD prays for modification of the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans to recognize Washington as the second required interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area and to delete the requirement that LRSD construct a new Stephens Interdistrict School. 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 B' Christopher He Bar No. 81083 er 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Modification of Desegregation Plan has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April, 1994. 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 Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Hellec**^ 3 1. 2. 3. 4. LitUe Rock School Dislricl Stephens School Relocation Timeline Task File motion with Court to relocate students from Stephens School File revisions to current filings relating to Stephens which are before the courts________________________________________________________ Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors \u0026amp; approved Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected 5. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted 6. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy 7. Inventory building____________________________________________ 8. Hold public meeting with Stephens community 9. Plan and schedule second public meeting with the Stephens community 10. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting for a) community groups and churches\nb) media c) door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood_________________________ 11. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement of relocation and choices asking for a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting on June 21._________________________________ 12. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.____________________ 13. Design follow-up plan for students who do not choose a school. (D/scuss with Sterling Ingram)____________________________________ 14. Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff________ 15. Compile mailing labels of all students scheduled to attend Stephen School for 1994-95.__________________________________________________ 16. Court approval granted________________________________________ 17. Mail notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: a) community groups and churches\nb) Media___________________________________________________ 18. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and choices asking for a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting of June 21. Include invite to community information meeting at Stephens School to answer questions about choices and the relocation. ____________ 19. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing relocation and information meeting 20. Implement follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their choice of school_______________________________ 21. Mail assignment notices _______________________________ 22. Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) with announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline._______________________________________ 23. Remove materials and equipment from school 24. Reroute transportation of students 25. Secure building ___________________________________ 26. Reassign staff 27. Mail assignment notices to those responding late * Date 5/18/94 5/18/94 5/26/94 5/27/94 5/27/94 5/27/94 5/30/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/7/94 6/13/94* 6/13/94* 6/16/94* 7/6/94 7/15/94* 7/15/94* 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Deadline is absolute. Timely notice is required because of promises made in court. Person Williams Williams Williams Ingram Modeste Williams Neal Modeste Wagner Wagner Wiedower Modeste Wiedower Modeste, Mayo Lee Williams Wagner Lee Wagner Ingram Lee Lee Neal Montgomery Eaton Hurley Lee r1 iiaa a \nIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Offico of Ocsegri UCil iVr 'J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed ............................................... 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1STATEMEKT OF THE CASE I. THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT ISSUE. A. Previous LRSD Election Zones. The district court approved seven single-member zones for the election of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Board of Directors on December 18, 1986. Appellant's App. p. 50. Before that time, LRSD board members were elected in at-large elections. Arkansas law requires, however, that school districts with student populations in excess of 24,000 elect board members from single- member zones. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607 (Michie 1991). Pursuant to previous orders of this Court and the district court. LRSD annexed territory of the Pulaski County Special School District which increased LRSD's student population above 24,000 and was required by state law to establish single-member zones. The LRSD zone plan approved by the district court had the following populations and racial compositions according to the 1980 census: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50% black\nZone 2 - 25,295 total population\n68.90% black\nZone 3 - 25,210 total population\n7.83% black\nZone 4 - 24,844 total population\n2.96% black\nZone 5 - 25,016 total population\n18.30 black\nZone 6 - 25,107 total population\n17.30% black\nZone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10% black. 1The district court found that the zone plan \"comports with the one- man one-vote principle required by the Constitution . . . [and is] in compliance with the mandate of Amended  2 of the Voting Rights Act (codified as 42 U.S.C.  1973) and does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote.\" Appellant's App., p. 50-51. The district court's December 18, 1986, order approving the LRSD zone plan was not appealed. The Charles Plaintiffs, as members of the class represented by the Joshua Intervenors, were parties to the case when the zones were established. LRSD App., p. 1. In fact, Mr. Charles was substituted as a named plaintiff when he became president of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP. LRSD B. The PCBE Plan. App., p. 4 . The Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\") plan for LRSD election zones was prepared by Metroplan, a non-profit corporation whose members are local governmental entities in the central Arkansas area. LRSD App., p. 41. Metroplan was asked to determine whether the previous LRSD election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man. one-vote\" principle according to 1990 census data and, if so, to prepare alternative proposals for rezoning LRSD in compliance with federal law. LRSD App., p. 42. Jim McKenzie, the Executive Director of Metroplan, was primarily responsible for preparing the proposals. LRSD App., pp. 76-77. Before preparation of alternative proposals for submission to PCBE, Mr. McKenzie contacted Jim Lynch, who became the Charles Plaintiffs' expert in this case, concerning criteria which should 2be considered in preparing election zones. Lynch provided McKenzie a written list of five criteria: (1) adhere to the one-man, one- vote doctrine\n(2) avoid diluting minority political expression\n(3) districts ought to be compact and contiguous\n(4) district boundaries should be recognizable\nand, (5) use existing political boundaries. LRSD App., pp. 9, 76-77. McKenzie followed Lynch's criteria in developing four alternative proposals for rezoning the Little Rock School District. LRSD App., pp. 77-80. McKenzie was aware of the December 18, 1986, order stating that the previous LRSD election zones were in compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. LRSD App., p. 40. II. THE DESEGREGATION PLAN MODIFICATION ISSUE The parties to this case are in the process of implementing desegregation plans agreed upon in 1989 and approved by this Court in 1990.* The Interdistrict and LRSD Desegregation Plans call for eight racially isolated incentive schools but do not require that each incentive school must remain open in perpetuity. Instead, a purpose of those plans is to move LRSD black students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools: There are four desegregation plans, district and an Interdistrict Plan. one for each school The plans were modified in For a history of the development of the desegregation plans and the 1989 settlement agreement, see Little Rock School District 1991. V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). 3\"As new interdistrict schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to incentive school . . an It LRSD App., p. 331. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. The planned effort to move students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools is illustrated by the parties' agreement about Stephens school. Stephens is one of the eight incentive schools established under the 1989 plans. LRSD App., pp. 331, 334 . Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. The plans require the parties to quickly convert Stephens from an incentive school to an interdistrict school and to close \"[t]he old Stephens school building.\" LRSD App., pp. 332, 334. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 10\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. Washington Elementary School provides another example of the transition from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The 1989 desegregation plans list 4 . Washington among the eight incentive schools. (8 J.D.R. 1722\n10 J.D.R. 2288), but the parties later agreed that Washington would become an Interdistrict Magnet School.^ 2 The district court rejected the settlement plans on June 27, 1989 and, during the pendency of the appeals of that order, approved a substitute plan known as the Tri-District Plan (Docket The Tri-District Plan was implemented for the 1990-91 #1328). school year, and Washington operated under that plan as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school. Following this Court's approval of the 1989 settlement plans, the parties agreed that Washington should continue to operate interdistrict magnet school rather that resume operation as racially isolated incentive school. - - as racially balanced Docket #1434. a a 4The plans and agreements of the parties to date will reduce the number of incentive schools from eight to six by moving incentive school students to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The assignment of Ish attendance zone students to King Interdistrict School is the first movement of students from a segregated to an integrated school which has been opposed by any party. LRSD committed to build a new King Interdistrict School \"in downtown Little Rock ... in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University LRSD App., P- LRSD Avenue.\" 334. Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. That area is populated primarily by students who are enrolled or are entitled to be enrolled in an incentive school. The specific site within that area was approved by the district court on March 17, 1992 (LRSD App. , p. 227. Docket #1576) and no appeal was taken from that order. Each LRSD school. including each incentive school. has an attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 310-313. The zone established for each new elementary school required by the desegregation plans must be superimposed upon the existing zone plan and will necessarily counsel for the Joshua Intervenors told the district court: \"I'm suggesting that integration by itself is just unacceptable to black people at this time. It has to be something that is much more substantive than merely being in the same environment with white students.\" LRSD App., p. 292. 5usurp some or all of the attendance zone of one or more of the existing elementary schools. LRSD hired Dr. Leonard Thalmueller to design an attendance zone for King Interdistrict School. LRSD App. , p. 301. Dr. Thalmueller is a former employee of LRSD who has been involved in the preparation of LRSD attendance zones for seventeen years (LRSD App., p. 301) and who prepared the attendance zones for the 1989 LRSD Desegregation Plan. (LRSD App., p. 283). In drawing the King attendance zone, Thalmueller engaged in an effort \"to minimize the impact of the attendance zone on other students in the district. try to keep the domino effect down to the smallest possible factor . . [and] to reduce busing to whatever extent we could\". LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller also tried to draw the King zones so that students whose assignments were changed as a result of the establishment of that zone would not have to endure a second change of assignment when zones were later established for the Stephens Interdistrict School. LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller prepared three plans. reviewed them with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and presented them to LRSD. LRSD App., pp. 303-304. In the plan adopted by the LRSD Board of Education, Dr. Thalmueller placed the entire Ish zone, consisting of six zone blocks, in the King attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 335-336. The only schools whose attendance zones were changed by the Thalmueller plan are Ish, Jefferson, Rightsell and Washington. LRSD App., pp. 335, 336. 6One hundred eighty-three students were enrolled at Ish for the 1992-93 school year. Ninety of those students were from outside the Ish attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 3 08. There were 229 students in the Ish attendance zone. June 8, 1993 LRSD App., p. 307. Only 93 of those students attended Ish school. LRSD App., p. 307. The others attended schools throughout LRSD. Dr. Thalmueller and LRSD Associate Superintendent Marie Parker prepared a report on the impact of the King attendance zone (LRSD App., p. 321) which was presented to the LRSD board, shared with all counsel on March 12, 1993 (LRSD App., p. 325) and presented to the District Court on June 8, 1993. The report describes the following impact upon Ish: \"Ish will remain open unless fewer than one hundred students choose Ish, in which case all Ish students will be assigned to King, and Little Rock School District will work with the Ish community to determine an appropriate use for the Ish building.\" LRSD App., p. 321. Four community meetings, including one at Ish school. were held in March, April and May 1993 \"to gather information from prospective parents and patrons to be used in consideration of attendance zones and theme selection for Martin Luther King, Jr. school\". LRSD App., p. 337. Surveys were mailed to all families affected by the location of the proposed attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 320. The King attendance zone was approved by the LRSD Board of Directors on April 22, 1993. On May 5, 1993 LRSD moved for approval of the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 231. Docket #1820. Joshua opposed LRSD's motion. LRSD App., p. 235. Docket #1825. The North Little Rock 7School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the Knight Intervenors did not oppose the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 305. The district court conducted hearings on June 8 and 9, 1993 and approved the King attendance zone as drawn by Dr. Thalmueller, but not LRSD's plan for determining whether Ish should be closed. LRSD App., pp. 285-291. The court preferred Thalmueller's plan to the ideas presented by Dr. James Jennings, another former LRSD employee, because Thalmueller's plan would impact fewer attendance zones and because his plan \"left room for doubt\" concerning the 4 future location of the Stephens site. The district court announced that it would order that Ish remain open i-f one hundred or more students chose to attend Ish from among the students within the Ish attendance zone whether or not presently enrolled at Ish (229 students (LRSD App., p. 307)) and all students attending Ish whether or not residing within the Ish attendance zone (90 students (LRSD App., p. 308)) LRSD App., pp. 286-287. 4\u0026lt; Dr. Jennings was subpoenaed only a few days before the hearing and had not previously reviewed Thalmueller's plan. During his previous employment with LRSD, Jennings had prepared a plan to create attendance zones for King and Stephens together. p. 279. LRSD App., Jennings' testimony consisted of his recollection of the plan he had previously prepared on the assumption that King and Stephens zones would be established at the same time. and his reaction to Thalmueller' s plan which he had seen for the first time the day before. LRSD App., pp. Jennings' proposals would impact the attendance zones of thirteen schools. 281-283. 280. LRSD App. , p. Jennings worked with Thalmueller to prepare the attendance zones contained in the 1989 desegregation plan (LRSD App., p. 283) and considers Thalmueller competent to prepare attendance zone plans (LRSD App., 284). 8The court's bench ruling was followed closely by a written order (Docket #1848) which established the following process by which LRSD could attempt to \"meet its burden of recruiting students to populate the King Interdistrict School\" from among those attending Ish or residing in the Ish attendance zone and \"proving that fewer than 100\" of those students wished to attend Ish: \"Within ten days from June 9, 1993 the LRSD must submit to the Court its proposed survey of these students along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. This plan must include a time schedule with deadline dates for implementing each step of the survey process, including the date by which the district will determine whether Ish is to remain open or to close.\" June 11, 1993 Order, Docket #1848. The court told Joshua twice from the bench (LRSD App., pp. 293-300) and again in its written order that Joshua would \"have 5 days to file their response and objections to LRSD's survey and plan\". June 11, 1993 Order, p.3 LRSD filed on June 21, 1993 its proposed survey of potential Ish students and its plan for implementing the survey results^. LRSD proposed \"to send the form letter, the King and Ish fact sheets. and the School Selection Form to the parents of all students described in the court's June 11, 1993 Order in accordance with the attached time line for implementing King/Ish Survey Process.\" LRSD App., p. 240. No one objected to the process ^LRSD's filing showed exactly how the survey process would be It included a time line, a form letter to parents of potential Ish students, fact sheets on both King and Ish Schools which would be sent to potential Ish students and a school implemented. selection form. to potential students LRSD App., p. 240. 9proposed by LRSD. The district court approved the process on June 30, 1993. Docket No. 1873. LRSD engaged in an extensive effort to inform potential Ish students about King and Ish Schools and to maximize the response to its King/Ish survey!^. Two hundred sixty survey forms were mailed, 173 were returned and 82 students requested Ish School. LRSD App., p. 271-272. Based upon the results of the survey, LRSD moved on July 19, 1993 to close Ish School. LRSD App., p. 268. Docket No. 1908. Joshua opposed LRSD's status report about the survey process (LRSD App., p. 265) and LRSD's Motion to close Ish School (Docket No. 1918). On August 2, 1993, the district court granted LRSD's Motion to close Ish School. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C.  1973, IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. The Charles Plaintiffs contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, the Charles Plaintiff were required to establish the *LRSD conducted a series of community meetings, including two at Ish School. Fliers announcing the community meetings were delivered door to door and distributed to local churches. Ish patrons conducted a door to door campaign encouraging parents to return the survey forms. The LRSD student assignment office telephoned parents who were sent survey forms and encouraged them to complete and return the forms. LRSD App., pp. 271-272. 10following four elements: (1) that blacks are sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) that blacks are politically cohesive\n(3) that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat blacks' preferred candidate\nand, (4) that based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nThornburg v. Ginqles. 478 U.S. 25, 50- 51 (1986) . The district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish each of the above elements. The PCBE plan contains two majority black zones. Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs were reguired to prove that three majority black zones can be created. In addition, the majority black zones must have at least a 65% black majority to enable blacks to elect their preferred candidate. Smith V. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988). Each of the three majority black zones in the plan advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs has majority black population of less than 65%. As a result, the district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that three majority black LRSD zones with a 65% black majority population can be created. The Charles Plaintiffs attempted to establish black political cohesiveness through statistical proof of the correlation a coefficient comparing the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate. However, the 11correlation coefficient does not establish the percentage of black support for black candidates. The Charles Plaintiffs did not undertake the additional statistical analysis necessary to establish black political cohesiveness, and therefore, the district court held that they had failed to establish this element. The Charles Plaintiffs' attempt to establish white bloc voting was infected with the same statistical flaw. In addition. persistent proportional representation of blacks on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible\" for the Charles Plaintiff to establish white bloc voting. Nash V. Blunt, 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992). Evidence of elections between White and black candidates demonstrates that white voters do not usually vote as a block to defeat the blacks' preferred candidate. Accordingly, the district could found that LRSD did not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. Finally, the district court held that, based on a totality of the circumstances, the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice under the PCBE plan than they had under the previous zone plan which had been approved by the district court in 1986. The Charles Plaintiffs' expert testified that the opportunity of blacks is the same under the PCBE plan and under the previous court approved plan. The findings of the district court are not clearly erroneous and should be affirmed. 12A. ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ACT, 42 U.S.C. SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. Introduction. A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS  1973, IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND No plan for single-member election zones is immune from challenge under the Voting Rights Act. If a plan concentrates minorities into super-majority zones. the plan may be said to dilute minority voting strength through \"packing.\" If a plan does not create the maximum number of minority black zones, it may be said to dilute minority voting strength through dispersion of minority voters. Compare Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196 (E.D.Ark. 1989), and Jeffers v. Tucker. 839 F.Supp. 612 (E.D.Ark. 1993) . PCBE adopted a Metroplan proposal for LRSD election zones which has two majority black zones. The Charles Plaintiffs advocate racial gerrymandering of LRSD election zones to create a third majority black zone. In discussing the racial gerrymandering of election zones, the Supreme Court has stated: Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. They reinforce the belief, too many for too much of history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. history The Charles Plaintiffs argued before the district court that the PCBE plan violated the Voting Rights Act due to \"packing.\" _ . . ----------- -----' In this appeal, the Charles Plaintiffs raise for the first time an argument based on the dispersion of black voters. PCBE adopted Metroplan proposal No. 4. 13Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. Racial gerrymandering even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions\nit threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer mattersa goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments embody. and to which the Nation continues to aspire. It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. Shaw V. Reno. 509 U.S. 113 S.Ct. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 535 (1993). B. Discussion. 1. Liability Under Section 2 Generally. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was If designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century.\" South Carolina v. Katzenbach. 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966). As amended in 1982, Section 2 of the Act provides that no state may impose a standard, practice or procedure \"which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . fl 42 U.S.C.  1973(a) (Supp. 1993). Section 2 further states: A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if. the circumstances, based on the totality of it is shown that political processes leading to nomination the or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity to participate in political process and to elect the representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office political subdivision is in one the State or circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to 14have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion population. in the 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993) (emphasis in original). In order to prevail on a Section 2 claim, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. Ill S.Ct. 2354, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991). The Supreme Court has stated that a minority group challenging single-member election zones under Section 2 must establish three \"necessary preconditions\": First, that [the minority group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a If it is not, as would be the single-member district. case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. [citations omitted]. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multi-member If the electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests, [citations omitted]. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as bloc to enable circumstances, such it as in the absence of special a minority candidate running unopposed . . . usually to defeat the preferred [citations omitted]. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multi-member candidate. minority's district impedes its ability to elect representatives of its chosen representation. a Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 50-51\nGrowe v. Emison. ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. , 122 L.Ed.2d 388, 404. Satisfaction of these three \"preconditions\" is necessary. but not sufficient, to establish liability under Section 2. Growe. 507 U.S. at ___, 122 L.Ed.2d at 15404\nChisom. 501 U.S. ___, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364\nsee League of United Latin American Citizens v. Clements. 999 F.2d 831, 848 (Sth Cir. 1993). Therefore, in order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must demonstrate that (1) the group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) it. is politically cohesive\n(3) the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate\nand. (4) based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" the group has less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the challenged electoral device. