{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_555","title":"Loan agreement","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":["1994/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Loan agreement"],"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/555"],"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\nArkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 6^2-4475^ GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Divisj^^ arr. i .o January 31, 1994 FEB 1 1994 OUwo oi Cc\nMr. Jerry Malone 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Jeriry and Chris: The Arkansas Department of Education would like to schedule a meeting with one or both of you and district representatives to discuss the Little Rock loan provision. Page 26 of the September 1989 Settlement Agreement specifically states, \"If at anytime between the date of this Agreement and December 31, 2000, the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students), the escrowed funds will be paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven. H The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the standardized test to be used to evaluate the progress of LRSD. Please call or write to schedule a meeting. Sincerely, Elizabeth Boyter cc: All Counsel of Record EB/say STATE 50 .Members: CARLE. .EAUi D '- F ELLt FaE R-OE  \\i ios- CFuirmn  ELAISE SCOTT. Little Rock \\ ice Chairman - RICHARD C. SMITH, JR..Tillar AILLIAM H. FISHER. Paragould -JAMES M. LLEWELLYN. JR.. Fen Smith JAMES A McLARTY Hl. Ne^^non : SRY. A'NadelrhiJ CHERRY WALKER. Lime Rock NANCY M. WOOD, Little Rock Ar. Laual Opponunii\u0026gt; Emploser 05/11/1999 07: 47 PHILLIPS o  r} 4  pb   5016324336 I r I A * a * a Miebitta a  PESEaFCH 4MD DESIGM PHONE No. : S17 349 7874 I ]  vaiTBxitr W T 4 Sta 4 XOKl xsMoaxaaQM TO) Qayla Pofctac, XK Dapt. of Iduo. FROMt Buaan Phillipa Page Jul.23 1995 02 1:34rn S.x. PHILLIPS, CONSOLTAifT 0 r f J c K 4 2 3 4 X * r i a  r 0 k * * 0  , ( 4 1  1 1 XI base 4 M I 4 F22 SATS I July 21, 1995 XKi Raaponsa to Saeonmandat ion tgon Joaana Lanka I have revlawod tho you forwarded to ao. memo Dr. and aappotftlim dooaoantatlon from LanMa Jtaa sworidad uaofui data Joanne Lonko auremarited the Iseusg Involved In ehooeiing r Little Rock settlement. Sefere coO^entlng raguirament and teat score altoraatiwe, i offer a faw regarding my interpretation ot ihB languaQe at the settlement. altoraatiws, The Little Rook Sattlafwant **Tfffrmnt and Bueeinetly * metric for tho mandato of the opoelfically on the 90% a few general cofpjnenta Thera ara savoral key phrasaa 3a the pdirtiea thlrv^ ehar-rwlth  k7 Z Sattlemant daa\u0026lt;l i.n order to implement Its tarms. The ..ollowlng are some thoughts about thM definitions. ^'.4\"* time\"  indioeteB thatt the event need happen and can be meaaurad at any hisM period during the school year. only once \"atandardixed taat\"  ia a nationally normed, **2 *** payohetnetrie quality. the JaRaMorar Is Rook already adalntetara thija for the aattlanent mandate. - - . If Little lhstru*|}t, it would ba a logical choice 3. \"composita saoraa\"  uae g thia teralnolegy suggesta an M A UMmx acoc* Off one that aaor4iffM^n \u0026lt;cadBio eubjeot.^ *.. ith raspec? to the 3a:::s^:co:e\n brs:\nr J52r..rbr}\nother parte of the be attactea by wording in .kill. i. .Hue.. I*' I\" alluded to, the beelo hatte^ Were 1 SaSm. equalising the totality of eduoefeioos score may be more appropriate. acre may be moat appropriate. I have been made about the broader complete battary iF r 05/11/1999 07:47 5016324336 duo\u0026amp;tion PESEAFCH AUD DESI6N Itttle Hock Sattlamant . . . p. 2 'paoial aduoation atuRtonta\"  this probably studanta in th* Littla aook eohoole whg haw^ toa*:l.n9, plaood Psaaumably, fcMtonca aduaatlon In apealaX dtw\u0026gt;at4*n atudanta astt aa^tlaaant, what about otHM an XSP refers t tha Sof Evaluation but b taatad. to all tino of not yot by Although ipaolal the language ^WcH *9 vocational atudonta, I diieabiiitlaa under floetlon 304? of tha aa absent***, ox atudAata with gualleyl^ ncnguslifylng .tud.nts with dlaabllltiaa (.f. , a nen-a^^alaX adai^tlan atudont with dyolaxla or vloualXy Inpalsod student t th* aro^ti \u0026gt;tn$|liah psoflolMney ba'tit 4 X oXavaxoom) 7 a will atuddnti onl.?2inL  l*iMe an non-black students or only those of auropeen anmtry? ba* about hispanie Americans? inrttoded/ aeilit eil gradss ba tasted? results for different grade* to be oc^bi^d? studanta^ - Which gradat \u0026lt;loi tbl* all anoMtzy? How ora 6. \"90% or greeter\"  the  intent for the mean score at bltu^ : aeeme to indlcata an mean tcora for whitoa. at laast nine tantha of tha .. Thimaay be gn unreal lotic the time irana and ebstadOee to be everoome. approximately five yeart to drereaee learning deficit of poverty which have develed over ^udtote' lifsti^o?.' City, which spent latlllans in th* public doeegregation has bean to aohievement test ohstadtiaE axpactatlen given Little Rock haa a and tha effacte has orders, aklllsna .ta Sven Xanaas achools scores. algnifleantly unde\nIncrease In defining a presumption of I diaeriaiaiatien the federal  .in the employment arena, government has 'uppert\u0026lt;\u0026lt; an 30 rule. percent applicants hired. **- - ^ . . . refer Thus, applicants are hired, at suet also taet ssBraa hi\u0026gt;4 ta the However, the 304 9 avallahla So hired to Moreover, if an eraploysr opportunity to deisonatrete' aecions. 2n oassB such se thiSx rule, if 7C of gualifiad whita leeet f giMlifiad minority applicants *oid ipreeuaption of diserin-.' this ^et\n. the aniployer still a :\u0026gt;rMMBptlon dlaerlr.lnaticn. haa an * acwpdllKj intacsat to Justify its in cases such as Peers ?,i l,ga9 between ainority and aajorilj^ at issue. In such oasea^ adjainiatratoro to insure thd* ____ xiaon earn a high school diploma.\nRewe*eV|l minority scores to be a sertiin raguirsment seams to SuggestSn 9*ti3 rather than an aqual opportunity to e* ghposiaq a Tvoe gf ,fSbrentiaXs in paaaing ratsa W graduation taata have been [ Mir* ixpoead dutlaa On taat hftd X chajica to Nib oeurta have not required of majority acorsa. It to Such a specifled outcome 1 agree Lenka that J non* of 1 asoauo* no lonoitudlnal ___Z tgree with Dr. MJor types of atandaedited tast a B ------longitudinal ooapavisdde impl* interpretation of aara raw eeore di: the Little Hoek aettleraant. Jld the languaqa lands itaalf to :aa. Ona might. !or axampla,05/11/1989 07:47 5016024386 WE Mo. FESEaFCH AMD DESIGN : Si? 343 374 F45E 04 Jjl. 3 35 WttXa Rock Settleaiant . . . p. 3 I I  -4 -I c m  o co co \u0026lt;o oompute the baaio battery raw s^ra aMsae for blacks and whit lovol and check for attainment of the Jfjs arlterlon at each \u0026gt; Of Whether .11 Kowevvr, eempXy s at a* unanewesfd the ideation at yhothas is already a etsiseeat\na6dadard and 9radaa U9O of at d\u0026amp;Qh grada grade lavi. must nor:::kir:::ma::::::*^^ ukeiihooc that .uL nook \u0026lt; fltandBgagopgaft \u0026gt; reaaenabla appro.eh ay M to ak^ sing la comparison each year. 9o\u0026lt;^ he on the iui, ccmpsrsbl . would regale ^has aU etgdent .oo^.^\n\"rZ\" n'r*\"* ^**^^**** aoaled aaores jure typiedtlu daaianed to  acais. Zine'T- Srae*'' \"1^* motrib?^onecould eosled soot* for alttii^le Rock black is grades but exoluding epeoial edeeef .11 white students. ^yple^Jli^y designed 9\u0026gt;ua, uaUlB a. soaled to students (aumming the mean sealed score ahea^ .-w . O'eell 4^nprisoo would meet the tl ttlement Ifaguage. aoeerer, outside of the a^ttament te. -uch calculations -would Uv. llt\u0026lt;. wlevance. ^ett.amant a s 3ieiiltfTr, spirit and vine tha sr poaeibility would be t^..t a efcitaeion for success (e.g., -ator ierformonce level) and detarmina Thia rina! L ^*4 sWdents i, at least 90% of that inia Goea not soMCera axar^* onforme to the apirlt of 9rad0 level\" os a t* \u0026gt;at suecass es the percent ei hitea. W\u0026lt;anta i at least . ----------- providing nts. As stated, the 9qni stand, t drd than to an adequate or \u0026gt;pprwn.\u0026lt;.t pretation that provides ed may result in tion of Stated, a * zeeeoai an standard which aay be y U the wording of the settlement I ideguata education ia oleaer to for minority s maximal performance education atandard. .e opportunity Thus, an ------ w I wuiii-'\u0026amp;y for Little Rook to eAxcstqtonal improvement for i,flpn to National PiggagaBfe^a enka'J psopaeal oe cenperid* the hid rreeponding netional data ceaeoM allow Little aook to deaenilkrata prd leal standard. J' blacks than ae nearly irapossibla to aeet. fcZ!l^'fca dlffarantial i' and realistic. in Littla Reck Thia method ra Oonforns t to densonatr oonforme to the iangue^e end inti th9a thoughts art in 4*aj  feel free to contact JM ij! X cna being held to s strict of'the xettlemant. ata that such a l^th ths dilsRsca you axs facing, lay further aasiatanoa. u O 'i .DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 . GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division July 28, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Gene Wilhoit, Director Arkansas Department of Education Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District Gayle Potter, Lead Planner, Design Team Recommendations from the Variables Committee The Variables Committee began meeting on May 18, concluded with recommendations on July 27, 1995. ______________ committee include Robert Clowers, Gene Parker, and Sterling Ingram from the Little Rock School District, as well as Vicki Kerr, and Gayle Potter from the Arkansas Department of Education. The committee was joined at times by others: Russ Mayo of the Little Rock School District and Gene Jones of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.- 1994, and Members of the The Variables Committee provides within this document a description of the problem around which it was convened, a definition of important intervening variables which affect student achievement, a brief discussion of the assessment or testing instrument, and attachments with expert opinion. Problem Statement: . perception of a student achievement gap that is racially based, as evidenced by results on large-scale assessments. Considerations for Problem: Large scale assessment data analysis has been limited to sender alone. Data should be reviewed in the context of thefollowing four critical variables which intervene to affect achievement: socio-economic status, family structure, parent- education level, and early childhood education.Definitions of Variables\nSocio-Economic Status: As determined by free and reduced lunch eligibility Collect SES data from free and reduced lunch information\nalso make use of the family link identifier -  Eamily Structure: Household where student lives most of the time (both parents, father only, mother only, father and stepmother, mother and stepfather, foster parents, legal guardian, other) Collectfamily structure data from the Pupil Information Form Parent Education Level: Highest level of education completed by mother/father/legal guardian (e.g., elementary school, junior high, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, trade school, other) Collect parent education level by adding to the Pupil Infoimation Form Early Childhood Education: Any of a variety of organized pre-kindergarten experiences, such as.Headstart, HIPPY, 4-year old programs, other pre-school Collect this data from the Pupil Information Form ASSESSMENT OR TESTING INSTRUMENT\nlanguage of the settlement requires the composite scores Lxttle Rock School District black students (excluding special education students) to be 90% or greater of the composite scores of Little Rock School District white (excluding special education students) on a c test agreed upon by the State and the Little Rock 2^ District. This may occur at any date between the settlement agreement and December 31, 2000. -2-Committee discussions around ''standardized testing\" included tests, performance assessments, portfolios' and norm-referenced tests. w fcj nk\u0026gt;_xx u. .a yk/X u *3 f ..V, '7---: Minimum Performance Test has been ^andoned, the new criterion-referenced tests based on the Curriculum Frameworks are under development, and no statewide ...  f ciiiu. xiu oLctuewiae testing instrument is currently available The Arkansas n-iTPct- M\u0026gt;-Tt--!TnrT ------ ___ . Direct Writing Assessment purposes. English Language Arts and Mathematics Portfolios are under development, but it will take several years of professional development with teachers reliable scores could be produced for settlement purposes. xs not comprehensive before The only standardized test currently in use in the State and District IS the state-adopted based on our research and the norm referenced test. However, expert opinions from , , , ------ wjj/a.xxku\\.^xxo X.XV/Ul psychometricians, we have formed the opinion that a testing instrument has a different purpose than the settlement purpose and uses metrics which to the requirements of the settlement agraamexiu.. no^-referenced testing instrument is intended to compare the achievement'of students within the District to the achievement of students within the standardization group. Therefore, it would T compare the achievement of black students in uittle Rock to the achievement of black students in the standardization group and to compare the achievement of white students in Little Rock to the achievement t e standardization group. But that comparison is not the standard outlined in the settlement. are not well suited agreement A Therefore, it would group. of white students in Nevertheless, if a norm-referenced test is used to determine the n black students white students in the Little  oc chool District for settlement purposes, scaled scores or raw scores would appear to be the better metrics according to expert opinion. (See attachments.) been informed that...... purposes to use. . However, we have , T . . \"outside of the settlement mandate, such would have little relevance.\" (See Phillips' attachment.) If a norm-referenced testing instrument is used, tL- ____ consensus is that the state-mandated grade levels for testing Should be the focus of the application of the 90% the committee rule. The two attachments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, y sccacnments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, Executive ice resident and psychometrician at Psychological Corporation an an independent response by Susan Phillips, psychometrician. R * *** J tAAX * XX Jk Jk Jk aU O f O J ^Xx^^kllC awyer and faculty member o Michigan State University, aira Qf working papers from the committee for have included a Also I your perusal. Please contact me if you would like to meet with the Variable Committee for discussion. *  a time convenient to both your schedules.  We shall be happy to do so at -3-HARCOURT BRACE Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement 555 Academic Court San Antonio, Texas 78204-2498 Tel 210-299-1061 Fax 210-270-0327 \\\\ A' Os  * \\ u\\ -9 t March 30, 1998 Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director of Accountability Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall, Room 305A Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 \\^vv Dear Mr. Anthony: This letter is to summarize a conversation I had last week with Ed Jackson regarding the types of test scores reported for SAT9 that would be appropriate for reporting summary data for Arkansas students. Basically, there are two types of scores that are appropriate for reporting group summary data on SAT9Normal Curve Equivalents and Scaled Scores. Both are equal-interval measures and both may properly be subjected to arithmetic operations which are commonly used to summarize score datameans, standard deviations, coefficients of correlation. Normal Curve Equivalents(NCEs) can range from values of 1 to 99, while SAT9 Scaled Scores may range from 350 to more than 800. The advantage that Scaled Scores would have over NCEs is that they offer finer distinctions among students whose percentile ranks are at the extreme end of the score range, i.e. either 1 or 99. If we were reporting data for a group that included larger than usual numbers of students with very low achievement levels. Scaled Scores could make finer distinctions and allow us to measure gains for students who score in the 1 percentile. Scaled Scores then, are not only appropriate, but may also be a preferred measure for reporting dis-aggregated scores  for African-American and White students! In my opinion, they also are consistent with the language of the  desegregation decree under which you are operating. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please call me at (800) 228-0752, extension 5394. Sincerely, Thomas E. Brooks Manager, Applied Research Cc: Yvette Dillingham Maria Drees Bob Hudson Vicki Gray07/10/85 11:38 SaiO 270 0327 PSYCH CORP. 0002 TO: Department of Education from\nJoanne Lenke, rE\nFollow-up on Our DATE: July 10,1.995 Discussion In Phoenix of scores for Aswe discussed. I Xw a ratio of less than 90%. eimilar In order to achieve an middle CI me score range. ^cu can Black and While will see on the accompanying tables. I've examined raw oflhe\"90%j yield a In order to achieve an MCE ratio of 90% nr better, between the performances of Black and White students are ^^^^^^'\"gXtKlOpe'rcentiterankunns. - most rational approach to the Al,hough I underslec- national peers when their performance 1 hope that the informaUon I've additional information. I've provided Is helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you needre. PHILLIPS PHONE No. : 517 349 7074 Jul.23 1995 l:34Fn S-K. PHILLIPS, CONSDLTAiiT ofc 4 \u0026lt; a IrlAkaciB Kall Kiehifiaa state ph O A  ( 17 J ***, KI IviHltT HOKI OTXXCl 4 3 3 6 H a r 1 a  r \u0026lt; a B a 4 . 0 k  B 0 1 , (  J 7 J XI I a a  \u0026lt;\u0026lt;( a47t74 TOt kemoranduk Gayla Potter, AK Dept, of Eduo. PHOHi Suaan Phillipa DATS! July 21, 1995 RS I Paoponaa to Raoommandation ftom Joanna Lnko I have taviowod tho memo and Supporting dooumsafeation from Joanne Lonko that - has provided uaaful data -uuuincujLV settlement u Choosing a metric for the mandate of the raguirament and teat score alternatr^\"^^\"^ specifically on the 90%  7of Se  comments -i of the language of the settlement. you foewardod to no. Dr. . ----- Lonke summarized the issues involved Little Rock uaaful and Bucctnctly taat coiwnsnfcing regarding my interpretation 1 offer The Little-Rock Settlement Aqrraeaant Ihere i th. portion of th. -.1 me which must be defined in order L some thoughts about these definitions. that you shared with Ths following are 1. phrases in Little Rook Settlement to implement its terms. \"If at any time\" and can be measured ~ indicates that the event need happen only at any time period during the school year. once standardized test\" a -------------------instrument, it would be settlement mandate. If Little a logical choice 3. \"composite scores\"  intent that the performance Stanford, use of this terminology suggests cir -re. iS' suggests that cither \" ba used. the measurement be this areas. on Battery Boorea other parts of the the Basic Battery or Coc^lete Tho choice may be affected settlement. by wording in W.Us is alluded to, thrbaSrLt7' ineguity in basic Alternatively, if mom  ^ttery score may be most appropriate, equalizing the totalitv of statements have been made .about  .core h.tt.ry appropriate.f Little Rock Eattleiaant . .  P. 2 4. -pcxai education etudanto\" thio probably refers otudonf in the Tittle PooR sohools who have an ISp\" *t the time o- Praeumably, atudente referred for evaluation but not yet diBabilitlee a *il*blo for nonqualifying students with ( .g., a non-apaoial education student with dyoloxia or a \"npaeial oduoatlon thio probably toeting. plaood who hava QtudentB education would an ISP to all aeo referred for evaluation but be teeted. clearly exempted by about othor groupo ouch as available for vioually impaired otudont in the rogul with limitod Englioh profioionoy ar bo toatod? alaeoroonj 7 Hill studanta 5. \"white Btudanta\" only those of Europe Which grades an does this include all ancestry? non-blaok students or What about hispanio Americans? results for included\nmust all grades be tested? results for different grades to ba combined? How are InteL for tb^r language seems to Indicate an nine tenths of the the timA -F This may be an unrealistic expectation given the time frame and obstacles to be overcome. Little Rock h\" I years to overcome learning deficits and the  the settlement language approximately five mean score of blacks to be at least nine tenths -----r. This may be overcome. Of poverty which have developed City, which has spent millions dasagregation orders, achlavsmsnt test scores. over students' lifetimes. effects on has been unable the public Even Kansas schools under to significantly increase In defining a presumption of discrimination the federal in the employment government has supported an 80% rule. applicants^hlred but to the . percent of available PP hired. under thia rule, if 70% of qualified white at^ least 56% of qualified minority applicants to avoid a presumption of discrimination. does not teat arena, However, the 80% Thus, applicants are hired, j ' ust be hired to avoid a Moreover, if on employer fails this opportunltv tn ziL rnis me emproyer stiii has an dctiona? demonstrate compelling interest  to justify its also a teat, the employer still has In cases euch between minority nt issue. adrainiatrati as Pai^ra P., large differentials in passing rates and majority students on graduation tests have been In such cases, the courts have imposed duties caaea, P earn a high school diploma, minority scores to be minority students had a fair chance to However, these courts have not required requirement rather than a certain percentage of majority scores. Such a eeema to euggest an entitlement to a specified outcome an equal opportunity to aohlavo. Shopping R Type of Score 1 agree with Dr. Lenke that scores are well suited to the Jeoauee no longitudinal -- none of the major types of standardired test requirements of the Little Rock settlement. a B Upl. inJ:S:::at2:n are required, the language lends Itself erpretatlon of raw score differences. One might, for example. to. PHILLIPS PHOME Mo. 5 517 343 7374 Ju 1.23 1595 1:ooPM Little Rock fiattlemant . . p. 3 compute the bnoic battery raw moans tor oiacka and whitea at each orada level and check for attainment of the 90% oritarion at sack grade level However, thia laavea unanawered the question of whether all grades must Z^dei'^ac \" stringent standard and use of a Lnj^Lt^e norfulflirt?