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nGinqles. 478 U.S. at 50-51. 2. Sufficiently Large and Geographically Compact. The plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE contains two majority-minority zones. LRSD App., p. 8 . Thus, in the context of the present case, the first Gingles precondition requires that the Charles Plaintiffs establish that the black population of LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a \"majority II in three LRSD election zones. Gingles. 478 U.S. at 50. More than mere numerical superiority must be considered in determining whether the Charles Plaintiffs constitute a sufficient \"majority II in single-member zone to elect representatives of their choice. As the court explained in Smith v. Clinton. 687 a F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988): A guideline of 65% frequently used. of total population is and is derived by 16supplementing simple majority with an additional 5% to offset the fact that minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the well-documented pattern of low voter registration, and 5% for low voter turnout among minorities. Smith. 687 F.Supp at 1363. See also Fletcher v. Golder. 959 F,2d 106, 110 (Sth Cir. 1992). Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the black population in LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to permit creation of three zones with at least 65% minority population. Otherwise, the PCBE plan for a LRSD election zones \"cannot be responsible for minority voters inability to elect its candidates.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 50. Each of the purported \"majority\" black zones proposed by the Charles Plaintiffs falls below the 65% guideline. Under the Charles Plaintiffs' plan, 81% of the blacks who live within the boundaries of the LRSD would be packed into zones 1, 2 and 6 resulting in percentage black populations in those zones of 64.7%, 64.0% and 61.7%, respectively. The remaining black population is dispersed among the remaining four zones. Appellant's App., p. 55. 9 Therefore, the plan for LRSD election zones advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs demonstrates that the black population in LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute Charles Plaintiffs' Zone 1 has percentage population variance of negative 4.5%, and therefore, will in all probability be the first zone to fall out of compliance with the requirement. LRSD App., p. 74. \"one-man. one-vote\" Metroplan proposal No. 4 adopted by PCBE took into account present demographics trends by placing more persons in zones with declining population and by placing fewer persons in zones with increasing population. This was done within the limits prescribed by the law and with a lesser degree of population variance than provided in the Charles plaintiffs' plan. LRSD App., pp. 78-80. 17a sufficient \"majority\" in three LRSD election zones. Appellant's App., p. 155. Furthermore, McKenzie testified that the Charles' Plaintiffs plan did not present compact zones. LRSD App. , P- 61. Accordingly, the district court found, \"The plan proposed by the Charles plaintiffs does not conform to the standard proposed by their expert, Mr. Lynch, that the zones be compact and contiguous.\" Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 7. The district court's finding that the black population of LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in three LRSD election zones is not clearly erroneous. 3. Political Cohesiveness. In an effort to establish black political cohesiveness. Lynch computed the correlation coefficient (the \"r\" statistic) and the r- square value for all 65 voting precincts in LRSD. Lynch compared the percentage of black voting age population within the precinct and the percentage of votes for the black candidate for ten elections involving a black candidate and a white candidate. A summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. Relying only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Lynch concluded that blacks were politically cohesive. Appellant's App., P. 160. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 does not support Lynch's conclusion. The correlation coefficients calculated by Lynch and summarized in Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no proof that 18blacks are politically cohesive.* The correlation coefficient is a measure of consistency. LRSD App., p. 134. See Citizens for a Better Gretna v, City of Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1987)\nsee. generally. Richard Engstrom Micheal McDonald, \"Quantitiye Evidence in Vote Dilution Litigation: Political \u0026amp; Participation and Polarized Voting,\" 17 Urban Lawyer 369 (1985). A perfect positive correlation (i.e., a correlation coefficient of one) between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate results where, for example, the same percentage of blacks and the same percentage of white voters support the black candidate in each precinct.\" If 25% of the black voters and 20% of the white voters in each precinct support the black candidate. perfect positive correlation exists. The correlation coefficient provides no a evidence of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Thus, Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 indicates only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Lynch conceded that the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no information about the is nevertheless important to note that the only LRSD zone election analyzed by Lynch produced no significant correlation between black voting age population and support for the black candidate. Appellant's App., p. 157. \"Lynch's feeble understanding of the correlation coefficient was demonstrated when on cross-examination Lynch was unable to describe circumstances which would produce a perfect positive correlation. Lynch testified that he merely entered the data into a computer equipped with software to calculate the correlation coefficient. LRSD App., p. 165. 19percentage of black support for the black candidate. LRSD App., p. 158. Lynch admitted that nothing in his analysis excluded the possibility that only 25% of the black voters supported the black candidate in the elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., p. 161. Lynch acknowledged that, if only 25% of the blacks supported a black candidate, blacks could not be considered politically cohesive. LRSD App., p. 159. In order for the correlation coefficient or r-square value to demonstrate political cohesiveness. they must be used in conjunction with homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis. S^, e^, Whitfield v. Democratic Party of the State of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1383 (E.D.Ark. 1988)\nCitizens for a Better Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1987). Homogeneous precinct analysis is the examination of a precinct which is overwhelmingly populated by a discrete group to determine what percentage of voters in that group support a particular candidate. See Campos v. City of Baytown. 840 F.Supp. 124 0, 1246 n.lO (5th Cir. 1988). For example, if a precinct is 100% black and the black candidate gets 90% of the votes in that precinct, then 90% of the black voters preferred the black candidate. If there is also a high correlation coefficient among all the precincts (meaning that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct), it may be appropriate to conclude that approximately 90% of black voters in each precinct supported the black candidate. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 371-72. 20Regression analysis involves the calculation of the regression coefficient, commonly reported as It is the regression \"b\". coefficient \"that illuminates the degree to which voting patterns are racially differentiated. Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, P- 375. Whereas the correlation coefficient measures how consistently the electoral support for the black candidate changes with the percentage of black voting age population. the regression coefficient estimates how closely the change in percentage of votes for the black candidate tracks the change in percentage black voting age population. For example, where voting is completely racially polarized, the percentage of votes for the black candidate would track perfectly the increase in black voting age population. 12 See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 375. Therefore, homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis are necessary to establish racially polarized voting. Lynch testified that he did not conduct homogeneous precinct analysis. LRSD App., p. 164. With regard to regression analysis. Lynch testified, \"I'm not familiar with that term. 11 LRSD App., p. 163 . As a result. Lynch's conclusion that LRSD elections are racially polarized is without foundation. The correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 demonstrate '^The regression coefficient is to be distinguished from the square value calculated by Lynch. The r-square value is merely the square of the correlation coefficient. The regression coefficient (\"b\") represents the slope of the regression line, regression line is the line which minimizes the deviations among samples. The correlation coefficient is a measure of the samples' deviation from the regression line. With a perfect correlation, either positive or negative, the samples fall perfectly along the regression line. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. samples. r- The The See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. 21only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provides no indication of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Because the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks are politically cohesive, their Section 2 claim must fail.'* 4 . White Bloc Vote. a. Persistent Proportional Representation. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice White, noted in Ginoles that \"persistent proportional representation is inconsistent with [the] allegation that the ability of black voters ... to elect representatives of their choice is not equal to that enjoyed by the white majority.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 77. With regard to this statement by Justice Brennan, Justice O'Conner, joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Powell and Justice Renquist, wrote. \"I *The conclusion that blacks are politically cohesive can be drawn based on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 only if it is assumed that black voters preferred the black candidate. However, the Supreme Court has stated that minority support for the minority candidate \"never can be assumed, but must be proved in each case in order to establish that a redistricting plan dilutes minority voting strength in violation of  2.\"  -- ___, 125 L.Ed.2d at 532. Shaw V. Reno. 509 U.S. at 'There is one other notable limitation on the value of the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and percentage of votes for the black candidate does not preclude the possibility of an equally strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and any of the other factors which Lynch testified often determine the outcome of elections. For example, the correlation coefficient between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the democratic candidate may be as strong or stronger, in as the correlation coefficients shown on any given election, Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., pp. 170-171. 22agree with Justice Brennan that consistent and sustained success by candidates preferred by minority voters is presumptively inconsistent with the existence of a  2 violation.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 102 (O'Conner, J., concurring). After considering the above guoted language in Ginqles. the court in Nash v. Blunt. 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992), concluded, \"If defendants can prove prior persistent proportional representation, it would be virtually impossible for the plaintiffs to prove white voters usually vote together to defeat minority-preferred candidates.\" Recognizing that Ginqles provides that \"proof that some minority candidates have been elected does not foreclose a  2 claim. Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 75, the court in Nash reasoned that persistent proportional representation would constitute a defense* to a Section 2 claim only where. in addition to a history of proportional representation, there exists a substantial likelihood that proportional representation would continue in the future. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1498. For example, the plaintiffs in Na^ challenged the Missouri legislative redistricting plan as it H applied to Jackson County, Missouri. The court noted that \"during the past decade, the proportion of black legislators for Jackson County has been in almost exactly equal proportion to the The court in Nash describes representation as an \"affirmative defense.\" persistent proportional This is a misnomer. A true affirmative defense relieves a defendant of liability even though the plaintiff has established each element of his claim. The classic example is the statute of limitations. However, persistent proportional representation, in effect, makes it \"virtually impossible\" to prove a necessary element of a Section 2 claim, legally significant white bloc voting. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1498. 23proportion of black citizens living in Jackson County.\" Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The court found that the proportion of majority black districts created under the challenged plan was roughly equal to the proportion of black population and concluded: Thus, we conclude that there has been at least a ten-year history of proportional representation, as well as a near certain likelihood that there will be proportional representation for the next decade. Therefore, we find the defendants have successfully proved the elements of this affirmative defense. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The facts of the present case are remarkably similar to the facts before the court in Nash. Blacks constitute 29.1% of the voting age population of LRSD. LRSD App., p. 6. There are seven members of the LRSD Board of Directors. Thus, proportional representation would be two of the seven board members or 28.6% of the board. Since 1983, the racial composition of the LRSD Board of Directors has been as follows: 1983 to March 1987 - two blacks. five whites\nMarch 1987 to June 1988 - three blacks, four whites\nand, June 1988 to present - two blacks, five whites. Therefore, since 1983, the proportion of black members of the LRSD Board of Directors has been equal to or greater than the proportion of black members of the electorate. Moreover, under the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE, blacks are virtually certain to be proportionally represented in the future. The PCBE plan contains two black majority zones. PCBE Zones 1 and 2 have percentages of black population of 79.82% and 59.39%, respectively. LRSD App., p. 8. Although PCBE Zone 2 falls below the 65% guideline discussed in 24Smith V. Clinton, supra, Lynch testified that blacks would be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of 60%, 104. Lynch specifically referred to North LRSD App. , p. Little Rock election zones with percentage black populations of 59.4% and 58.8% in which black candidates have been successful. LRSD App., P 11. Therefore, blacks will continue to be proportionally represented on the LRSD Board of Directors under the PCBE plan. The consistent and sustained past, along with the certain future, of proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible\" for the Charles Plaintiffs to establish legally significant white bloc voting. Nash, 797 F.Supp. 1500. b. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. The Charles Plaintiffs substantially relied on the testimony of Lynch in an attempt to establish white bloc voting. Lynch calculated the correlation coefficient and the rsquare value comparing the percentage of white voting age population to the percentage of votes for the white candidate for same ten elections analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. Appellant's App. , P. 158. Based only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33, Lynch concluded that the white majority voted sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the candidate 25preferred by blacks. 16 LRSD App., p. 149. Again, the record does not support this conclusion. As with Lynch's reliance on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 to establish black political cohesiveness, the correlation coefficients and r-square values shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 demonstrate only that approximately the same percentage of whites preferred the white candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 provides no information concerning the actual percentage of white voters who preferred the white candidate. Lynch failed to conduct the concomitant homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis necessary to make Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 meaningful. c. Legally Significant White Bloc Voting. Black electoral success in LRSD and the City of Little Rock supports the district courts's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. To establish legally significant white bloc voting under Gingles, the minority group \"must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable itin the absence of special circumstances such as a minority candidate running unopposed usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Gingles. 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). Stated another way, \"a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of 'in his deposition taken the day before his trial testimony. Lynch stated that he had undertaken no study, and therefore could offer no opinion, on the issue of whether white bloc voting worked to usually defeat the candidate preferred by blacks. Lynch changed his testimony at trial.  LRSD App., pp. 148-151. 26minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 56 (emphasis supplied). It is the \"usual predictability of the majority success [that] distinguishes structural dilution from the mere loss of an occasional election.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). See Whitcomb v. Chavis. 403 U.S. 124, 153. The Charles' Plaintiffs failed to establish the \"usual predictability\" of white candidate success necessary to establish white bloc voting. As discussed above, blacks have enjoyed proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors since 1983. Likewise, blacks have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. Appellant's App., p. 161-62. See Leadership Roundtable v. City of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 590 (E.D. Ark. 1980). In sum, white voters do not sufficiently vote as a bloc to \"usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Ginqles. 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). In 1966, Dr. T.E. Patterson was elected at-large against white opposition to become the first black member of the LRSD Board of Directors. In 1983, Bill Hamilton, a black. defeated a white opponent by winning 70% of the vote in an at-large election. LRSD App., p. 12. In 1986, Thomas Broughton, a black and current PCBE member, garnered 74% of the at-large vote in LRSD to defeat a white opponent. LRSD App., p. 20. In a 1989 Zone 2 election, Hamilton 27received 84% of the vote to defeat a white opponent. 17 LRSD App., p. 36. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 also reveal significant black electoral success in LRSD. Those exhibits examined ten races in the City of Little Rock which pitted a black against a white opponent. The black candidate won six of the ten races, including the only two LRSD elections shown on those exhibits. LRSD App., p. 152. Moreover, the two LRSD elections had the lowest correlation coefficients of the ten elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. In fact. Lynch testified that the correlation coefficient for the 1989 election of Hamilton was not statistically significant. LRSD App., p. 142. This was the only election analyzed by Lynch under the previous singlemember election zones. Evidence of exogenous elections in the City of Little Rock further demonstrates the considerable success of black candidates. Blacks won four of the eight races analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 which did not involve LRSD. Appellant's App., pp. 110-11, 157, 161. Similarly, the black candidate prevailed over white opposition in nine of the twenty-three contests for the City of Little Rock Board of Directors shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 35. Appellant's App., p. 161-162. As noted above, blacks In the only other LRSD election involving a black and a white since the implementation of election zones, Charles Young, a white, defeated Lawrence Hampton, a black. The race was to represent Zone 6 which at the time was 72.7% white. Even so. Young defeated Even so. Hampton by only 32 votes. This race was excluded from Charles Plaintiff's Exhibits 32 and 33. LRSD App., p. 35. 28have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. More importantly, the success of black candidates in LRSD and the City of Little Rock cannot be attributed solely to \"special circumstances. See Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 47. The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"All of the black electoral successes in the LRSD and Little Rock City Board elections were won under 'special circumstances' II Brief of Appellant's, p, 34. However, as the Charles Plaintiffs define \"special circumstances,\" it is equally true that all of the black electoral failures in LRSD and City of Little Rock elections were the result of \"special circumstances.\" For example, the Charles Plaintiffs describe the black majorities in LRSD Zones 1 and 2 as \"special circumstances.\" It follows then that the failure of a black candidates in a white majority zone would also be attributable to \"special circumstances. **It is worth noting that another \"special circumstance\" referred to by the Charles Plaintiffs was support by the \"white power structure. tl Lynch testified that black candidates Charles Bussey, H.D. Stewart and Jesse Mason were supported by the \"white in power structure\" races for City Board positions. Lynch testified that the only white candidate who was strongly supported by the \"white power structure\"  Board race. was Gary Barket in the 1992 City Barket lost the race and, in fact, received only 300 more votes (7299 to 6999) than Gloria Wilson, a black, whom Lynch described as eintithetical to the \"white power structure.\" Thus, the \"white power structure\" described by Lynch has been able to elect its candidate only when that candidate is black. And, if the Court testimony regarding the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Bussey, Stewart and Mason were also the preferred candidates of African accepts Lynch's Americans. LRSD App. pp. 186-191. 29Lynch acknowledged that many factors other than race determine the outcome of elections. LRSD App., p. 129. These other factors \"would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group, might be able to attract greater white support in future elections. It Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 100 (O'Connor, J. , concurring). The Charles Plaintiffs should be required to prove that its asserted reasons for any alleged failure by blacks to elect representatives of their choice cannot be characterized as a \"mere euphemism for political defeat at the polls,\" Whitcomb. 403 U.S. at 153\nsee Clements. 999 F.2d at 859. Indeed, one of these other factors explains the 1983 loss by Dr. Mitchell, black current member of the LRSD Board of a Directors, to a white opponent, Frank Mackey, in her first attempt to gain election to the board. Mitchell testified that name recognition had a \"great deal\" to do with her 1983 loss to Mackey. LRSD App., p. 210-211. Mackey's father, after whom Mackey was named, had been twice elected to Pulaski County Sheriff and twice elected County Judge for Pulaski County. LRSD App., p. 211. All of LRSD is within Pulaski County. However, in the same election in which Dr. Mitchell lost to Mackey, Hamilton, a black. was elected to the LRSD Board of Directors with 70% of the vote over a white opponent. LRSD Appendix, p. 12. Both Hamilton and Dr. Mitchell competed districtwide for at-large positions on the LRSD Board. Hence, many of the same voters, black and white alike, voted for Hamilton, but not for Dr. Mitchell. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that 30whites \"usually\" vote as a bloc to defeat the preferred candidate of blacks. 19 Similarly, Lynch testified that the election of Dr. Hamp Roy to the City of Little Rock Board of Directors over black opposition was due to large amount of money spent by Dr. Roy to win election. In Lynch's own words, \"Dr. Roy just spent an unbelievable amount of money to get that job.\" Lynch agreed that Dr. Roy's election was a \"special situation.\" LRSD Supp., p. 188. Thus, black electoral defeat in LRSD and the City of Little Rock has resulted from the same \"special circumstances\" which the Charles Plaintiffs argue account for black electoral success. The district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting should be affirmed. 5. ir * Opportunity to Participate and to Elect. a. Less Opportunity\nThe Benchmark. As the final element of their Section 2 claim, the Charles Plaintiffs were required to establish that, based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity than other '^Hamilton testified that it takes only about 300 votes to win an election within the current LRSD election zones. Hamilton's zones. testimony is borne out by LRSD Exhibits 4 and 5 which show the results for the 1987 and 1989 LRSD elections. In the 1987 Zone 6 election, Charles Young defeated Lawrence Hampton 250 votes to 218 votes. ~  In the 1987 Zone 7 election, Oma Jacovelli defeated Doug Harden 293 votes to 257 votes. - - In the 1989 Zone 1 election, Katherine Mitchell defeated Kenyon K. Lowe, votes. Zone 2 election, Frederick Lee 230 votes to 49 votes. In the 1989 Sr. 322 votes to 59 Bill Hamilton defeated There are at five zones in the PCBE plan with black population t mlnimum black population in a LRSD zone under the PCBE plan is 1,112. LRSD App., p. 8. Thus, a black candidate has at least the \" greater that 4,600. fl LRSD App. , p. 8 . opportunity\" to be elected in every LRSD zone, even without receiving a single white vote. 31members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. 42 U.S.C. 1973\nChisom. 501 U.S. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. The Charles Plaintiffs argue that the district court erroneously used the 1986 plan approved by the district court as the benchmark for determining whether blacks have \"less opportunity.\" The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"The comparison of a minority's 'opportunity' under a historic scheme and the challenged scheme compares the minority's opportunity to itself, not to 'other members of the electorate. / II Brief of Appellants, p.lS.^ This statement would be true but for the fact that the \"historic scheme\" in this case was specifically found by the district court to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Appellant's Appendix, p. 50-51. In finding that the previous plan complied with the Voting Rights Act, the district court implicitly found that blacks had the same opportunity as other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. As a result. it makes no difference whether one is comparing the PCBE plan to the \"opportunity\" of other members of the electorate or to the \"opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when adopted in 1986 because they are the same. Therefore, ^rhe Charles Plaintiff's also argue that the PCBE plan should not be granted deference because it is retrogressive. Although retrogressiveness may constitute a violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, it does not constitute a violation of Section 2. Nash. 797 F.Supp. 1498. Thus, the plan adopted by the PCBE should be granted deference unless it is found to be in violation of Section 2. 500, 513 (1993). Voinovich v. Quilter. U.S. ___, 122 L.Ed.2d 32the opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when approved by the district court in 1986 is an appropriate benchmark to judge the PCBE plan. See Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp 553, 573 (E.D.Ark 1991), aff'd U.S. 112 S.Ct. 2296, 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992) b. Less Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process. Using the previous plan as a benchmark, the Charles Plaintiffs were required to establish. based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" that the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones results in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the previous plan when approved by the district court. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993)\nChisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364\nTurner. 784 F. Supp. at 573. In an effort to meet this burden. the Charles Plaintiffs presented socioeconomic data concerning the residual effects of past discrimination. As the court stated in Whitfield. \"Because there are no legal barriers remaining to the opportunity for blacks to participate in the ^'Turner, is distinguished from Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 196, because Turner involves a Section 2 challenge to a zone plan which revised a court approved plan to conform to the 1990 census. Poulin v. White. 535 F.Supp. 450 (E.D.Ark. 1982). See In revising the zone plan based on the 1990 census, the Arkansas legislature \"gave preference to plans that departed as little as possible from the remedy implemented in Doulin as a starting point . . . . II It and \"obviously used the Doulin plan Thus, the court in Turner concluded Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 556, 558. \"'Less opportunity' by any fair interpretation means 'less opportunity' than such black voters had immediately before the imposition or application of the challenged standard practice or procedure\nnot 'less opportunity' than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence.\"  II 473 . Turner. 284 F.Supp. at 33political process, plaintiffs have naturally emphasized the 'socioeconomic' factors.\" Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1384.^ The socioeconomic data indicates that blacks are poorer, less educated. have fewer vehicles and have a higher percentage of households headed by single females than the general population. Even so, consideration of the socioeconomic factors provides no insight into the issue of whether the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones \"results\" in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the 1986 plan. Regardless of where the zone lines are drawn, blacks have the same socioeconomic status. It is not the line drawing by the PCBE which \"results\" in the blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process, but rather. it is their diminished socioeconomic status. Section 2 does not purport to provide a remedy on the latter basis. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 237, 238 (Eisele, J., dissenting and concurring). Therefore, the Charles plaintiffs have not proved that they have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by PCBE, and consequently, their Voting Rights Act claim must fail. See Chisom, 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. ^^See Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 204 (\"There are no presently existing legal barriers to voting by black citizens in Arkansas, and therefore they have just as much opportunity to participate in the political process as anyone Leadership Roundtable v. City of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. else. 579, 1980) (\"Since 1965, there has been no legal impediment in Arkansas to voting by blacks.\"). 11 584 (E.D.Ark. 34c. Less Opportunity to Elect Representatives of Their Choice. In proceedings before the district court, the Charles Plaintiffs alleged vote dilution due to \"packing\" of blacks into zones with unnecessarily large black majorities. A comparison of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones and the previous plan, however, reveals that both when it was adopted in 1986 using 1980 census data and when analyzed by Metroplan using 1990 census data. 24 the previous plan exhibited more \"packing\" than the PCBE plan. Conseguently, if the Charles Plaintiffs concern is \"packing,\" they are better off under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they have ever been since LRSD Board members have been elected from single-member zones. Lynch testified that the opportunity of blacks to elect representatives of their choice is the same under the PCBE plan as it was under the 1986 plan. LRSD App., p. 148. Moreover, the Charles Plaintiffs' claim of packing is barred by the doctrine of law of the case. As noted above, the plan adopted by the County Board has less \"packing\" than the 1986 plan when approved by the district court, which was expressly found to comport with the Voting Rights Act. The law of the case doctrine provides that when a court decides an issue of law that decision continues to govern the same issues at subsequent stages of the The plan adopted by Judge Woods in December of 1986 had two majority black zones with 81.50% and 68.90% black population, compared with 79.82% and 59.39% in the PCBE plan. Under the prior districting scheme, the uwu luajuxluy districts had 84.35% and 74.97% black population according to the 1990 census. Under the plan adopted by the County Board, the two majority black districts have 79.82% and 59.39% black population. the two majority black 35same case. Morris v. American National Can Corporation. 988 F.2d 50, 52 (8th Cir. 1993) . The doctrine was created to prevent relitigation of settled issues in a case and to protect the settled expectations of the parties, ensuring uniformity of decisions and promoting judicial efficiency. Id. Furthermore, \"[t]he law of the case doctrine applies to issues implicitly decided in earlier stages of the same case.\" Little Earth of United Tribes v. Dept. of Housing. 807 F.2d 1433, 1438 (8th Cir. 1986) . The district court explicitly stated in its December 18, 1986 order that the previous LRSD election zones complied with the Voting Rights Act, and therefore. implicitly found that the percentage of black population in the zones did not dilute black voting strength through \"packing. II Consequently, it is the law of this case that the percentages of black population in the majority black zones in the plan adopted by the PCBE, which are lower than in the previous plan, cannot be said to violate the Voting Rights Act. d. The Senate Factors. In determining whether. based on the totality of the circumstances, a challenged electoral device results in a minority group having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. the legislative history of Section 2 identifies a number of factors which \"may II be relevant. Senate Report, p. 28-29, reprinted in ^^The Senate Report recognizes that the factors contained in the report may not be relevant in all Section 2 cases. 478 U.S. at 45. Gingles. Consideration of the Senate Factors in determining 361982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 206-07\nGinqles. 478 U.S. at 44-45 (1986). Although the district court made findings with respect each of these factors, the Charles Plaintiffs address only select factors in their Brief. LRSD assumes that the Charles Plaintiffs accept the district court's findings with regard to those factors not addressed. LRSD will respond to the Charles Plaintiffs' argument that LRSD used discriminatory electoral devices and that the policy underlying the PCBE plan is tenuous on the factors they discuss. There are presently no electoral devices being used in LRSD elections which enhance the opportunity to discriminate against blacks. In 1987 the State of Arkansas adopted a majority vote requirement which applies to LRSD elections. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-121 (Michie 1991), Since 1986 members of the LRSD Board of Directors have been elected from single-member zones, two of which have a majority black population. As a result, the majority vote requirement enhances the opportunity of black candidates to win election in these zones by preventing a candidate supported by the white minority from being elected by a plurality. With regard to the policy underlying the PCBE plan, PCBE instructed Metroplan to prepare alternative plans for LRSD election whether a violation of Section 2 exists has been criticized because the factors more logically support proof of II intent,\" Whitfield V. Democratic Party of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1382 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (8th Cir. 1990), and as a result, often takes attention away from the real issue. Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1386-87 (\"It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with the respect to the Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. The truth is that focusing on some of those factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws.\"). 37zones which preserve existing zones to the extent possible consistent with federal law. LRSD App., p. 41. The overriding policy underlying the PCBE's instructions was stability. LRSD App., p. 46. Ms. Pat Gee testified extensively regarding the importance of stability of the LRSD Board of Directors. LRSD App., pp. 215-218. Stability has been recognized as a legitimate policy in redistricting. See Jeffers. ,730 F.Supp. at 214. This is especially true where. as in the present case, the plan being revised was court approved and was specifically found to comply with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Thus, the policy underlying the PCBE plan for LRSD elections cannot be described as tenuous. II. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE CLOSING OF ISH SCHOOL AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF ISH STUDENTS TO THE NEW AND INTEGRATED KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL. This Court's review of district court decisions concerning disputed modifications to a settlement agreement is subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard. Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). This Court should also H give a healthy measure to deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court\". Id. at 257. The last time proposed modifications to the desegregation plans were before this Court, this Court described \"the standard to be used by the District Court for reviewing proposed modifications to the plan (if any are submitted in the future) to which all the parties have not\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_681","title":"Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary","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":["1994"],"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","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary"],"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/681"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL EXHIBIT LIST DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The following Exhibits, copies of which have been delivered to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, are submitted in support of LRSD's \"Motion to Close Stephens Incentive School\" which will be heard on June 7, 1994: 1, Letter from Ann S. Brown to Dr. Henry P. Williams dated February 18, 1994 with attachments\n2. Stephens School Relocation Timeline\n3 . Fast Track Evaluation Program: School\nStephens Elementary 4. Facilities Study Recommendation Concerning Stephens and Garland schools\n5. Computer printout showing cost per occupant to operate various LRSD schools and other facilities\n6. Excerpt from facilities study showing estimates for renovation and repair of Stephens school\n7. February 24, 1993 letter to Dr. Mac Bernd from Mayor Jim Daily\n8, March 9, 1993 letter to Dr. Mac Bernd from Foster Strong, President, The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation\n9. March 25, 1993 Memorandum to LRSD Board of Directors regarding Stephens site selection. 10. July 28, 1993 Memorandum from John Riggs to Stephens School Site Selection Committee. 11. August 11, 1993 Memorandum from John Riggs to Stephens School Site Selection Committee. 12. Petition of Stephens community residents. 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 By^ Christopher Hell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Exhibit List has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of June, 1994: 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 Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Hei Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 February 18, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Enclosed are a number of charts containing information which the Court asked ODM to provide the district. This information should be helpful as you consider a number of issues, particularly those relevant to the future of Stephens and a new LRSD interdistrict school. As the Court requested, the charts show the number of empty seats in the incentive schools, the number of empty seats at King, and the number of children who are enrolled in these schools. To show where LRSD children might most likely be targeted for recruitment to PCSSDs new Clinton Interdistrict School, we have prepared racial balance data on schools in various areas of town and also a chart on the Washington Attendance Zones illustrating the dispersement of children who live in that schools zones but attend elsewhere. We have also used the LRSDs data base and 1993-94 budget to generate additional information which is categorized according to the titles and subtitles of each docmnent. For example, one chart contains information on per-pupil expenditures by elementary school. Earlier this month. Bob Morgan and I met with Russ Mayo and Chris Heller to review the charts in draft form and to stress that our calculations were all based on data given us by the LRSD. We also gave Russ a computer disc containing the student data base from which we developed our charts. We have attempted to make each chart self-explanatory through headings, footnotes, or a brief introduction. However, some of the data may not be as self-evident as we intended it to be. So, please dont hesitate to contact me if we need to be clearer about any aspect of the information. Sincerely yours. t Cid-- \"Ann S. Brown cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All Counsel EXHIBIT 1School Acceptable Balance Otter Creek Jefferson Terry Forest Park Fulbright Pulaski Hts. McDermott Out of Balance Woodruff Mablevale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield Bale Fair Park Baseline Watson Cloverdale Incentive Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller Interdistrict Washington King Romine Magnet LRSD Enrollment Showing Available Seats and Excess Capacity Principal Capacity Black White Total 93-94 Black Available Percent of 93-94 93-94 93-94 Percent Seats Capacity Booker Williams Carver Gibbs Carolyn Teeter Francis Cawthon La Dell Looper Virginia Ashley Mac Huffman Lillie Carter Mike Oliver Pat Higgenbotham Julie Davenport Patricia Howse Scott Morgan Mary Menking Jerry Worm Otis Presler Mary Golston Eleanor Cox Gwen Ziegler Willie Morris Levanna Wilson Barbara Means Mary Jane Cheatham Teresa Courtney Frederick Fields Franklin Davis Robert Brown Samuel Branch Lonnie Dean Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Karen Buchanan Sadie Mitchell Lionel Ward Dr. Cheryl Simmons Dr. Ed Jackson Mary Guinn Donna Davis Incentive school capacities reflected in the 1992 Desegregation Plan Totals for Elementary Schools Below Capacity Seats \u0026amp; Percent of Capacity 351 492 515 399 540 374 517 3188 324 515 328 328 467 465 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 6582 544 346 346 298 346 425 141 213 243 200 233 190 262 200 291 318 258 287 208 247 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 1482 1809 3291 41.35% 42.26% 43.32% 43.67% 44.81% 47.74% 51 47% 45.03% 10 -12 -46 -59 20 -24 8 -103 97% 102% 109% 115% 96% 106% 98% 103% 147 311 189 215 .263 306 356 132 208 263 337 225 200 265 353 304 89 177 103 117 134 128 153 57 80 91 110 78 63 78 89 82 236 488 292 332 397 434 509 189 288 354 447 303 263 343 442 386 4074 1629 5703 62.29% 63.73% 64.73% 64.76% 66.25% 70.51% 69.94% 69.84% 72.22% 74.29% 75.39% 74.26% 76.05% 77.26% 79.86% 78.76% 71.44% 88 27 36 -4 70 31 49 68 40 40 45 98 88 47 50 106 879 73% 95% 89% 101% 85% 93% 91% 74% 88% 90% 91% 76% 75% 88% 90% 78% 87% 300 181 215 141 184 240 45 24 15 4 5 100 345 205 230 145 189 340 2305 * 1261 193 1454 86.96% 88.29% 93.48% 97.24% 97.35% 70.59% 86.73% 199 141 116 153 157 85 851 63% 59% 66% 49% 55% 80% 63% 939 692 487 2118 656 517 613 353 2139 16332 2456 451 357 247 1055 321 257 325 170 1073 270 196 87 721 553 334 553 1608 62.55% 64.56% 73.95% 65.61% 218 139 153 510 77% 80% 69% 76% 274 215 270 129 595 472 595 299 888 1961 53.95% 54.45% 54.62% 56.86% 54.72% 61 45 18 54 178 91% 91% 97% 85% 92% 8945 5072 14017 86% 63.82% Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedENROLLMENT IN DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Prepared by ODM February 1994 For the purpose of this document, ODM has identified a downtown elementary school as any elementary school located within these boundaries: east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham. These boundaries create a rectangular area encompassing the six incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens), three magnet schools (Booker, Carver, and Gibbs), two interdistrict schools (King and Washington), one area school (Woodruff), and the kindergarten classes at Central High School. By using the defined boundaries, some schools outside the downtown area have a few contiguous attendance zones that fall within the downtown area: Bale Elementary has four zones east of University, Fair Park has four zones and a partial zone south of Markham, and Pulaski Heights has one zone south of Markham. Woodruff, which is identified as a downtown school, has one zone north of Markham. However, for the purpose of this document, all zones within the defined boundaries are identified in the downtown area. A list of the zones defined for the purpose of this document as downtown attendance zones is provided. The information used to complete the last nine columns of this document is from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) student enrollment data base as of December 8, 1993. The second column is the October 1, 1993 enrollment reported to Arkansas Department of Education. The capacity figures in the third column are reported from LRSD as the current capacities. The fourth and fifth columns are results of calculations based on enrollment and capacity.LRSD DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS School Enrollment Oct 1 Capacity % Filled Available Seats Live downtown but attend outside downtown Total Black White Franklin Incentive 345 544 63 199 270 260 10 Garland Incentive 205 346 59 141 118 117 1 Mitchell Incentive 230 346 66 116 131 127 4 Rightsell Incentive 189 346 55 157 90 87 3 Rockefeller Incentive 340 425 80 85 74 72 2 Stephens Incentive 145 298 49 153 86 86 0 Sub Total Incentive Schools 1,454 2,305 63 851 769 749 20 Booker Magnet 595 656 91 61 N/A N/A N/A Carver Magnet 595 613 97 18 N/A N/A N/A Gibbs Magnet 299 353 85 54 N/A N/A N/A Sub Total Magnet Schools 1,489 1,622 92 133 0 0 0 King Interdistrict 553 692 80 139 90 89 1 Washington Interdistrict Magnet 721 939 77 218 262 253 9 Sub Total Interdistrict Schools 1,274 1,631 78 357 352 342 10 Woodruff (Area) 236 324 73 88 17 15 2 Central Kindergarten 50 50 100 0 N/A N/A N/A Satellite Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A 747 722 25 Contiguous Zones N/A N/A N/A N/A 313 253 60 Grand Total 4,503 5,932 76 1,429 2,198 2,081 117 Live downtown and attend downtown Total Black White 281 190 192 165 238 136 1,202 130 130 102 362 331 406 737 156 46 N/A N/A s 2,503 263 172 177 163 192 135 1,102 116 124 88 328 317 383 700 113 46 N/A N/A 2,289 18 18 15 2 46 1 100 14 6 14 34 14 23 37 43 0 N/A N/A 214 Live outside downtown but attend downtown Total Black White 55 28 27 14 29 22 142 9 271 461 465 198 1,124 217 314 531 75 4 N/A 2,005 6 8 21 17 62 6 140 202 206 83 491 17 65 82 33 4 N/A 750 8 5 80 3 131 259 259 115 633 200 249 449 42 0 N/A 1,255 Note: Incentive school capacities are based on a 20 to 1 ratio in kindergarten through sixth grade, 18 to 1 in programs for four-year-olds, 18 to 1 in programs for three-year- olds, 17 to 1 in programs for trwo-year-olds, and 10 to 1 in the programs for infants.There are seven satellite zones in the downtown area wherein students are assigned and transported to schools outside the downtown area: Brady, Forest Park Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Terry. However, all students in those satellite zones do not attend the targeted schools. For example, Terry has 138 students identified within the downtown satellite zone (all black) of which 25 attend Terry. The remaining 113 students are assigned to 29 different schools. There are no satellite zones for the downtown area that would result in students being assigned and transported to a school downtown. Targeted School Brady McDermott Forest Park Jefferson Meadow cliff Terry Otter Creek Students in satellite zone Students attending targeted school Students outside targeted school Number of schools students attending outside the targed school 66 33 33 16 180 66 114 23 162 60 102 29 273 71 202 29 191 72 119 32 138 25 113 29 124 39 85 22Incentive School Attendance Zones and Schools Attended Incentive Zone School Attending School Franklin___________________ Garland___________________ Mitchell___________________ Rightsell__________________ Rockefeller_______________ Booker___________________ Carver____________________ Gibbs_____________________ Williams Badgett___________________ Bale Baseline Brady Chicot Cloverdale Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fullbright Geyer Springs Jefferson M.L. King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek_______________ Pulaski Heights Elem Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson__________________ Western Hills Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Total of Incentive School Zone Blocks i I ! T T T I T ! I - i I cc c s u, o t IO O  I S! q\u0026gt; i W ! ib 194\n101 51 41 41 101 41 _IL 12! 21 261 31 151 51 01 141 181 161 81 201 7! 2! 351 30! ___r 18! 71 10 12' 1 3i ___0. 11 111 10! 1! 1 21 7i 136i 6i 211 II 0| 2i 3! 01 __4^ 3! 4 3 0 4 6 7 1 1 5 1 109 6' 71 2 6 9' 2\\ 31 4 8 539! 14 5 0 81 181 41 1| 21 191 141 11 7 11 141 41 -51 11 01 9 _3L 5j 31 lOi 51 4! 6 12i 5! 15\n14! 7' 7\\ 01 3! 3! 2! 41 01 9? 1\\ 11 0 II 312 318 Ol 11 8! 1291 71 8! 6 31 1| 01 31 21 31 ~6r~ 1! 31 1i 5, 61 131 4! 2'. 31 111 3! 9 0 01 61 6i 291 IT 2. 11 . 41 31 01 01 O I It ' 41 41 31 4 118 8 3 7 1 4 4 2 4 6 3 6 0 1 0 6 1 2 2 4 IO c v -c Q. o W 3 9! 11 Ol 1 0 o o c u tn -0 -o 320 01 2! 31 0! 1 0 9 31 11 3! 1 0 6 3 20 0 1' 3 4 6 2 1 257 2! II i\n8! 51 2! 01 151 O' Ih 1. 01 1 0 821 121 2 3 0 51 _L1 51 3! 01 01 200 a c J? S) 25 213 161 132 144 138 33 21 60 22 9 44 14 43 31 8 19 32 52 26 25 69 35 11 76 83 16 39 10 114 53 15 66 2 33 29 35 25 4 4 1946 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedSchools Sending Students to Incentive Schools Incentive School Sending Zone School Franklin_____________________ Garland_____________________ Mitchell______________________ Rightsell_____________________ Rockefeller__________________ Stephens____________________ Badgett______________________ Bale_________________________ Baseline Brady Chicot_______________________ Cloverdale Elem____________ Dodd________________________ Fair Park____________________ Forest Park_________________ Fullbright____________________ Geyer Springs______________ Jefferson____________________ M.L King___________________ Mablevale Elem____________ McDermott__________________ Meadowcliff_________________ Otter Creek_________________ Pulaski Heights Elem_______ Romine_____________________ Terry Wakefield___________________ Washington_________________ Watson_____________________ Western Hills_______________ Wilson Woodruff___________________ North Little Rock____________ Pulaski County Legal Transfer______________ No zone I I I I i I I I I I Total of Students Attending Incentive Schools .c c 194 1 5 01 41 3 0 14 5 6 3 1 1 9 2 - 31 Ti 01 71 201 61 4 31 91 21 9i 3l 21 3i 0! Oi 11 II I 1 336' O c \u0026lt;D c (0 O \"O) c: 4a  Qi  .O) S \u0026lt;b u o K 101 1361 11 11 4l 91 01 61 01 4' 1\n1! 31 1 0\n0 01 1' 01 0\n81 61 2\nO' 01 3, O' 4 01 1 2' 0! 0 01 O' 0 51 109 8 3' 1 0 1' 0 3 4l 11 6j 1291 4 0 0 4I II 21 71 4. 204\n01 11 2i 31 21 11 61 71 Ti 31 31 20 1i 21 1 0i 11\n3\n0! 4\n2^ Oi 01 Oi 0! I 221! 01 o' o' 3 2 o' 1 ' 0 4' 3! tT 01 81 2! 11 Qi 31 01 0: 31 11 0 1' 0! 01 4- 2 11 1 187' 1181 ZT 81 TT 91 T 61 31 21 81 121 ___ 391 __ 21 ___ 7! 6 61 31 8' 41 311 5i 1! 