** increases the likelihood that Little Will noc zuXfxH xtiB XQ\u0026amp;ndditio* eaora maanB for blacks whites thio The 90% across unanswered la already grades X more roasonablo approach do BO 90% criterion at whcthor all grades use of Rook - .w, ou,l d. roqu,l ro that a\"ll y otudontmaka a clnglo eomparleon each' year. To Standardlred tost scaled scores be on the same, comparable scale. BcorsB are typically d.lgnad to deteraine^if tha'^mean ^^uB, using a scaled score metric, one could # uBvomxns xf Kha niBeui scaled - . \u0026gt; allow comparison of Thus, l____ mean scaled score for all Little Rock black across grades but excluding spacial education) for all white studants. the letter of the Such an Overall students (summing is 90% of the mean scaled score mandate. settlement language. comparison would meet the spirit and _,,_v 1 . , ---- outside oHf otwheev ers,ettlement such calculations would have little relevance. jjodlfvlRq the Standard Another possibility above grade lavsl\" would be to set a criterion for success (e.g., \"at or or a minimally acceptable performance level) and determine hether the percent of xor whites. but conforms to the spirit Bucceasful minority students is This does not at least 90% of that students. AAhs stated, standard than to an adequate or interpretation that conform exactly to the wording of the settlement of providing an adequate education the 90% for minority mandata is closer to a maximal performance appropriate education standard. Thus, an Buccaad mav i \"p rov-i-d--e--s  rreeaassoonnaabbllee opportunity for Little Rook to greater educational improvement for blacks than retention of an standard which may be perceived in as nearly impossible to meet. Coaparieon to Rational Differentialn tDor , cLorerneskoeo'sn fpHr onZpr os al -fo--r the bl ack/white differential in Little would allow Littl2^R^C^i reasonable and realistic: This method ittle Rock to demonstrate progress without being held to a strict However, it may be difficult to demonstrate that such a demonstrate reasonable and realistic^ Rook mBaBurrLnfn\"'^'f be difficult to demonstrate asure conforms to the language and intent of the settlement. JlS with th. dU.a you f.cing, l.l fro. to contact me if 1 can ba of any futth.t aaal.tance. 1 sL LrmjE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED DIRECTOR'S OFFICE July 31, 1998 AUG 3 1998 department of EDUCATION ^GENERAL DIVISION Raymond Simon Director Arkansas Department of Education d Q\u0026lt; '1 .yj. P Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Desegregation Settlement Loan Dear Mr. Simon: I am writing in response to your June 26,1998 letter requesting that LRSD deposit an additional $270,000.00 in an account established for the possible repayment of the loan authorized by the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The issue you have raised is one of several outstanding issues concerning the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. I would like to work with you and your staff to resolve ail of the outstanding issues as quickly as possible. From my perspective, the most important unresolved issue is whether LRSD has met the conditions for loan forgiveness set forth in Section VI-B (6) of the Settlement Agreement. We are supposed to use a standardized test to grade upon by the State and LRSDl to determine whether the scores of LRSD black students are within ninety percent (90%) of the scores of LRSD white students. A team composed of ADE and LRSD representatives was formed several years ago for the purpose of deciding which standardized test would be used to determine loan forgiveness under the Settlement Agreement, ihat team agreed to use the Stanford 8 Test with scaled scores as the metric. That agreement is reflected in ADEs August, 1997 Project Management Tool which was filed with the district court: In March 1997, recommendations were drafted proposing the use of he SAT-8 as the ADEs Monitoring Instrument and the use of an aggregate average for racial groups to measure achievement disparity using scaled scores as the metric' I recently read in the newspaper that another group within ADE will recommend the use of Stanford 8 scaled scores to determine loan forgiveness. It seems that the question of whether or not LRSD is entitled to loan forgiveness is a threshold issue which should be resolved at the same time as, if not before, the issue raised in your letter. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 Desegregation Settlement Loan Page 2 Please let me know ADEs current position about how and when we will determine whether the settlement loan should be forgiven in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. I will be happy to meet with you so we can work together to resolve these issues as expeditiously as possible. Yours very truly, 'Leslie V. Gamine Superintendent of SchoolsO. ^2 \u0026gt; '*^1 **i Aikansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 RAYMOND SIMON, Director April 21, 1999 Tim Gauger Attorney Generals Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Request from Legislative Audit on Little Rock Loan Agreement Dear Tim: Legislative Audit has requested a written update on the status of the Little Rock Loan Agreement established in 1990. The Little Rock School District is in default with regard to the payment schedule, as well as in default in the amount of the one payment made to date. The district has been contacted about this lack of compliance with the terms of the loan agreement and has yet to provide any meaningful response. This apparent disregard by the district for the terms of the loan agreement has prompted Legislative Audit to ask our agency to seek implementation of the default provision of the agreement: Any installment of principal or interest not paid when due shall bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law until paid in full. LRSD, if it defaults by not timely paying any of the installments due hereunder, shall pay to the State its reasonable attorneys fees incurred in connection with the enforcement of the n obligation. As the Department of Educations legal representative in this matter, please assist the agency with addressing this issue. Mr. Simon, as well as the State Board of Education, seek a timely resolution of this matter. Sincerely. Theresa Wallent Staff Attorney co: Mr. Raymond Simon, Director Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director, Internal Administration Mr. John Kunkel, Finance STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chainnan - BETTY PICKETT, Conway  Vice Chairman - JoNELL CALDWELL. Bryant Members\nEDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARL E. BAGGETT, Rogers  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadelphia  WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould  LUKE GORDY, Van Buren  ROBERT HACKLER, Mountain Home  JAMES McLARTY III, Newport  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Texarkana  ANITA YATES. Bentonville An Equal Opportunity EmployerARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM April 16,1999 TO: Theresa Wallent FROM: Bobbie Davis REGARD: Request from Legislative Audit On Little Rock Loan Agreement Legislative Audit has requested a written update on the status of the Little Rock Loan Agreement established in 1990. The Department to date has been provided verification of one deposit of $30,081.44 from Little Rock toward this repayment. As you will note from the attachments, the first payment of $300,000 was due September 24,1997. Therefore, Little Rock is in default with regard to the payment schedule as well as in default in the amount of the one payment that was made. I have attached a copy of a letter from Mr. Simon dated June 26,1998, in which he requested correction on the name of the escrow account as well as default payments. To date the Department has received no response to Mr. Simons request. Legislative Audit is exploring why the Department has not implemented the default provision in Section 11, page 5, of the Loan Agreement. A copy of the Loan Agreement is included in the attachments. Could you please assist me by drafting a correspondence to Mr. Tim Gaugher at the Attorney Generals office informing him of this concern and requesting his guidance and leadership in addressing this issue. Legislative Audit will need documentation of ail actions for their files. Please send copies of all correspondence and documents to my office. I will forward to Legislative Audit. As you will recall the State Board is also concerned with this issue. I would propose that this item be updated at the next State Board meeting. I feel confident that Mr. Simon would like for that report to be that Little Rock is current on all payments. If I need to provide other information, please let me know. Thank you for your assistance in handling this issue. Cc: Raymond Simon, Director John Kunkel, ADE Finance o .o Aikansas .a DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 RAYMOND SIMON, Director June 26,1998 Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Camine\nIt has been brought to my attention by the Division of Legislative Audit that the Little Rock School District has not deposited the proper amount into the LRSD/State Loan Repayment Account. According to the Loan Agreement dated September 24,1990, the principal amount of each Note will be repaid in twenty (20) equal installments. Installments shall be due on the 7th through the 26th anniversary of the date of the note. The Note dated September 24,1990, was for $6,000,000. Therefore, the amount due September 24, 1997 was $300,000. In March 1998, John Kunkel of my staff contacted Mr. Mark Milhollen, for verification of the deposit. We were provided a copy of a bank statement for the Little Rock School District Special Desegregation Account #00-0073-610715. At that time.the bank records reflected a balance of $30,081.44. The balance consisted of $30,000 plus earned interest. The auditors also noted that the account name should be the same as required in the loan agreement. The Department is now requesting that the Little Rock School District change the name of the account to reflect tire name required in the loan agreement and deposit an additional $270,000 to be in compliance with Copies of the documents verifying these actions will be forwarded to the loan agreement. Legislative Audit, I appreciate your cooperation in correcting this error. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Raymond Simon cc\nTim Gauger, Attorney General's Office Ronnie Ridgell, Division of Legislative Audit STATE BOARD OF EDI CATION' Chairman  BETTY PICKETT. C onxi\n Vice Chairman - JoSELL CALDWELL. Bnanl .Members: EDW IN B. ALDERSON. JR.. El Dorado  CARL E. BaGCETT. Rofrri  MARTHA DIXO.N. Arkadelphia  WILLIAM B. FISHER. Paragould LI KE CORDl. \\an Buren  ROBERT HACKLER. Mountain Home  JA.MES McLARTl 111. Newport  RICHARD C. S.MITH. JR.. .McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON. JR.. Teiarkina  ANITA 1 ATES. BentonvilleC  CVi-6tdiXl\u0026gt; STATE O F ARKANSAS general assembly little rock, ARKANSAS 72201 September 18, 2000 TO: The Honorable Mike Huckabee Governor, State of Arkansas RECEIVED FROM\nRE: The Honorable Mark Pryor Attorney General, State of Arkansas Mr. Ray Simon, Director Arkansas Department of Education n Superintendent Little Rock School District Senator Jim Argue Senator Dave Bisbee Senator Jodie Mahony Suggested Resolution of Arkansas to Issues Pending Between the LRSD KOF OMQNJTQflJNG and the State SEP 2 4 20 A number of issues School District, each invX^^om^ofSllJ^ of Arkansas and the Little Rock each threaten to lead to protracted litigation We do tT A brief review of the pendittg issues might be helpM: Bonded Indebtedness Pe Little Rock School District current funding formula, i- s r .- . (FRSD), as the district at the 9S IS ma position to influence the th .0 school distnhts T bow to structure thepayment schedule farTO^l ?\" J ' of detenruthrrg U.C State dupugh dte ftudiug fomrula wrll rag?SXMSl?or \" amount of required state funding ir tkzi _________  dollars. This is money that would be owed to increased base funding. Unitary Statu.s approximately 270 school district that would receive The LRSD i the LRSD m a position to seek unitary status at t eld f tb^nn^^ designed to put achieves umtary status, the State wifibe in a position ^^RSD required it to pay LRSD for various deseerealin^ circumstances, which State should be relieved of its obligation to mat have changed and that the LRSD. The loss of all desegregatiol related st^e payments to the million dollars per year. Arfund $9 mfiU^ of tol  ^RSD about $15 desegregation efforts including magnet .rbnnf represents money for transportation aid. The other $6 milhtn i? ^J^^o-niinority transfers, and compensation and health^LsimLle The prospect of expensive and protracted htigatto7 ^^^h sides, but the effect on Ute LRSDs efforts to end federal coXn^S? and that the -- amount represents money for majority-to-minority transfers, and count supervision. Loan Forgiveness* The LRSD and ADE have discussed LRSD has met the and debated the question of whether the pursuant to the 1989 settlement and ADE to agree upon of ,.L ta by the ADE a test thaTw^usId to ^^^^D ----------- uxat agreed to use a certain ^rmme loan forgiveness. LRSD entitled to loan forgiveness. ADE disa^ees ^RSD is contends that ADE agreed to Monitoring and Compliance including helping the PuS settlement agreement tbATDcr,---------   J ''^ous ways and in monitorine the LRSDs progress. There is .heex.e..,,ehADEhasco^ a SStdarm th! S\" iTbe oeneiicial to the parties involved. met in a way that is most can have significant positive or and delay are acceptable means for seekg resolution Web Protracted litigation optimism that, when considered to^eth^l Z^ T ^gree of issues can be found.  ^'^^^^*y^^oeptable resolution to all of these explore the possibilitv of. l ^^^i^st . . Possibility of a mediation process that would consider all of amumaliy satisfactory resolution. WewouldsuX, - _ services of a neutral arbiter who the issues at once and seek to find that the parties discuss the possibility of employing the serviwould structure the process, allow all parties to make their best case on these issues, gather information, and then propose a resolution that would embrace certain compromises between the parties. Hopefully, the proposal would be acceptable to all parties, and would resolve these ag^avating issues once and for all. Issues and concerns from the intervenors in the federal litigation should also be heard. We understand that the process may not be binding on the participants, but that each would participate in good faith and do their best to resolve these issues. The LRSDs removal from federal court supervision should be cause for celebration. The State has legitimate concerns about its future, extraordinary obligations to the LRSD. Let s try to find a resolution that allows the LRSD to celebrate its progress, allows the state to address pressing needs elsewhere, and most importantly, focuses our limited resources on the needs of our school children rather than on continuing litigation. To rely on the courts to resolve these issues before trying some other method seems to be a abdication of our public duties, and in the end, wastes precious, limited school resources. The LRSD needs to chart a course that leads to success without court supervision, and given the State s track record in court, the State needs to be proactive in finding a reasonable solution that does not obligate and divert additional resources. For either party to succeed, we mus-fiunravel this Gordian knot. We would appreciate your prompt response to this suggestion, and would be pleased to facilitate in any way you might deem helpful.AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS DISTRICT This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and the State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through the State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Mike Huck:ibee LRSD and the State shall the Parties. collectively be referred to as RECITALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. (\"1989 Settlement Agreement\")\nWHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end, WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unitary and released from federal court momtoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State may seek to terminate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nWHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twenty million dollars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD as to whether those loans will be forgiven or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nWHEREAS, under the States current funding formula for public school districts, LRSDs per pupil revenue affects the total amount of funding which the State must distribute through the formula\nWHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects LRSDs per pupil revenue. Page 1 of 8 IXQ . tv fAA WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the financial impact on the State\nWHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: AGREEMENTS 1. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the termination of this Agreement, whichever comes first 9 LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11,8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSDs bond application as submitted on February 19, 2001 3. In order to facilitate and encourage LRSDs efforts to attain complete unitary status and release from court supervision, the State agrees that it will not seek to modify or terminate any of the States obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up to and including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD. the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3.1 Provided, however, that this Agreement does not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the States ability to seek modification or termination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including Page 2 of 8ijfj UU4 court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement does not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or termination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assert in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD to the effect that the State has violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 3.2 The State agrees to coojierate with and assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to the legality of this Agreement or any effort by a third-party to modify or terminate the Statess obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Such cooperation and assistance shall include, but not be limited to any or all of the following: (1) filing joint pleadings supporting the legality of this Agreement\n(2) filing joint pleadings responding to any request to modify or terminate the States obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\n(3) filing a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or indirectly undermines this Agreement\n(4) filing a joint brief opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refusing to modify or terminate the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and (5) filing joint pleadings to remove or transfer any challenge to the legality of this Agreement to United States District Court and to consolidate the challenge with the Pulaski School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. 4. County In recognition of the LRSDs efforts to obtain unitary status and complete release from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the success of the LRSDs efforts, the State and the LRSD agree Page 3 of 8U . ** ^2 r/iA ittl UUO as follows\n4.1 The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VLB. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all frmds in the joint escrow account establi.shed by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of 4.2 4.3 the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B. of the the State will forgive and release the LRSD from dollars) in loans 1989 Settlement Agreement, any obligation to repay these Ioans If the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July I, 2004 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of pnncipal or interest on these loans into a joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD Agreement. pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July I, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July I, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but is appealed and Page 4 of 8UO/XO/Ui inv 0.40 r/iA igl uuo subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4 2 4.4 The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4.3 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limited to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court 4.5 In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shall negotia te in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VLB of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest: or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. Page 5 of 8UB/28/U1 THU 1(5:47 TAX 1^007 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4.6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and obligations of the Parties shall remain in full force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shall negotiate in good 5. 6. faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD any disputes pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said Ioans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its terms of this negotiation or execution, shall be constmed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execution This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30, 2004. 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CrV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out of this Page 6 of 8UUZ MX r AA l^UU Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State It IS specifically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion with the Joshua Intervenors. 9. All covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10 This Agreement is entered into as of the /^ay of March. 2001, by the undersigned oflBcers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom IS authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8MU/ ^/ MX ltl uuu LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY: Dr. Les Cj tine, Superintendent ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY: Rayland Simon, Director H:\\hhgioo\\tg\u0026gt;ugcr\\Ark\u0026gt;nsfl AG - Dccg\\fliisc\\3_13_01 agnnftLwpd Page 8 of 8 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1803-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES III JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES K. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN 0. DAVIS WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M.TODD WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjonesQwij.com JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR.** TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. BALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN* C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY** M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. MCKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph.O. VIA FACSIMILE March 19, 2001 RiCBVED MAR 2 9 2001 * Licensed only in Fionda and Texas ** Licensed to practice before the Linked States Patent and Trademark Office a Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 RE: Proposed Agreement between the LRSD and the State of Arkansas Dear Chris: Thank you for sending over a draft of the agreement last week. As you know, I was in a two-week jury trial and the jury came back late Friday afternoon. I have reviewed the agreement and have had preliminary conversations with two school officials. We have not fully absorbed the intent and meaning of the proposed agreement and I have not had a chance to discuss it yet with you. Accordingly, the PCSSD must reserve the right, at this point in time, to object to Court approval of the agreement if it ultimately appears that such would be in the best interest of the PCSSD. 242298-vl Celebrating Years 19 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP March 19, 2001 Page 2 In the interim, I certainly look forward to discussing this with you in depth. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:ao M. Samuel Jones, III cc: Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Stephen W. Jones Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Celebrating 1 0 0 Years 19 0 0 2 0 0 0f EDWARD L. WRIGHT (jsoa-ieTTi ROBERT 5, LINuSEV 0*13.1891) ISAAC A SCOTT. JR. JOHN G. LtLE GONOON 8. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID U. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS auFORO. JR. PATRICK J. SCSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHH TISDALE KATNLYN CRAVES M SAMUEL JONES Hl JOHNWILL1AU st*ivev in L6E J. MULDROW N.M NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWt.N L. J.R CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSPAODEN ROGER 0. ROWE ' JOHN 0. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HSffKY VIA: FACSIMILE rvigntrax WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SO! 3T CAPITOL AVENUc SUITE 2200 UTTLc ROCK. ARKANSAS TSlOUSSda {501)371-0808 FAX (SOI) 376-9*42 www.wlj.com Oi* COVKSIi. ALSTON JENNINGS ROnalO a uay JAMES R. VAN OOVER Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 m)on8s@wq.com KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER ray f. COX. JR.- TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAUe\u0026gt; M. moody JR KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARY. OAVtS Claire shows Hancock KEVIN W KENNEDY JERRY J. SALlINGS william STUART JACKSON MICHAEL O 8AAMES STEPHEN R LANCASTER JU5Y ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON MICHELE Simmons allgooo KRISTI U. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY* M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CKKISTIME J. DAUGHERTY, P(tO- MICHELLE M KAEMMERLING ERIK* ROSE MOMTOOM5P.Y SCOTT ANDREW IRBY MOLLY A. AOEE MtCNELlB MAROIS OiLLARD PATRICK D. WILSON  (jEnsetfBfnoicaaaftmneLMea 3MU *hf u-.UH}.ii July 11, 2002 The Honorable Wm, R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue. Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District\net al USDC Docket No.\n4\n82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I have the Court's Letter-Order of July 11, 2002 and I write in my capacity as counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District I have tried to follow the recent proceedings and I have a general sense that the issues witnesses and exhibits have been pared down considerably. My sole interest in the hearings next week revolves around Joshuas designation of Ray Simmon. Director of The State Department of Education, as a witness virhom they intend to call. If memory serves, he is listed as witness number 29 on Joshua's witness list and will be called to give testimony concerning the agreement between the State and LRSD. That agreement respects terms and ccnditions of the loan forgiveness to Little Rock and also includes a bilateral agreement between Little Rock and the State concerning a sunset provision by which payments such as those for magnet schools and M to M transfers wiii cease. Let me first say 1 cannot fit this particular testimony and this agreement into the parameters or what understand to be the issues that will in fact be addressed next week. At the\ndo not recall an order which specifically addressed Mr. Simmon and this agreement. same time, I It IS my underetanding that this agreement has never been submitted directly to the Court for approval or disapproval. However, when it first suiTaced, I did have occasion to write Judge 3S04Q9-V1njLBUtfdx * WRIGHT. tINDSEY 4 JENNINGS LLP July 11, 20Q2 Page 2 Wright advising that the PCSSD had not been a party to either the negotiator of or the execution of this agreement and that we opposed it. If this evidentiary item is not going to be addressed during the unitary hearing, I would respectfuiiy request to be excused from those hearings. EverTif Ns going to be ad^ wouio asK trie inauigence of the Court to simply require the par to nSfy ^^^^0 approxirnateiy wnen dunng the proceedings this issue might be addressed so that participation couio be limited to that witness and this issue. my any kind of position to assess and address this matter today with the SDtendW morning would not be required, that would be dpiVllUlU It? KlrOW. Thank you very much. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:wrmh .x'^^amuely^Jones, 111 cc: Honorable J, Thomas Ray All Counsel of .Record 1 350409-vli Chris Heije7 , j.,15,01 agrmnt.wpri 0002 Page AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS DISTRICT i This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through School District CTRSD\"), and the the Stare Board of Education, the Arkansas I I .! i i Department of Education and Governor Mike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shaU colbctively be referred to as the Parties, WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are recitals  parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (1989 .Senior Agreement\"), WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement anposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end\nWHEREAS, LRSD wiU seek to be declared unitary and released from federal monitoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State terminate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agr^ment\ncourt may seek to WHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced baas to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twenty million doflars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD those loans will be forgiven Settlement Agreement\nas to whether or must be repaid pursuant to Section V1.B.(6) of the 1989 I I fS WHEREAS, under the States cuiient funding formula for public school districts, LRSDs per pupil revenue affects the total amount of fending which the State must distribute through the formula\nWHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects LRSDs per pupil revenue\nWHEREAS, the State wants LRSD financial impact on the State, to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the 1003 Pagezj ft WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the foflowmg terms and conditions: agreements ! f I 1. LRSD agrees to good pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has of this Agreement, whichever comes first. been obtained or until the terminatton 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual defat payments wiU be 11.8 million dollars beginning wiA the 2002 calendar service Education docs hereby approve the LRSDs bond application as submitted year. The State Board of 3. In order to facilitate and on February 19, 2001. release from court supervision, the State the States obligations to the LRSD i encourage LRSDs efforts to attain complete unitary status and agrees that it will not seek to modify or terminate any of under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement any enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement or court dccisrons I, 2008. This covenant shall Agreement up to and including June remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates p pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete umtary status and release from court supervision. I 3.1 Provided, however, that this Agreement docs not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as modification or termination of limiting in any way, the States ability to seek any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement I t I Agreement (including court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Linle Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement docs not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or termination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it 2 w I I f@004 I I I r 3.2 4. prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assen in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The State agrees to cooperate with and the legality- of this Agreement the Statess obligations under the 1989 to the efiect that the State has assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to or any effort by a third-party to modify or terminate Settlement Agreement. Such and assistance shall include, but not be limbed to, filing jomt pleadings pleadings responding to cooperation any or all of the following,' (1) supporting the legality of this Agreement\n(2) filing joint any request to modify or terminate the States obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\n(3) fihng a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or mdirectly undeimmes this Agreement\n(4) fihng a jomt bnef opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refhsmg to modify or termmate the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nand (3) filing joint pleadings this Agreement to United States District Court to remove or transfer any challenge to the legality of with the Pulaski County School CIV-LR-82-866. In recognition of the LRSDs efforts from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the the LRSD agree as follows: 4.1 Page 3 j B and to consolidate the challenge Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. I to obtain unitary status and complete release success of the LRSDs efforts, the State and The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first 515,000,000.00 (fifteen million doUars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all funds m the yimt escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B ( the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be practicable. released to the LRSD as SOOS as 3 I ILChfis Heller - 'jTl s H agrrnnt.w^_ oos t 4.2 In addition, with loans advanced to the LRSD respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) in I Agreement, the State will forgive and release pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement repay these loans if the LRSD obtains the LRSD from any obligation to 4.3 status and release from federal a final order granting it complete unitary Court supervision on or before July 1, 2004 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these loans into joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD a pursuant to Section i I I I i ! i I I i 4.4 I I VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase \"final order status and release from federal court graniing it complete unitary ^pealablc order of the United States District Conn for supervision\" shall mean the entry of a final, the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but i appealed and subsequently reversed in whole or m part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to rep^ the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(I) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and aU interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2. The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court fer Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that any modification of IS necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4.3 of this Agreement, and shafl take such fertile: action as may be necessary to obtain such a 4 J I i i I li I 1Haller agnrint.wpd  006 Page 5 ii' modification, mchidmg but not limiied to appealing any adverse decision of the District Court I I or ruling 4.5 In the event this Agreement is tenninaled pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shall negotiate in good faith in an effon to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the Ioans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resohition, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. not In die event such relief is g sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed I i or offered as evidence of any admission against interest the part of the State or the LRSD. or waiver of any kind on 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not tenmnated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the through 4.6 of this Agreement .'.hall be null provisions of paragraphr 4 and void but severable from the I remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that aU other promises and obligations of the Parties shall rcmam in frill force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shaU negotiate in good faith in an effort to amve at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes conccminB the loans flrivani-wj to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989.Settlemenl Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, inchiding but not limited to sexkmg appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the S i ng,iia.ia.i,. II I i I I I I I I H^Her  32.1 5 q'i agrmni wf^ Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed evidence of any aHmKoinn State or the LRSD. or offered as against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the 5. 6. The effective date of this Agreement shaU be the date of execution. This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to atrolv to th? f sppty to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30,2004 7 The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School c^, u,S.D C, No CIV.LR.82.6, Uoiod So. Dteio, Co lull too jodsdicaon ,0 erforoo te ,o\u0026gt;ol,o dlspuus b=n die Ponios out of this Agreement and to hear ariqtng 8. This Agreement expresses the entire any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. altered except by a writing executed by the authorized It IS specifically contemplated that this Agreement agreement of the parties and may not be modified approval of the LRSD and the State, after further intervenors. 9. All covenants, conditions, benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal 10. or representatives of the LRSD and the State, may be modified or amended, with the consultation and discussion with the Joshua agreements and undertakings contained herein shall mure to the This Agreement is entered into as of the successors in interest and assigns of the parties. oflScers of the Little Rock School District and the whom is authorized to ----- day of March, 2001, by the undersigned Arkansas Department of Education, each of execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. 007 Page 81 I 3^1S_q-I agrrnnt.wpd  008 nrr^ ( I I i ^age?] LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY\nI Dr. Les Canune, Superintendent ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY: 1 Rnymond Simon, Director t I H: aG - DW-P\u0026lt;wio.13.15.01 M=-twpd 1 )FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL 1^1001 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 Regions Center 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE little rock, ARKANSAS 72201-34S3 telephone (SOD 376-2011 FAX NO. (5011 376-2147 CORPORATIONS THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR\nAnn Marshall 371-0100 FIRM NAME: FROM: Chris Heller DIRECT NUMBER 501-370-1506 MESSAGE\nSee attached. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES (including this information sheet): 8 DATE: March 15, 2001 TIME: A.M./P.M. TELECOPY OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: LIOIO-90 _____________ CLIENT NUMBERMATTER NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE\nThe information in this facsimile grivileged and confidential information i individual or entity named above. intended recipient. or copy of the tran.LttL^^- tZsnsjnltCsJ. is Isgally ---- intended only for the use of the If the reader of this message is not the transmittal in rs error strictly prohibited. If you receive this distribution original transmittal to Service. Thanh you. , please rmmedrately notify us by telephone, and ~o us at the above address via the United States Postal and return the THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1999 LR schools : 1  put^Slmillion in loan account State, district disagree over repayment terms . BY CYNTHIA HOWELL .. ARKANSAS DEMOCRATGAZETTE , \\ Little Rock School District offt\ncials have put nearly $1 million into what they have titled LRSD/State Loan Repayment Ac- ' count in response to state officials who said the district isnt complying with a 1989 agreement for repaying a million state loan. . But Assistant Attorney General Tim Gauger said Wednesday that the district controls the accounL which is not an escrow account jointly established by the state and district as required by the 1989 agreement. After a July 12 directive from   made a decision five years aan thof wo uro pnfitIpH tn ago that we are entitled to loan ____ , , , forgiveness.-, ..i  Cohtlnu^trom Pago ., In anticipation of the state ask- settlementfthe'aistncF'would not  ing a federal judge to enforce the have to'repay the state loan if be- settlement temis for tlie escrow fore December 2000 the composite account, school district attorneys scores' earned by black students have asked tlie Education Departon a standardized test reached at ment for. minutes and other docu- least 90 percent of the scores of ments dealing with test selection.