41 10 1 131 1. O' 380' c (1) c Q. .jU W 10 19 3 0 0 82 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 01 6 1  0 0 1 4 0 5i 0 0 4 1 1 0 01 145 o o _ c X a o Q C co 42 c c O QI o l~ W N 227 170 131 145 133 96 9 41 14 15 19 11 13 15 14 22 15 51 19 3 38 39 35 11 12 25 6 63 12 7 14 16 8 17 8 2 1473 Pnnted February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based on information supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedWashington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 12 12 17 17 17 17 Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central McClellan McClellan McClellan 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Bale Bale Bale Bale Brady Brady Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett I Badgett Name Class K K K K IK K K K K K K 03 04 05 P4 01 05 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 Student ID Zone Block 939926 940177 958755 959096 959252 959506 959807 959812 950081 960545 960805 929207 950598 918916 959373 952488 916865 936007 937049 927595 928747 930971 933965 934913 935342 936452 929232 931103 937535 919341 922211 925877 961005 908367 910318 913061 916045 918958 918964 918967 919347 920475 932327 895059 896341 896527 897157 905235 910119 910347 910385 913270I 913968 925876 926004 937531 482 482 481 481 484 481 240 483 124 301 484 481 123 481 220 474 478 240 483 220 240 220 123 240 220 220 240 126 483 220 126 126 123 220 240 220 240 482 123 483 220 220 240 220 124 123 482 240 220 124 126 220 474 126 483 483 Page 1Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett McDermott McDermott McDermott McDermott Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Name Class Student ID Zone Block 06 K K K K K K P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 01 02 06 06 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 05 05 05 06 K K 01 03 K P4 01 01 01 02 02 03 03 03 03 06 06 06 K K K 01 01 03 03 961311 939897 939944 939946 952423 959551 961273 956706 956789 956798 957014 957442 958430 959481 959478 909989 959477 936945 951189 930498 936457 936467 930382 930884 917043 924017 911525 915454 918878 932095 932096 951930 959515 934286 929357 960765 958854 938480 950814 960294 929108 960292 929935 935767 935783 960649 918997 935784 950740 951261 956384 959345 934018 935131 925116 930446 220 240 220 220 220 125 220 481 240 125 126 483 220 483 483 481 483 240 124 126 124 124 124 478 126 124 124 478 240 481 481 126 478 240 240 126 483 126 124 483 125 483 240 220 126 123 126 126 123 124 220 125 483 482 482 481 Page 2Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School 25 I 25 I 25 I 25 25 26 26 26 26 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 31 Name Class Student ID Zone Block Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Garland Garland Garland Garland Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Chicot Western Hills Western Hills Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson I Jefferson Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem 03 05 06 K P4 02 K K P4 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 04 05 05 06 06 K K 04 06 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 06 06 06 K 01 01 951919 930447 896347 938615 957032 952489 952490 960770 957595 935182 951670 951917 961153 961239 961470 928428 929776 933656 934065 934387 935564 935766 961152 930745 951869 923996 913547 951872 896357 951672 959482 961295 923304 896342 950885 961465 930524 930525 930865 932094 936961 924292 929835 930397 937012 937277 930572 932018 937851 957844 910115 911236 957846 956673 934242 951957 481 481 124 482 482 474 474 127 220 124 478 123 482 478 240 481 126 484 482 123 240 220 482 126 478 483 123 483 126 478 124 220 220 220 124 483 125 125 125 481 125 124 482 126 220 481 123 220 482 123 127 126 123 220 126 125 Page 3Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 31 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Cloverdale Elem Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller' Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller 02 04 05 K 01 01 02 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 06 K 01 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 05 06 K 01 02 03 03 03 04 05 05 05 06 K 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 i03 04 04 04 05 935085 916339 918115 951336 931558 933883 937378 916712 916958 960998 910860 914224 912606 914018 960997 960360 951496 951497 926800 931798 935969 928641 936600 918895 936601 917160 896351 940141 961203 930135 922914 929087 932037 917590 910227 919152 920191 912910 959352 934077 934479 934849 935715 926278 928123 928183 928187 928301 928360 928510 930459 930461 918346 921616 922162 913922 125 483 484 125 126 127 126 482 127 484 484 127 126 124 484 127 124 124 127 483 124 124 481 124 481 127 124 482 240 220 240 482 481 220 220 126 484 125 240 482 482 220 483 220 220 478 220 301 483 301 220 220 124 220 220 220 Page 4Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 41 41 41 41 41 44 44 44 44 44 44 Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rightsell Rightsell Romine Stephens ' Stephens Stephens Stephens Stephens Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 K K P2 P3 P4 P4 P4 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 04 06 K K 01 02 02 03 03 04 04 06 06 06 06 06 K K 01 03 05 05 01 04 04 04 06 02 03 04 04 05 06 916520 917227 896368 905240 910579 910629 930206 939636 939895 939176 952196 956808 956973 958660 950305 953072 928204 929152 935764 935765 937347 937348 931438 932294 935781 961082 961083 959811 928486 933344 923617 959509 917620 957969 893243 894270 896417 910527 959005 959100 960511 934154 927548 910809 930496 935180 917504 923334 925326 895902 932736 930750 915829 924742 924360 896432 220 301 220 220 483 220 240 220 478 482 220 220 220 220 478 474 483 474 482 482 482 482 478 482 482 484 484 484 125 124 482 481 124 474 220 220 220 482 478 482 124 474 474 220 126 124 124 483 124 240 474 126 220 220 474 240 Page 5Washington Attendance Zone Students not at Washington, the Stipulation Magnets or King School Name Class Student ID Zone Block 44 44 44 44 44 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 52 52 52 52 52 52 Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Woodruff Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Mablevale Elem Terry Terry Terry Terry Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Fullbright Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson 06 06 K K K 01 01 01 01 01 04 05 01 02 03 04 01 02 02 02 03 03 04 K 01 06 06 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 05 05 05 06 K K 01 02 03 04 06 06 907223 912946 957974 959908 960923 951862 934208 935650 950854 952103 930414 911752 950976 928038 959669 959670 951921 928039 936097 936420 925592 931927 919839 961394 951013 955199 955201 933364 952129 961258 925000 926057 928808 932135 908112 923295 931269 907724 910429 913208 910438 957988 961259 938481 930250 922739 927950 894474 914000 126 220 125 123 220 484 220 124 125 124 478 124 240 481 478 478 220 474 481 481 220 220 220 220 483 481 481 483 125 126 125 125 483 125 125 124 482 240 124 478 478 125 126 220 220 125 127 127 240 Total Students: 329 Printed February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the Little Rock School District Unaudited Page 6Dept. Name \"Western\" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 47 24 20 38 48 30 18 40 Terry Forest Park McDermott Pulaski Heights Fullbright Jefferson Brady Romine * Excluding Williams T otals / Averages LRSD Per Pupil Expenditure by Elementary School 1993-1994 Budget Budget 93-94 $1,145,178.91 $988,864.02 $1,248,156.17 $978,390.22 $1,324,665.59 $1,299,887.52 $1,046,436.40 $1,267,911.36 $9,299,490.19 \"Southwestern\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 46 33 51 50 29 52 37 31 22 32 28 44 Mablevale Meadowcliff Wakefield Otter Creek Western Hills Watson Geyer Spnngs Cloverdale Baseline Dodd Chicot Wilson $1,127,741.07 $1,008,936.95 $1,062,990.19 $844,592.87 $846,932.77 $1,131,673.02 $748,975.30 $1,011,782.28 $974,301.85 $834,015.87 $1,550,045.51 $1,144,796.51 PTE 45 37 42 40 47 45 43 45 46 33 41 30 34 43 34 42 41 35 64 40 Enrollment Black Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget Spent on Black Children T otals! Averages $12,286,784.19 \"Fringe\" Little Rock Schools 1 2 3 23 17 19 Fair Park Bale Badgett $867,162.06 $1,117,713.33 $708,951.85 32 43 28 T otals / Averages $2,693,827.24 \"Inner Citv\" Little Rock Schools* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 45 35 42 25 36 34 39 26 41 49 Woodruff M L. King Washington Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell Garland Stephens Ish $644,242.24 $1,588,019.16 $2,278,100.33 $1,567,895.14 $1,764,565.19 $1,311,925.10 $1,238,154.99 $1,408,766.58 $1,273,272.88 $70,411.25 27 77 90 62 72 50 44 50 46 \"Inner City Schools as a Group Incentive Schools Only Woodruff. King \u0026amp; Washington $13,074,941.61 $8,564,579.88 $4,510,361.73 *Excluding Carver,Gibbs and Booker Magnets Total Black Enrollment Black Enrollment in Non-lncentive Schools Black Enrollment in Incentive Schools 561 458 509 398 520 504 397 334 243 200 262 190 233 213 263 247 43 44 51 48 45 42 66 74 $2,041.32 $2,159.09 $2,452.17 $2,458.27 $2,547.43 $2,579.14 $2,635.86 $3,796.14 $496,040.06 $431,818.35 $642,469.38 $467,070.71 $593,552.08 $549,357.23 $693,231.17 $937,647.02 3681 1851 50% $2,526.35 $4,676,271.76 488 434 447 341 332 442 288 386 343 292 509 354 311 306 337 141 215 353 208 304 265 189 356 263 64 71 75 41 65 80 ,72 79 77 65 70 74 $2,310.94 $2,324.74 $2,378.05 $2,476.81 $2,551.00 $2,560.35 $2,600.61 $2,621.20 $2,840.53 $2,856.22 $3,045.28 $3,233.89 $718,703.84 $711,370.29 $801,404.24 $349,230.48 $548,465.50 $903,802.21 $540,926.61 $796,844.08 $752,740.50 $539,825.34 $1,084,118.27 $850,512.66 4656 3248 70% $2,638.91 $8,597,944.01 263 303 189 755 236 553 721 345 340 230 189 205 145 2964 1454 1510 200 225 132 557 147 357 451 300 240 215 184 181 141 2216 1261 955 7372 6611 1261 76 74 70 74% 62 65 63 87 71 93 97 88 97 75% 87% 63% 100% 84% 16% $3,297.19 $3,688.82 $3,751.07 . $3,567.98 $2,729.84 $2,871.64 $3,159.64 $4,544.62 $5,189.90 $5,704.02 $6,551.08 $6,872.03 $8,781.19 $4,411.25 $5,890.36 $2,986.99 $3,256.57 $2,739.83 $5,965.67 $659,438.83 $829,985.15 $495,140.97 $1,987,366.59 $401,286.48 $1,025,176.93 $1,424,997.57 $1,363,387.08 $1,245,575.43 $1,226,364.77 $1,205,399.57 $1,243,837.81 $1,238,148.11 $10,374,173.74 $7,522,712.76 $2,851,460.98 $25,635,756.09 $18,113,043.33 $7,522,712.76 Pnnted February 1994 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitonng based upon inforrnation supplied by the Little Rock School Distnct Based upon Octi, 1993 enrollment data and LRSD 1993-94 Budget Unauditedstudent Counts of Sending and Receiving Schools - LRSD Elementary Grades - Summary Sending Zone School  Attending School Badgett ______ Bale __________ _ _____ Booker _ _____ Carvw___________ Chicot 1 Cloverdale Elem D odd  _____________ Fair ___________ _ Fran^ FdIxyM____________ _ ____ __ \u0026lt;^er Spongy____ JeflerMn _ __ ML King _ ______ McOermqn ___ Meadowdifl _________ __________ __________ Pulastd Heights Bem Righlsei____________ RockefeKer___________ Ronine_____________ Stephere____________ ____________ W^ehetd WasNngIqn _ We^n HiMs _____ Woodufi Central Kindergarten Fair kmdagarten Hal Kindergarten_____ McClelan Kindergarten Partvrew Kindergarten 106 _ 1 b i Ip 1 11 1 q 2 0 0 0 0' 0 1 b q q q q 0 0 1 0 8 Zq 1 b q 1 Ji 2 ZI q 1 i J 2 158 _q 14 7  _ 4 0 ' 9 _5  5 14 3 _6 3 12 4 5 '0 _7 .1 2 6 0 14 14 Z_ 1 _5 21i _ b 11 12 7 '2 i S 1 _q 0 ' 196 Z's \"1 3 8 J2 6 2 2 5  o' _q 11 ' _2 3 'is _q _i 0 3 0 0 _2 _ q 0 _8 Z 111 2 __6 q 0 0 I _ q 3 n izi J _i _i -12 6 _l _4 _2 _7 11 _ 1 b J3  b 3 1 2 0 1 13 2 is 2 ^b J pi 2 5 ' b Grand Total Sendng Schod I 1 li 20  112 _ 4 ^io 269 28 J 3 i _q' _3 1 1 li' _4 0 5 _ii 2 __8 __3 __7 1 0 J2 __1 0 4 'i2 J2 35 Z_1 4 9 i 0 _i^ _q 9 ' 17 1^ _9 190 _1 11 _1 Z i _b 1 to 5 1 7 20 _1 4 0 6 1 -3 6 \"j Jq 2 14 ie 12 '0 3 0 b ' 0 1 2 _2 2 li ' J 11 1 146 2 1 1 3 3 1 i 1 .... 4 8 0 2 3 23 0 3 0 _4 b J12 9 it 0 0 1 I I c ? c i q 0 1 b 0 0 0 0 1 b 2 0 0 2 0 1 q 1 b 'i 1 q 0 0 1 b 1 2 135 369 336 361 533 375 276 0 _3\" q '13 6 _8 1 i o' 141 9 9 3 1 2 11 lb 2 q 25 6 __2 0 13 0 6 1 li 2 q 8 _41 2 6  i 0 3 0 0 343 1 5 11 5 1^ 0 _2 J2' 265  2 22 b 0 Z 9 11 3 11 __3 3 2 9 1 8 _o __q _2 4 8 0 '2 ii 1 19 1 q b 0 0 2 26 3 lb 15 4 5 0 _0 1] 10 194 16  10\" _0 2 '20 7  2 35 _3q 5 1 18 4 4 7 lb  12 3 lo _J1 12 ii io i 1 b 0 2 0 9 0 ' 19 \" 44 Zzi 4 _q' _2 5 7 5 336 0 2 _P __0 2 0 26 _3 2 1 10 0 12 21 3 19 q 23 Zl 2 13 JZ 5 b 2 '2 0 4 I 0 4 3 _0 4 2 3 4 6 _ I 7 i 136 1 4 J4 5 0 8 10 6 (rt o I is 1 0 0 2q Z 6 b 4 5 '9 0 _q 0 3 0 q 122 5 I 3 0 0 JO 6 38 2 0 3 8 30 1 9 1 ti o\u0026gt; c 2 1 314 441 539 637 _4 I 1 1 2 14 1 2 J 14 3 4 5 1 J b 0 0 q 2 '0 J2 1 2 4 6 _ 1 J 2 17 J4 4 1 6 q 2 0 b ' 0 0 0 10 1 7 JI 6 2 17 3 39 2 i J 2? 3 2 11 3 3 ' 2 Jo i 1 0 2 0 1 _1 _5 _6 10 2 '0 __7 __5 __3 1 _P _ 1 io 11 253 1 o I 0 2 6 i 5 28 26 i 0 q 0 0 0 3 'q q 0 7 264 0 Zq 7 18 6 7 2 -1 0 2 2 Zl 1 2 2 i ' i 2 b J  1 0 2 2 J 3 _q 0 ~2 J b 0 _i 9 23 q ^4 3 0 0 I b 2 b 312 271 5941 407 397 ! s 1 o \u0026amp; I _6 -I 5 \"13 ' ' lb' 1 ' 0 ' 7 _!? _1 7^' Z21 8 1 2 Ji 4 _b 295 q 3 ~~ b 10 8 _ 6 8 6 I12 q ZO b li .JI 5 9 0 1 1 b 0 0 11 _ 0 _i2 6 _P 2 _] 7 ' _4 Jl _ 5 '6 is Ji _7 2 5 5 247 _3 2 6 2 7 0 __1 5 '_7 7 2 2 _6 _ 3 8 0 0 527 450 .1.. J 3 6 '4 ' 7 8 6 9 3 Jl 3 11 J5 5 _ 1 4 9 6 12 J 5 _i5 II 109 _ 7 7 6 7 0 3 3 ' 2 2 JZl _q 2 9 7 II b b 0 1 318 J 3 3 0 2 2 16 sb _9 6 Z1 6 Jl 2 6 3 i 15 Z 1 J0 20 260 1 1 6 3 q 4 4 V1 16 0 6 '2 i 3 3 b  2 1 551 g m w  ra 3 0 2 0 3 3 4 1 2* g q '3 2 2 11 6 I 4 S g IX 0 4 2 8 4 3 5 2 7 17 ii I \u0026amp; 55 q ' 1 0 q 9 '0 g- q 0 12 2 _ 6 4 ' 5 q 0 19 10 5 b 6 1 i ~ b 205 2 _ 6 3 \" q 3 6 1 ' 3 1 ' i lo 2 1 6 31 ?3 4 2  3 II 0 3 __1 129 7 _ 0 q 6 6 3 q  7 0 4 Z2 7 1 2 2 4 3 '3 3 4 118 II b 6 2 b 24 3 ' 2 3 '2 '0 b 2 4 i i 9 ' b 2 _o 3 _3  3 2 \"i  i 8 5 3 2 9 q 2 15 5 b ii 7 I 0 1 b I 2 5 4 '16 12 '26 2 '4 \" i 2 8 9 3 3 \" 0 3 2 2 i 13 3 i i 1 g 2 \"7 9 15 12 6 ^2 I 4 1 4 2 _2 \" 0 17 7 15 0 8 177 0 2 1 41 0 7 0 q 8 I 19 i 0 I 0 0 327 6 29 i 3 'b 2 i i 4 3 b 0 q 0 1 i 3 4 6 2 b 0 1 0 4 1 19 3b II ' I 0 3 b q \"4 12 2 3 0 4 116 1 I4 0 0 b 4 2 _ 4 q 0 q _4 i \"b b 323 7 o R) s _52 4 Ii 32 2 23 ' 6 '2 4 9 ' 6 4 13 '4 20 ib 6 4 12 I 3 14 3 31  i 5 4 ' 16 '6 c   1 g I S S 5 q '2 8 PO b 1? 132 5 0 1 4 q 3 \" 2 2 3 31 b 2 J 8 q  1 5 _ 0 _q q \"it 'q 295 0 6 _1 2 3 I 2 1 i 3 2 J 1 b 5 b b 2 2 J q 0 J 0 Zi 8 q 7 1 2 i _q 12 q Z^'* ^1 _'3 Z 1 1 15  4 3 14 ' 2 \"q ' It 3 1 0 _i __4 0 __3 1 4  25 0 17 2 30 2 1 3 0 0 2 4 _2 i 0 ' 0 \" i 3 q P q 4 \" 4 2 b 2 _ 1 'i J2 0 12 0 10 R c e co a _l ex I b c z o s s OJ s I 1 s 320 257 411 S 1 c 5 3 i 5 3 q q q 0 J 20 t 5 2 q 2 '~o ' 1 1 4 2 i 0 0 1 4 b 2 5 ii i 6 b b 3 '0 1_ 2 0 1 1 b 3 0 190 _7 24 \"2 0 i b _q 1 JO 10 216 1 i b  3 _q 1 t 4 1 q 1 b 0 1 b 93 0 q 0 0 0 200 582 457 690 491 290 467 153 1 2 I 2 q 0 J 0 2 t _q q q q q q q 7 b q J J 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 P 0 0 J 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 00 11 111 q _1 _1 0 _ q q 0 0 b 30 q 0 i b Z_q 0 _i b 7 0 1 b 0 35 ZJo 0 59 _2 6 6 ' b Z P 0 b 0 _3 q _3 101 \" 0 0 3 _0 _b _ 1 7_ 0 \"0 _45 b 151 'i __b _ q _'q 0 10 2 J3 _4 _1 ~2 q 02 ' 0 1^ 117 Ip  3 0 Zb i q 0 0 q q 4 1 2 2 2 0 2 q 3 b q 12 2 1 2 q 0 0 1 0 b b Zq 1 \" 1 2 b 2 i  i 0 b b q 0 184 304 319 Ml 386 595 107 284 261 336 520 204 ^3 500 548 4^ 420 '221 ~345 392 187 335 'M3 448 7M 421 324 473 366 231 50 19 120 2Q 357 785 451 14032 Pnnled February 1994 Prepved by tw Office o\u0026lt; Oesege^aton Montoring based i\u0026lt;ion nfonnakon s^iphed by l\u0026gt;e LiMe Rock School Dtsticl UnaudtedLRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E Attending Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elem Bodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fullbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson M.L King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski HtS- Elem Race BL WH BL wh\" BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL Whi BL WH BL WH  BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL wh' BL WH BL wh BL_ wh BL WH BL Whi BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH BL WH ' BL 9 ot i 67 39 1 0 4 2 0 b 1 2 q 0 1 2 P 0 2 2 2 2 p 2 2 2 q 0 p 0 1 b 0 0 p 2 0 0 p 0 p 0 0 b p 0 1 n m 1 i 111 '47 0 8 6 13 __2 5 2 3 1 0 0 9 0 _4 __ __4 __1 12 '2 3 __q _5 1 i 6 6 1 3 3 2 P 0 4 3 4 0 6 0 2 2 9 C LU o  ta 0 b _P 0 153 43 11 4 1 ' 6 2 1 __3 5 14 5 1 5 __q 2 __q 5 __q q __q 0 0 __6 __5 __2 0 0 0 2 i 12 3 0 b 0 1 _P __q __3 0 __q e \u0026lt;a p 0 3 0 2 1 2 9 66 74 2 1 2 0 1 b 1 b 2 3 3 '9 2 4 1 0 4 0 2 0 2 '5 2 12 0 i 0 0 5 6 0 0 3 0 1 b 0 o u O 1 0 1 0 J? 6 4 8 3 1 _1 __3 173 96 M  ii _ P 3 P 0 P ' 0 o O 1 b _0 b 8 1 1 W 3 i _ 3 e 24 3 147 43 _ 1 ' b _0 b 1 p ' 2 1 ' i g n K n  6 5 c e o 3 1 2 1 ' 0 _1 b 5 6 3 1 0 0 3 '2 26 is 2 b 5 * 3 3 0 4 3 1 J 2 0 1 0 b 0 1 9 1 5 0 1 0 4 3 19 1 P 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 1 2 ' 0 8 '3 1 b 5 0 1 1 1 0 80 66 2 b 0 i 1  b 3 b 0 ' 3 _i i 1 0 0 1 1 b 2 2 0 i 1 b 2 2 4 4 0 0 3 0 b 4 9 3 5 3 5 1 0 1 '0 q  0 66 45 P 9 3 6 2 1 __l 0 2 b 1 \"ib 4 6 q 2 p  0 _ 4 i 6 0 2 \"o 0 0 3 1 b _5 0 0 b 3 2 4 b 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 9 __3 60 205 1 i _4 18 0 0 q 0 4 3 1 8 4 7 3 0 6 10 3 0 1 2 T 0 7 2 0 22 4 _ 3 0 7 3 13 ~2 _ 4 0 5 0 q 0 q 0 13 'i 18 0 190 4 15 'i 6  4 6 0 4 3 20 0 6  1 2 b 33 2 30 b _ 3 2 1 0 18 p 0 6 3 q 0 11 6 26 15 13 2 3 1 _ P 0 2 0 4 1 _4 3 3 2 126 210 _ 9 0 D C n c ra O 0 b _4 0 _p 0 0 b 4 0 0 3 0 P 0 4 0 6 0 _6 1 7 b 1 0 123 '13 1 1 3 6 3 5 1 i q 0 14 12 3 0 2 0 _1 0 6 1 b 4 0 14 0 4  i p 0 8 0 18 0 6 0 _4 0 1 0 D) C c   O 0 b --P 0 17 '3 4 2 P 0 3 i 3 2 9 0 0 b p 0 0 0 3 0 p 0 _P 0 ip3 49 _3 2 0 1 q 0 p 2 0 b 8 4 1 b 1 b 2 o It a\u0026gt; o\u0026gt; c E iu 5 3 b q '0 p o 1^ \"5 3  3 36 2 _ 1 1 P 0 3 0 5 14 16 _ 0 1 1 8 1 0 __b 5 6 75 239 9 i 1 b 0 1 1 0 _ 6 0 2 ' 0 15 2 q 0 _i b 0 b 14 0 5  0 6 b 10 0 2 b 0 0 1 b 4 i 3 b 1 b 0 b 7 b _16 Q 6 0 245 8 7 0 0 b 3 0 _5 2 IP 0 6 \u0026lt;Q 2 0 b _p 2 6 1 2 4 1 b 5 b J7 11 2p 6 _q i 0 b _ 0 b q 0 p 0 p 0 2 i _P 0 0 b 0 b 139 125 2 b 2 ' 0  o 2 0 1 6 0 3 1' 1 0 I' 1 Q p 5 6 1 6 4 p 1 _p 0 4 3 12 0 8 1 4 3 8 12 6 2 6 1 P 2 2 4 2 2 p 0 109 186 0 0 3 0 q 0  1 x (Q  2 0 b _14 5 _0 0 Ip \"2 6 0 _5 4 1 i o u 2 3 0 6 0 4 b 6 1 S o e s 1 b 3 0 Page 1 E LU (/\u0026gt; w 3 0 6 o c P 1 2 5 4 0 6 i 16 '4 5 0 6 b 9 9 i 1 0 \u0026amp; b 6 0 _8 1 3 0 5 0 3 0 1p 0 5 0 5 b 1 i 1 b 4 0 9 ' 0 6 0 1? 1 5 b 5 0 134 113 2 i 2 0 5 5 b 15 0 14 0 104 5 tt \"o 6 _ 1 2 8 0 2 0 2 0 11 5 43 7 5 4 6 0 3 b 5 i 1 b 2 b 6 ' 0 3 0 0 1 13 2 33 2i 0 b 16 '0 18 2 71 189 1 i 0 0 1 2 3 0 2 2 q 0 P 0 3 b 0 2 1 5 q 4 1 4 0 b 0 b 2 IZ 5 5 P 5 p 0 4 2 p \" 0  P 0 3 0 1 i 8 0 3 0 4 2 6 ' b 1 b 3 b 1 b 4 i 0 b 2 b 1 b 6 0 3^ 1 1 0 p 0 46 13 0 4 b 2 b 3 b 11 b 8 b 3 b 8 0) 1 or 4 ' 0 4 ' ' 0 2 _q. 6 2 4 0 3 0 4 ' 2 3 0 6 b 0 0 1 Q 4 0 0 0 4 b 6 0 3 4 1 0 2 b 2 b 4 0 3 0 2 1 0 3 e c E o or 0 0 5 ' 0 _2 b 6 i 14 '3 10 i o 0 0 1 i 2 b 0 0 19 '5 2 1 1 i 3 0 14 i P 0 0 0 2 b 4 2 0 1 1 2 9 0 p 0 2 0 q 0 3 1 b 0 2 0 2 9 2 0 2 0 1 b 1 b 8 0 5 0 3 0 2 0 9 0 0 0 2 0 15 0 5 b 0 b 11 b 1 0 2 3 4 b 6 10 5 11 5 21 2 0 4 0 9 c u ra g 2 ' b 5 2 8 1 o c 1 b 1 i 6 2 6 3 17 1'4 3 0 0 b 6 9 q 2 4 2 9 3 4 1 2 0 i 4 2 1 i V) (0 g 5 3 1 16 0 30 2 2 0 42 b 22 1 J 0, 0 0 1 2 6 0 1 2 1 PL 6 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 13 2 0 b 0 0 4  0 6 0 12 0 4 0 15 b 9 b 8 0 3 1 J2 'i 4 0 20 0 9 i c o 13 n g 0 b _2 0 8 2q 8 2 p 0 12 b 28 4 15 5 1 4 0 b 1 b 3 0 4 b 0 b 3 0 q 2 0 2 2 i i E  g 0 0 6 0 1 2 4 2 2 0 3 0 2 1 q 2 1 b 1 6 3 -Pj 0 g 0 b 8 4 0 0 4 ib 4 6 9 4 1 0 0 12 3 1 0 1 0 12 1 1 4 2 q 2 0 0 2 6 0 4 0 12 ~b 9 2 3 0 14 26 5 0 0 2 0 3 0 8 0 4- 1 1 1 3 2i ?! 0 1 b 2 0 4 ' 1 0 0 2 2 q 2 2 0 1 b q 0 0 0 3 _9 C e 5 o   c 3 o O jn 8 u jj W 1 2 5 9 1 1 0 b 2 9 1 2 1 b 0 b 7 4 q 'i 2 2 0 0 3 g p ' 0 p 0 2  0 0 2 0 p 1 1 0 0 n O) 0) 1 0 1 0 q '1 1 1 q 0 q 0 p 1 0  o z p 0 0 0 p 0 42 46 0 0 51 64 p 0 0 n w  O. _ 0 0 0 3 0 0 64 ioo _q 3 65 126 0 0 b^ 01 g Z P 0 0 0 0 0 _1 3 1 0 2 b 2 0 2 o 0 e e o \u0026lt; 135 49 '1^ 63 318 213 253 133 330 265 J48 139 295 0 0 b 0 j 0 0 0 3 b 0 0 p 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 b 0 0 Oi 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 b 0 b 0 0 0 0 1 b 0 i 0 1 3 2 b 0 0 2 0 1 b J 0 J 1 0 0 6 p 0 q 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 q 7 0 b p 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 4. 9t 14-1 0 0 1 Q 6 0 0 0i _Pi -4 18 16! 27 o' 0 0 b 0 1 0 4 q 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 151 0 '1 p 0 _0 b 0  0 0 o' 2 0 0 3 6 0 b 0 0 1 1 ii 2 0 0 i 1 i 0 0 0 0 0 85 179 ibs 195 '66 164 261 291 '45 233 2ii 178 26 214 89 1?1 129 211 289 334 214 300 178 259 249 2^ 125 J 68 23 1^ 199 189Attending Schools Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Central Kindergarten Hall Kindergarten Fair Kindergarten McClellan Kindergarten Parkview Kindergarten Grand Total Zone Schools [Race WH BL WH BL WH ' BL WH BL WH BL WH~ BL WH BL wh' BL- WH BL wh' BL wh' BL WH BL WH  BL bl WH WH BL WH BL t) e o 1 0 _ p 0 3  5 0 b 1  b p 0 _0 b 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 _b 0 0 1 b 1 p 0 0 0 1 b 0 9 4 0  0 5 * 9 4  jo 0 0 3 2 1 b 3 8 0 0 JO 0 9 3 6 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 _ P 0 0 135 369  c S 0 p\" 0 2 ' 1 A 0 o' 0 0 b 3 5 0 4 ^5 5 2 ' 0 6 b p  0 p 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 E 2  p ' 0 _P 1 9 \"4 _J 0 7 8 2 0 9 16 P 0 1 b 11 ib 1 i 1 4 0 0 2 _0 0 p ' 0 1 o o \"o -P 0 8 4 1 b _g 0 3 ' 1 9 3 4 8 26 7 _6 0 4 b 5 4 0 1 0 1 b p 0 p 0 1 336 361 533 LRSD Black/White Student Count by Zone Block \u0026amp; Attending Schools Zone Block Schools E e ui 1 o O b 2 1 _ J '2 0 1 0 \"o 2 0 14 ' 0 JO 8 JO '2 0 0 _ 3 b 0 0 P 0 0 _ p 0 _1 b p ~ 0 0 375 o  0 2 0 2 1 6 15 0 0 _ 1 2 0 0 2 2 _0 0 JO 2 i 9 P P P p 0 P g J 2 276 K (S 10 p ~ 0 1 1 6 0 1 Zp p 3 2 0 3 17 0 0 8 0 6 35 1 i p 6 1 1 2 0 0 P 0 0 343 e  1 5 c e oi -c 3 2 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 i 4 0 5 3 p 0 2 Q 2 9 1 b 16 1 1 p 0 p 0 p 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 7 6 JO 0 12 0 1 'b 3 b 0 0 JI b 12 b 11 b 10 0 p p 0 2 4 _P 0 7  _5 16 '5 3 0 9 io _P 0 9 14 0 0 2 0 _7  6 15 2 4 1 0 1 i 2 0 P 0 4 o c 5 (0 O 0 1 0 vt O) c 'C (d c o c 2 441 539 637 J 'o 2 0 10 0 1J \"o 1 0 _7 b J ' 0 JJ 0 3  0 _ J 0 5 ' 0 1 P \" 0 1 _o 0 0 \"b 9 o 0 4 0 2 1 b 1 0 2 0 11 6 3 i 0 1 ~ 0 6 b P 0 2 ' 0 0 p 0 0 0 p 0 0 2 3 0 32 1 2 6 0 1 _1 b 3 0 25 4 3 \"o _ 2 0 p io 2 b 1 Q 2 '0 1 b 0 0 2 0 2 0 6 b E o UJ e 5 9  (0 2 b _o 0 A 0 1 0 0 0 p 0 312 271 1 2 2 1 2 0 P 0 _1 0 0 1 b 2 p 2 p 1 b 1 p 2 p 0 0 0 1 b 2 1 21 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 P 0 0 p 0 p 1 594 1 0 0 2 0 0 o \u0026lt;5 u 2 0 8 0 p' 6 3 _5 6  0 -3 9 p ' 0 3 16 0 0 5 \" 0 9 _9 5 0 4 5 0 _ p 1 0 0 g 0 0 1 s 2 1 2  2 1 6 407 397 527 Page 2 S d I 0 E e ui 1 4 3 0 1 b 4 i 5 2 4 2 1 i 1 i 4 2 3 6 2 1 1 0 J 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 '3 6 3 0 p 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 9 'o 5 2 11 p 0 P 0 0 0 5 i 3 0 0 2 n  Q. 159 0 \"0 2 ' 4 2 1 0 \"b 3 2 4 0 1 4 12 4 0 0 6 0 P 2 1 0 J 0 0 J 0 2 0 1 1 450 318 551  O)  1 126 1  e 1 c 0 1 E a 0 2  1 5 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 26 3 -J. OI 101 '17 1 b _o 0 6 b 3 b 18 2 J 0 3 0 22 J 0 39 2 p 0 J 2 n' 0 1 b 11 o: 1 0 6 o: 0 gi t, o! 0 ft aI 0 0 8 4 3 11 1 1 0 P ~0 g p. 0 327 oL-l-: 3i 0 0 0 jO 0 6 0 2 0 ol 6 + 0. 1 1 b 16 '~3 30 0 11 \"b 1 ' 6 0 p 0 2 ~ 1 g ' 0 4 Vi   a q\u0026gt; W b p _o _g 1 0 b 62 0 12 b 2 0 3 b p 0 _5 0 3 0  3 0 0 6 2 1 1 3 1 85 261 1 b 4 id 0 b 0 0 11 \u0026lt;  b _g 0 1  3 1 0 0 0 0 0 237 66 3 4 J 2 1 .. 11- 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' - 0 2 j_ p 0 p 0 1 1 _b 4 Q 2 b 0 i 0 1 p 4 0 320 257 411 200 582 c  (A n $ b 3   0  26 5 1 ' b _5 0 4 0 16  ~ 0 263' 5 6 0 2 0 4 __i 11 b 1 0 __8 P 0  P 0 3 ' 0 0 457 5 0 1 b 5 0 6 0 P ' 0 0 0 7 4 5 3 235 60 1 \" b _6 b w i E i 5 0 0 0 0 1 i c E 8 I c 3 o o 690 1 1 p p p 0 1 p 2 J 0 491 2 '6 0 0 _6 1 1 0 _ 1 i _1 0 87 103 _5 __2 M i 2 0 __p P 0 J P 0 p S 5 0 _ 1\" b 3 1 ' 1 ~ is 0 b 7  lb 2' ' b 3 27 2 ~0 _13 '7 16 3 1JJ '72 0 1 __1 _ p 3 P 0 0 5 4 0 0 6 1 '0 4 ' 0 1 b _g 0 0 1 0 0 _ 0 b n S 290 1 1 b p 0 57 36 0 p 0 0 0 _0 0 0 P, p 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 p 0 1 b 4 b p 0 p ~o 0 b p 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Z i 0 b 3 4 0 b 0 1 0 6 p  0 p 35 0 0 0 ' 6 26 33 _ 1 i ) n  9 0 4 9 0 4 0 ' 1 0 g 8 z 0 J 0 p 0 0 0 0 b 0 2 0 467 153 0 8  o fl \u0026lt;/) o cn H c c c o' 0 0 0 26 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 61 0 0 0  1 44 73 0 0 p 3 0 _0 1 0  0 P ' 0 0 1 0 1 b 2 b p 0 1 i 1 b 0 1 0 p 0 0 0 0 b 0 \u0026amp; s 203 _i6g  7 254 '126 243 '92 141 4 238 315 OJO ' 108 _JJ8 212 63 _2O7 117 258 215 267 99 _JJ5 85 50 ___1 ____12 _16 3 _18 2 20 357 7851 45 14032 Printed February 1994 _ led UM Rock based tyon Morrallon s\u0026lt;43^^ by Vw Ufa Rod   I 1 \"lurwuiiled [ ~ I t r t School DIstid I \"11TEL: Jun 02.94 10:35 No.002 P.03 LilUe Rock Scliool Di*tricl Stephens ^r^^Relocation Timely Task Date 1. 2. 3- 4_ Fs. Fiia motion with Court to relocate File revisions to current filings gb Hants from Stephenx Schoc^ miatinq to Stephens which_are------- ~ ~ LRSD Board of Directors \u0026amp; approved 5/18/94 before the courts 5/18/94 5/26/94 Business Case presejtedjothgj^Sg^ggEB^^ Contact the wh-^j-hould be contacted Incl .',?i!*!^?^.^'budget reduction strategy TTotify finance person to include this as a pu ---------------- '5/27/94 Person Williams Williams ~ ~~Willlam5 Ingram 5/27/94 Modeste Williams Neal \"Wagner Wagner 5/27/94 5/30/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 building ..\u0026gt;h the Stephens community , community informolion meeting tor. 7. Inventory puiiaing --------- 8 Plan and schedule public meeting 9. 1) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches, media (press release) a: b) c) 10. (neai dnor-to-door delivery ........................................ asking\" ^velop letter to Parents and community meeting. 'LlTXo^commJntt^ information meeting at S'r.phcav A'chno/ to answer for a Include invite to community---------- q uest\ngns^tch^^^-----------------------------sf^bTE^i^ti55d |..\u0026gt;-i. .He PTA president and ministers.-------------- ----------- Students who do not choose a school ------- with the principal, faculty, and staff , of all students living in the Stephen School meetings.__________ 12. De^gn follow-up plan for 13 Conduct Informational meeting attendance zone and those schedule d ,.naanco zone a) those who attend Stephens School but live outside of the attendance zone mrse Who Xd stephens School but live in the attendance zone\nand^ c) tltose Who do not attend Schon/ but live m the attendance zone b) 15.Obtairt' Gciy fir 'ii\n?.' iT send notice of relocation and d^e of community information meeting to: community groups and churches. a) b) press release students with announcement and choices asking for 17 Mail letter to parents and --------- -aunn a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at 57ep/7en.r \u0026amp;/ioo/ to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 1H noiivpr fliers door-to-door, announcing relocation and information meeting, l^implement follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their Choice of school______________________________________________ 20. Send assignment notices_____________________________ 21 Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) with announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline.-- 22. Remove materials and equipment from school 23. Reroute transportation of students__________________ 24. Secure building______________________________________________ 25. Reassign staff____________________ 26, Send assignment notices__________ * Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. EXHIBIT 2 6I\u0026amp;IQA 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/8/94. 6/15/94 6/20/94 7/6/94 7/29/94 7/29/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Wiedower Modeste Wiedower Williams Lee Williams Wagner Lee Wagner Ingram Lee Lee Eaton Montgomery ~ Eaton Hurley LeeFAST TRACK EVALUATION PROGRAM\nSTEPHENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I PROGRAM DESCRIPTION\nThis specific program is the construction of the Inter-District Elementary School. new Stephens It is an aspect of the tridistrict desegregation plan and the section pertaining to inter- -------- The program is to outline all steps necessary to locate and construct the second of two (2) schools in the Little Rock School District. district schools. new inter-district II GOALS\nThe goal of this program is the successful and timely construction of a new Little Rock School District inter-district elementary school. III - EVALUATION CRITERIA\nSchool The evaluation criteria is the successful completion of the school at the date agreed upon established by the Little Rock District. IV - EVALUATION RESULTS\non time, and The most accurate and successful evaluation result of this program would be the opening and operation of the school, on time, and within the desegregation racial composition as established in the Desegregation Plan. V - OBSTACLES TO GOAL OBTAINMENT\nThere appears to be numerous obstacles to obtaining the goal of completing this new inter-district school: 1. School location 2. School necessity 3. the Time to design and construct - (The obstacles laid out under this program description deal purely with the physical requirements of locating and constructing the school and not with such administrative matters as theme, program, nor recruitment.) VI RECOMMENDATIONS\nThis recommendation does not constitute a change to the inter- concept of the Desegregation Plan, but rather requests the addition of a criteria to be considered in the construction new Stephens Elementary School, of the 1. Background\nSection III of the Tri-Dlstrict District Desegregation Plan entitled II Inter- Student Choices and EXHIBIT 3Options It district outlines the concept of construction of interschools. Within that concept is the construction of the Stephens Elementary School to be located within the Little Rock School District boundaries, and is to be one of two schools constructed by the District to support this concept. The plan further states that the existing Stephens School would then be closed. The plan does not go into the background nor the rationale nor specifically mentioned any other considerations for the location and construction of the Stephens School other than to support the desegregation effort. Historically, there are two principal considerations that lead a School District to construct a new school: 1) or The student population is such that the present number size of schools in various locations is not capable of supporting the student population\ntherefore, a new school should be constructed\nand, 2) Periodic evaluations dealing with the age and condition of the existing facilities will warrant the construction of new schools to replace facilities that are too costly to repair or expand, or have outlived their usefulness to meet the current educational needs. I am addressing in this recommendation the criteria dealing with plant replacement. By separate study, as submitted to the Board in November of 1993, it has been shown that preliminary figures do not indicate sufficient student population in certain portions of the inner city to warrant adding additional seats through new construction. This is extremely important and is a critical factor in analyzing the total area to be impacted by the construction of a new school. It would lead consolidations, student population. one because to of believe that the overall possible decrease in 2) might require new schools to be constructed convenient to students, and subsequent closure of older, smaller facilities. Objective\nmore the The objective of this recommendation is to add to the criteria for the construction of the Stephens School, a consideration that reaches beyond desegregation and attempts to encompass the District's financial state with regard to the operation of schools, its need to possibly look at rezoning attendance zones in the inner city to support new construction and the need to look at its need to the age and condition of inner city schools with a view toward replacement where renovation and expansion is ^o^~prhibitive and will not meet the educational goals of the District. 23) 4) In evaluating this objective, we will need to review a general criteria of existing facilities in light of educational programs and present needs, and compare this to anticipated costs to meet current needs and future demands. It is expected that the constiruction and operation of newer, more modern, up-to-date facilities with possible consolidation and staff and the closure of older, more antiquated schools will lead to a more efficiently run financial operation and a program that better meets the students' needs. ImpactAnalysis\nThe overall program is that of integration. Larger, more modern, up-to-date schools with more innovative programs have a record of better modern attraction of a varied student body than do older, smaller schools who have had to have been haphazardly renovated to meet educational needs. This is generally true throughout the country. It is expected that a new, modern, up-to-date school in the inner city would better attract Pulaski County Students than our present existing facilities. It is expected that a new This impact is predicated on the fact that the end result would be the closure of at least two or more smaller schools with all students attending the new Stephens The risk of considering this concept of school closure of outdated schools to support new plants are two-fold: 1) If we are successful, we could conceivably be too successful, in which case the new school may not be of sufficient size to meet our needs. Careful analysis of census projections must be made and careful rezoning must be considered during the planning stage of this school. 2) The second risk is one of not considering plant within the normal course of action of School. new construction. The continued operation of schools that are becoming outdated and outmoded most definitely causes a rise in operational costs. It is imperative that we consider normal plant replacement of an entire school as well as we consider plant replacemejit of individual items such as heating ventilation units, intercoms, windows, etc., in order to insure that we are operating in a most efficient manner. Resource Analysis\n----------------------With the decrease in student numbers in the inner city and the consolidation into larger, more efficiently run schools, they'll most certainly lessen the duplication of instructional efforts as is presently found in teaching in multiple locations. Cutting back on administrative staff is obvious, and maximizing class size will allow -- \"----- Cutting back on us to decrease teacher populations. It is expected that operating costs for newer, more modern energy efficient schools will be less than that presently 35) 6) incurred for operating multiple sites of schools as old as 1906. Although a detailed analysis has not been done, the average elementary school cost per occupant for the Little Rock School District is $173.75. There are twelve schools above the average\nof these, twelve schools, six are Incentive schools (Franklin, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens). Ish, Mitchell, The District has an average energy cost per elementary occupant of $113, There are fifteen schools that exceed this average\nof those, six are incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens). average Little Rock School District maintenance cost is The $21,601 per elementary school, eooupent. Eight schools exceeded that average\nof those, three were incentive schools (Franklin, Rightsell and Rockefeller), maintenance figure is skewed by the large amount of dollars spent in the past couple of years through bond projects to increase the general maintenance of the schools. The District has no historical data with regard to the operational costs of newer schools\nhowever, theoretical, operational costs can be calculated The once a specified school size Is determined based on the norm. Force Field Analysis\nSupport of a new elementary school appear to be generally positive within the community\nhowever, this support is over-shadowed by the facters of location and schools possibly identified for closing. is difficult at this time to predict the strength for the new Stephens School without a careful study and much community interface regarding possible closures, identify schools at this time for possible closure, without coupling that identification to the final selected premature. site for the Identification Stephens School, would It To be Data exists showing recommendations based on perceived maintenance costs and age of facilities. C______11^ speaking, the incentive schools date back to 1906 with the last ones being constructed in the late 1950' schools constructed in the 1950's years old. General Implementation Plan\nimplemented as follows: picked primarily to Generally s. Even are forty-some odd My recommendation would be If the Stephens School site is support the needs of the Desegregation Plan, that will mandate what schools immediately adjacent to that site are considered for plant replacement. on consideration If the Stephens site is picked based of implementation would be: plant 1) replacement. then the Of after having considered 4census block projections and cost analysis of ^chool operations a community effort would begin to gather support for the closing of certain schools. It Is perceived that both goals can be reached, i.e., the one stated in the desegregation plan that the Stephens School would be closed upon construction of the new Stephens School and an analysis of existing plants which could meet both criteria. I make my recommendation so as to offer a consideration for building a new inter-city elementary school based purely on the need to decrease the schools' operational expenditures and to enhance education through modern, and to close outdated up-to-date facilities, new, facilities that are too crowded or too old to meet our current needs. DCE/rlh/ftep 5-10- RECOMMENDATIONS The cost of epb'an'cen.s:hasVeeSes^X^^^^^ - -a.lor or n.u.cc Of specialized rooms that have been prodded and that . necessaiy to bouse the K alternative proposals have been assigned to these schools. buUdi^sseach of abou/eS s?ud clpa'cT^'S \"o bnng Its capacity to 600 students. rcqulniM founeen^k^ms'^-??'?^ Garland Schools ,V?nX' capacity of about 600 students. in one new bulldlniVihYSipb^^ :ire'tf,l to Franklin Elementary School a-Kasa a^aeoiiuin tiementaiy to Accommodate King Elementary School Ss\" ^S^ddiOoSaUlassmlms.\"Se.S mSns^f 780 sX?'yf based on the new Carver Magnet _size of rooms under space. Adding the necessaiy circulation mUeSsquare feet of m about 16.000 square fcetifXss aS At S5O S-r /\"T 'uld resuk Career Magnet School, the addlTor^X7id^oS SsS OOo?eSS\"' \"\"8 fo upgrading Franklin School, first through the minnru be added the costs for 622.350 and. secondly. the^tobKeS f fSrthe^lm\n?'\"\" *\" aiObPt S Frankhn School. These costs can be detSned rno^^ Jee necessary to upgrade parted on the project. The amount of $100 000 ha Jheeirately when architectural studies The total cost is estimated to be $922,350 ' tentatively allocated for the p students is based on the are project. Major enhancement of King Elementanr capacity of 136 students. unLngedX the erJianc^^^ cost $1,187,815. With a The new Carver Magnet School W1 have a co^fmPer student and the like, of about $4,000 per student. construction, equipment, grounds, fees,. Replace Stephens and Garland Schools With a New School The new Carver School has measures of crpaciZs\"P?\" and using the same classrooms by using the staffe as a muci analysis, of about 568 students Addin? twn would result a oapaXX\nXXstl^^^^^^ for spe^al^^d'^K capacity of approximately 600 students. ^Ing the cost of the Carver School The combined budgets for enhancerr^n^ school would cost about $2 500 000 bearmg walls and wood frame. Garland School is constructed with brick It Is suggested that ^^^c^edordyPaSt^e^e^^^^ rt f Garland and Stephens e.xpand the site.  abandoned houses that could be secured to EXHIBIT 4-59- Name of School: Stenhens El. (30.954 SF) Update of Estimates of Cost for Renovation of Little Rock Public School Buildings Comments: This school is to be replaced. No further expenditures are recommended at this time.EXHIBIT 5 EXECUTIVE SUWWRY 17/11/92 thru 16/31/93 SYSTEM SITE ID SITE WANE TOTAL COST TO DATE ENERGY COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST TO DATE GROSS NUnBER OF OCCUPANTS GROSS I OF SQUARE FEET COST GROSS COST PER OCCUPANT PER SB. FOOT A A A 8 A A A A A A C . A A A A A C A A A C c A A A A A A A A A A A C C A A A A A A A C A A A A A A A A A 154 ADMINISTRATION 861 ADMINISTRATION ANNEl 114 ALTERNATIVE LEARNING TI4 BACKHOE 119 BADGETT 117 BALE 122 BA5ELIIE 116 BOOKER 118 BRADY 858 CAFETERIA DEPT NI4 CARP. SUPPLIES 121 CARVER 881 CENTRAL HIGH 128 CHICOT 831 CLOVERDALE ELEM 115 CLOVERDALE JR HIS CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 132 DODD 817 DUNBAR 853 EAST SIDE 1982 ELECT. SUPPLIES HU ELECTRONICS SUPPLIES 818 FAIR 123 FAIR PARK S83 FAIR STADIUM 189 FOREST HEIGHTS 824 FOREST PARK 825 FRANKLIN 848 FULBRIGHT 826 GARLAND 837 GEYER SPRINGS 127 GIBBS 111 GILLIAM H86 GROUNDS SUPPLIES H81 H/AC SUPPLIES 812 HALL HIGH 813 HENDERSON 149 ISH 831 JEFFERSON 135 KING 174 KLRE/UALR 162 LEE HI9 LOCKSMITH SUPPLIES 846 HABELVALE ELEN 116 HABELVALE JR 813 HANN 812 HCCLELLAN SI4 HcCLELLAN STADIUM 128 HCDERHOTT 133 HEADOWCLIFF 884 HETRO 834 MITCHELL 68,232.48 23,265.53 45,894.86 192.64 44,579.81 51,624.89 58,161.38 139,843.77 47,137.49 36,575.74 9,662.58 81,743.26 264,448.68 83,662.49 49,191.58 118,345.22 1,878.42 51,461.97 123,298.77 39,167.46 5,815.18 2,316.85 155,882.88 62,524.87 16,315.77 119,645.86 68,965.83 88,258.89 75,738.88 39,122.83 39,974.39 41,796.14 6,159.23 7,468.73 2,835.43 188,429.78 191,217.13 37,478.52 68,674.65 8.88 8.88 38,293.69 2,685.42 62,836.12 71,933.53 222,797.22 ,221,649.65 21,877.83 74,788.62 54,912.12 146,531.77 6G,539.66 51,784.48 13,971.92 33,783.38 1.81 27,248.82 33,437.83 49,929.82 67,681.11 34,689.61 29,686.13 8.88 68,185.41 212,583.58 57,893.11 28,481.81 89,645.79 8.88 33,898.55 183,868.42 31,949.71 8.88 8.88 129,977.19 41,887.79 6,474.94 86,764.87 48,327.83 53,178.83 55,188.82 29,134.18 33,318.38 29,618.86 3,148.87 8.88 8.88 158,165.98 125,813.52 17,254.94 49,116.88 8.88 8.88 25,876.75 8.88 44,763.87 54,588.61 152,139.24 173,851.48 2,187.23 53,327.86 31,864.45 138,614.43 58,957.17 16,517.19 9,238.68 11,386.28 192.64 16,891.85 17,711.27 7,987.69 71,188.11 12,411.71 6,841.46 9,662.51 28,464.16 51,758.16 25,563.78 28,732.49 28,315.67 1,878.42 17,218.23 19,673.22 7,217.75 5,815.18 2,316.85 25,641.61 28,589.42 9,848.83 32,621.88 28,491.82 26,935.46 28,111.21 9,838.64 6,516.93 12,814.47 3,811.16 7,468.73 2,835.43 21,785.83 64,188.55 28,883.96 19,432.88 8.88 8.88 13,188.66 2,685.42 16,848.63 17,346.22 78,538.68 47,613.88 17,889.88 28,843.58 23,788.46 15.836.38 17,459.88 11.89 62.93 4.48 I. II 439.94 475.79 242.79 274.65 26.17 48.15 l.ll 173.71 178.86 215.61 58.11 383.76 l.ll 161.19 549.13 l.ll l.ll 8.81 184.88 287.66 1.18 258.39 146.98 135.88 518.85 157.21 147.88 171.61 8.88 8.88 8.88 478.85 212.96 211.62 124.89 1.88 1.18 36.28 l.ll 424.42 78.71 127.38 984.45 1.18 537.26 147.21 88.96 122.61 I I 446 I 212 321 339 615 398 8 I 589 1,999 535 366 775 I 314 715 I 8 8 915 243 8 787 441 411 538 256 282 333 8 8 8 994 914 187 463 8 8 I 8 518 667 858 985 8 519 448 1,818 264 26,791 26,273 37,361 I 23,414 33,626 51,455 74,531 36,259 38,456 I 61,695 266,823 59,687 33,263 81,894 I 46,712^ 99,397 89,133 I I 131,628 28,867 I 71,137 31,914 68,588 66,892 38,632 41,788 37,237 23,727 I I 152,348 113,212 31,812 43,546 I I 47,951 I 55,568 59,981 113,131 118,425 8 48,121 36,931 129,546 39,283 l.ll l.ll 111.11 l.ll 221.69*- 161.63 171.56 226.19 - 116.1B l.ll l.ll 137.19 132.29 156.38 134.41 152.71 l.ll 165.99 174.86 l.ll\n:3 172.1^ 257.31  l.ll 152.13 138.24 195.26 - 142.98 152.82 141.75 125.51 8.81 8.88 8.88 181.52 288.11 288.38 - 142.18 1.18 1.88 8.11 1.18 124.17 117.85 262.11 225.13 1.18 146.78 .124.81 146.53 259.62 - 2.55 1.89 1.21 l.ll 1.91 1.54 1.15 1.87 1.31 1.95 l.ll 1.31 1.99 1.41 1.48 1.45 l.ll 1.18 1.24 1.44 1.18 8.88 1.18 2.17 1.18 1.71 1.91 1.17 1.13 1.81 8.96 1.12 8.26 8.88 1.18 1.18 1.84 1.18 1.58 1.18 8.18 1.81 8.11 1.12 1.21 1.97 1.87 1.18 1.56 1.49 1.13 1.75SYSTEM SITE ID SITE NAME TOTAL COST TO DATE EXECUTIVE SUHHARY 87/81/92 thru 86/38/93 ENER6Y COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST TO DATE GROSS GROSS I COST GROSS COST NUHKR OF OF SOUARE OCCtffANTS FEET PER PER SO. OCCUPAMT FOOT C A A C C A A A C A A A . A A A A A A C A C A A A 8 B 8 B A B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 - 8 8 8 HB7 ROTOR POOL SUPPLIES 135 OAKHURST 858 OTTER CREEK R28 P.H.SUPPLIES R85 PAIMT SUPPLIES 136 PARKIN/IRC 885 PARKVIEW 888 PLANT SERVICES n83 PLUHB. SUPPLIES 838 PULASKI H6TS ELEM 818 PtRJISKI HSTS JR 885 PtffiCHASINE SBl OUIELEY STADIUM 839 RI6HTSELL 836 ROCKEFELLER 848 ROMINE 119 SAFETY AND SECURITY SB2 scon FIELD H77 SMALL ENGINE REPAIR 811 SOUTHNEST H8B STADIUM SUPPLIES 841 STEPHEMS 864 STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 847 TERRY TB2 TRACTOR 82 TBl TRACTOR 1 TB3 TRACTOR 3 TBS TRACTOR 5 883 TRANSPORTATION V48 VEHICL 48 V81 VEHICLE 1 VIB VEHICLE IB Vll VEHICLE 11 V12 VEHICLE 12 V13 VEHICLE 13 V14 VEHICLE 14 V15 VEHICLE 15 V16 VEHICLE 16 V17 VEHICLE 17 V18 VEHICLE 18 V19 VEHICLE 19 VB2 VEHICLE 2 V2B VEHICLE 28 V21 VEHICLE 21 V22 VEHICLE 22 V23 VEHICLE 23 V24 VEHICLE 24 V25 VEHICLE 25 V26 VEHICLE 26 V27 VEHICLE 27 V28 VEHICLE 28 V29 VEHICLE 29 VB3 VEHICLE 3 2,453.37 7,698.62 62,433.67 127.49 1,772.9B 14,588.65 187,132.64 88,797.85 1,173.48 68,349.37 138,129.83 27,736.84 36,288.33 83,727.71 121,393.38 96,964.85 7,858.78 21,599.81 2,248.62 133,867.83 145.94 54,253.21 11,218.42 62,922.68 5,115.36 2,689.87 2,881.87 2,386.77 68,865.68 39B.73 1,593.95 1,719.44 426.41 447.58 993.55 1,483.97 817.16 511.89 1,828.39 876.28 933.28 473.47 3,449.82 138.24 1,878.78 142.88  2,897.82  692.59 988.82 1,582.28 269.98 492.23 1,839.99 B.BB 4,873.28 47,889.31 8.88 B.BB 18,988.66 159,766.18 29,264.35 B.BB 43,795.84 67,856.48 19,911.82 4,838.21 35,284.16 88,841.13 49,738.47 5,213.89 3,255.74 B.BB 88,843.86 B.BB 37,188.82 8,977.61 43,266.35 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 44,348.32 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.08 2,453.37 3,579.99 15,296.87 127.49 1,772.98 3,591.99 26,815.39 59,269.33 1,173.48 16,279.47 61,792.91 7,773.81 32,258.12 48,257.49 32,369.49 47,191.84 1,844.81 18,343.27 2,248.62 45,586.87 145.94 16,958.29 9 212.41 19,587.53 5,115.36 2,689.87 2,BB1.B7 2,386.77 15,437.76 398.73 1,593.95 1,719.44 426.41 447.58 993.55 1,483.97 817.16 511.89 1,828.39 876.28 933.2B 473.47 3,449.82 138.24 1,878.78 142.88 2,897.82 692.59 988.82 1,582.28 269.98 492.23 1.839.99 8.11 37.43 127.49 8.88 8.88 8.88 551.87 263.37 8.18 274.86 488.52 58.41 8.88 186.86 182.76 42.54 8.88 8.88 8,88 318.78 8.88 186.18 28.48 148.72 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 287.52 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 B 252 353 8 B B 888 B B 379 774 B B 249 361 361 8 B B 67B B 2B9 B 541 8 B B B 8 8 B B B 8 B B B 8 8 B B B B B B 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 33,788 36,551 8 8 8 166,477 28,914 I 58,252 73,216 28,914 I 37,638 64,561 42,314 6,881 B.BB 3B.S2 176.87- B.BB B.BB B.BB 218.73 B.BB B.BB 159.23  168.13 b.b| B.BI 336.2i- 1.88 8.23 1.71 1.88 8.88 8.88 1.12 4.25 8.88 1.84 1.78 r.33 8.88 2.23 336.27*^ 1.88 B 8' 82,968 I 268.61 1.88 8.88 8.81 199.88 8.18 2.29 I.IB 8.88 8.88 1.61 8.88 34,384 6,418 45,312 8 8 8 8 259.58*^ 1.58 19,558 8 8 8 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B 8 B B B B 8 B.BB 116.31 B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB B.BB -B.BB B.BB 8.88 1.75 1.39 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 3.87 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 e.BI 1.18 l.ll 8.88 1.18 8.88 8.81 8.18 8.88 8.88 8.88 1.81 1.81 8.88 8.81 8.88 i ISYSTEM SITE ID SITE NAME TOTAL COST TO DATE EXECUTIVE SUNNARY 87/11/92 thru 86/38/93 ENERGY COST TO DATE HAINT. COST TO DATE CUSTODIAL COST SRDSS GROSS  COST GROSS COST NUHBER OF OF SQUARE TO DATE OCCUPANTS FEET PER PER sa. XCUPAHT FOOT B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B C A ti A h fl A V36 VEHICLE 36 V31 VEHICLE 31 V32 VEHICLE 32 V33 VEHICLE 33 V34 VEHICLE 34 V35 VEHICLE 35 V36 VEHICLE 36 V37 VEHICLE 37 V38 VEHICLE 38 V39 VEHICLE 39 V84 VEHICLE 4 V95 VEHICLE 5 V66 VEHICLE 6 V67 VEHICLE 7 V88 VEHICLE 8 V69 VEHICLE 9 651 WAKEFIELD HU HAREHOUSE SUPPLIES 642 HASHINGTON 852 WATSON 629 HESTERN HILLS 643 WILLIAMS 644 HILSON 845 HOODRUFF 1,763.74 844.38 776.64 349.72 195.21 345.78 248.63 689.12 2,822.59 1,611.39 527.86 165.29 1,866.28 2,249.25 414.41 1,653.45 45,516.23 3,743.72 86,597.63 73,398.25 48,527.55 54,161.86 57,679.73 43,825.84 6.68 6.86 6.88 8.88 8.88 6.88 6.88 8.86 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.68 6.68 8.68 32,592.84 8.68 65,115.52 48,583.42 35,425.18 46,131.21 42,543.48 38,836.61 1,763.74 844.38 776.64 349.72 195.21 345.78 248.63 689.12 2,822.59 1,611.39 527.86 165.29 1,866.28 2,249.25 414.41 1,653.45 12,837.66 3,743.72 21,849.77 24,456.28 12,938.92 13,896.79 15,868.48 12,182.87 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.88 8.68 8.68 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 08.53 6.88 432.34 358.55 163.53 133.86 67.85 6.36 6 8 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 588 8 822 451 335 499 355 234 e 37,395 8_ 89,688 53,646 41,991 47,266 37,875 38,688 8.88 8.66 8.68 8.66 8.88 8.88 6.68 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 8.66 8.68 6.66 8.68 6.86 91.82 6.66 165.35 162.75 1*4.86 166.5j 162.48 183.87*^ 6.88 6.68 6.88 6.68 6.68 8.68 8.68 8.68 8.68 6.88 8.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 6.68 1.22 6.68 6.96 1.36 1.16 1.15 1.56 1.13 5,251,694.87 3,621,656.78 1,616,918.98 13,118.39 27,888 3,699,811 188.8555 1.4198 sssssu (-71- Beriod: 1949-1960 Table 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES FDR RENCVATICN AND REPAIR, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL, LITHE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Note: All unit costs, except as noted, are correlated to total square feet of finished building based on estimated ratio of amount of each item in average single story structure of 1949-60 period. All cost figures and quantities are approximate and unit costs are based on early 1981 data. All cost A. BASIC IffiCOMXENDATIONS Category and Task Estinated Lhit Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ I. II. Sanitary Replace plunbing fixtures (kitchen not included\nserving only) Exterior Replace non-functioning window operators .32-.40 50/lkiit III. Interior Replace asphalt tile remni ning Replace suspended ceilings-1950 Install insulation-1950 bldg Refinish doors, paint walls, i Install new toilet enclosures bldg etc. 1.12 .57 .30 .65-.75/SF 275-300 ea. IV. Electro-Mechanical Replace lighting-1950 \u0026amp; '58 bldgs Replace boiler/air handling units Mise, V. 80% 20-25 40% 12-13,000 SF 18 Stalls 1.49-1.50/SF 12-13,000 SF 1.30-1.55/SF 31,000 Subtotal Building Special Conditions, A/E Fees, Contingency - 30% Ibtal Building Cost per Sq. Ft. 8,000-10,000 1,000-1,250 14,000-15,000 7,500-8,000 3,600-3,900 7,800-10,000 5,000-5,500 16,800-19,500 40,000-48,000 103,700-121,150 31,100-36,350 134,800-157,500 4.35-5.08 Site Work Develop plan for utili2a,tion and landscaping Paving-play areas -basketball area -walks 2.20-2.50/SY EXHIBIT 6 5-6 Acres 2000 SF 12,000 SF 15-1800 SF 1,500-3,000 500 - 600 3,000-3,500 400 - 500-72- Table 26 ALTERNAIE ESTIMATES, STEHIENS INTERMEDIATE SCHDOL (cont'd) V. Category and Task Estimated Ifait Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ Site Work (cont'd) Grass Area-seeding -sprinkling Planting trees/shrubs Equipment Lifting Fencing 5500/A 1500/A 7-8,000 3000-3500 1100-1200 10,50-11/LF 2 Acres 3 Acres Basic 1 Set 2 Boles 800 LF @ 6' Subtotal, Site Work Mise and Contingency - 10% Ibtal Site Work 10,000-11,000 4,500-5,000 7,000-8,000 3,000-3,500 2,200-2,500 8,400-8,800 40,500-46,400 4,000-4,600 44,500-51,000 B. LPCRADING \"Pie extent of work under (A) is essentially that required to bring the facility ip to reasonable \"as is\" standards. ~ ' ----- n S, reasonable \"as is\" standards. In the building the quality of lighting would be the cmly ipgrading resulting but the extent of site inprove- rants reconmended, while basic to a full utilization of an inteimediate level school with comnunity participation, would from the present lack of development. prove an autcmatic upgrading Looking forward to extending the proper role of this school VO extenoing me proper role of this school another 20 years, considerable ipgrading and major replacements would be in view. , present building upgrading to systenwide standards probably would involve converting to fully air conditioned environment which in turn would inply optimal insulation policies. Thus in addition to ceiling ' insulation as in (A), the balance of the buildings' roofs and all window areas should be considered. Ihns in addition to ceiling In any event, it is likely the standard steel sash of the 1950 structure would be replaced with lower maintenance aluminum insulated glazing perhaps and possibly reduced glass area. Consideration of providing a larger sized recreational unit than the limited sized (1800 SF) cafeteria, but for educational and grams, should be part of the ipgrading estimate. coranunity pro- storm drainage or diverting its location could vide grass playfield on the northwest corner of the overall site. pro--73- Table 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SOEOL (cont'd) B. imiADING (cont'd) Category and Task Estimated Ifait Cost Estimated Quantity Estimated Cost Range - $ I. Sanitary Replace drinking fountains Food service (preparation) II. Exterior Replace all windows, 1950 unit Paint all trim 350-400 ea, Lunp Sum .75-.80/SF III. Interior Carpet all classrooms Refinish interior New toilet partitions IV. Electro-Mechani cal Replace present HV system, except for work under A. 1300-1500/Room As in (A) 3.50-4.30/SF 6 75% 18 25,000 SF Building Subtotal: Mise, Spec Conditions, A/E Fees, Contingency - Add 30% Building TOTAL: Cost per Sq Ft incl A., BASIC REC'S V. New Construction hiulti-purpose gym/stage A/E Fees, Contingency, Equipment 30-35/SF 20% 4-5000 SF Subtotal: VI. Site Work As in (A) Develop play field w/ baseball backstop, etc. - allow for 12\" fill Additional lighting Additional equipment Additional planting 7000/Acre 7-8/Cy 1100-1200 ea. Net 3 A 20,000 CF 4 Subtotal, Add'l work Mise, Fees, Contingency, + 15% Total Site Work 2,100-2,400 10,000-35,000 18,000-19,000 1,000-1,200 23,400-27,000 7,800-10,000 5,000-5,500 87,500-107,500 154,800-217,600 46,400-65,280 201,200-282,900 10.80-14.21 120,000-175,000 24,000-35,000 144,000-210,000 40,500-46,400 20,000-22,000 30,000-36,000 4,400-4,800 3,000-3,500 3,500-4,000 32,400-36,000 + 102,900-118,400 15,100-17,600 $118,000-136,000-1^- Ihble 26 ALTERNATE ESTIMATES, STEPHENS INTERMEDIATE SCHDQL (cont'd) SUMMARY OF COSTS Action Required Oode Range of Est Cost in 1981 Dollars A. BASIC RECCWENnATICNS R 134,800-157,500 B. UPGRADING, excluding air conditioning and energy conservation measures R 201,200-282,900 SCBTOTAL-R 336,000-440,400 Equipment E Site Development S 118,000-136,000 Construction C 144,000-210,000 C. TOTAL RENOVATION TOTAL, excluding air conditioning $598,000-786,406 The configuration of Stephens School and its siting are among the poorest of the entire system, Ihere is little or no flexibility to the plan or structure to adapt to substantial alteration such as grouping of classroOTs or expansion. The rooms, however, are good sized squares which can be equipped in numerous ways for varying assignnent. Once rehabilitated this school should serve at its present capacity for another 20-25 years at which point it will be over 50 years and, because of the above constraints, may well prove to be expendable as _ part of the total system. It is very doubtful that such a building would lend itself to the major renovation concept followed at Mitchell, for exanple. Thus it is suggested that in the 2000-2010 period the ^rd will face either demolition or another igjgrading effort to maintain the status quo. aCity of Little Rock Jim Diiley C Mayor City Hill. Room 203 SOO W. Mark him Litll* Rock, AR 72201-142T (SOt) 371-4516 FAX (301)371-4496 I February 24, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 cws\n.nioN_ Re: Stephens Intmdistrict School Site Selection Dear Dr. Bernd: ADMKSEC. I have been informed by City staff from the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning, that the current Stephens Elementary School located at 3700 W. 18th St. has been selected as the site for the new Stephens Interdisttict School that will open in 1994-95. . .... . , ..................................... We applaud the efforts of the LMD Board and the diligence of the Site Selection Committee in the selection of this site that will provide an innovative and exeiting alternative to not only the Stephens School neighborhood students, but also to other students located in Pulaski County who wish to attend. The City of Little Rock has made a long-term commitment to revitalize and stabilize our older and traditional neighborhoods and by the selection of this new school in the Stephens School area, makes our continued commitment even more important I have taken the liberty to outline some of these programs and housing initiatives that has and will have a tremendous impact on the St^hens School neighborhoods quality of life in the current, as well as, its future realm.  