^ white students. The test was to be I suppose it will go to court, agreed upon by the state and the Heller said. \"This may prove to be district fortunate for us because we didnt Chris Heller, an attorney for the seem to be making any progress school district, said Wednesday with the state to get them to make that the fact that the district has a decision on what the test for loan not deposited money into a jointly forgiveness is going to be  even    *' though it seems that it has been decided twice that it should be the held account arises from the states failure to agree on a test to measure student achievement, which would determine whether the Little Rock debt would be for- given.' Two state Department of Edu- Stanford 8 scale scores. Gauger said the state will simply ask in its court filings that the district comply with the settlement in teiTOs of the jointly held escrow cation committees recommended account. *  ' We are not going to allege that that scale scores from the Stanford they have not met the standard [for Achievement Test, eighth edition, tuvj. iw.v mve v.,v i.x be used to measure student loan forgiveness], Gauger said. achievement, Heller said. But he All we are asking is that they get the escrow current. In my mind, if said the proposals were never for- ------------- ----- mally adopted by Education De- you are holding the money, why partment administrators or the not put it into the joint escrow? state Board of Education. The district got its first mil- School district officials contend lion of the $20 million loan in Sep- i that the district meets the require- tember 19tW. It^was obligated by the state Board of Education^ Gauger said he plans to file a mo-\nments for loan forgiveness if the the original 1989 settlement agree- tion early next week for Chief U.S. Stanford scale scores are the mea- ment and by a more detaile^oan nistriet Tndpe Susan Webber ' sure. agreement in September 1990 to Uistnct Judge busan Webber , ..This issue should have and begin repaying that portion of the Wright to enforce the agreement against the district. He contends i could have been decided a long loan within seven years into a spe- time ago, and the decision should cial escrow account. The loan was    ............... - to be repaid in 20 equal install- that the district owes $996,000 . that we are entitled to loan for- plus investment earnings. giveness, Heller said. We In the 1989 financial settle- , shouldnt be sued over the ques-  tion of an escrow payment when niversary of the initial loan.' ments with a 3 percent interest rate going into effect on the Sth ailment, the state pledged a $20 million loan to the district to be paid over 10 years in increments of no more than $6 million every two years, TTie money was to help the the state could have and should According to a draft of the mo- tion Gauger intends to submit to the judge, the district was re-  X pr  X- - 1 X quired to make a principal pay- distnct offset desegregation-relat- of $300,000 into the escrow ed costs. account in September 1997 and an- According to the terms of that other $300,000 payment on the 1 See LOAN, Page 11A principal in September 1998, plus  ' an interest payment of $171,000 at Simon asked Gamine to change the account name from Little Rock School District Special Desegregation Account to reflect the account name required in the 1990 loan agreement and to add $270,000 to the account, the balance the dis- trict owed at the time. Milhollen said Wednesday that he believes the district has com- -------- that time. Little Rock drew another $4.5 -- --------- million from the loan in Januaiy plied with Simon s requests from a 1992 and was to begin repaying year ago. as well as the terms ot that with an initial $225,000 in Jan- the September 1990 loan agree- mcnt We followed their recommen- into the escrow account, plus in- uary this year. According to the terms of the . 1989 agreemenL all money paid dations in the letter they wrote to --------- us. Milhollen said.  We did what they asked us to do, which was to adjust the $30,000 to $300,000, and we titled the account like they vestment earnings, would be returned to the district once the student achievement goals are met. asked us to title it. Thats what they asked us to do. Otherwise, the escrowed money and subsequent payments on the debt would go to the state begin- Superintendent Les Gamine, Larry Berkley, School Board ning in 2001  president, said recently that he Superintendent Les Gamine, thinks the State Education Boards who acknowledged early last vote to force the district to make month that the district was in de- escrow payments was a matter ol fault of its payments, said this politics. . -.r -----------u nA knnn .People in the rest of the state don't want to think about forgiving a ^0 million loan to a school district in Little Rock, Berkley said. week that the money had been put into reserves but he hesitated to say more before the court case.  Earlier, Carnine said the test issue should be resolved so that the dis- \"I can understand that, but it may trict \" could use its financial re- not be the smartest thing. There is sources on students. the potential that the state uld Mark Milhollen, tlie district's get dragged back into the desegre, manager of financial services, con- gallon case, which could end up firmed Wednesday that $968,375 costing the state more money. I was put into the LRSD/State loan don't think that is a wise move. rpnavmentaccountJune30,thelast The state was dismissed as a repayment account June 30, the last to the $30,815.89 already in the ac- repdyiiivnidLLuuiivuujicAaxv,xxAxji, day of the 1998-99 fiscal year. Added party in the now 16-year-old deseg- io iiie $30,315.83 already in the ac- rogation lawsud after the ap-. counL the account totals $999,190.89. proval of the 1989 fmancial settle-, Milhollen cited a June 1998 let- ment. However, Wright retains ju- ter from Ray Simon, director of the risdiction over the state to enforce Education Department, in which compliance with the agreement. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2000  Arkansas Democrat azcttc Deadline set for compliance on desegregation case escrow BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Arkansas Board of Educa- state Departnient of Education oftion on Monday set a March 1 deadline for -the Little Rock about $1.8 million set aside in an School District to establish and account held jointly by the dis- fully fund a joint escrow account trict and the state. Latest docu- to hold the districts repayments ments on file with state Educa- on a $20 million state desegrega- tion Department staff show that a tion loan. The board directed Assistant ance of about $999,000. Attorney General Tim Gauger to, file a complaint with U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who ongoing dispute between the monitors the districts desegrega- state officials and the district _ . , tion efforts, if the escrow account over the terms of a 1989 financial funds in 1998 in the escrow ac- is not in place by the date. settlement between the district According to calculations by , and the state.  The state a^eed at the time to loan the district the money witli ficials, the district should have district-held account has a baiThe state boards vote Monday is the latest development in an the understanding that the loan would be forgiven if the district could narrow the academic dis- . . parity between black and white ' tatives of the state and school dis- students on a standardized achievement test. The district has until Dec. 31 this year to meet the goal. In the meantime, the district was obligated by the settlement agreement to b6gin periodically setting aside count to repay the state in the event the goal is not met. The board directed Gauger last summer to pursue joint access to the Little Rock account as well as full funding. On a related matter, represen- trict have never identified the test that is to be used to measure the disparity in black and white i students achievement. Discussions on that issue are continuing. Charity Smith, an assistant director in the Education Department, said Monday.I Arkansas Demcxrrat ^(ijitazcHc | THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000  LR schools set up plan to repay state . Move taken in time to keep from facing default lawsuit BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS BEHOCRArO.AZi\nTTE Little Rock School District officials put almost SSOO.OOO into a state loan repayment account and took other steps by a deadline Wednesday to avoid being sued for default by the state. Mark Milhollen, district manager of financial sendees, transferred $465,632 into a loan repayment account, bringing the account to $1.48 million, the amount - owed to date.\nAlso Wednesday, district and 'state officials exchanged drafts of la memorandum of understanding\nthat would obligate the Little Rock /district to convert its loan repay\ninent account into a joint escrow 'account that would be accessible two years. Ito both district and state officials,  not just district officials. terms, the drstrict will not have io Last month, the Arkansas j repay the state loan if by Dcc.-31 Board of Education directed As- ! the composite scores earned .by sistant Attorney General Timothy black students on a standardized Gauger to file a complaint in fed- test reach at least 90 percent of tlie eral court against the states scores of white students. .largest school system if district of- ---------------------------------------------- The test is to be selected by tlie ficials failed by Wednesday to es- j state and the district. That test, tablish the joint account and make however, has not been selected. overdue payments on a $20 million The proposed memorandum of un- loan made by the state to offset derstanding notes that a disagree- district desegregation costs be- ment exists between the parties on tween 1990 and 1999. . The proposed memorandum of understanding was not finalized by the end of the day Wednesday. But Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas Department of Education, said the districts attempts to meet .Estate demands satisfied him. He .said he wanted time to review the :draft of the memo with his staff but did not expect to file a court ..'complaint. Even though the [joint escrow] '.account is not set up. Little Rock . has done what they needed to do,  'Simon said. I'm satisfied they . -ihave complied to this point with \u0026gt;*\nthe boards deadline. They have ,\nmade the good-faith effort to get  .^something to us. Its just that our 'staff needs today [Wednesday] to .z look at it.  In the two-page draft memoran- idum, the district pledges to repay See LOAN, Page 7B Loan  Continued from Page 1B\nprincipal and interest on the loan. The district also seeks to manage die account and have the authority to periodically draw from the account to offset lulls in llie flow of local tax revenues to tlie district'. Any amounts withdrawn from the joint account would-be repaid with interest within six months of tlie witlidrawal, accorfr ing to the proposed language'of the memo. Milhollen said another payment of $353,220 will be made' to the repayment account March To, and $75,000 more will be paid May Other payments of various amounts are scheduled into I at least the next two decades. The $20 million loan from the state was a provision of a 1989. financial settlement between the state and the school system. The state distributed the loan proceeds over 10 years in increments of no more than $6 million every According to the settlement whether the requirements for loan forgiveness have been met. The draft memo Birther says tlie district and the state wish to continue discussions aimed at resolving jlie dispute. If the district meets the student achievement goal, the money in the joint escrow account will be returned to the district. Otherwise it will be returned to the state.  The district got its first $6 million of the $20 million loan in September 1990. The district was obligated by tlie original 1989 agreement and by a more detailed loan agreement in September 1990 to begin repaying that portion of the loan witliin seven years into a special escrow account. , The loan was to be repaid in'20 equal installments witli a 3 per- :ent interest rate. ii 'i\n'. The districts first payment'of $300,000 was due to the escrow account in September 1997. Over time the district set aside some repayment funds but not into a jointly held account and not (br the full amounts owed.' ' f Members of the state Board of Education began publicly , questioning the lack of a joint account and delinquent payments last summer. er(  FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 2000  LR schools,  I  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas attorney generals office have signed a memorandum of understanding whereby the district idedges that its payments on a $20 million state loan will go to a joint- lyjowned bank account. According to the memorandum, the school district has the authority to make investment decisions for the account. The district is obligated to provide the state Department of Education a monthly statement showing account activity. ''The agreement further gives the Little Rock district  with permission from the Education De- state agree on loan repayment plan partment  the ability to draw from the account at those times of the year when the flow of tax revenue to the district ebbs. Any such amounts withdrawn by the district must be repaid with interest within six montts. The memorandum follows a dispute between the state and district over the terms of the loan. The district obtained the low- interest loan as a result of a 1989 desegregation agreement with the state. The original agreement says that the district will not have to repay the loan if, by Dec. 31 of this year, it can narrow the achievement disparity between black and white students as measured by standardized tests. But the terms of the loan also called for the district to begin making payments in 1997 to a joint escrow account The state Board of Education complained that the district was making insufficient payments to an account that only the district controlled. State board members said in February that they would ask a federal judge to enforce the terms of the 1989 agreement if the district did not comply by March 1. The district complied by the specified date, and the two-page memorandum was worked out.October 17. 2 0 0 0 LR district, state work on solutions Desegregation, funding for schools on the agenda BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-OAZETTE At the urging of three Arkansas legislators, attorneys for the state and the Little Rock School District are quietly working toward a settlement of school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and prolong the districts federal desegregation lawsuit. i Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, j said Monday that attorneys for the governors office, the state Department of Education and the attorney generals office have met at least twice in recent weeks with representatives of the Little Rock district on the complex issues. Those issues include the Little Rock districts possible payback of a million state loan, state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and the impact of a recent Little Rock tax increase on Jim Argue school funding elsewhere in\" the state. Argue, who has served as an informal facilitator at the meetings, said he was cautiously optimistic that a resolution of the financial issues is forthcoming. I dont want to talk about what the compromises might look like because we are at a very delicate stage, Argue said. But I do think the parties are negotiating in good faith, he added. I do think they are keeping the interest of school kids at heart. Hopefully, we can bring a resolution to some really difficult issues and clear the path so that the Little Rock School Districts removal from federal court can be a moment of celebration. District officials are hoping that See ISSUES, Page 10A FH o o CiSm p sS-o ff- O'S O S 5o S3 5' a3_.ffp^|3 jap?is.gs-|-\u0026amp;s-| o 2\nt\u0026amp;3S go-oE--csS:L \u0026amp;\u0026amp; Og )5-2. oKE-S:-ic8n?B: s _  . 0-0 e!O-ff\nS  2-^325^^ TO ?+ O'rtA!-3'\u0026lt;VP s3 c1 -50.^ o  Di Di O trt ! .o O  00 fp !3 2 cn U u uu uQ I Vt s gas 3 Ss 2^g2 3-^ CT 3 O a  *. '?c p S ' 3a S^-EH- S-p \u0026gt; |\u0026amp;S3g-o ^'S^Q.!^ g P ' \"p-ga p S. Di (O 3 \u0026gt; 3^ Di 5. P3SP-5-B V'\u0026amp; \u0026amp;3 ffffBSgSgC..  fo Q-P\"\" S-~s-.^ O'? R ^oS-pSp-oSKoP-o\u0026amp; E.pff'Sgsg'Po^gso. g-H-ia. S \u0026amp; a g \u0026lt; l-Sf 11P S.0 o 3 g li ff- s-p\"|g'isa' Sgsf PohS'p^p^W^ ? 3-2 3fB,23wS'^ y 3 O XO o a 5 \u0026gt;1 ^0.3 -3  \u0026amp; \u0026gt;3 CA CD  p 3 CA O CA V) o (D Q SB'S =1\" a o CA  3 g O w ^gg.hrJS o X n5 *\u0026lt; p o 2  s * 3-\" a rt\u0026gt; 5 fp a o CA \u0026amp;3 g o\u0026lt;fi g\" o  Sh g-S !.'S 2 g 5 StA O Ca O O- r* e g 5 o O rt tv jr-gS- gs CA c g CP fP S?- P O 5 s rti o-\" S-~g !c 5-cacpcpO^q2.o, 5o.-cp3Qi=:cp- 4 P' S o 2.P 2. P-3 p? 55 'P3 S 3s o cr Di CA - n gg O' p K? rs jS- a Q ti. (D T i off'S .. \u0026amp;\u0026amp;g g CS.2-3  Is Bo CA  alg S-W \u0026amp;!? S-g-P I\" 5'S S-a SS \u0026amp;S  \u0026amp; 5- o s-bL K'o og-w BlS ct^.q 2 rt\u0026gt; ca  M 2 fD o \u0026amp;  f? 5^3 5KC^S.^oQ.- w3 2CD 2Di. S is BS.ffaffS'' B\u0026amp;p q I'P Qh C^1S.^,\u0026lt;P (?p \u0026amp;3'^ 3\"'  QpI| ?s 's^ t?ip \u0026amp;\u0026amp; ia oSog'CS'SS' S? a.3'BSQ? I- CA CA s S 3 !?a s s  a S-S o-\u0026amp;^S 2. rt f-i fP C3 El. . r- 3 \u0026amp;s sr \"O fP O 3 - 3.  rti O fP fcj 1-j o XJ o oa ^O--S2.* *0!- ^9\n3 S3.2 2-3,3 o 2 o o 3 2-J?ao CP w ii^hir o 1 o 3 CA 2 o IS oa-2^^'3o   g as 0-^0 g^giS-'ga^ffgSo g ^iS.O ffi o O 0-0 o o Bo Eco!?^ \"- dap o * gl fP \u0026amp;\u0026lt; p n\u0026gt; (p o \u0026lt;p w .S H 2.H-Q.ctni a S 2. pP3 \u0026amp;Boo 212^3^5:3o c\u0026amp;x ^gP\u0026amp;^e\u0026amp;O'g g 3-^'^ S. 2 -2 2 \"* ............gB c gg E'Q EP^r. EP 0.2'? Eg-?- 11  2 CA 3 C It CT S.g  QC r w rr O3 g ^ '. 2 a\u0026amp;ff 3 3 ogrg.'^ o S.s:g  E'a S a o. g  Sg'gSS.wSso H S.3g.?.S'?5 teK\n3. \u0026lt;P o c w CA CP X p CA 2 03 S 3 3 \u0026amp;g5 J? fp s CA o P r (P aP ggc- 3i p t*- S*- T\" 3* cB g S'  ? o 2  g  o' g S' '!\u0026gt; 3,pGQ2SH ^pa3r3'B . ff 9 E- H- Ct 3 P C O 3- - \" 3 \u0026amp;. B |e 8 g\u0026lt;|'g ff-g 3 hS g aSg'Jp .3 CP I2 o w 3 S2. lIl'? Ill CP S K- -3 g fP U3  S S S  1 CA 0-3 g Jj' - ?r 3 o o ' w !ZR 2i K ^S 3-'fl Cr.T3 ttO-O O O S O o  fft o o 3 O CA n 2 BJ 2. CA iOf. M CiAs .-1 3M ^- 2\u0026gt; tJ r* s\u0026amp;'R g5 T.0.0 0??- S 0.1 o.Sa a'\u0026amp;SS5gS|\u0026amp; \"S-SpS-a\" gaS: Ssgs.gal ca  3\" O 3   . P 3 s. 2 fp B.g-'g B rf 2- O'. 2 'OR.B tt'O'o'S^\" P ' \u0026amp;.P35A\u0026amp; (S3Po\"=c' Eg?g(g P 9 SSo P (S o *0 fp tn 3-a (TO (P B c/i O 3 o \u0026lt;P 3-\nS S- B-ff o ff\u0026amp;d'^2 5'03 i^ffS'o 3. |ScSXS?^|'gS|ffBgt5. ss a 3-3-2 ^pw,. SfToW-oS \"S .S C3_ O SpgS, CA Q 3 5.^g'?- ^3 2 2: fP T .Q o  kTct M \" CA P I (P -3 w'2 A.sirjslIjHi 'A P CA  3. ^^OCA S El' CA O  S-2 3  O fti o pr a?-I CP CP  O ! e-f' rt\u0026gt; |sB s\n t 9Cr\u0026lt;'fDT3Oa3s: 32o332oo\u0026lt; 3 a .o CA CA p (p CA p I. CA S' \u0026amp; 2OmB*l2OO2 ^P ,,, CP 3  3 3'W =-5:^K o Q.-r*^2 \u0026amp; ft.fDT3M3'OOvO . 3 r TO . M n s o a(P aK-sB t  unuAT, 2UU1^ r LR schools, state near deal on BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the state and Ijttle Rock School District are moving closer to settlii^ school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and complicate district efforts to end federal court supervision. They are negotiating:  The Little Rock districts possible payback of a $20 million state loan.  