Community Development Block Grant/Public Works Projects and Expenditures in the Stephens School Area The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program defines iu Stephens School CDBG area as bordered on the north by 1-630, on the south by Roosevelt Road, on the east by the Union Pacific railroad traclu and the west by Elm Street. In that area the program has completed reconstruction of 16,939 linear feet of streeu (more than three miles) and 21,700 linear feet of drainage facilities (more than 4 miles) at a total cost of approximately $3,875,805. In addition, the program will reconstruct Maple Street from 25th to Asher Avenue and 26th Street from Pine to Maple within the next year at an estimated cost of $152,000. In the immediate vicinity of Stephens School itself, the improvements include underground drainage along Oak Street and reconstruction of Oak Street from 16th to 19th. The program also reconstructed Valentine from 14th to 18th and placed underground a drainage system that paralleled Valentine. EXHIBIT 7A map depicting these improvements in the first 16 years of the CDBG program is atuched. Housing Revitalization Efforts The City of Little Rock is actively involved in numerous programs to promote the revitalization of neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area along with its housing stocL We have actively been involved in fostering neighbortiood partnerships and giving long-range planning to these neighborhoods. We have seve:^ programs, jeach design^ to meet the special ne^ in the Stephens School community - these programs include: Save-A-Home The City acquires a house and repairs it to code standards using C.D.B.G. funds, then sells it to a low or moderate income family at cost or below cost. The buyer must be able to secure bank financing to purchase one of these homes. Affordable Housing The City is allowed to build new homes on vacant lots in existing - neighborhoods. These homes are designed and constructed in a manner to keep the sale price low enough to obtain financing by low and moderate income families. (We are currently building (3) homes in the Central High Area.) ReaAal Rehab Funds Funds are made available to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of rental property to meet local code standards located within the neighborhood revitalization program area. Homebuyers Group The City assists 40-60 citizens by providing counseling on home purchasing and credit managing skills. Each person will participate in a 12 month consumer education program designed to train them on how to effectively use credit to improve their quality of life through the purchase of a home and/or other retail items that require a good credit history. Homebuyer Assistance Program The City provides financial assistance, paying one-half of the minimal downpayment cost, including insurance and taxes\nto assist low and moderate income families in purchasing a home anywhere within the city limits of Little Rock for a house not to exceed $55,000. Community Development Corporations CDC The City along with the banking and business community have developed a public/private partnership to provide assistance to developers and community- based organizations for building/renovating low to moderate income housing and improving commercial services in older neighborhoods similar to the Stephens School area. 2We have garnered the services of the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LlSC) which is a nationally recognized nonprofit organization with a proven track record in community development. With the 1.5 million loan pwl in place, they will provide support in three principal ways: Building neighborhood CDC's capacity through administrative support grants\nprovide project funding\nand working with others to estoblish reliable systems for volume production of housing and other CDC development projccu. The Greater Little Rock CDC has selected the Stephens School neighborhood for their initial project focus that will encompass (12) blocks of housing and vacant lots near the current Stephens School location. The major thrust of their program will be to provide affordable housing opportunities through both rehabilitation and new construction. Leverage Loon Program The City has developed a joint loan program with First Commercial Bank to provide help to low and nnoderate income homeowners to fix up their older Little Rock homes and meet City code standards. Through this joint venture arrangement an applicant, if approved, will receive a below-market interest rate loon. This is a city-wide program. .......Neighbariiood Alert Center -3924 W. 12th aad Cedar - The Neighborhood Alert System/Center is a neighborhood-based center designed for available resources and various City services to be more accessible to the residents of Little Rock. The system/ocatcr serves as a collaborative and concentrated effort between residents, religious groups, businesses, schools, neighborhood and civic organizations, youth groups, and City Hall to improve the conditions and quality of life for its citizens. Even though this Alert Center is located on the northern boundary of the Stq)hens School neighborhood, it serves as the nucleus for existing and pro^xed programs in this area. This center currently has integrated (3) city departments along with their delivery efforts to create positive image of change in this neighborhood. service Department of Neighborhoods and Planning - Offers code enforcement officers, and premise inspectors that are responsible for enforcement of environmental codes, deteriorating homes, abandoned cars and weed lots. Fighting Back InKbtive - Offers Neighborhood Alert Center Facilitators to help coordinate neighborhood-based efforts to alcohol and other drug abuse abatement and alternatives. Little Rock Police Department - Offers community policing to develop a working relationship with neighbors for overall safety and crime reduction. (Currently has 3 foot patrol officers.) Volunteers - The most important element toward the effectiveness and success of the Alert Centers is the neighborhood volunteers. There is a role for all citizens to be a part of the solution in unifying to take back our neighborhoods. 3Intensified/Sy sterna tic Inspection Program This is a program that is just getting started. It requires the code enforcement officer to regularly inspect all properties in this neighborhood for obvious code violations such as improper garbage disposal, abandoned autos, high grass, weeds, litter, and vacant we^ lots. The code officer assigned to this area is responsible for taking the necessary enforcement action to ensure conection of the violations. This program currently includes vacant and abandoned structures. Hopefully, in the future we will have the resources to expand the program to include occupied structures^ Drug House Elimination Program On February 27, 1993 this program will kick-off. It is a comprehensive effort to unite all avail^le resources, including the citizens in this naghborhood, to eliminate drug houses and drug activity in the area. This program includes participation by the Code Enforcement staff, Little Rock Police Department, Fighting Back personnel and citizens. Paiirt Your Heart Out '93 The Stefdiens School neighborhood was selected for this years program. On May 1, forty homes within a 2-3 block radius of Stephens Elementary School will be painted by volunteer citizens from throughout the City. Preceding this event on AprU 17, a neighborhood clean-up effort is being planned. This effort involves all citizens in this neighborhood having City resources available, i.e. dumpsters, knuckle boom trucks, chipper/shredder to assist them in removing discarded furniture and appliances, rutile, trash, etc. from their premises. Again, we applaud your efforts in retaining die school on the current site and we are in full support of the Stephens Interdisthet School Site Selection Committee's recommendation to the LRSD Board. Respectively Submitted, Sun Dailey Mayor JD/TP:sc Attachment DIRECTOR PAC. COOR. cc: Charles Nickerson, Interim City Manager Billy J. Bowles, Assist. Superintendent for Desegregation Doug Eaton, Little Rock School District Lou Caudell Jim Lawson Wendy Salaam Tim Polk MAJNTCNWCE _ CUSTODIAL CONSTRUCTION^ AOMIN. SEC. 4Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation P. O. Box 192864 Little Rock, Arkansas 72219 Voice Mail (501) 664^3334 March 09, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd, Let the record show that The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation requests that Stephens Elementary School be redesigned and rebuilt on the same ground that it now occupies. Enclosed is a copy of the revitalization plan for the Stephens School area that was adopted by The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation (GLRCDC) last year. (See pages 7, 8, 17 and 18). Maybe it was presumptuous, but we considered it a given that Stephens School would remain as an integral part of this community. The GLRCDC is presently compiling and quantifying remodeling and new construction costs for homes in the neighborhood just north of the school. The presence of Stephens School will be one of our main marketing tools used to encourage families to repopulate this community. Thank you and the Site Selection Committee for allowing us to participate in the selection process and for the sensitivity with which you conducted yourselves at the public meetings. We also appreciate your positive consideration of our request. We are convinced that in years to come history will record that the Little Rock School District did the right thing by rebuilding Stephens School at its present site. Sincerely, --4 Foster Strong, President The GLRCDC cc: Site Selection Committee EXHIBIT 8I THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. I I COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PLAN 1 CHARLES A. JOHNSON, JR. November, 1992 Copyright PendingTHE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUINITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. IGLRCDC) COOPERATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I 1 Introduction......................................................... Building Community Capacity........................ The GLRCDC............................................ Management Structure................................... Staffing ................................................................. Financial Resources ............................................ Geographical Area Served............................... Housing ................................................................. Initial Target Area .............................................. Community Obstacles to Overcome............ Actions to Overcome Obstacles ................... Coalition Building ............................................. Network Members ........................................... Network Objectives ........................................ Actions to Accomplish Network Objectives Summary ............................................................. APPENDIX Census Tract Map .............................. Midtown Service Area Map ............. Service Area Housing Analysis Map The GLRCDC Board Profile ............... 1 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 11 13 18 A B C DI I I I INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each community network member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I I IBUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! 1 Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network Is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community in revitalizing inner city neighborhoods. I I The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a kriowledfleable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and individuals about the networking concept. The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts arxJ brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks:  Gt the prospective network members to talk Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. \"Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2* Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I I I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. I * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wHiing and able to allocate to the network. I Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford except through network participation. [ For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners In revitalizing Greater Little Rock's Inner city communities. I To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved In planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. I. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources will be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. 3THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. INC. (GLRCDC) I I i I The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: To purchase deteriorating residential/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. I i To sell renovated structures to low-income Individuals arxJ small disadvantaged entrepreneurs. I To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residential facilities in the area. To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. To contract with and/or sponsor the services'of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4I I I INTRODUCTION i The primary purpose of this community development plan is to provide a comprehensive procedure for the development of a network of public and private organizations to address the social, economic and housing needs in census tract 13 of Little Rock, Arkansas (see Census Tract Map, p. A, Appendix). The plan outlines a general framework for building a coalition of organizations with specific services, experiences and skills that are needed for the revitalization of the target area. I I The plan outlines the objectives of the revitalization effort and assigns areas of responsibility for each communitynetwork member. A description of the activities and services provided by the network is also provided. I 1 I* Identify common and individual goals of prospective network members I Unless most of the prospective network members perceive benefits to be gained from the network arrangement, they may not participate. Identifying common and individual goals will enable the network coordinator to express the benefits both common and individual to the prospective members. * Identify resources that each prospective network member is wMing and able to aNocate to the network. I I I i Project planning and implementation strategies can to be developed with the knowledge of the availability of resources. The network coordinator can plan a variety of specialized services that no one organization could possibly afford excepi through network participation. f I i For community groups. Community Cooperative Networks offer an opportunity to become equal partners in revitalizing Greater Little Rocks inner city communities. 1 To effectively address the social and housing needs of the target area, the residents must become involved in planning, management and operation of the development activities that impact their lives. I. Community Development Corporations (CDCs) are being developed in American cities and rural areas to empower low income people to address the development needs of their neighborhoods. The formation of a CDC is a significant component to empower the residents of the service area toward development of a community cooperative network. The following CDC objectives and resources be employed to organize the residents and organizations needed to revitalize the target area. will 3THE GREATER LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. (GLRCDC) I I J The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation was incorporated under the laws of the State of Arkansas as a non-profit organization in November, 1991. In May 1992, the GLRCDC obtained tax exempt status as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization from the U.S. Internal Reverrue Service. The primary goal of the GLRCDC Is to reverse the trend of deteriorating residential and non-residential facilities within the greater Little Rock area. To fulfill its primary goals, the GLRCDC will seek to accomplish the following: To purchase deteriorating residenfial/nonresidential structures and/or vacant lots for development. I To sell renovated structures to low-income individuals and smaM disadvantaged entrepreneurs. I To develop and rehabilitate residential and non-residentlal facilities in the area. 1 To recruit small disadvantaged businesses to the commercial service areas. To contract with and/or sponsor the services of architects, attorneys, accountants, engineers and other professionals in the development of the service area. To contract and/or sponsor managerial and technical assistance to small disadvantaged businesses in the service area. To inform, train and facilitate housing education workshops and other training activities in the service area. To plan, promote and facilitate crime prevention programs for area residents. 4BUILDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY ! i Few individual organizations have sufficient capabilities to undertake the revitalization of inner city communities. A cooperative effort among community organizations with social, housing and economic development resources is needed to reverse the deterioration of our inner city communities. The composition of the cooperative network is determined by the nature of the task, the skills required, and the willingness of organizations to collaborate to achieve together what each cannot do alone. The underlying philosophy of this network is that of connecting specific organizations with social, housing and economic resources to assist the community In revitalizing Inner city neighborhoods. The first step in establishing a Community Cooperative Network is the identification and recruitment of a knowledgeable and respected individual or organization to inform and organize organizations and irtdividuals about the networking concept, The network coordinator must build trust and interest among prospective network members. The coordinator acts as an advocate and a broker. The coordinator advocates cooperative efforts and brokers the services of network members to the community. A general framework for developing community cooperative networking requires the following tasks: * Get the prospective network members to talk Establish regular communication among the organizations and those with whom they need to cooperate such as community residents and other service providers. This is done by providing timely information in a way that promotes dialogue and collaboration among organizations. Dialogue also helps each prospective network member to gain mutual respect and overcome the inherent protection of perceived territorial rights. \"Organizations arrive at a point of cooperation after a process of relationship-building and in anticipation of mutual gains\" (Schermerhorn 1979, p. 25). 2To plan, promote and conduct youth activities for area youths. To plan, promote and conduct senior citizen activities for area senior citizens. Management Structure To implement the goals of the GLRCDC, a board of directors which reflects the composition of residents within the service area is in place. The board members also bring a wealth of diverse experiences and skills needed to reach the goals of the organization. The GLRCDC is governed by a board of directors, comprised of nine (9) area residents. Each director serves a term of three (3) years. The manner of selection and qualifications of directors is defined arxl controlled by the Bylaws of the Corporation. The directors are nine longtime residents of greater Little Rock who provide knowledge and experience in the areas of consumer credit counseling, real estate, social services and community activities (see Board Profiles, p. D.) They are: I i Foster Strong, President 3514 West 14th Street Little Rock, AR 72204 Pam Abrams, Secretary 5109 W. 11th Little Rock, AR 72204 Felix Thompson, Vice President 5902 Timberview Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Charles A. Johnson, Jr., Treasurer 3907 American Manor Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Elissa Gross P. 0. Box 500 North Little Rock, AR 72115 Merle Smith 2810 Arch Little Rock, AR 72206 Frank Baugh 4110 W. 21st Little Rock, AR 72204 Robert Aycock 2405 West 13th, Apt. B Little Rock, AR 72202 James Lawson 41 5 Willow North Little Rock, AR 72114 5Under the leadership of this board, the GLRCDC will implement the goals listed in its Articles of Incorporation. Staffing I The GLRCDC is presently without a paid staff. During 1992, the work activities of the GLRCDC has been conducted by the President, Treasurer, other board members and consultants (architects, engineers, market and financial specialists). I During 1993, the GLRCDC expects to receive grant funding that will enable it to employ an Executive Director, Community Developer, and an Administrative Assistant. Technical services will be contracted to architects, engineers and other specialists when needed. Financial Resources I i- During the second quarter of 1992, the GLRCDC received a Community Incentive Grant from the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation in the amount of $7,500. The grant provides board training and organizational development funds for the GLRCDC. A grant application to the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation to provide not less than $50,000 for economic development will be prepared during the fourth quarter of 1992. The grant award will enable the CDC to support staff and professional costs in 1993. In August 1992, the organization received a City of Little Rock HOME Program Grant Application and is in the process of completing the grant application. The GLRCDC expects to be designated a CHDO (Community Housing Development Organization) by the city and state governments and qualify to access the 15% set-a-side of city and state HOME Program funds. The GLRCDC will seek to obtain not less than $75,000 from Little Rock's allocation of the HOME Program Grant Funds during the fourth quarter of 1 992. The city grant funds will provide the initial target area with housing development funds. In the first or second quarter of 1993, a State HOME Program Application will be submitted to the Arkansas Finance and Development Authority (AFDA) to obtain up to $500,000 of HOME Grant Funds. The 6I state HOME Grant Funds are projected to provide new construction and rehabilitation financing of housing in civil jurisdictions and unincorporated areas outside the city limits of Little Rock and North Little Rock in Pulaski County. GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF SERVICE   The Midtown neighborhood is located in north central Little Rock and is bounded by 1-630 to the north, Elm Street to the west, Roosevelt Road to the south and Missouri Pacific Railroad tracks to the east. Like other older residential neighborhoods, the Midtown area Is experiencing a general decline and a deterioration of existing Infrastructure and private property. This trend toward a general decline is moving westward from the core city and is the most significant overall issue in the entire area. It is influencing both the physical appearance of the neighborhood and the housing stock. The problem of marginal residential has a strong Impact on the entire area, encouraging encroachment from nonresidential uses (see Service Area Map, p. B, Appendix). - The primary goal of the neighborhood and Its residents should be to preserve and strengthen the residential character of the Midtown neighborhood. A stronger effort must be made by both the city and the residents to help make this goal a reality and reverse the existing decline. ( i ! i The quality of life, including social aspects, is also negatively impacted by the physical deterioration of the neighborhood. The basic neighborhood structure could be greatly improved by the addition of amenities such as sidewalks, community spaces and recreational facilities. Preserving the existing housing stock and constructing new quality housing is critical to the existence of the Midtown area. Three sub-areas within the Midtown region are experiencing unique housing problems will require location specific strategies to achieve the network's housing goals. Housing One of the more serious problems affecting the Midtown area is the rapid deterioration of the existing housing stock. The substandard conditions are having an effect on the physical appearance of the area, and in some instances, the livability of certain neighborhoods within the 7Midtown area. This problem is rapidly increasing and must be abated. Reversing the trend of deteriorating housing is critical to the future of the neighborhood. Programs, such as Code Enforcement and Housing Rehabilitation, are needed to begin the process of improving the neighborhood's housing. Strong housing strategies and programs are needed to ensure a high percentage of home ownership. Home ownership is vital to maintaining stable residential neighborhoods, as a shift to a great number of rental units will continue to add to the deterioration of the housing. Owner occupied units will help strengthen the single family residences as the neighborhood's primary land use. I i f I I. I 1 There are three pockets of substandard housing\ntwo are small subareas but one is of significant size (see Area Analysis Map, p. C, Appendix). These areas should-be identified as priorities for any home Improvement programs that ard initiated in the neighborhood. Some type of visible upgrading in these areas should have a positive effect on surrounding areas and, in turn, the entire neighborhood. The residents of the Midtown area must be made aware that it is possible to upgrade a neighborhood through improved housing conditions. The core of the area offers a good starting point. INITIAL TARGET AREA The GLRCDC plans to initiate revitalization activities in a four square block area beginning on the north boundary of Stephens Elementary School. This enclave is experiencing security problems and physical deterioration. Some of the problems are\ngang violence, a disfunctional street system, substandard housing, poor drainage, and vacant lots. Immediate attention given to this area should be an incentive to residents of surrounding neighborhoods to believe that Midtown is of value and should be saved. 