Continued state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and other desegregation-related programs worth $15 million to $20 million a year to the district  nie impact of a recent tax increase in Little Rock on the states funding obligations to other Arkansas school districts. Little Rock officials would like to settle issues with the state and other parties before the district submits a March 15 desegregation compliance report to a federal judge who oversees the 18-year-old Pulaski County school-desegregation case. If there are no objections to the compliance report or if there is no ' proof that the district Is out of compliance with its desegregation plan, then the district could be declared desegregated at the end of this school year and released from federal court monitoring. The word I get is that the negotiations are in the final stages\nthat we may have a deal that everyone is going to agree to, Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, said Friday. Argue is one of three state senators who wrote to Gov. Mike Huckabee, Little Rock Superintendent Les Gamine, state Department of Education Director Ray Simon and Attorney General Mark Pryor in September 2000 urging that the state and Little Rock address several issues as a package and avoid relying on the courts to resolve them. desegregation funds Argue served as an informal facilitator at some of the earlier meetings with the leaders from the agencies and the parties in Little Rocks school desegregation lawsuit On Friday, Argue said he didnt know the specifics of an emerging agreement. I do get the sense that both sides have given some and won some, he said, adding that the talks are now in the hands of Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, and Timothy Gauger, an assistant attorney general. Heller said Friday that he and Gauger talk almost daily and, while they do not have a final draft of an agreement to take to their respective clients, he said there exists at least the nucleus of an agreement The Little Rock lawyer also said the district faces deadlines for resolving the issues and We need to know within a week or two whether there is substantial agreement. Michael Teague, a spokesman for the attorney generals office, declined to comment at length about tlie negotiations but called Hellers comments an accurate assessment of the talks. Simon said Friday that he was . See SCHOOLS, Page 3B ' Schools  Continued from Page 1B frustrated by the slowness of the talks between the attorneys but optimistic about an ultimate agreement. He said he may have something to report to the state Board of Education at its Feb. 12 meeting. Simon said earlier this month that the attorneys had listened to the discussions of others involved in the issues and were now attempting to put into writing a possible agreement that all the interested parties could endorse. Asked specifically whether district and state representatives have agreed to a method for determining whether Little Rock must repay a million loan, Simon said, Were close. A proposal should be forthcoming. A 1989 agreement between the state and district said the district would not have to repay the loan if the composite scores earned by Little Rock black students on a nationally standardized test reached 90 percent or better of the average scores earned by white students by Dee. 31,2000. In the intervening years, the district and the state never formally agreed on the test to be used. Heller said Friday that the focus of the talks now is not so much on the $20 million as it is on developing a process for determining whether die loan should be forgiven. He said the process described in the 1989 agreement proved to be unworkable. He also said the district and Education Department administrators have desi^ated experts to make recommendations to negotiators about possible measures of student achievement. Those advisers are Steven Ross, a faculty member at the University of Memphis and an educational consultant to Little Rock School District\nand Douglas Reeves, a national consultant to the Education Department on several issues. One of the most pressing of the deadlines faced by the negotiators is related to the 5-mill tax increase Little Rock voters approved last year. The district must complete scheduling the sale of bonds that will be financed with the money generated by the tax increase. The longer the district delays selling the bonds and incurring new debt, the greater the districts wealth. That poses a problem for state officials because all school districts are legally guaranteed at least 80 percent of the money that Little Rock raises in state and local money per student, excluding that money that goes to pay debts. Depending on how Little Rock officials structure the debt they incur, the state would have to increase aid by $40 million to $140 million, according to preliminary projections last year. Until the debt structure and states obligation to other districts are known, legislators could be hindered in setting appropriations for state services for the next two fiscal years. Another critical issue in the school talks is whether the state will attempt to stop subsidizing Little Rocks desegregation efforts if the district is declared unitary, or a fully desegregated school system, later this year. The state pays close to $20 million a year for desegregation-related programs, including magnet schools, student transfer programs,: transportation, and teacher retirement and health insurance costs. We think it helps everybody if the Little Rock School Board is free to consider unitary status without having to worry about potentially disastrous financial consequences, Heller said. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will work for everybody.8A  FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2001  Deal can ease LR schools loan burden Lawyers for state, district work out possible solution BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRATCAZETTE Attorneys for the state and the Little Rock School District have reached a tentative agreement that would relieve the district of repaying mosL if not all, of a $20 million loan and preserve millions in state funds for magnet schools and other desegregation costs until at least 2008. In return, the Little Rock district will structure its finances, particularly money from a recent tax increase, so that the state will not be required to pump $125 million to other Arkan^ school districts. The proposed a^eement allows the school district to continue efforts to win release from federal court supervision without jeopardizing state funding for de- se^egation programs. Both the Arkansas Board of Education and the Little Rock School Board have scheduled meetings for Monday to decide whether to ratify the agreement that has been the topic of negotiations since last September. Im just pleased we were able to reach agreement, said Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas Department of Education. It brings closure to these issues and it allows us to focus on student achievement for all students. Simon said he will recommend that the state board approve the agreement when it meets at 2 pun. Monday via telephone conference call. We are wearing big smiles See LRSD, Page 8A STTTil E -ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Dese i  I _ BE ii I I ^^iS^ockSciiool^^iS^ M . - citing statistics ds evidence ........ .nl^iiareffnrt\u0026lt;i to comply with a 1998 ^fTlWWCTTHGHEHS z-OlsMensabllqated to maintain a E^affthat is approximately PEBCENI BUCK 3n ~sr MCX ~1S1 WMiE/onn 1205 UW HGOROUS COURSES^ ranomiiffliT MCIEKE AJflebra I Geometry Algebra II Biology ChorrifettY Physics 5 w Tzr I 1M TOTO. % MCKASt 3t% -----73% -----HIT rar 'LO^' BUCK % MCHJtSE W% 8% ------0% 51% ~~TW% ADVHKD PUCEMENT COURSE ENROIIMENT n SUSPENSIONS BUCK 5341 WMIE 900 052 ran. _yB 1997-98 2000-'01 % change TOIM L5 OK BUCK fll ~7S7 09% KT COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAM TESFIAKERS ^gZ5g3BBaBWHMARKEXAM:lJIElU^ or above proficiency Hl _JiBL = +31% HJKX _291 +50% WMIE __as +1% h GRA0E5SnNF0RDKHIEVEMENTTEST:MAni Scores in percentiles 50 percent= national average Ml JL 31 iUCK 23 WMIE _S S5 'SOURCE: Little Rock School District 1997-'98 t9900 % change ran nt 31% BUCK MB =1 EXnUCURnCULAR ACTMIY PARrailMIION 1997-'98 1999-'00 BUCK 2g WMIE/Oim 393 --------902 DROPOUT RATE AT HIGH SCHOOLS 1997-96 1999-00 ran. 5Mm%i BUCK Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/KIRK MONTGOMERYI P for desegregation programs that in- kllwv elude magnet schools, student transfers, and special transporta-  Continued from Page 1A tion as well as money for extraor- afound here, Little Rock Super- dinary employee health insurance intendent Les Gamine said. We and retirement costs. The district, think the right things have been which has a $200 million budget, done and Im really excited for the gets approximately million a school district and for the kids year for those costs. here. This sets the tone for us to begin a whole new era. The negotiated agreement specifically says the state will not Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, try to modify or terminate any of its was equally pleased and said he obligation to Little Rock as enu- would encourage his fellow lawmakers to support the agreement. merated in a 1989 agreement until June 1, 2008. The newest agree- Its cause for celebration, he mentwhich would be an amendsaid. This agreement represents ment to the 1989 settlementdoes the resolution of some extremely not specify what happens at that important and chronically trouble- time. The state farther agreed to forgive and release the Little Rock some issues that we have focused oh for years. Argue was one of three lawmak- district from any obligation to re- ers who last fall encouraged state pay the first $15 million of a $20 and Little Rock district officials to million state desegregation loan pool together several outstanding given to the district over the course desegregation and financial issues of the 1990s. The state will forgive the re- and resolve them as a package. maining $5 million in loans if the Sen. Jodie Mahony, D-El Dorado, and Sen. Dave Bisbee, R-Rogers, district obtains a final order from were the other two. the federal courts granting it com- A lot of hard work has gone plete unitary status and release into this, Aiiue said. And I re- from federal court supervision by member that a lot of people July 1,2004. thought it was a pipe dream. It was $20 million loan was a con- an instance where we were looking tentious provision of the 1989 flnan- at four issues and we couldnt re- cial settlement between the state wed go right back to where we solve any of them as we dealt with mid the Pulaski County school dis- them individually. tricts. AccoMing to the 1989 agree- As for his legislative colleagues, ment, the district would not have to Im going to encourage them to repay the loan if the scores earned understand that all parties were at black students on standardized the table, that everybody is giving fest scores were raised to at least 90 and everybody is gaining, he said, percent of the scores earned by If they choose to spoil the deal, white students by Dec. 31,2000. ..^'d o- Ls, ..e However, the state and the Lit- were with four big problems and tie Rock district never agreed on no resolution. the standardized test or the type of Gov. Mike Huckabee was out of score that should be used to detertown Thursday but said through a mine whether the district met its spokesman that he wanted to re- obligation. .................. The Little Rock district is oblig- serve comment until after the boards acted on the agreement. The tentative agreement was ated by the new agreement to accelerate its efforts to sell construction bonds and raise its level of circulating among various state and local officials on the same day debt from about $6 million to about the Little Rock School District sub- $11.8 million by early 2002, saving District voters approved a 5-mill mitted to U.S. Chief District Judge the state up to $125 million. Susan Webber Wright, a 167-page report of statistics showing the dis- tax increase last year for renovat- tricts efforts to comply with its ing buildings and expanding tech- 1998 desegregation plan. nology systems. As soon as that dis- A motion accompanied the re- trict uses that money to finance port asking Wright to give all other construction debt, the money wont parties in the 18-year-old desegre- be counted as revenue available to gation lawsuit 20 days to make any educate students in the district. objections to the districts asser- Thats important to state offi- tions of compliance. The district cials because the amount of rev- also asked the judge to declare the enue per child in the Little Rock district unitary, or desegregated to district is the standard by which ..................................  state funding for all other school the extent practicable, on June 30. A declaration of unitaiy status districts is calculated. Every dis- would mean that the district would trict is guaranteed 80 percent of be released from continued feder- the funding available in Little court monitoring and involve- Rock. Unless the district uses its ment in its operations. The district new revenue to finance construe-  has been involved in federal tion, the state will have to pump in school desegregation lawsuits for more money for other school sys- more than 40 years. terns in 2001-02. The $125 million The current lawsuit began in cost could wipe out money that 1982, when the Little Rock district Huckabee and other lawmakers sued the state and the other two want to increase teacher salaries. Tulaoki CuuiiLy ouliuul uiauiuU, Those raises, if made law, are exseeking consolidation as an end to pected to cost $122 million annual- Pulaski County school districts, racial segregation in the Pulaski ly when fully implemented. County piAlic schools. The federal In the proposed agreement, the courts found that the defendants district and state pledge to work to- were at fault but stopped short of gether for unitary status for the Lit- consolidation. The districts and tie Rock district. The agreement the state ultimately agreed to a fi- states that it can be modified by nancial settlement of more than the district and state based on fur- $129 million to be paid out over the ther consultation and discussion course of the 1990s. However, the with attorneys for the Joshua interdistricts continue to receive money venors, who represent the black from the state for ongoing desegre- students in the district in the ongo- ing desegregation lawsuit John Walker, the attorney for gation expenses. The proposed agreement between the state and district was the intervenors, could not be not submitted to the judge with the reached for comment Thursday. compliance report, but the two are tied together. Some of the attorneys involved in crafting the agreement included Little Rock district attorneys Chris Heller for the Little Rock and School Board members have School District\nTimothy Gauger said they want to pursue unitary and Scott Smith for the Departstatus without a fear that the state ment of Education, and Olan would try to withdraw its funding Reeves for the governors office.o CM CM LR, state boards sign school funding pact Agreement maintaining desegregation programs called a marvelous step forward o JI V. I ! Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/JASON ANTHES LiWe Rock School District Superintendent Les Carnine signs an agreement that will continue state funding for the school system's desegregation programs. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Arkansas Board of Education and the Little Rock School Board endorsed a landmark agreement Monday that will continue state funding for the citys desegregation programs and save millions in state funding to other districts. The state Education Board adopted the agreement with an 8-1 vote and little discussion in a telephone conference call. The Little Rock School Board followed suit three hours later with a 7-O vote. We're cautiously optimistic the settlement with the Little Rock School District will lead to a permanent conclusion of what has been a long, tedious court battle, Gov. Mike Huckabee said Monday through a spokesman. Little Rock School Board President Katherine Mitchell called the agreement historic and thanked all who were involved in its production. Baker Kumis, another Little Rock board member, said\nThis is bigger news than a presidential library, a new arena or anything like that. This is a marvelous step forward. The agreement paves the way for the Little Rock district to pursue release from federal court monitoring of its long-standing desegregation efforts without jeopardizing about $20 million a year in state support for the districts magnet schools and other desegregation-related expenses. The eight-page agreement crafted by attorneys for the district and the state at the urging of a handful of legislators, says the state will not attempt to cut desegregation funding to the Little Rock School Dis- trict at least until after June 1,2008. The agreement further relieves the district of repaying mosL if not all, of a $20 million state desegregation loan. In return, the agreement obligates the Little Rock district to vigorously pursue release from federal court monitoring of its desegregation efforts. The district also has pledged to structure its finances  specifically money raised by a recent 5-mill tax increase  so the districts revenue per student wont increase dramatically. That would force the state to infuse as much $125 million into other school districts to help them keep up with funding levels in Little Rock The amount of funding Little Rock has per student is the standard by which state funding for all See AGREEMENT, Page 8A Agreement  Continued from Page 1A other Arkansas school districts is calculated. Eveiy district is guaranteed at least 80 percent of the funding available to the Little Rock district. Hie district will accelerate the sale of construction bonds, increasing its debt from about $6 million to more than $11.8 million by early 2002. Money eamiarked for debt payments wont be counted as revenue for educating Little Rock students. After Mondays vote, attorneys for both agencies will submit a joint request to Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to modify an earlier. court-approved agreement between the state and the school district that included the $20 million loan. According to that 1989 agreement the Little Rock district was to repay the loan if standardized test scores of black students were not raised to at least 90 percent of the scores of white students by Dec. 31,2000. The loan proved to be a point of contention because the two agencies could never agree on the test The newest agreement calls for the state to forgive the first $15 million of the low-interest loan right away. The district will be relieved of the remaining $5 million payment if it is released from court supervision by July 1,2004. The district asked Wright for unitary status  or a declaration that it is desegregated to the extent practicable just last week. Timothy Gauger, an attorney who represented the state in the agreement negotiations, said Monday that should the federal courts reject the modified language on the $20 million loan, the loan provision of the new agreement can be severed from the rest of the agreement, which would still stand. Ray Simon, director of the Department of Education, acknowledged that some of the states districts would like to share in a $125 million infusion of state aid based on Little Rocks increased wealth. Producing that money would likely jeopardize efforts going on now in the state Legislature by Huckabee and Education Department leaders to pass a $3,000 teacher raise over the next two years. The real detriment would have been to the state, trying to provide that money [to match the Little Rock funding], said Simon. State Education Board member Betty Pickett of Conway cast the sole no vote on e agreement She said later that she felt the state was pushed into the agreement by a provision of the state funding system that guarantees districts will get at least 80 percent of what Little Rock gets. That guarantee is commonly referred to as the federal range ratio. If that is too high a standard for us to keep and we have to manipulate it, maybe we should look at it Maybe we should do something about that rather than halving to enter into an agreement that has so many ramifications. During the meeting Pickett questioned whether the agreement would have to be renegotiated if the Little Rock district should win another tax increase within the next seven years. Gauger said that probably would be necessary. Reaction to the agreement from an organization that represents all school districts was tempered Monday. Charles Knox, associate director of the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, said those educators who have followed the case never really expected Little Rock would have to repay the loam As for the potential increase of as much as $125 million into the state funding system based on increased Little Rock wealth, educators generally recognized that the state couldnt afford it, Knox said. The Little Rock board approved the agreement as former superintendent Don Roberts and incoming Superintendent T. Kenneth James watched. The agreement signed Monday, by Simon and Little Rock schools Superintendent Les Gamine is the latest development tn a lawsuit filed by the Little Rock district in 1982 against the state and the other two' Pulaski County school districts.\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_1172","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","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--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"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/1172"],"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.\nMagnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director June 1, 1994 1900 North Main Street Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: (501) 758-0156 JUN 2 9 1994 The Magnet Review Committee has revised its letter transmitting the 1994-95 interdistrict magnet schools budget, due to the inclusion of additonal information which is necessary to explain changes in the budget. At its May 24, 1994 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1994-95 school year (Draft 2). The total amount budgeted, $14,952,534, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,901 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,833 students. In addition, a basic step or incremental increase in staff salaries and associated fringe benefits, as well as the effects of early retirement incentives, were factored in. On May 17, 1994, Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District, came before the Magnet Review Committee with a presentation of Draft 1 of the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1994-95 school year. He explained the cost calculations to the Magnet Review Committee, and made any corrections that were deemed necessary. At this same meeting, each of the interdistrict magnet school principals (with the exception of the Gibbs principal) provided information with regard to their school's proposed budget and answered questions from the Magnet Review Committee members. After this meeting, the Magnet Review Committee representatives presented the proposed budget information to their parties in order to be prepared to vote on it at the May 24, 1994 Magnet Review Committee meeting. As noted above, the Magnet Review Committee did approve the budget at the meeting of May 24, 1994 (Draft 2 which contained any The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 1, 1994 corrections from Draft 1). This approved budget represents an increase of 2.04%, or $78.00 per student. Factors which may require a further adjustment in the interdistrict magnet school program budget for the 1994-95 school year include the following: 1) The Professional Negotiated Agreement (PNA) between Little Rock School District CTA and the Little Rock School District Board is in the renegotiation process, which may impact projected salary figures\n2) The State's contribution to employees' health insurance funding is not yet determined. When this information is forthcoming, revisionsmay be necessary to the figures represented in this budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. A comparison of the approved magnet school budget for the 1993-94 school year, and the 1994-95 budget, indicates revised FTE numbers for personnel in the 1993-94 school year. LRSD's Support Services Office counted bodies for the 1993-94 school year, rather than actual FTE's. Careful study was given to the 1994-95 budget submission to accurately delineate the FTE's for each staff area, which include Media Specialists, Special Education, Gifted, Classroom, Secretaries, Nurses, Custodians and Other-Aides. Also, a line item cost for Stipends at Williams Magnet merits further explanation. An addendum to explain this change is attached. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1994-95 interdistrict magnet schools budget attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools .. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget in an The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -3- June 1, 1994 effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, fr~4b\nf~, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachments: 1994-95 Interdistrict Magnet School Budget (Approved Draft 2) Staff In-Service Plan, Williams Magnet cc: Attorneys of Record Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Gene Wilhoit, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Henry Williams, Little Rock School District Magnet Review Committee STAFF IN-Sl-:H.V!Cl!: PLAN WILLIAJ\\1S MAGNET SCHOOL 1994-95 Five in-service sessions have been planned for the William's Magnet School StafT for the 1994-95 school year. Two of these sessions center around the effective and efficient use of the computers that have been purchased for use within the school\ntwo sessions emphasize the propcr use of the newly adoplcd rc:iding se1ics\nand one session focuses on the analysis of Slanfor\u0026lt;l-8 lc.\nsl\nand the formulation of proper goals addressing areas of concern. A tentative plan for the in-service hours and the objectives to be reached is summarized bdow: FIRST SEMESTER IN-SERVICE: 1. Basic Computer Literacy: Objective: This in-service will be a practical work session to train a.II certilied staff on the proper use of the lBM Computers. (Six IBM Computers have been purchased ,for the 1994-9 5 school year, three were purchased for the 1993-94 school year, and three were purchased for the 1992-93 school year.) Staff members will !cam the basic DOS commands, how to format and copy disks, basic troubleshooting techniques, appropriate use of the printers,and will preview appropriate software for their particular grade level. Fall of 1994 In-service hours required: 3-6 40 participants@ $54.03/person Total cost: $2,161.20 2. Reading Te::\\.i.book In-Service: Objective: The staff will become familiar with the Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich Reading Series that has been adopted for the 1994-95 school year. Sample lessons will be demonstrated featuring whole group and small group techniques. Teachers will be presented a model lesson plan designed specifically for the new reading series and will be given the opportunity to construct model pl.ans for each grade level (This was done for the previous reading series and was a specific request for any new adoption.) Fall of 1994 In-service hours required: 3-6 40 participants@ $54.03/pcrson Total cost: $2,161.20 3 . .Standardized Testing: Objective: Staff will review standardized test results for 1993-94. Results will be analyzed and graphed outlining areas of concern. Individual plans will be developed to address any weak areas. Goal sheets will be developed during this session. Fall of 1994 SECOND SEMESTER I -SERVICE: In-service hours required: 3-6 25 persons@ $54.03/pcrson Total Cost: S 1,350.75 4. Additional Computer Training A. An Introduction to Computer Networking: Objective: Cuniculum specialists will present to staff members the research regarding computer networking within the classroom. An overview of the networking will be presented along with effective nel\\-vorking techniques within the classroom. A long-range plan for networking will also be d.iscus!\ned. -. In-service hours required: 1.5-3.0 B. Introduction to the Computerized Card Catalogue System: Objective: Staff will become proficient in using the newly purchased computer and card catalogue system for the media center. The media director will explain the correct and proper use of the system so that classroom teachers may use the system to assist in procuring teaching materials and will explain ways to assist students in the use of the new equipment. In-service hours required: 1.5-3.0 Total hours required: 3-G 40 participants@ $54.03,person Total Cost: $2,161.20 5. Reading Basal In-Service II: Objective: Particip:mts will review the appropriate use of using the basal reader. In addition, strategies for teaching remedial and enriched classes will be discussed. Teachers ,vill also be asked to identify important Stanford-8 skills taught in the basal reading program. Total Cost: $9,995.55 In-service hours rcq uircd: 3-6 40 participants@ $54.03/pcrson Total Cost: $2,161.20 TO: FROM: THROUGH: RE: _Little Rock School District E May 23, 1994 MAY 2 5 1994 Office of Deseg,ogat1or. o,utor:ng Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee ~ark D. Milhollen, Manager, Sup_port Services ~s, .~ Proposed 1994-95 Attached for your review is draft 2 of the proposed budget for the 1994-95 school year for the six origi~al magnet schools. This document incorporates information known through May 23, 1994, including adjustments for fourteen (14) teachers who have applied for the early retirement incentive. The Draft 2 Budget is based on a projected three-quarter average ADM of 3,833 and a new contribution rate of $3,901.00 per ADM. The new rate represents a per pupil increase of $78.00 or 2.04%. I will be available for discussion at the May 24, 1994, regular meeting. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501)3743361 1~94-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9: 1992-9' 1993-9~ 1994-9 SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS F.T,E, Actual F.T.E . . Actual F.T.E. Budget F.T.E Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 6.0 $370,669 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 10.0 $478,891 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 39.2 $1,290,162 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 12.4 $457,554 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $218,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 6.5 $238.592 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 0.0 $0 I 07 Music 0.0 _ _.::.::...J $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so . 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 12.6 $483,414 10 Special Education 7.8 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 7.7 $285,726 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 5.4 $191,740 12 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 175.9 S5,816,001 13 Substitutes 0.0 $153.813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 14.0 $457,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 294.5 $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,955,822 289.7\n$10,225, 141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $353,310 19.0 S335,238  STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 5.4 S159,150 17 Custocians 28.5 $346,330 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $372,625 28.5 S375,432 --- 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 so 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.0  $157,639 6.0 S139,163 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0' $311,683 37.0 $292.027 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxx:x. $1,254,324 xxxxxx:x. $1,366,607 .lOOOOOO( $1,342,873 XXXlOOO( S1 ,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 95.9 S2,684 ,040 TOTAL (10-20) XlOOOOOC $12,004,096 XlOOOOOC $11,883,532 XlOOOOOC $12,648,376 XXlOOOOC S12,9Q9,181 1 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx: $601,780 XXlOOOO{ $507,373 XXJOOOO{ $598,926 xxxxxxx S619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx XXlOOOO{ $33,980 XlOOOOO( $36,215 xx:xxxxx $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOOC lOOOOOOC lOOOOOOC xxxxxxx 25 Other lOOOOOOC $166,508 JOOOOOO: $92,772 lOOOOOO( $94,428 xxxxxxx $74,250 TOTAL (30) )000000( $768,288 )000000( $634,125 lOOOOOO( $729,569 xxxxxxx S727,223 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office XJOOOCXX XXlOOOOC XJOOOCXX .xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXlOOOOC $343,433 XlOOOOOC $309,128 XJOOOCXX $315,284 XlOOOOO( s202,337 I (40) 28 Media XXlOOOOC $56,509 XlOOOOOC $53,842 XlOOOOO( $54,884 XXlOOOO{ $57,242 I 29 Other XXlOOOO( xxxxxxx: $11,647 XXJOOOO{ $11,856 XXXXlOO( $19,510 TOTAL (40) XXlOOOO{ $399,942 XXJOOOO{ $374,617 XXJOOOO{ $382,024 XXXXlOO( $379,089 I CAPITAL 30 Equipment lOOOOOOC $111,824 lOOOOOOC $106,283 lOOOOOOC $104,215 lOOOOO()( $93,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair. etc. JOOOOOO: JOOOOOO: :ooooocx xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other )000000( XXXlOOO(. lOOOOOO( XXXXJOO( TOTAL (50) .lOOOOOO( $111,824 XlOOOOOC $106,283 XlOOOOO( $104,215 XXXXJOO( $93,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XlOOOOO( $8,358 XlOOOOOC $12,416 )000000( $12,665 xxxxxxx $15,655 (60) 34 Other XlOOOOOC )()00000( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxxx $8,358 XXlOOOO{ $12,416 xxxxxxx $12,665 xx:xxxxx $15,655 TOTAL (30-60) XXlOOOO{ $1,288,412 XlOOOOO( $1,127,441 XXJOOOO{ $1,228,473 xxxxx:xx S1,215,613 TOTAL (10-60) 390.9 $13,292,508 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 $13,876,849 385.6 lS14,124,794 I TOTAL LINE ITE\nMS - (SECOND PAGE) JOOOOOO: $595,333 JOOOOOO: $537,465 lOOOOOO( $677,821 xxxxxxx ~927,741 GRANDTOTAL lOOOOOOC $13,887,841 lOOOOOOC $13,548,434 x:x:xxxxx $14,554,670 lOOOOOOC $14,952,534 Line ltem _Costs ::= .,. . ., . /  ., ... ./\" ''\"'\"\"'\"' 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $19,871 $20,739 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $716,116 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx )()()()0()( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $677,821 $827,741 Per PupH.Cast 1991-92 1992-93 '1993-94 '1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3679.6 3807.0 3833.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $14,952,534 Per Pupil Cost $3,662 ,,,,, \\, .t. $3,662 $3,826 $3,901 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draf\\ 2) 1991-9 Actual 1992-9~ Actual 1993-9 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted BOOker Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T,E. Salaries f.T.E. Salarles F.T.E. Salades CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 1.0 $55,764 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 1.0 $52,103 03 Specialists 6.0 $350,341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 7.0 $254,900 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 2.0 S:35,200 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 1.0 $37,836 061 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31.2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 30.2 jJ,879 1 O Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 1.3 $64,015 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 121 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 4.0 $123,234 I TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 48.5 $1,673,807 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 2.0 U1,932 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 1.0 $28,104 17 Custodians 4.0 $44,176 4.0 $42,176 4.0 $47,081 4.0 $52,400 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $64,657 7.0 $75,718 7.0 : j2,731 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $201,247 xxxxxxx $225,867 xxxxxxx $215,438 )0()0()00( $222,697 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.0 $373,998 15.0 $388,766 14.0 $396,712 14.0 $397,864 TOTAL (10-20) :ooooocx $1,890,430 :ooooocx $1,942,422 :ooooocx $2,006,780 :ooooocx $2,071,671 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XJOOOOC( $81,637 .lOOOOOO( $71,492 .lOOOOOO( $87,854 xxxxxxx $84,115 SERVICES 23 Travel XJOOOOOC XJOOOOOC $4,654 JOOOOOCX $5,000 xxxxxxx. $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XXlOOOOC XXlOOOOC XXlOOOOC :x:xxxxxx 25 Other lOOOOOOC $27,963 XXlOOOO{ $4,895 lOOOOOOC $4,800 lOOOOOOC ~ TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $109,600 JOOOOOOC $81,041 xxxxxxx $97,654 xx:xxxxx: S.il8,615 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx )OOQ()(X){ xxxxxxx xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom lOOOO()()( $53,613 lOOOO()()( $37,774 lOOOO()()( $38,500 :ooooocx $34,900 (40) 28 Media :ooooocx $4,698 :ooooocx $4,743 lOOOOuO( $4,800 lOOOOOO( $4,800 29 Other .lOOOOOCX JOOOOOCX $1,255 .lOOOOOCX $1,255 lOOOOOO( $1,255 TOTAL (40) .lOOOOOO( $58,311 XlOOOOOC $43,772 xx:xxxxx $44,555 JOOOOOCX .Z40,955 CAPITAL 30, Equipment XXlOOOO( $6,377 XXlOOOO( $10,090 XXlOOOO( $6,100 XlOOOOOC $6,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. XlOOOOO( XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx lOOOOOOC (50) 32 Other )OOQ()(X){ JOOOOOOC xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $6,377 xxxxxxx $10,090 )000000( $6,100 xxxxxxx $6,000 OTHER 331 Dues and Fees :ooooocx lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx (60) 341Other lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) lOOOOOO( JOOOOOCX JOOOOOCX lOOOOOO( - TOTAL (30-60) lOOOOOO( $174,288 JOOOOOCX $134,903 lOOOOOO( $148,309 XlOOOCXX $145,570 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,064,717 62.9 $2,077,325 62.5 $2,155,089 , 62.5  $2,217,241 TOTAL LINE lllEMS- (SECOND PAGE) lOOOOOOC $88,028 xxxxxxx $75,446 xxxxxxx $99,518\nXXXXXXX $122,300 GRAND TOTAL XlOOOOO( $2,152,746 XlOOOOO( $2,152,771 xxxxxxx $2,254,707 XXlClOOOC $2,339,540 Una Item Costs ..' (/ .,,.. -,... \"' !!: 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 $118,637 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 $668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $88,028 $75,446 $99,618 $122,300 Par Pupil Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,771 $2,254,707 $2,339,540 Per Pupil Cost $3,422 . $3,562  $3,55'1 $3,684 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9, Actual 1992-92 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted Carver Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 1.0 $59,423 1.0 $60,587 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 1.0 S42,422 I 1.0 $43,417 03 Specialisls 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 8.0 $236,265 8.0 $251,547 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 2.0 $60,101 2.0 $62.791 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $42,474 1.5 $43,532 1.5 $46,074 1.5 S4J,443 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 24.3 $690,189 24.3 S674,007 10 Special Education 1.0 $27,907 1.0 $30,734 1.0 I $32,460 , 1.0 2 ::\n, 305 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 1.4 S34,246 I 1.4 $48,954 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 S17,150 S17,150 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 4.0 $117,132 4.0 $120,344 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.5 S1 ,183,059 41.1 $1,164,768 44.2 S1 ,335,462 44.2, S1 ,361,045 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 3.0 $67,824 3.0 $54,572 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 1.0 $31,250 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 4.0 $42,645 4.0 $42,467 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other I 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $71,921 11.0  $76,016 I 11.0 $91,426 - 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOOO( $167,825 xxxxx:xx $190,533 'JOOOOOO(' $192,561 xxxxxxx S.:.~J, 173 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 19.0 $410,297 I 19.0 i $423,997 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,553,693 xxxxxxx S1 ,557,097 xxxx:xxx $1,745,758 xxxxxxx S1 .785,042 PURCHASEC 22! Utilities xxxxxxx $68,924 'xxxxxxx $53,586 .xxxxxxx $69,730 1xxxxxxx S75,965 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxx: XlOOOOO( $12,253 .lOOOOOO( $12,500 )OOO(JQ(){ S9,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements .xxxxxxx XXXXlCXX xxxxxxxl xxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxx $22,843 xxxxxxx $9,911 xxxxxxx $10,100 xxxxxxx $10,700 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $91,767 )0000()0( $75,750 xxxxxxx $92,330 :xxxxxxx S95,665 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx XlOOOOO( 'XXXXXXX :xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 271 Regular Classroom :000000: SSS,638 XXXlOOO( $52,759 xxxxxxx S53,814 1XXXXXXX $63,330 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $11,410 lOOOOOO( $13,271 xxxxx:xx $13,536 xxxxxxx S11,500 29 Other lOOOOOC( lOOOOOC( $2,593 xxxxxxx $2,645 lxxxxxxx $3,500 TOTAL (40) .lOOOOOO( $67,048 .lOOOOOO( $68,623 ,.xxxxxxx $69,995 .xxxxxxx S7c.l. 330 -- CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXXXlCXX $22,128 IXXXXXXX $27,894 xxxxxxx $28,450 xxxxx:xx ~ .:l,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx lxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (50) 32IOther xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 'JOOOOOO( IXXXXXXX TOTAL (SO) 'JOOOOOO( $22,128 'JOOOOOO( $27,894 'JOOOOOO( $28,450 xxxxxxx S19,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ' lOOOOOO( $2,857 XXXlOOO( $3,908 lOOOOOO( $3,985 lOOOOOOC $3,000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx lOOOOOO( xx:xxxxx 'XXXXXXX TOTAL (60) 'xxxxxxx $2,857 xx.xxxxx. $3,908 1XX:XXXXX $3,985 :xxxxxxx $3,000 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $183,800 XXXlOOO( S176,174 lxxxxxxx S194,760 xxxxxxx $195,995 TOTAL (10-60) 61.5 $1,737,493 60.1 $1,733,271 63.2 $1,940,518 63.2 $1,981~ TOTAL LINE lliEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxxx $84,978 xxxxxxx: $86,058 xxxxxxx $107,945 iXXXXXXX S131,114 I GRAND TOTAL XlOOOOCX $1,822,471 XlOOOOCX $1,819,329 XlOOOOCX $2,048,463 xxxxxxx $2,112,151 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 $114,527 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 $82 Science English $380 (S329) $239 $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $84,978 $86,058 $107,945 $131,114 Per PupiLCost  :::: 199-1-92  1992-93  1993~94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.0 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 $2,112,151 Per Pupil Cost ~- .\n,. !.. .,  $3,036 $3,092 $3,386- $3\n446'. 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Dralt 2) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-!r.: Actual 11993-94 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted Gibbs Magnet School / :\n:\n: F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E . . Salaries IF.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. .,. Salaries ,., CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 ss6,s1s I 1.0 $59,234 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 I 1.0 $45,000 1.0 $39,965 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 s160,752 I 5.8 $158,107 5.8 $162,699 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 I 1.0 $40,670 . 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 I 1.0 $38,433 1.0 $:i9,257 06 Art-Perf./Prod. I 07 Music I I 08 Foreign Lang. I 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 I 15.0 $507,851 I 15.0 $466,921 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 I 1.5 - ::5,896 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 1.0 $34,246 12 Chapter 1 I 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 2.0 $59,580 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $961,411 31.3 $985,841 29.3 $1,007,242 29.3 $972,468 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 1.4 $2~ STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 s11,304 I 0.8 $11,530 , 0.8 $\n2,446 171 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $33.776 I 3.0 $39,012 I 3.0, $39,803 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 I I 19 Paraprofessionals-Other I 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 5.6 $33,799 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOO(X $129,439 xxxxxxx $141,032 xxxxxxx $136,618 XlOCOOO( s ..:4,836 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11.8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 10.8 $243,497 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,204,513 IXXXXXX:X $1,226,435 XlOOOOOC $1,254,041 xxxxxxx $1,215,965 PURCHASE[ 22 Utilities .lOOOOOO( $35,102 XlOOOOOC $26,879 i.lOOOOOO( $38,531 'XXXXXXX $41,385 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx $2,066 'XXXXXXX $3,407 xxxxxxx $3,407 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx xxxxxxx XXXXXXX !xxxxxxx 25 Other XXlOOOO( $11,464 xxxxxxx $7,309 xxxxxxx $7,455 xxxxxxx $4,000 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $46,566 xxxxxxx $36,254 ixxxxxxx $49,393 xxxxxxx $48,792 1 MATERIALS, 26 Pnnc,pal's Office xxxxxxx xxxxxxx IXXXXXXX ' JOOOOOO( SUPPLIES 27 1 Regular Classroom )0000()()( $25,426 XlOOOOO\u0026lt; S23,54  l:ooooooc $24,012 xxxxxxx $25,068\" (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $6,241 xxxxxx:x $6,489 i)CX:XXXXX $6,620 xxxxxxx $6,600 29/Other xxxxxxx: xxxxxx:x $1,0' 6 'XXXXXXX. $1,036 lxxxxxx:x S2,455 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx: $31,667 IXXXXXXX $31,046 xxxxxxx $31,668 :xxx:xxxx $31\\ 123 -- CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxx:xx $3,968 xxxxxxx $2,594 . xxxxxxx $2,646 )OOOOCXX -2,646 OUTLAY 31 i Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx x:xxxxxx . xxxxxxx IXXXXXXX (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx XlOOOOO( ,XXXXXXX xx:xxxxx TOTAL (SO) xxxxxxx $3,968 xxxxxxx $2,594 XXXXXXX $2,646 ixxxxxxx S2,646 OTHER i331 Dues and Fees )0000()()( XlOOOOO\u0026lt; $1,132 ,xxxxxxx $1 , 155 lOOOOOCX s1,15s I (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx txxxxxx:x IXXXXXXX TOTAL (60) xxxxxx:x $0 xxxxxx:x $1,132 !xxxxxxx $1,155 xxxxxx:x $1,155 TOTAL (30-60) XJOOOOO( $82,202 x:xxxxxx $71,025 lxxxxxxx $84,862 XXXXXXX $\"6-,716 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 43.1 $1,297,460 I 40.1 $1,338,903 40.1 $1,302,681 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $48,935 xxxxxx:x $41 ,553 xx:xxxxx 551,892 lxx:xxxxx $63,184 GRAND TOTAL XlOOOOO( $1,335,649 XlOOOOO( $1,339,013 IXXXXXXX $1,390,795 xxxxxxx $1,365,865 iHf\nl! r~~~ ,. ... ,,,: .. }\\.\\L.  \"'''' lo-\u0026lt; \u0026gt; ., , .. \\.,. ..... \u0026lt; (} 1991-92 1992-93 I 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 $61,280 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1,305 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 $129 Special Education $360 $187 $348 $348 )0()()()()( )0()()()()( )0()()()()( xxxxxx Total Line Items $48,935 $41,553 $51,892 $63,184 Per Pupil Cost 199i,-92 1992-93- 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 328.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 $1,365,865 PerPupH Cost _::,. $3,933 $4,070 $4,21 .4 $4,164 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2)\" 1991-9 Actual 1992-9' Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted MANN Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 1.0 $64,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $143,289 3.0 $148,979 3.0 $150,013 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 3.6 $129,650 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 s109,509 I 3.0 $111,241 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41,729 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Pert./Prod. 07 Music I 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.o I $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 I S208,475 I 5.6 $214,772 10 Special Education 1.3 I $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 1.3 I $49,958 I 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 46.8 $1,514,011 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 $36,135 14 Other - TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 : 65.3 $2,311,765 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 4.0 $65,214 4.0\n$67,206 4.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 , 6.0 $71,195 6.0 S69,490 I 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 I I 19, Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 S21,650 1.0 S22,947 1.0 i $25,656 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $46,693 2.4 $37,142 2.4: $35,982 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $275,853 xxxxxxx $292,062 .lOOOOO(X S296,293 xxxxxxx $298,108 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 15.5 $525,462 14.4 $526,829 14.4 $528,801 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $2,697,653 xxxxxxx $2,584,578 XlOOOOO( S2,805,067 xxxxx:xx $2,840,566 PURCHASED 22: Utilities xxxxxxx $164,666 XlOOCOOC $137,280 XlOOOCJO( $168,667 XXlOOOOC $177,221 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx: $11,214 xxxxxx:x $11,438 JOOOOOO( S10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOCX lOOOOOO( lOOOOOCX xxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxx $48,887 x:xxxxxx $35,464 xxxxxxx $36,175 xxxxxxx $27,300 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxxx $213,554 xx:xxxxx $183,959 .lOOOOOCX. S216,280 xx:xxxxx $214,521 MATERIALS, 261Principal's Office xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx lxxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXlOOCXX $76,512 xxxxxxx $63,984 XXlOOOO( $65,265 XXlOOOOC $49,168 (40) 28 Media XXXXlOOC $10,301 xxxxxxx $9,352 xxxxxxx $9,540 lxxxxxxx .$15,700 291Other XXlOOOOC xxxxxxx: $2,172 XJOOOOO( $2,215 XXlOOOOC $4,000 TOTAL (40) XlOOOOO( $86,813 )000000( $75,508 XlOOOOO( $77,020 IXlOOCXXX $68,868 CAPITAL 30 Equipment I lOOOOOCX $26,417 lOOCOOO( $17,579 lOOCOOO( $17,930 IXXXXXXX $27,300 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. lxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx lOOOOCXX (50) 321Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx. xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) l.xxxxxxx $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 xxxxxxx $27,300 OTHER 331 Dues and Fees JOOOOOO( $1,470 XXXXlOO( $1,377 XXXXlOO( $1,405 xxxxxxx $4,500 (60) 34 Other :xxxxxxx xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) :xxxxxxx $1,470 XlOOOOO( $1,377 XlOOOOCX $1,405 XXXXlOO( $4,500 TOTAL (30-60) XlOOOOCX $328,253 XlOOOOO( $278,422 xxxxxxx $312,635 xxxxxxx $315,189 TOTAL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 79.8 $2,863,000 79.7 $3,117,702 79.7 $3,155,755 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) lOOOOCXX $143,218 x:xxxxxx $137,573 lOOOOCXX S172,083 xxxxxxx $205,272 GRANDTOTAL xxxxxxx. $3,169,124 xxxxxxx $3,000,573 xxxxxxx $3,289,785 xx:xxxx:x. $3,361,027 Una ltem ,Costs  . ?t ){\\:\n::-:-:-\n-\n-::::: .. :_.::::\n:: .. ::-:.:   ... .\n:\n....... [ \\,:. ....... ii.  ~:-\n://\\[ \\:\n? . ))\\:\n::: i??:::- .  1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 $165,342 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 $3,450 Reading $1,209 $115 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 $920 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $143,218 $137,573 $172,083 $205,272 Per Pupil Cost 1991-92 :- 1992:-S{L 1993-94/ 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 885.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 $3,361,027 Per PupH Cost  $3,694 .. $3,588 $3~760 $3,798 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9, Actual 1992-9c Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9: Budgeted Parl\u0026lt;Vlew Magnet School F.T.E, Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F,T,E. Salaries F.T,E. Salartes CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 S61,371 1.0 $62,517 1.0 $64,582 1.0 SSS,747 STAFF 02 Asst. Pnn. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $119,256 3.0 $152,394 3.0 S153,428 03 Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $221,882 9.8 $283,232 9.8 $311,985 04 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $118.446 3.0 I S123,123 3.0. S129,966 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $33,013 1.0 $34,026 1.0 $34,026 06 Art-Pert./Prod. 07 Music I 08 Foreign Lang. I 09 Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $302,605 7.0 S283,945 7.0 $268,642 10 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $51,899 1.5 $63,868 ! 1.5 S53,457 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,370,962 39.6 $1,393,800 39.6 $1,529,341 13 Substitutes $42,409 $49,179 $51,640 $51,640 14 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 ~40,670 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,490,483 66.6 $2,369,244 66.9 $2,491,279 66.9 $2,638,902 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $123,490 6.0 s126,650 I 6.0 S128,807 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $18,790 0.6 $19,227 0.6 $19,415 17 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $113.791 8.0 $119,039 8.0 $~ '9,819 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $122,263 5.0 $134,692 5.0 $113,507 20 Other-Aides I 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $14,005 2.0 S30,125 2.0 $22,493 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XJOOOOO( $321,375 IXXXXXXX $346,012 lOOOOOCX $335,564 xxxxxxx: $347,835 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $670,853 21.6 S738,351 I 21.6 $765,297 ' 21.6 $751,876 TOTAL (10-20) :xxxxxxx $3,161,336 XXXXlOOC $3,107,595 xxxxxxx $3,256,576 XXXJOOOC $3,390,778 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $208,483 )000000( $179,513 xxxxxx:x: $185,462 xxxxxxx $183,100 SERVICES 231Travel xxxxxxx XXXXlOO( xxxxxx:x: xxxxxxx $1,500 (30) 24 Ma:ntenance Agreements lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x 25 Other lOOOOOO( $39,092 xxxxxxx $18,792 lOOOOOO( $19,170 xxxxxxx $14,750 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $247,575 xxxxxxx $198,305 lOOOOOCX $204,632 xxxxxxx S199,350 MATERIALS, 261 Principal's Office lOOOOOCX IXXXXXXX lxxxxxxx lxx:xxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $87,767 xxxxxxx $92,439 jXlOOOOOC $94,288 xxxxxxx 0 33, 173 (40) 28 Media !xxxxxxx $16,883 xxxxxxx $13,753 XlOOOCXX $14,028 xxxxxxx $7,642 29 Other xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx $3,136 xxxxxxx $3,200 xxxxxxx S6,100 I TOTAL (40) XXlOOCXX $104,650 xxxxxxx $109,327 xxxxxxx $111,516 xxxxxxx $111,915 CAPITAL 301 Equipment xxxxxxx $37,950 lQOOOOO( $23,092 lQOOOOO( $23,554 lOOOOOOC $16,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx llOOOOOCX (50) 321Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx lOCXXXXX lxxxxxxx I TOTAL (50) XJOOOOO( $37,950 xxxxxxx $23,092 !XlOOOOCX $23,554 xx:xxxxx. $16,000 OTHER 331 Dues and Fees :xxxxxxx $3,496 XXJOOOO( S5.809 booooooc $5,925 xxxxxxx S5,000 (60) 34 Other XXXXlOOC xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxxx $3,496 xxxxxxx SS,809 xxxxxxx $5,925 xxxxxxx $5,000 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $393,671 xxxxxxx $336,534 xxxxxxx $345,627 xxxxxxx $332,265 TOTAL (10-60) 90.8 53,555,007 88.2 $3,444,128 88.5 53,602,203 I 88.5 $3,723,043 TOTAL LINE lliEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $158,509 xxxxxxx $135.955 lOOOOOO( $167,720 lxxxxxxx s::J1 ,123 I GRANDTOTAL lOOOOOO( $3,713.516 xx:xx:xxx $3,580,083 lOOOOOO( $3,769,923 x:xxxxxx $3,924,166 Line ltle?}y~tt_,ff [i/}\n\u0026gt;    ct\"'\"'\"' -- --- C\u0026lt; t 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,353 $1,425 $1,425 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $105,548 $131,007 $164,410 Vocational $17,696 $14,932 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $22,029 $13,884 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant SeNices $4,071 $232 $3,420 $3,420 Reading $1,182 $114 $114 Science English $520 ($473) $342 $342 Special Education $876 $479 $912 $912 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $158,509 $135,955 $167,720 $201,123 PerPupH Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 848.3 870.0 880.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,580,083 $3,769,923 $3,924,166 Per Pupil Cost   ... :--:e $4,434 $4,220 $4,333 $4,459 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9, Actual 1992-9: Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted Willfams Magnet School ,,,. F.T.E. Salaries F,T,E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 1.0 $65,081 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 1.0 $39,965 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 5.0 $179,381 04 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 1.4 $47,686 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 1.0 $37,301 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 , 21.0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 20.0 $667,841 10 Spacial Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $27,792 I 1.1 $28,595 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 2.0 $71,664 12 Chapter 1 I 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 3.0 $113,639 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 36.9 $1,183,042 I 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,233,533 i 35.5 $1,267,153 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 2.6 $30,108 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 1.0 $34,467 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 3.5 $51,453 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 I 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $32,748 9.0 $54,985 9.0 $45,596 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxxx $158,584 xx:xxxxx: $171,101 XlOOOOO( $166,399 XlOOOOO( $176,381 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 16.1 I $338,005 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,496,470 xxxxxxx $1,465,402 xxxxxxx $1,580,155 xxxxxxx $1,605,158 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XlOOOOO{ $42,968 xxxxxxx $38,623 XlOOOOOC S48. 682 ,xxxxxxx $57,280 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxx:x )000000( $3,793 JOOOOOO( $3,870 XlOOOOCX $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOCOOO( j)O()()QOO( lOOCOOO( lOOOOOO\u0026lt; 25 Other lOOOOO()C $16,259 XX:XXXXX $16,400 xxxxxx:x $16,728 xxxxxxx $8,000 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx ss9,227 !xxxxxxx $58,816 lOOOOOO( $69,280 lxxxxxxx S70,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx: !XXXXXXX xx:xxxxx I xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XXlOOOOC $44, 4 77 I XXXXJ00C $38,631 lxxxxxxx S39,405 lxxxxxxx $31,698 (40) 281Media )000000( $6,976\nXXXXXXX $6,234 IXXXXXXX $6,360 xxxxxxx $11,000 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $1,475 xxxxxxx s1 ,505 lxxxxxxx $2,200 TOTAL (40) . xxxxxxx $51,454 XlOOOOCX $46,341 JOOOOOO( $47,270 lxxxxxxx $44,898 CAPITAL 30 Equipment lOOOOOO( $14,984 lxxxxxxx $25,034 lOOOOOO( $25,535 xxxxx:xx $22,700 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. lOOCOOO( lxx:xxxxx lOOCOOO( xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other lOOOOOO( fJOOOOOO( lxxxxxxx lxxxxxxx I TOTAL (50) lOOOOOO( $14,984 lxxxxxxx $25,034 XlOOOOO( $25,535 xxxxxxx $22.700 OTHER 331Dues and Fees lxxxxxxx $535 xxxxxxx $190 XXlOOCXX $195 XlOOOOO( $2.000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxx:xx $535 xxxxxxx $190 xxxxx:xx s 195 lxxxxxx:x $2,000 -- TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxx:x $126,200 xxxxxxx $130,381 xxxxxx:x $142,280 XX)(J()OO( $139,878 TOTAL (10-60) 52.4 s1 ,622,669 I 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 s1 ,722,435 I 51.6 $1,745,036 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxx:xx $ 71 , 665 I )0()00()0( $60,881 xxxxxxx $78,563 lxxxxxxx $104,748 GRAND TOTAL lOOOOOO( $1,694,335 x:x:x:xxxx $1,656,664 lOOOOCXX $1,800,998 xxxxxxx $1,849,784  .. ..:,,:,_,:.\n-:-.-:-::-:,:-:-:-:-::::- 1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i,i ...   ,, )(}{(}\\ 1,?:,:xrt :tt ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,i,,,,,,,,,,,,,:-,,,,:,:,:,,, ri@rnrn At ,t t\ni:-:.. .. ..., -:-:-:.\n.:\n:\n:,\n:\n:\n: -:-:-::\n1991-92 1992-93 1993 94 1994-95 Stipends $1,537 $1 ,614 $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 $91,920 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $71,665 $60,881 $78,563 $104,748 P~d B@ff .~tt tr %$.$:1S~ittI : J $$.~A/$ll \\ %$.$$..${  1$$.{@~m 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 473.3 492.0 492.0 Total Costs $1 ,694,335 $1,656,664 $1 ,800,998 $1,849,784 iii.$#P0Pff\\:zj :9 t,rn.:nt lHlt {~M  $.:$\n$0.PH : :}J$.M$'t $$)1Pi' .  Received from Mc::rk J LRSD 10/4/94 t 1,~1,1\n!di u- ... '\"'\"'\"'\" m@1ijg1~.z\nr:: J],:(992~)] HW1e9$,494I:rn t1I:1~$~ifb' :m:@1194fe$% W) ~MA'.GNSt::$.18P.Ot\n$@lNff:m\n: JtA-mW::r:::: IJJ:AWfflIIt lMW$tU'~t:n1r :::t@!Atfflftt 1ttiii.Wie-t@it CERTIFIED 01 Principal $346,537 $357,193 $367,176 $375,279 $370,669 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. $456,057 $438,462 $479,729 $433,972 $478,891 03 Specialists $1,274,519 $1,078,799 $1,207,341 $1,211,895 $1,290,162 04 Counselors $444,641 $356,314 $431,093 $405,435 $457,554 05 Media Spec. $218,210 $222,455 $233,751 $224,104 $238,592 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational $507,273 $489,335 $492,420 $483,977 $483,414 10 Special Education $248,275 $245,166 $276,790 $282,681 $285,726 11 Gifted $163,550 $159,822 $174,623 $158,016 $191,740 12 Classroom $5,308,868 $5,354,901 $5,689,340 $5,377,867 $5,816,001 13 Substitutes $153,813 $147,417 $154,925 $182,975 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten $407,561 $426,571 $448,634 $448,552 $457,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY $9,529,304 $9,276,435 $9,955,822 $9,584,753 $10,225,141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries $301,141 $355,081 $353,310 $360,333 $335,238 STAFF 16 Nurses $148,859 $148,996 $154,424 $156,152 $159,150 17 Custodians $346,330 $335,694 $372,625 $360,957 $375,432 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $108,103 $143,913 $157,639 $122,210 $139,163 20 Other-Aides $316,035 $256,806 $311,683 $237,662 $292,027 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $1,254,324 $1,366,607 $1,342,873 $1,213,301 $1,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY $2,474,792 $2,607,097 $2,692,554 $2,450,615 $2,684,040 TOT AL (10-20) $12,004,096 $11,883,532 $12,648,376 $12,035,368 $12,909,181 PURCHASE 22 Utilities $601,780 $507,373 $598,926 $598,876 $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel $33,980 $31,215 $20,580 $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $166,508 $92,n2 $99,428 $119,669 $74,250 TOTAL (30) $768,288 $634,125 $729,569 $739,125 $727,223 MATERIALS 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $343,433 $309,128 $315,284 $328,856 $302,337 (40) 28 Media $56,509 $53,842 $54,884 $34,2n $57,242 29 Other $11,647 $11,856 $18,873 $19,510 TOTAL(40) $399,942 $374,617 $382,024 $382,006 $379,0~9 CAPITAL ~o Equipment $111,824 $106,283 $104,215 $67,029 $93,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. (50) ~2 Other TOTAL (50) $111,824 $106,283 $104,215 $67,029 $93,646 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees $8,358 $12,416 $12,665 $13,017 $15,655 (60) 134 Other TOTAL (60) $8,358 $12,416 $12,665 $13,017 $15,655 TOT AL (30-60) $1,288,412 $1,127,441 $1,228,473 $1,201,1n $1,215,613 TOT AL (10-60) $13,292,508 $13,010,969 $13,876,849 $13,236,545 $14,124,794 TOTAL LINE I rEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $595,333 $537,465 $677,821 $413,629 $827,741 GRAND TOTAL $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $13,650,174 $14,952,535 \"' 1881+92  1992,.,,93'J \". 1$3~  :::: :/ 1~+\u0026lt;  1(X\u0026gt;4\"'95 ' Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Stipends $19,871 $20,739 $16,269 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $348,726 $716,116 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $17,222 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $28,627 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science English $2,368 {$2,058) $1,500 $1 ,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 $2,785 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $6TT,821 $413,629 $827,741 Per PuOil cost , ., 1991~ ./1992~ I\u0026lt; 1993-94 ., 19$3--94 1$94\n.95 3rd Otr. ADM or ProJ. 3TT1 .8 3679.6 3807.0 3570.5 3833 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $13,650,174 $14,952,535 P Puon Cost  $3,682. $3,882 \u0026gt; $3,823 .....\n$3,823 $3,901 lOOt495.IBu ldl tifQtitt iirnmn\nm\n:wmn:rnnrnm:J@t: ::trn:1~nf~r:t tikil~4.8.$:\n\n @t:1~$4~\\?I\nw1\n~1 JMl~448'\u0026amp;\u0026lt; !UIIIR!f ~P. a::MA.G.NSW:!