8COMMUNITY OBSTACLES TO OVERCOME I I Recognizing the need for \"bottom up planning\" (community involvement) and implementation of community development activities, the Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation conducted a community needs assessments workshop in August, 1992. The results were used to formulate a development plan for the initial target area. The needs assessment categorized the problems of the area as follows: Critical Problems: Important Problems: Significant Problems: Crime, (especially illegal drugs). Senior Citizens fear of criminals, lack of effective Police Protection, Community Apathy\nI Code Enforcement for Housing and Vacant Lots, Absentee Landlords, Infrastructure Improvements (Streets,curbs,sidewalks, drainage systems)\n) Lack of safe and convenient recreational facilities, possible lack of adequate fire protection\nOrganization Obstacles The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation is without a proven track record, therefore it must obtain resourceful and dynamic leadership that can embark on a mission of addressing basic community needs in the service area. The GLRCDC must prove that things can be done and build pride and commitment among area residents. The initial objective of the Greater Little Rock CDC is to successfully undertake the physical revitalization of the Stephen's School neighborhood and reclaim the streets from crime and economic rot. The GLRCDC has identified the following barriers to organization goal attainment: Limited Financial Resources Lack of Professional Staff 9Limited Board Training Lack of Housing Development Experience ACTIONS TO OVERCOME OBSTACLES I Organization Actions A successful Community Development Corporation must build a cooperative partnership among the for-profit sector (financial institutions are of special importance), the public sector (local as well as state government), and the non-profit sector (foundations and other 501 (3)(c) corporations). The GLRCDC will play a catalytic role to build and strengthen its working relationship among these cooperative partners. I Network Actions The identification and recruitment of a respected and trusted network coordinator is crucial to the successful formation of the Community Cooperative Network. The individual or organization must be willing and capable of dispelling mistrust, and apathy among the prospective network members and the area residents. Although Little Rock does not elect its city board of directors by wards. City Board Member John Lewellen has been very active and concerned about inner city issues. He has the political status to bridge the gaps that separate organizations and individuals in their common quest. The GLRCDC will seek to secure the services of Mr. Lewellen as network coordinator. Coalition Building Despite a vast array of government and private programs designed to find solutions and deliver services to low income residents, no single entity has been able to revitalize low income neighborhoods. To overcome the barriers to revitalization of low income neighborhoods, a cooperative effort between the private and public sectors is needed to implement effective projects. 10Community Cooperative Network Members 1 The key participants in the revitalization process are the residents of the targeted areas. A practical approach to empowering low income residents is to give them the opportunity to determine what their communities need, and enable them to share in the task required to successfully implement the project. I i I The development plan for the targeted area requires a cooperative effort among the following entities\nCommunity Residents Area Churches City of Little Rock (Police Deptartment, Fire Department, Housing Authority, Code Enforcement, and Neighborhoods and Planning) Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Worthen National Bank Community Organization for Poverity Elimination (COPE) Senior Citizens Activities Today (SCAT) New Futures for Little Rock Youth Watershed Cornerstone Project Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) GYST House Urban League of Arkansas Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light Company Arkla Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Community Cooperative Network Objectives The implementation process for the target area has been developed by defining the project's objectives, including those related to the project's financial costs to the GLRCDC. The objectives were identified as follows: Objective 1 Objective 2 Implement crime prevention activities\nProvide safe recreational activities and social services for youth\n11Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Provide social services and activities for senior citizens\nIncrease code enforcement\nDevelop safe, decent and affordable housing. Next, the objectives were distributed among the network members and a narrative describing how each would be obtained. I In addition to the list of objectives and network members' areas of responsibility, the implementation process has been developed according to the implementation time frames of the objectives and events planned to overcome barriers to development. I A Goal Achievement Matrix (GAM) (Syyed T. Mahmood and Amit K. Ghosh, 1979, part IV, p. 3) has been developed to provide the network members with objectives, task responsibilities, and time frames for the start and completion of each objective. I OBJECTIVE FRAME NETWORK PARTICIPANTS TIME #1 Community Residents City Churches Little Rock Police Department GYST House The Other Way 1993-1994 #4 #5 Community Residents New Futures Watershed Cornerstone (Summer) 1993-1994 COPE, SCAT Central Arkansas Agency on Aging Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning GLRCDC 12 1993-1994 1993-1994 1993-1995 #2 ^2Urban League (Home Owner Training) Little Rock Neighborhoods \u0026amp; Planning HUD COPE (Weatherization Program) Local Banks Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light (Entergy) ARKLA Gas Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Actions To Accomplish Network Objectives ( . |. ... I The cooperative network will conduct a marketing campaign to gain attention and arouse interest in the revitalization of the service area. Brochures and letters explaining social service availability, housing opportunities and information about the purpose and services of the network will be mailed to residents of the service area. The network will attract and motivate area residents to care about and work to address the neighborhood's problems and inform them about the market advantages of the Midtown area (proximity to the interstate, shopping malls, ' downtown and affordable homes). Objective I: Crime Prevention The Stephens School area has recently experienced gang related activities. The primary gang in the area is the \"Oak Street Posse\". A cooperative effort between the Little Rock Police, the GLRCDC and neighborhood activists will help to rid the area of drug activity. Other non-profit organizations are necessary to address the drug education and rehabilitation needs of area residents. Initial program activities for this area will be to request that the city provide street lights on high crime streets, increase police presence and assist neighborhood residents in forming crime watch and reporting groups. To decrease crime and gang activity, the network will implement a crime prevention program. The Little Rock Police Department is the designated network crime coordinator. A youth task force will be formed 13 to develop youth programs for the area. The goal of the task force is to work through the city's young people to check the tide of crime and gang activities and to channel this energy to useful purposes. I The networks' Drug Intervention Program will implement drug education training activities targeted to adults and youth in the service area. EducationaJ activities will focus on providing literature and referrals i for drug counseling and treatment. The network will maintain a list of rehabilitation or treatment organizations which provide counseling and rehabilitative programs. The list will contain the following information: 1 Name, address, and phone number of the organization. Types of services provided. Hours of operation, including emergency hours. The contact person's name and phone rximbers. I Fee structure, including insurance coverage. I The drug intervention youth activities will include providing drug free social activities, and community work activities. Weekend social functions will be provided that are properly supervised by adults and security personnel for youths up to 18 years of age. Community work activities such as the Self-Help Paint Program, vacant lot cleaning, and yard maintenance activities will provide minimum wage earning opportunities for service area youth. Adult drug education and training activities will focus on training them to recognize symptoms of drug use and provide intervention training to combat the use and sale of drugs in their neighborhoods. In cooperation with the Little Rock Police Department, GYST House, the Arkansas Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Division and other drug and crime prevention programs in the community, training materials, training facilitators and training activities such as a Drug Awareness Week will be implemented. Priority drug intervention activities will be implemented in the Oak Street area and education and training activities will be conducted at Stephens school. 14Objective 11: Safe Youth Recreation and Social Activities During the summer months, there is little for the youth to do. The lack of excitement, zest, thrills, fun, and challenges have created a dull routine life that has fostered the increased involvement of youth in criminal and other socially undesirable activities. I The cooperative network will begin planning youth activities in the first quarter of 1993. New Futures will be asked to serve as youth activities coordinator. The network will implement educational, recreational and work activities for service area youth. I I I Educational activities will include career exploration and tutorial assistance for summer school youth. Recreational activities will include supervised and organized sports activities such as bowling, skating, swimming, softball and other sports-in which male and female youth can jointly participate. The disadvantaged youth in the service area win be provided work opportunities through the city's Job Partnership Training Program. Some work activities will take place in the service area with youth supporting the network's vacant lot enforcement activities. Emphasis will be placed on recruiting parents and other adults in the service area to participate as mentors, supervisors and other program support roles. Objective III: Senior Citizen Social Service Activities The explosive growth in the older population deserves our special attention. For older residents to maintain independent lifestyles, the network will have to develop a variety of housing alternatives and support systems that address the social needs and health limitations of this group. Many older residents live alone and may suffer from chronic and disabling diseases. The housing and support system needs of these mostly widowed, largely female, often frail elderly are of major concern for the network. Many of their homes are large enough to house a four or five member family, making shared housing a viable alternative that helps residents share expenses while providing them with companionship. Unused space can be converted to accessory apartments which permit the sharing of a house without requiring the merger of two nuclear families. 15For our older residents to retain their independent living status, however, a mix of transportation, social, nutrition, and health services to accompany housing programs is necessary. t Central Arkansas Agency on Aging will be asked to serve as senior citizens activity coordinator. The senior citizens network will plan and implement transportation services to aid older residents with access to supportive services and nutrition programs that provide them with at least one hot meal, frozen, or supplemental meal (with a satisfactory storage life) at least five days during the week. I i The network will provide health education, recreation, and referral services for health and recreational activities. The network will encourage and assist older residents to use the services available to them. ( Objective IV: Code Enforcement Fair Hoosing and Code Enforcement Many of the vacant lots, abandoned and boarded houses are owned by absentee landlords. Priority code enforcement will be directed toward the cleaning of vacant lots and the abandoned and boarded houses in the service area. I The GLRCDC is the designated code enforcement network coordinator and will identify vacant lots that need trash removal and grass cutting. A list of these properties will be compiled, their code deficiencies specified and the list will be presented to the Code Enforcement Department of the city. The city will provide the owners with a formal notice of the code violations and a deadline to make the needed corrections. If the corrections are not made within the specified time, the city or its designated agent will make the corrections and invoice the owner for the services. The network coordinator will also identify abandoned or boarded property in the service area. The network coordinator will request that the city inspect the properties for code violations and provide owners with a formal notification of the code deficiencies. If the owner is low income, elderly, handicapped or disabled, the program counselor will seek assistance from the city to bring the property within code. Other code violators who are unable or unwilling to make needed repairs will be asked to donate the property to the program for removal or repairs. 16Objective V: Safe, Decent, Affordable Housing A Homeowner Training Program is projected to begin during the second quarter of 1993. The Urban League of Arkansas is the designated network homeowner training coordinator for the activity. The training is projected to provide not less than 1 5 participants during the first year. I k ( f I The program will provide participants with credit counseling similar to the loan origination by a rnortgage company. The counseling will analyze a participant's sources of income and liabilities to establish whether the client's financial status is adequate to support the desired loan. A credit report on each participant will be obtained at a cost of five dollars per person. If the participant has credit problems, the program workers will assist the participant toward establishing good credit, writing letters of explanations and/or structuring payment plans. If the income of the participant is inadequate, the program workers will assist the participant in locating a more affordable house. The program will also provide pre-qualification services for people who have not selected a house, but want to know how much they can afford and if they will have problems at the bank. The program will assist participants with completing finance application documents, provide each participant with a bank referral letter and educate clients on the merits of using checking accounts. Housing Development The network will initially concentrate its rehabilitation and housing development efforts in the area bordering Stephens School. The GLRCDC is the designated network housing development coordinator. The area is experiencing a high percentage of deteriorating housing units. The structural conditions are deteriorating faster than other parts of the service area. The network will identify a four square block area adjoining the north boundary of Stephens School within the area, and seek to obtain the cooperation of block home owners. The network will seek to h\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_656","title":"Little Rock Schools: Wakefield Elementary","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":["1994/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School buildings","Wakefield Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Wakefield Elementary"],"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/656"],"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\nNews clippings and computer printed images of school destroyed by fire in 2002\nArkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY 1. 1995 LRSD students to experience blacks influence on U.S. history BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Children at Little Rocks means, a great day when everyone gets together to celebrate, showing the contributions of Wakefield Elementary School international studies specialist, will celebrate the beginning of said the celebration will focus on Black History Month today when music made popular by black ,. - ------- black .Americans to society. The Vickie Gonterman. the schools tapes will be shown each Friday 1... Qjg school via closed circuit Dr. Gwendolyn Twillie dramatizes some old African and American black folk tales. Twillie, chairman of the theatre arts department at the UniAmericans: such as jazz, ragtime, blues, spirituals and modern-day rap. In addition to the musical. Gibbs pupils in each grade are versity of Arkansas at Little studying units that relate to Rock, is just one of many people who will make black history come alive for students in the Little Rock School District this month. Dorothy Davis, a Wakefield faculty member, is planning an ethnic foods feast for Wakefield Africa or black history in the United States. Third-graders are television. This Fridays presentation is a videotape of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. giving his famous I Have A Dream speech. Julie Western, international specialist at the school, said gifted education students are planning a drama production to mark the month. -------------- In other schools around the studying Kenya this month while district similar events are being fipn. .........11 c-------------------------planned jerry Rayford, a district fifth-graders will focus on the civ- il rights movement in the United States. patron, will visit Terry Elemen- pupils later this month. The Philander Smith College drama department will perform a skit at tary School to describe a recent Art students in each grade will trip she took to Ghana, read books about black history and illustrate them in various art forms. At the end of the month. Other students in the district will attend Fridays performance of Harriet Tubman\nTales of the fhz. .-.1, 1 I? u no .-----------\nschool will celebrate Underground the school on Feb. 23. A group of Mardi Gras, New Orleans-style.   ' performers from Central Gonterman pointed out that New High School, known as Positive Orleans is home to large black Image, will sing negro spirituals and Creole populations. Stud- Other students vdll attend the At Gibbs Magnet Elementary les Junior High Magnet School, a performance of Buffalo Sol- School. which features an inter- collection of African dolls will be diers on Monday at Robinson Auditorium. The Buffalo Soldiers was the name given a black unit At Dunbar International Stud----------- collection of African dolls will be national studies theme, first- and displayed to mark the month second-graders are rehearsing The dolls were collected by par- for their Feb. 23 and 24 perfor- ent Mary Swift, mances of a musical entitled Kikukuu, a Swahili term that Railroad, at Robinson Auditorium, said Lee Ann Matson, who works in the Little Rock districts Volunteers in Public Schools program. Ajjv 11 r. 1 of the U.S. Army that was sent to Additionally Dunbar students guard the western frontier in will select or produce videotapes 1866.Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1995 LRSD students to experience blacks influence on U.S. history BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Children at Little Rocks means, a great day when everyone gets together to celebrate, showing the contributions of Wakefield Elementary School international studies specialist will celebrate the beginning of said the celebration will focus on Black History Month today when music made popular by black Dr. Gwendolyn Twillie drama-  ,. - ------- black .Americans to society. The Vickie Gonterman, the schools tapes will be shown each Friday in the school via closed circuit tizes some old African and American black folk tales. Twillie. chairman of the theatre arts department at the Uni- Americans: such as jazz, ragtime, blues, spirituals and modern-day rap. In addition to the musical. television. This Fridays presentation is a videotape of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. giving his famous 1 Have A Dream speech. Julie Western, international specialist at the school, said gifted education students are planning a drama production to mark - --- Gibbs pupils in each grade are versity of Arkansas at Little studying units that relate to Rock, is just one of many people Africa or black history in the who will make black history United States. Third-graders are hT studying Kenya this month while distocLsimifaT^wnuare bemg tie Rock School District this fifth-graders will focus on the civ- -----' '  .. . ** rights movement in the United Dorothy Davis, a Wakefield States. come alive for students in the Lit- faculty member, is planning an ethnic foods feast for Wakefield pupils later this month. The Philander Smith College drama dethe month. In other schools around the planned. Jerry Rayford, a district patron, will visit Terry Elementary School to describe a recent Art students in each grade will trip she took to Ghana read books about black history and illustrate them in various art Other students in the district will attend Fridays performance ------ of Harriet Tubman\nTales of the the entire school will celebrate Underground Railroad at forms. At the end of the month. partment will perform a skit at ccieuraie .  group of Mardi Gras, New Orleans-style, performers from Central Gonterman pointed out that New High School, known as Positive Orleans is home to large black Image, will sing negro spirituals and Creole populations. 1 Stud- Other students will attend the Elementary les Junior High Magnet School, a performance of \"Buffalo Sol- School, which features an inter- collection of African dolls will be diers on Monday at Robinson Auditorium, The Buffalo Soldiers was the name given a black unit and Creole populations. At Dunbar International Stud---------- collection of African dolls will be national studies theme, first- and displayed to mark the month second-graders are rehearsing The dolls were collected by par- for their Feb. 23 and 24 perfor- mances of a musical entitled ent Mary Swift. Railroad,\" Robinson Auditorium, said Lee Ann Matson, who works in the Little Rock districts Volunteers in Public Schools program. of the U.S. Army that was sent to Kikukiiii  a Swahili Additionally, Dunbar students guard the western frontier in MKUKuu, a Swahili term that will select or produce videotapes ----- 1866.Atkansas l\u0026gt;\nnMM\nrat iW\u0026lt;O'Zfllc )  TUESDAY, OCTOBERS, 1999 Arkansas Domocfnl-Ga.otle'STEVE KFESEE a supervision aide at Wakefield Monday lor the first day of a joint preschool program sponsored by the Little Rock School District and Pulaski Counly Head Start. Rodrick Hicks, Elementary, dressed as Leo the Lion, leads 4-year-olds  _ _i._ 1  1. I :iln Dz-./'L' erhnn wearing ariimal masks into the Little Rock school LR preschoolers benefit from new space Multiagency program expands early childhood educational offeiings  Head Start is a long-standing, fed- BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARfCANSAS DF.MOCR.\\T-OA7F.TTE tume of a lion mascot and snacked on animal cookies while assorted The elastic band on Brittany dignitaries looked on and video Austins chicken face mask had cameras rolled. erally funded preschool program for children from low-income families. About half the children in the Wakefield program qualified under Head Start's family income limits. The district and Head Start eu uui, __ J The parade and subsequent good day for the 4-year-old speeches marked the opening of -  -   ^1^. early childhood education classrooms at Wakefield, the result snapped but. otherwise, Monday was a on her first day of preschool at Lit-tie Rocks Wakefield Elementary. The ponytailed marched in a short parade with Brittany of a now multiagency collaboration that includes the Little Rock her 35 classmates, each of whom -S-c-h--o-o--l -D--i-s-t-r-i-c-t and the Pulaski was hidden behind an animal County Head Start program, which have served preschoolers for several years, but Wakefield is their first formal independently mask. She petted an infant lion cub, fearlessly touched the cos- Fourth  Continued horn Page 1D trict has provided preschool class-county iieau oiaii piugiuu., v,,...... - .- is operated by the University of joint venture. Tlre Littte^ Arkansas for Medical Sciences. See FOURTH, Page 3B After Monday's ceremonies, ------------ Brittany and her Wakefield class- increase in preschool prograins mates moved into two spacious partly as a result of new state tund-classrooms, each fVeshly decorated ig for elementary schools where and newly equipped with the kinds 75 percent of more ot students of things that stir a youngsters come from low-income families, imagination\nbrightly colored al- The money is earmarked tor P . . _____1 ____1.1  fhrniioh tir^t The district is able to finance an e.s for more than 700 children a imagination\nbrightly colored ai- me moiwy is eannaiKeu year at 21 of its 3.5 elementary phabet rugs, tricycles, sand tables prekindergarten through first  schools. Pulaski County Head Start play kitchens and a plastic tool grades. this year has 29 preschool centers bench. Staff from Satoi P^k serving almost 1,000 children. The classroom space was made Faulkner County pronded teo Hon  -  -    possible by the transfer this year of cubs and a tiger cub for the chil-all Little Rock sixth-grade classes dren to study Monday as part ol from elementary schools to middle their fii'st day of school activities, schools. Besides the space, tlie dis---------- trict is providing daily lunches and tu uApuuu . ............. .. v-v. a curriculum that gives children ex-grain from 800 to as many as 1,300 periences with dramatic play, children within a year. , blocks, art, language, hand eye-co-  Little Hock Superintendent Les  Carnine told parents, scliool district officials and university representatives gathered in the Wakefield library that the district wants to expand its early childhood pro... liaren wnnin a year. , This particular agreement with not only UAMS but with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock will help us maximize our efforts in the school district to serve 4-yciir-olds, Canline said. This is exciting to us. This is the first of what we think is a inaivclous agreeiiicnt among the agencies. Dr. Charles Ecild, a UAMS pediatrician at Arkansas Childrens Hospital and executive director of Pulaski County Head Start, in an inteivicw later in the day, praised ,Caniine's interest in expanding early childhood education. He said the Wakefield program should prove to be a model program that could work in all three of the Pulaski County school districts. North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts, like Little Rock, are partners in the collaboration. Pulaski County Head Start uses sjiace in some county and North Little Rock buildings but the agencies are not yet jointly planning preschool programs. ordination, science and matli. The classes are staffed with teachers and aides jointly provided by the district and Head Start. Both agencies helped to equip the rooms, as well. Head Start is paying for a family enrichment specialist for the early childhood program. In that position, Mysti Norman will coordinate the delivery of medical and social services, such as dental care, vision and health screenings, nutritional and developmental assessments and referrals to family service agencies. Plans are under way to establish a class for 4-year-olds at Meadowcliff Elementary within the next several weeks. Other potential sites for preschool programs are Western Hills, Terry, Otter Creek and Forest Park elenieiitaries, depending on the availability of space.  SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 2002  J Ferocious blaze guts grade school in LR Fire crew never had a chance to stop it BY DIANA RASCHKE AND CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Voegele Mechanic^ Contractors of North Little Rock began a $551,000 renovation of the school Little Rocks Wakefield Ele- this summer, including installa-mentary School was destroyed tion of central heating and air by fire on Friday, canceling a conditioning. summer community program for Ninety students in prekinder-about 90 children and throwing garten through fifth grades were into question where nearly 400 ^t the school earlier Friday parpupils will attend classes this ticipating in a five-day-a-week fall, summer program sponsored The southwest Little Rock by the University of Arkansas at school, at 75 Westminister Drive, Little Rocks Share America procaught fire around 6 p.m. and gram. The summer session, was still burning four hours lat- called Camp Medical Mania, er. No one was injured, and fire- provides day-long activities in fighters didnt know how the fire science, math and health for the started. children  many of whom live Firefighters said the build- in the Wakefield community ings age and structure made  as well as field trips to local fighting the blaze difficult. Sup- museums and parks. plies left behirid by construction Four weeks remain of the six-workers and doors propped week program. Next weeks ac-open to accommodate this sum- tivities have been canceled, mers renovations on the 43- Heather Gage, assistant to the year-old school probably helped director for the program, said fuel the fire, they said. late Friday night. Although pupils are on sum- School officials said a janitor Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/RUSSELL POWELL met vacation, the school was oc- was in the building Friday A Little Rock firefighter hoses down hot spots at Wakefield Elementary cupied Friday by contractors evening and reported the fire. School on Lancaster Road. The southwest Little Rock school was de- working on the schools heating The blaze consumed new strayed in the fire, which started about 6 p.m. Friday. and air-conditioning system. See SCHOOL, Page 9A School  Continued from Page 1A phones, new lights, a new ceiling, and 50 computers still packed in their boxes. We were going to get a really good start on the yeai\n\" kindergarten teacher Gloria Miller said. Miller watched her classroom burn along with her posters, cassette tapes, the charts she used to teach kindergartners how to make a sentence and the little blocks and bears she used to teach them math. The recliner, bean bags, rocking chair, all the stuff she bought with her own money to make her classroom feel like home to her students. The fire had a good start on us when firefighters arrived. Little Rock fire safety officer Bob Franklin said. \"The fire crew never really had the chance to stop it, he said. He said workers inside the building had propped the fire doors open, allowing the flames to spread, and that building sup- Gloria Miller watched her classroom bum along with her posters, cassette tapes, the , charts she used to teach kindergartners how to make a sentence and the little blocks and bears she used to teach them math. The recliner, bean bags, rocking chair, all the stuff she bought with her own money to make her classroom feel like home to her students. plies left in the halls probably acted as fuel. The fire seemed most concentrated in the northwest area of the building, Franklin said. At one point, he said, firefighters were pouring 5,500 gallons of water per minute on the fire, and you could tell that was-nt even putting a dent in it, Franklin said. The roofs metal truss construction puts it at risk of collapsing in extreme heat, Franklin said, so firefighters were unable to enter the building and stood several yards from its walls. This, Franklin said, is going to be an all-nighter. Neighbors and teachers watched the flames hollow out a cornerstone of their community. Wakefield Neighborhood Association President Don Darnell said with pride that he had been a member of the first graduating sixth-grade class at Wakefield. If I stop and think about it long enough, its tough, he said. Wakefield has been a community meeting center for years, he said. Its more than a place for students to go five days a week,\" he said. 17118 has been a real center for community activity. Of the 384 pupils who attend the school, ordy 10 ride the bus. Principal Les Taylor said. Most of the rest live close enough to walk. For the teachers and the kids and the parents, its really a tragedy, he said. To have a school so close, its really, really sad. If theres any fortunate thing about this, its that well have six to eight weeks to plan where were going to be, Taylor said. If it happened during the school year, wed have one or two days. Officials will meet Monday to start planning, Taylor said. Three of Eduardo Ramos children were to start at Wakefield this fall. Yolanda, who will be in fifth grade, asked to transfer from Cloverdale Elementary because Wakefield is less than a block away from her home at I Daven Court On Friday she covered her mouth with her hands to block the thick smoke and told her father she could see the flames better from the other side of the house. He said the fire might bring the neighborhood even closer to the school. Now its going to make people take care of the school and improve the school, Eduardo Ramos said. Were going to have a new school now. Superintendent Ken James, who will mark his first anniversary as Little Rock superintendent on Monday, was in California on Friday to attend a Milken Family Foundation National Educator Awards ceremony. James staff said Friday night that he had been notified of the fire. Efforts to reach officials from Voegele Mechanical Contractors in North Little Rock were unsuccessful late Friday. Wakefield is believed to be the districts first school in active use to be destroyed by fire. It is a relatively small school compared with the other 33 ele-mentaries in the states largest school district, which has more than 25,000 students. The school was built in 1959 by the Pulaski County Special School District. The Little Rock School District acquired it in 1986. It was one of 14 county schools transferred to the Little Rock district in a federal court order Intended to remedy racial segregation problems in the two districts. The 14 schools were within the city limits but outside the Little Rock School Districts boundaries. Wakefields eastern wing of about eight classrooms was added in 1970. That wing was found earlier this year to be structurally damaged and was slated to be replaced over the next several months with proceeds from a school district tax increase passed by voters in May 2000. That tax, which is being used to renovate schools throughout the district, was also being used to finance $551,000 in work under way on the schools ventilation and fire alarm systems. Security cameras and energy efficient lighting were installed at the school only last year. Initially, it appeared the eastern wing was not as damaged by the fire as the older part of the building, school district spokesman Suellen Vann said. But she said sections of the roof appear to have fallen even in that area of the school. This is the second major fire in the Little Rock School District in 10 years. In October 1994, about 60 percent of Chicot Elementary School was heavily damaged by a fire started in the schools media center. Investigators determined that the blaze was set by two girls, 11 and 8, pupils who set the fire after hours with matches. The school was rebuilt but half the student body was sent to the districts Oakhurst School and the other half to Ish School for several months. More recently, the stage area at the historic Central High School was damaged by a fire that was extinguished before it spread. Repairs were made without closing the school. Vann said Wakefield is insured. The value of the school was unavailable Friday night. Its not just a building. Its a place where teachers and chil-dren come together and some- j thing special happens inside the classroom, Vann said. I 5-1 /  SUNDAY, JUNE 30, 2002  3B J\" I t ' A [ij 1 U \u0026gt; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/BENJAMIN KRAIN Little Rock firefighters on Saturday morning spray the smoldering remains of Wakefield Elementary School in southwest Little Rock. The school caught fire about 6 p.m. Friday and burned throughout the night. Wakefield fire deemed accidental LR district rnust decide where pupils will go before Aug. 19 opening BY AMY SCHLESING AND DIANA RASCHKE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The fire that destroyed Wake-field Elementary School in southwest Little Rock was ignited by an errant welding spark during renovations at the school Friday afternoon. We have no reason to believe it was arson. This was a very expensive accidental fire, Little Rock Assistant Fire Marshal Randy Davenport said. There is no question of negligence. Welding produces tremendous heat and sparks. It happens. Welders with Voegele Mechanical Contractors of North Little Rock had been working on air-conditioning brackets in rooms U and 12 of the school Friday afternoon. Voegele was un-uJ W. MARKHAM'g^ uj CD 1 fire engines didnt leave the The school district closed Bad-school until 4 p.m. Saturday, gett this spring to save money. when the building was little more than a field of rubble. Were looWng at the capacity of the elementary schools in Wakefield Elementary 1 N Arkansas Oemocrat-Gazefle The building had begun to southwest Little Rock, Vann collapse Friday night. As Wake- said, but most of our schools field Principal Les Taylor looked near Wakefield are pretty full. on Saturday morning, a bull- About 10 Wakefield Elemen-dozer leveled the unstable build- tary students rode buses. Most ing and churned the smoldering students walked to school, Vann remains as firefighters doused said. them with water. Well just have to take a look Davenport said Engine 17 at all those other schools, she would continue to make hourly said. If we move them, well inchecks at the site for the next cur additional transportation few days and cool the ashes with costs. water. Superintendent Ken James Little Rock School District of- was in Los Angeles on Friday at-ficials will meet Monday to look tending a national education at options for Wakefields 400 seminar at which a Mabelvale students  whether to use Magnet Middle School teacher portable buildings and rebuild, received a Milken Family Foun- Fire engines were called at to distribute the students across dation National Educator Award. der contract to complete a 6:04 p.m., but within minutes, other schools or use a recently He plans to fly back to Little $551,000 renovation of the the schools airy hallways and closed school. Rock today. school. combustible books, desks and Suellen Vann, spokesman for Its truly one of our neigh- The workers put away their chairs had spread the fire the Little Rock School District, borhood schools, James said, equipment and left the school throughout the structure. said a decision will have to be Its always tough to lose a about 3:30 p.m., and when a jan- It was rolling good, Daven- made very quickly. School starts school in any kind of situation, itor arrived shortly before 6 p.m., port said. Our guys didnt stand Aug. 19. Its one of those tragedies that he found heavy smoke and a chance. One option is reopening Bad- well have to regroup and look flames in the two rooms, Dav- Firefighters got the blaze un- gett Elementary School at 6900 at our options and see whats enport said. der control about midnight. But Pecan Ave. on the citys east side. See SCHOOL FIRE, Page 8B July 2. 2002 Wakefield school likely to rise again ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rocks Wakefield Elementary School  which was ravaged by fire last week  will likely be rebuilt, district Superintendent Ken James said Monday. In the meantime, he said, hes searching for a stand-in school site for the nearly 400 children displaced by the blaze. James will meet with School Board members at a special meeting at 5 p.m. Wednesday to review options for the children who are to start the new school year Aug. 19. James said it is his intent to find a site that will be the least disruptive to the pupils, many of whom walked to Wakefield from nearby homes. Possibilities include reopening and assigning the Wakefield children to Badgett Elementary, which was closed at the end of this past school year as a way to save the district money. Badgett, at 6900 Pecan Road, is 9/i miles down Interstates 30 and 440 from Wakefield, which is at 700 Westminister in southwest Little Rock. The use of Badgett, however, would likely preclude the prekindergarten and Head Start classes for 40 4-year-olds at Wakefield. The district doesnt bus 4-year-olds. Other options include dividing the Wakefield student body among other southwest Little Rock schools or housing Wakefield children in portable classrooms on the Wakefield site. However, James said he doubted that the site could accommodate the number of portable buildings that would be necessary. Wakefield was insured with a $100,000 deductible, James said. The fire was reported Friday evening by a school janitor. Investigators are focusing on the possibility that errant sparks from welding work done in the building earlier in the day on a new ventilation system went undetected and led to the fire.I  WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 2002  School fire to send voters to church ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Pulaski County Election a light turnout is expected. Early voting is running Only 170 Little Rock residents smoothly at the Pulaski County Commission met Tuesday to ap- had voted early by Tuesday af- Courthouse, the only early vot- point a substitute polling site for ternoon. ing site for next weeks election, Wakefield Elementary School. The Peabody Hotel Group Election Coordinator Luke Dren- The school, which is the regular is asking voters for permission nan said. polling site for Precinct 756G, to use\"$19 million in revenue humed down Friday. Voters who went to the school to vote will now cast bal- bonds to renovate the hotel. A vote for the bonds wont in No problems. Were ready and roaring, he said. Early voters are using the crease taxes or leave Little Rock iVotronics electronic ballots, lots at Geyer Springs United liable to repay the bonds, but while people who wait until Methodist Church instead. Amendment 65 to the Arkansas next Tuesday to vote will use All other regular voting sites Constitution requires public paper ballots. in the city will be open for vot- votes on revenue bonds to fi- County-Circuit Clerk Carolyn ers next Tuesday in a special nance hotels, office buildings and Staleys office mailed out 574 bal- el^on on the bond issue for the recreational facilities. lots to absentee voters and had Hilton Inn on University Avenue. ~  . . The Peabody Hotel Group gotten 352 back Tuesday. Little Rocks 130,000 regis- will pay for the special election. t Absentee voters have until tered voters are eligible to par- which is expected to cost 7:30 p.m. next Tuesday to return ticipate in the July 9 election, but $42,000. their ballots. THURSDAY, JULY 4, 2002  Get Wakefield school rebuilt, board orders Meantime, most pupils to go to Badgett BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE When Little Rocks fire-ravaged Wakefield Elementary School is rebuilt, a new marquee sign purchased by the school and its Parent-Teacher Association will be there to herald the opening. The districts School Board on Wednesday removed any doubt about Wakefields future when it directed Superintendent Ken James to start the process of rebuilding the school at the existing site as soon as possible. In the meantime, the $5,000 sign purchased shortly before last Fridays fire will go into storage, and nearly all Wakefield pupils and staff members will be temporarily assigned to Badgett Elementary School, which was closed earlier this year to cut district expenses. The only exception to the Badgett assignment will be for pre-kindergartners and children in the federal Head Start program. They will go to Meadowcliff Elementary. The board selected Badgett as the alternate site for the more than 300 displaced pupils and the staff with the blessir^ of the Wakefield faculty and its PTA leader. I think its a great decision, Principal Les Taylor said after the board meeting, which was attended by nearly two dozen See WAKEFIELD, Page3B Wakefield  Continued from Page 1B Wakefield employees wearing navy-blue Wakefield T-shirts. I think it is very, very important to the staff in light of the tragedy that we all stay together. Investigators believe the fire, which was reported by the school custodian about 6 p.m. Friday, was started accidentally by errant welding sparks earlier in the day. Welders with Voegele Mechanical Contractors of North Little Rock had been installing air-conditioning brackets in Rooms 11 and 12 of the 43-year- old school that aftemooa Some $550,000 in renovations, includii^ a new heating and air- conditioning system, were under way at the school at 75 Westminister Road. James suggested several options for the displaced pupils but recommended the one that Wakefield is projected to enroll 370 pupils in kindergarten through fifth grades when school starts Aug. 19. would send pupils and teachers to Badgett. Badgett is 9.5 miles away at 6900 Pecan Road, near Little Rock National Airport, Adams Field. Wakefield is projected to enroll 370 pupils in londergarten through fifth grades when school starts Aug. 19. Badgett can accommodate them ail if the four existing portable buildings on that campus are used and two additional ones are acquired. Other options called for assigning kindergartners and first- graders to the eight-classroom wing that is still usable at the Wakefield campus and sending older children to Badgett. That would keep the youngest children close to home, James said, but could provide an obstacle to the quick rebuilding of the school Additionally, the eight-room wing addition that was built in 1970 was structurally deteriorating before the fire and was slated to be replaced. James also offered the possibility of sending Wakefields children and staff to several different district schools but said he didnt believe that was a suitable option. The board also considered using nearby buildings not owned by the Little Rock district, including Pulaski County Special School Districts old Daisy Bates School, which the city of Little Rock now owns. The cost of readying the buildings for students was too expensive, though. District officials hope that insurance settlements will provide enough money to not only reconstruct the school but also compensate the district for student transportation to Badgett and at least partially reimburse teachers for their teaching aids and other belongings that were destroyed. Most of Wakefields pupils walked to the school. Building a new school the size of Wakefield is expected to cost about $3.7 million. However, district officials already are talking about adding classrooms to accommodate enrollment growth. A final insurance settlement is not expected for several weeks. Wednesdays School Board meeting was the first opportunity for a reunion of the Wakefield staff since the fire. After the board meeting, teachers gathered around a hastily compiled school album of before- and after- the-fire photographs. Here is one of the mats the children nap on, kindergarten teacher Gloria Miller said as she pointed to a blue speck in the rubble shown in one picture. That looks like a pocket chart, she said of a pink spot in another photo. Erica Hughes said her fourth- grade daughter and fifth-grade son have cried over the loss of the school they have attended since starting school. They also were enrolled in the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Share America six-week summer program, which was moved to the Southwest Community Assembly of God Church. They made the best decision they could considering what they had to work with, Hughes said about the Badgett choice. But it will be difficult for parents as far as transportation because of lot of people in that community walk their kids to school.School fire  Continued from Page 1B best for the students and the staff at Wakefield. Meanwhile, a summer day camp that was in its second of six weeks at the school has found a new home in the neighborhood. The school was one of six sites for a five-day-a-week summer day camp sponsored by the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Share America program. Southwest Community Assembly of God at 7400 Lancaster Road has volunteered to house the program, which serves about 90 students, program director Cheryl Chapman said. The program, canceled this week, will resume July 8 and finish its final three weeks at the church just two blocks from Wakefield. The great news is that a community pulls together when theres a disaster like this, she said. Theyre a great church that does a lot of thmgs in the community. The Rev. Will Deerman, pastor of the church, said he had thought about offering the church to the Share America program when he first saw the flames Friday night. He met with Chapman on Saturday and made the offer. Ive known Cheryl for several years, Deerman said. I think its going to work out just fine. I just hope we have all the space they need. The Share America program serves children in kindergarten through fifth grades with the ed- ucational summer program The program lost books, food and i other supphes in the fire. Chap-  man said. The programs theme is Camp j Medical Mania. Chapman said i children who had just learned : about the Red Cross were\namazed to see the medical work-  ers show up at the school Friday and Saturday, where they fed and helped prevent heat exhaustion for the more than 100 firefighters. What a lesson, she said. They started saying, Look at all these people that are here to help out.  The loss of the school has left more than students and campers without a facility, however. The Pulaski Coimty Election Commission will have to find a new polling place for neighborhood residents before the July 9 special election. A bond issue for renovation of the Little Rock Hilton hotel is on the ballot. Charles King, the commissions chairman, suggested the^ Wakefield School site might be combined with another established polling place at the nearby Wakefield Baptist Chinrch. As city leaders worked to fill the void left by the demol-  ished school and community I center, neighbors gathered ' aroimd the rubble. I When officials removed the  yellow tape surrounding the rub- I ble Saturday afternoon, neigh- I bors crept up close with cam- eras. Joyce Kennedy attended sixth feet away, used to work in Wake- grade at Wakefield when it fields cafeteria. opened in 1959 and still lives nearby on Exeter Drive. She took pictures Saturday of heaps of tangled and warped metal, smoke stiU rising in places. Her mother, sitting in the ear a few Kennedy said she almost cried when she.h|ard V^efield kz4 --------------s had burned. Now, she said, the photos are all Ive got left of it. I could say I remembered it when. I 3'2 0, 2 0 0 2\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":100,"next_page":101,"prev_page":99,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1188,"total_count":1850,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":1843},{"value":"Sound","hits":4},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":289},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":220},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":179},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":69},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":30},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":12},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":11},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":6},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":5},{"value":"Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services","hits":4},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":1745},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":1244},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":1207},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":886},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":721},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":690},{"value":"School integration","hits":604},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":601},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":560},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":474},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":417}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":6},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Joshua","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Knight","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1849},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1836},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1799},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1539},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":10},{"value":"United States, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Missouri, Saint Louis City County, Saint Louis, 38.65588, -90.30928","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063","hits":2},{"value":"United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1836},{"value":"Missouri","hits":5},{"value":"Kansas","hits":2},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":2},{"value":"New York","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Illinois","hits":1},{"value":"Maryland","hits":1},{"value":"Michigan","hits":1},{"value":"Ohio","hits":1},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":385},{"value":"1995","hits":376},{"value":"1996","hits":334},{"value":"1993","hits":312},{"value":"1992","hits":292},{"value":"1999","hits":273},{"value":"1997","hits":268},{"value":"1991","hits":255},{"value":"2001","hits":252},{"value":"2000","hits":251},{"value":"1998","hits":245},{"value":"2002","hits":182},{"value":"1990","hits":173},{"value":"2003","hits":164},{"value":"2004","hits":148},{"value":"1989","hits":134},{"value":"2005","hits":119},{"value":"2006","hits":86},{"value":"2011","hits":62},{"value":"2010","hits":60},{"value":"2007","hits":57},{"value":"1988","hits":51},{"value":"2008","hits":47},{"value":"2009","hits":47},{"value":"1987","hits":35},{"value":"1986","hits":30},{"value":"2012","hits":30},{"value":"1984","hits":27},{"value":"1985","hits":23},{"value":"2013","hits":19},{"value":"1983","hits":16},{"value":"1982","hits":15},{"value":"1980","hits":13},{"value":"1981","hits":13},{"value":"1974","hits":12},{"value":"1975","hits":12},{"value":"1976","hits":12},{"value":"1977","hits":12},{"value":"1978","hits":12},{"value":"1979","hits":12},{"value":"1973","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1967","hits":9},{"value":"1968","hits":9},{"value":"1969","hits":9},{"value":"1970","hits":9},{"value":"1971","hits":9},{"value":"1972","hits":9},{"value":"1954","hits":8},{"value":"1966","hits":8},{"value":"1950","hits":7},{"value":"1951","hits":7},{"value":"1952","hits":7},{"value":"1953","hits":7},{"value":"1955","hits":7},{"value":"1956","hits":7},{"value":"1957","hits":7},{"value":"1958","hits":7},{"value":"1959","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":7},{"value":"1961","hits":7},{"value":"1962","hits":7},{"value":"1963","hits":7},{"value":"1964","hits":7},{"value":"1965","hits":7},{"value":"2017","hits":6},{"value":"2015","hits":5},{"value":"2016","hits":5},{"value":"2018","hits":5},{"value":"2019","hits":5},{"value":"2020","hits":5},{"value":"2021","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"2023","hits":5},{"value":"2024","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2024","count":5114,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":904},{"value":"reports","hits":255},{"value":"judicial records","hits":232},{"value":"legal documents","hits":207},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":67},{"value":"project management","hits":62},{"value":"budgets","hits":38},{"value":"correspondence","hits":23},{"value":"handbooks","hits":20},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}