$.CBP.PCSmrtrnm- tWWWMttti ttfrAWffl.ilJFI ltWS.Ua?.ffi.tIJ t rn:@Aijrointrn rmtatr CERTIFIED C Principal $346,537 $357,193 $367,176 $375,279 $370,669  STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. $456,057 $438,462 $479,729 $433,972 $478,891 03 Specialists $1,274,519 $1,078,799 $1,207,341 $1,211,895 $1,290,162 04 Counselors $444,641 $356,314 $431,093 $405,435 $457,554 05 Media Spec. $218,210 $222,455 $233,751 $224,104 $238,592 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational $507,273 $489,335 $492,420 $483,977 $483,414 10 Special Education $248,275 $245,166 $276,790 $282,681 $285,726 11 Gifted $163,550 $159,822 $174,623 $158,016 $191,740 12 Classroom $5,308,868 $5,354,901 $5,689,340 $5,377,867 $5,816,001 13 Substitutes $153,813 $147,417 $154,925 $182,975 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten $407,561 $426,571 $448,634 $448,552 $457,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY $9,529,304 $9,276,435 $9,955,822 $9,584,753 $10,225,141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries $301,141 $355,081 $353,310 $360,333 $335,238 STAFF 16 Nurses $148,859 $148,996 $154,424 $156,152 $159,150 17 Custodians $346,330 $335,694 $372,625 $360,957 $375,432 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other $108,103 $143,913 $157,639 $122,210 $139,163 20 Other-Aides $316,035 $256,806 $311,683 $237,662 $292,027 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $1,254,324 $1,366,607 $1,342,873 $1,213,301 $1,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY $2,474,792 $2,607,097 $2,692,554 $2,450,615 $2,684,040 TOT AL (10-20) $12,004,096 $11,883,532 $12,648,376 $12,035,368 $12,909,181 ~URCHASE 22 Utilities $601,780 $507,373 $598,926 $598,876 $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel $33,980 $31,215 $20,580 $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $166,508 $92,772 $99,428 $119,669 $74,250 TOTAL (30) $768,288 $634,125 $729,569 $739,125 $727,223 MATERIALS 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Reaular Classroom $343,433 $309,128 $315,284 $328,856 $302,337 (40) 28 Media $56,509 $53,842 $54,884 $34,277 $57,242 29 Other $11,647 $11 ,856 $18,873 $19,510 TOTAL(40) $399,942 $374,617 $382,024 $382,006 $379,089 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $111,824 $106,283 $104,215 $67,029 $93,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL(SO) $111,824 $106,283 $104,215 $67,029 $93,646 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees $8,358 $12,416 $12,665 $13,017 $15,655 (60) 34 Other TOTAL(60) $8,358 $12,416 $12,665 $13,017 $15,655 TOT AL (30-60) $1,288,412 $1,127,441 $1,228,473 $1,201,177 $1,215,613 TOT AL (10-60) $13,292,508 $13,010,969 $13,876,849 $13,236,545 $14,124,794 TOTAL LINE I .. EMS - (SECOND PAGE) $595,333 $537,465 $677,821 $413,629 $827,741 GRAND TOTAL $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $13,650,174 $14,952,535 MfMllt!ill1iiil:l:1 :1111\n!i:11::!:1:i:::Wrt ih~ \u0026lt; .\nAqt~at., ... $.2-:~ ,.?. Actu~n:. ~~ ::Bwg~t~\\ \u0026lt;,AcN\nnp\n:: .$4 .. ~ J3\\tdg~t$\u0026lt;i . fl\n1\\E . Sa.tart\" F,:f.E. $a.larles  tt\nt.E t$alarles.   \u0026gt; .sa11rtest f/f,E  sa1arles CERTIFIED 01 Prlnclpal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 $54,600 1.0 $55,764 STAFF 2 Asst. Prln. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 $52,028 1.0 $52,103 03 Speclallsts 6.0 $350,341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 $253,810 7.0 $254,900 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 $79,221 2.0 $65,200 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 $37,012 1.0 $37,836 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 7 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31.2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 $907,324 30.2 $963,879 10 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 $51,124 1.3 $64,015 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 $24,191 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 $120,022 4.0 $123,234 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 $1,615,405 48.5 $1,673,807 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 $46,344 2.0 $31,932 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 $27,301 1.0 $28,104 17 Custodians 4.0 $44,176 4.0 $42,176 4.0 $47,081 $44,290 4.0 $52,400 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $64,657 7.0 $75,718 $37,000 7.0 $62,731 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOI $201,247 )()O()(i $225,867 x:xxxx $215,438 $198,345 lOOOOt $222,697 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.0 $373,998 15.0 $388,766 14.0 $396,712 $353,280 14.0 $397,864 TOTAL (10-20) )(X)()(X $1,890,430 'XXXlOI $1,942,422 lOOOOI $2,006,780 $1,968,685 XXXlOI $2,071,671 PURCHASEC 22 Utilities lOOOa $81,637 XXXXll $71,492 xxxxx $87,854 $75,676 xxxxx $84,115 SERVICES 23 Travel lOOOOC lOOOOI $4,654 ~ $5,000 $4,939 )0000( $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XXX\u0026gt;O\u0026lt; XXlOO( X)OO()( \u0026gt;OOOOC 25 Other ~ $27,963 .XXX)O( $4,895 XXlOOI $4,800 $13,548 )0000( $9,500 TOTAL(30) X,000 $109,600 )OOO()C $81,041 ,)O(JO(X $97,654 $94,163 xioooc $98,615 MATERIALS, l2tl Prlnclpal's Office lOO(l0I XlOOOi )()Q00C llOOQ()I SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom ll(X)(I()( $53,613 XXlOO( $37,774 xxxxx $38,500 $44,436 XXlOO( $34,900 (40) 28 Media XXXIOi $4,698 ~ $4,743 ~ $4,800 $5,380 )000()( $4,800 2S Other JOOCO( XXXlOI $1,255 XlOQ0 $1,255 $2,624 ~ $1,255 TOTAL(40) l)'.)Q()OC $58,311 ilOOl'.X)( $43,772 )CQ(X)I $44,555 $52,440 .X)O(l,() $40,955 CAPITAL 30 Equipment l\u0026gt;OOOOC $6,377 iiOOOO( $10,090 llOOOQI $6,100 $12,832 !XXlOO\u0026lt; $6,000 OlJTI.AY 31 Building Repair, etc. )l)(l(IO( iXXiOO\u0026lt; ~ llOOOOC (Su) 32 Other xxxoc llOOOOC ~ !xxiooc TOTAL(50) llOOC cc $6,377 IX:XXXX $10,090 XXXl(X $6,100 $12,832 Xl000( $6,000 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees XX\u0026gt;00C XXXXll XXXICX )0()0()( (60) 134 Other lOOOOI booooc )OOO(X )(X)QOi TOTAL(60) IXXXlCC XlOOOC !XlOO(ii )0000( TOTAL (30-60) llOOOOC $174,288 i)QOOO( $134,903 lOOOO( $148,309 $159,435 llOOOOC $145,570 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,064,717 62.9 $2,077,325 62.5 $2,155,089 $2,i28,120 62.5 $2,217,241 TOTAL LINEn EMS- (SECOND PAGE) XlOOOC $88,028 XXlOOC $75,446 IXXlOOI $99,618 $59,394 llOOOOC $122,300 GRANDTOTAL Xl000C '2,152,746 lxxm $2.152.771 XXl00( ~.707 $2.187.$14 Xl000C 42,339,54() . ,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. ,.,.,., . .,., .:\n:r:,m:1~\\irl?=hi f:::,\n,,,,,,i'i:C,:\u0026lt;\u0026lt;.\n::::c?'''' 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,500 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 $57,435 $118,637 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 $459 $668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $88,028 $75,446 $99,618 $59,394 $122,300 3rd atr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 588.0 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,TT1 $2,254,707 $2,187,514 $2,339,540 ~!~~r~,-~:1\n1~:!~\niiilll!l::::::::::\ntc::i .n:::.gi :t!,ct:ua1 :::t i.a\n.~ ,r tictuaJ-'\u0026lt;l: 93:-~ .. J,wQoetedJ . \" AWa.l Ji $4~ f Pg~.  fi'r,E $alal't:G$' f/~1\\E Saladtw'=' fl't'.E $alal't8$ .Satlftes. F.T.e }Salarres. CERTIFIED 01 Prlnclpal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 1.0 $59,423 $67,263 1.0 $60,587 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 1.0 $42,422 $41,640 1.0 $43,417 03 Speclallsts 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 8.0 $236,265 $245,103 8.0 $251,547 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 2.0 $60,101 $45,473 2.0 $62,791 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $42,474 1.5 $43,532 1.5 $46,074 $47,207 1.5 $48,443 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 24.3 $690,189 $581,394 24.3 $674,007 10 Special Education 1.0 $27,907 1.0 $30,734 1.0 $32,460 $33,001 1.0 $33,805 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 1.4 $34,246 $47,830 1.4 $48,954 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 $17,150 $12,271 $17,150 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 4.0 $117,132 $117,112 4.0 $120,344 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.5 $1,183,059 41.1 $1,164,768 44.2 $1,335,462 $1,238,294 44.2 $1,361,045 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 3.0 $67,824 $60,742 3.0 $54,572 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 1.0 $31,250 $31,556 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 4.0 $42,645 $43,531 4.0 $42,467 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $71,921 11.0 $76,016 $75,921 11.0 $91,426 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxri $167,825 iXXXlOC $190,533 IXXXXll $192,561 $171,444 XlOOOC $203,173 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 19.0 $410,297 $383,194 19.0 $423,997 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxx $1,553,693 xxxxx $1,557,097 xxxxx $1,745,758 $1,621,488 xxxxx $1,785,042 r\u0026gt;URCHASED 22 Utllltles iooocx $68,924 i'ICXJO(X $53,586 lOOOOC $69,730 $66,973 XXiooc $75,965 SERVICES 23 Travel i)OOOO( l\u0026gt;OOOOC $12,253 lOOQOj $12,500 $8,464 xxxri $9,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements !XiOOoc XXlOO( IXXl00C )(X)()O( 25 Other I~ $22,843 ~ nx $9,911 lxxiooc $10,100 $13,840 )(XXl()( $10,700 TOTAL(30) llOOcol $91,767 IXlC iOO( $75,750 IXXlOOC $92,330 $89,2n xxxxx $95,665 MATERIALS, 26 Prlnclpal's Office XXlOOC IXX)O()( lOOOO IXXXlOC SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classl'oom XXXIO! $55,638 IXXX\u0026gt;O! $52,759 )(X)()(X $53,814 $54,466 i)O(l()()C $63,330 (40) 28 Media XXXl0( $11,410 XXXiCX $13,271 xxxn $13,536 $5,356 lxxxxic $11,500 29 Other IXXXlD IOOOOC $2,593 xxm $2,645 $3,498 IXXlOOC $3,500 TOTAL(40) lioc:iooc $67,048 l0000 $68,623 ~xxxx $69,995 t63,320 xxxxx $78,330 CAPITAL 30 Equipment llOOOO $22,128 0000 $27,894 ~~ $28,450 $19,490 XXXl0I $19,000 OlJnAY 31 Building Repair, etc. IXXx\u0026gt;Oi ooo6c x\u0026gt;006c )(XXl0I (50) 32 Other llOOOOC 0000 XXlCCII xiOOO( TOTAL(50) IXlOOOC $22,128 XlOOOI $27,894 IOOOOI $28,450 $19,490 xioooi $19,000 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees XXXl0I $2,857 :m:iol $3,908 )(XXl0 $3,985 $5,643 l0000( $3,000 (60) 134 Other \u0026gt;CXXla. iOOoo iooo6 lOOOOC TOTAL(60) XlOOOC $2,857 l0000 $3,908 iXXXxX $3,985 $5,643 ~ $3,000 TOTAL (30-60) l0000C $183,800 Xl000C $176,174 00000( $194,760 s1n,130 moo $195,995 TOT AL (10-60) 61.5 $1,737,493 60.1 $1,733,271 63.2 $1,940,518 $1,799,218 63.2 $1,981,037 TOTAL LINEn EMS - (SECOND PAGE) :xxxx,c $84,978 ~ $86,058 IXXX)QI $107,945 $64,923 xxm $131,114 GAANOTOTAL XXlOCX $1,822.71 XXlOCX $1 819.329 xxxxx S2.. 048.\"6.1 $1,864,1 1 lQXXX $2.112.151 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, =\\.=}\\,,.{ .. ,.,.,. '''\"-\"',,,,,,,,,,,, 1992-93 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 $6,044 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 $58,412 $114,527 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 $82 Science English $380 ($329) $239 $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 $467 $636 xxxxxx lOOOOO( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $84,978 $86,058 $107,945 $64,923 $131,114 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.0 597.9 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 $1 ,864,141 $2,112,151 ~l~~t~lliiili!111i!lllllr'Ii tJ1~ A.ct:uar \u0026lt; t,~\n.~ /.Actt1~Ui tJ3 .. 9\u0026lt;1 8uqg~t$(j) :~a1::\u0026lt; $t-i! 8udgei\nI  -rl't.E Satarres fl'\n,t,E Satarfes . .fl'/f,E \\'Salaffiw., Satarteis: t .r:.r.a :aa1artes: CERTIFIED 1 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,234 $59,233 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 1.0 $45,000 1.0 $39,965 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $160,752 5.8 $158,107 $127,098 5.8 $162,699 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,433 $38,684 1.0 $39,257 06 Art-Perl./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $507,851 $462,587 15.0 $466,921 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 $70,319 1.5 $55,896 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 $33,443 1.0 $34,246 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 $11,733 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 $57,912 2.0 $59,580 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $961,411 31.3 $985,841 29.3 $1,007,242 $901,679 29.3 $972,468 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 $15,692 1.4 $22,613 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $11,304 0.8 $11,530 $11,856 0.8 $12,446 17 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $33,776 3.0 $39,012 $39,012 3.0 $39,803 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 $33,307 5.6 $33,799 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) xxxicx $129,439 \u0026gt;000CX $141,032 XXXlCX $136,618 $114,688 lOOOOI $134,836 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11.8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 $21-4,555 10.8 $243,497 TOTAL (10-20) i'xx)6(l $1,204,513 )(x,()O( $1,226,435 )OOO(X $1,254,041 $1,116,234 XXlOOI $1,215,965 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XioOc' $35,102 xx,ooc $26,879 XlOOO $38,531 $35,582 xxiooi $41,385 SERVICES 23 Travel X)OOO \u0026gt;0000( $2,066 )0000 $3,-407 XXXlOC $3,407 (30) 124 Maintenance Agreements X)(X)O( XXX)0( )O(l()Q XXX\u0026gt;CX 125 Other )CXlClOC $11,-464 XXxiOc $7,309 )ll(l(:)()I $7,455 $6,591 xxxxx $4,000 TOTAL(30) )OOOOc $46,566 XXXX)I $36,254 XJCl\u0026amp;)i $49,393 $42,173 )(XiOo( $48,792 MATERIALS, 26 Prlnclpal's Ofllce 'xioool XXlOO( )000()( .)0000! SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom m:ri: $25,426 l0000( $23,5-41 )(X)O(X $24,012 $20,882 .XXlOO( $25,068 (40) 28 Media )(X)00 $6,2-41 ~ $6,-489 )(X)OQ $6,620 $3,934 .X)OOO( $6,600 29 Other l0000I )0000( $1,016 lOOOO( $1,036 $1,397 X).:xx)( $2,455 TOTAL(-40) xxxx,c $31,667 1,POOOI $31,046 oooooc $31,668 $26,213 lOOOOI $34,123 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXlQO( $3,968 l,oooQC $2,594 )!)()()I) $2,646 $1,312 ~ $2,646 Olffi.AY 31 Building Repair, etc. )()000 IXXlOQI cI C))( XXXiOi (50) 32 Other lOOcc iOOOOI )OC )OOI XlOOOI TOTAL(50) l(l0(lC $3,968 )OO(l0I $2,594 xxxxx $2,646 $1,312 XlOOOC $2,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )(X)(l()( )(X)(l()( $1,132 iXXXl()I $1,155 $215 .X)(l()QC $1,155 (60) 134 Other :i(XXl(X )(X)()(l( )al()(): iooo( TOTAL(60) XXlOOc $0 l0000( $1,132 ilOcXioi $1,155 $215 i)()OOO\n$1,155 TOTAL (30-60) !lOOOOC $82,202 l)(l000( $71,025 ilOOOOC $84,862 $69,913 !)Q000C $86,716 TOTAL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 -43.1 $1,297,-460 40.1 $1,338,903 $1,186,147 40.1 $1,302,681 TOTAL LINE r rEMS - (SECOND PAGE) XXXlOI $48,935 I~ $41,553 l0000C $51,892 $29,105 XXXl0I $63,184 ,,., GRANDTOTAL .Xl6ooc $1,335,649 l0000C $1,339,013 X)OO(X $1,390,795 11,215,252 l0000( $1,365,865 1993-94 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 $28,874 $61 ,280 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1 ,305 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 $129 Speclal Education $360 $187 $348 $231 $348 lOOOOCX lOOOOCX lOOOOCX lOOOOCX Total Line Items $48,935 $41,553 $51 ,892 $29,105 $63,184 P.tf ~IU1.t1MM!ht@lM J$i1'{$.Z@lf@ J~~t::mt J~ttif Jfflil@ifaf@. J~,t?ti 3rd atr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 295.7 328.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 $1,215,252 $1,365,865 fi(fflffilt.~tiiM@WlMf M%Wt:D.mmr mmwMtJt()(: ,\n@Mtlliliit: iMM~ iMI\\' t#i@tlU1t9.f f fflij!fff ~~ t JM1.tlft!i@ t $.i!/Ul~tl f\\T~i : f@~l.it:l~ J CERTIFIED 01 Principal $65,081 1.0 $65,081 STAFF ~0-::12--:--Ass-t.--::P-,ri_n_------+---,--+-----,--,-+---+--:-:--:--:-+--,-+-----+---$3_8_,9_3_1-+---1.-0+--$-39~,9-65------1 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 $173,230 5.0 $179,381 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 $45,279 1.4 $47,686 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 $25,446 1.0 $37,301 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21 .0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 $630,446 20.0 $667,841 1 O Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $27,792 $25,764 1. 1 $28,595 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 $40,670 2.0 $71,664 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 $17,314 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 $112,836 3.0 $113,639 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 36.9 $1,183,042 35.9 $1 ,143,808 35.5 $1 ,233,533 $1 ,174,997 35.5 $1 ,267,153 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 $27,786 2.6 $30,108 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 $33,664 1.0 $34,467 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 $44,866 3.5 $51,453 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $32,748 9.0 $54,985 $37,175 9.0 $45,596 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOC $158,584 ~ $171,101 ~ $166,399 $147,956 ~  $176,381 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 $291 ,447 16.1 $338,005 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $1,496,470 \u0026lt;: :li)( $1,465,402 kX ~ $1,580,155 $1,M\u0026gt;6,4 ~ $1,605,158 bURCHASEC 22 Utllltles X,000 $42,968 )00 :,di $38,623 )IX iCo( $48,682 $44,468 :XlQQ $57,280 SERVICES 23 Travel x,o\u0026amp; xxj # $3,793 IOt IOOI $3,870 $4,601 0000 $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements i~ ~ )OOOOt' :xi\u0026amp; ~ Other ~ $16,259 )OOOOI $16,400 )aiO $16,728 $9,938 ~ $8,000 TOTAL(30) xlOo6c $59,227 ~ $58,816 IO(XU $69,280 $59,007 10000 $70,280 MATERIALS,~ Prlnclpal's Office i\u0026gt;OCXl!) ,ooooc lOOO ~ XX)QO SUPPLIES ~7 Regular Classroom ii l(X) $44,477 XXM $38,631 ~ $39,405 $55,228 moOI $31,698 (40) 28 Media )C I()() $6,976 X)( 00( $6,234 ~ $6,360 $4,645 n)6Q $11,000 29 Other ic IOO ~ 00 $1,475 i6ooo $1,505 $2,095 !0000. $2,200 TOTAL(40) lOCXla $51 ,454 )(lj 00 $46,341 lOOOO $47,270 $61,968 lOOOO $44,898 CAPITAL l30 Equipment am $14,984 d 00 $25,034 )(X)O() $25,535 $6,799 ('co $22,700 OUTLAY 31 Bulldlng Repair, etc. XX)O(li ici\u0026gt;ooi ~ iiXn) (50) 132 Other lOOOO( XXXlO( \u0026gt;0000 X,000 TOTAL(50) ICl(l0C) $14,984 lO(l0t) $25,034 XXlOO $25,535 $6,799 XXXl() $22,700 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees IIXX $535 IIXX $190 ioooo $195 $720 ~ $2,000 (60) 34 Other io\u0026lt;l\u0026lt; XXXlO )l)(X)O )(XX)() TOTAL(60) [\u0026gt;0000 $535 IO(lOO $190 .XXJQCii $195 $720 )0000 $2,000 TOTAL (30-60)\nJ(lOQO $126,200 IOOOO( $130,381 XXXXll $142,280 $128,494 ~ $139,878 TOTAL (10-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,722,435 $1,594,938 51.6 $1,745,036 TOTAL LINE r \"EMS - (SECOND PAGE) )OOOOI $71,665 )00()( $60,881 ~ $78,563 $49,480 )O(l00( $104,748 c'H J GRAND'TOTAL\\.\"' )QOO(X $1~.335 xxxxx $1.~6.664 XXXiO\u0026lt;. ti.800.998' U,644,418 Xl(lOOj .$1,B\"S,784 =:@:,:ti(Jt@,f t=::it,\nt 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,537 $1 ,614 $1,676 $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 $47,427 $91,920 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 $3TT $516 lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( Total Line Items $71 ,665 $60,881 $78,563 $49,480 $104,748 f?i(fM)IP- \", .,.,  ,,., }'? tWH~ / 'J$.2~ U\\ J993\n.$4  \u0026lt; 19932$4 / \u0026lt; 1~:.\n.915 \u0026gt; 3rd Qtr. ADM or Pro]. 506.8 473.3 492.0 485.8 492.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,656,664 $1,800,998 $1.~.418 $1,849,784 1994~~ 8uqget( P(QP()~{Qf~ ~  :~ , , \" $'t .. f~ Actual  . 9,2 .. ~  AcWal 9a .. 94 ewgQtao . Actual 94~ , aw0et~F MMlN Marmtt~Q01 . . . -\n:::~:: ::::-: ::\"!~ . F.t.E Salaries F.t.E Salartes r:.t.e Satartes Sll.larl8$ f,'t.E sa1arl8$ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 $64,520 1.0 $64,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $143,289 3.0 $148,979 $148,979 3.0 $150,013 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 $111,283 3.6 $129,650 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $109,509 $69,852 3.0 $111,241 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41,729 $41,729 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $208,475 $207,954 5.6 $214,772 10 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 $49,016 1.3 $49,958 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 $1,424,850 46.8 $1,514,011 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 $71,832 $36,135 14 Other TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 $2,190,015 65.3 $2,311,765 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 4.0 $65,214 4.0 $67,206 $66,063 4.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 $32,359 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $71,195 $68,890 6.0 $69,490 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $22,947 $24,845 1.0 $25,656 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $46,693 2.4 $37,142 $42,951 2.4 $35,982 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) xx,ooc $275,853 iXXXXJC $292,062 XXJOOC $296,293 $266,922 lOOOOC $298,108 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 15.5 $525,462 14.4 $526,829 $502,030 14.4 $528,801 TOTAL (10-20) [XXXit.\"! $2,697,653 )()000( $2,584,578 [~ $2,805,067 $2,692,045 )OO(l()c $2,840,566 PURCHASED ~ Utilities XXJOOi $164,666 !lOOC\u0026gt;O! $137,280 XXiOOI $168,6e7 $162,874 lOOOOC $177,221 SERVICES 23 Travel )(X)OQC iOOoo $11,214 xxxxx $11,438 $1,266 lOOCXX $10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XXXla )(X)()(X XX)Q(X XXlOOC ~ Other ~ $48,887 lC:ioocx $35,-464 l(X)0(X $36,175 $34,819 )l)CX)OC $27,300 TOTAL(30) IXXlOOC $213,554 booooc $183,959 l0000c $216,280 $198,959 XXlOOI $214,521 MATERIALS, ~ Prlnclpal's Office )0000 Xl000C IX)(lOO( lOOOOI SUPPLIES 127 Regular Classroom IXXlOOC $76,512 IX\u0026gt;OOOC $63,984 !)0000( $65,265 $79,331 loooo $49,168 (40) 128 Media l0000I $10,301 )0000( $9,352 XXX)() $9,540 $9,547 )(XXlOI $15,700 ~ Other XXlOoc lxxxxx $2,172 XXiOO $2,215 $2,923 iOOOO( $4,000 TOTAL(40) IXiOocc $86,813 IXXlOOC $75,508 \u0026gt;000CC $77,020 $91,801 ,ooooc $68,868 CAPITAL 00 Equipment 1)()()()0 $26,417 i)(X)OOI $17,579 XXXl0I $17,930 $15,510 ~ $27,300 OlJTt.AY ~1 Building Repair, etc. )0000( XX)OQ )(XlO(X )l)000( (50) 32 Other llOOOOc )00,cJoc !XXlOOC IOOOOC TOTAL(50) IXXXXll $26,417 )Q000C $17,579 !XXJCOC $17,930 $15,510 .)000()( $27,300 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees X)(X)OI $1,'70 KXlC)0C $1,377 llOOCOC $1,405 $1,764 ,ooc\n,o: $4,500 (60) 134 Olh81' lllXX\u0026gt;OC XXlOO IXXlOOC l0tXlOt TOTAL(60) IXXXlOC $1,470 XXXlOI $1,377 IXXXXX $1,405 $1,764 lOOOOC $4,500 TOTAL (30-60) IXlOOOC $328,253 lCDOO( $278,422 xxxxx $312,635 $308,034 lOOOOC $315,189 TOTAL(10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 79.8 $2,863,000 79.7 $3,117,702 $3,000,079 79.7 $3,155,755 TOTAL LINE IT :MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxx $143,218 xxxxx $137,573 lOOOOC $172,083 $109,678 liooooc $205,272 GRA\"NOTOTAL xxxxx 13169.124 XDDDI $3,000.,573 lOOOOC SS.289/185 .:J.109.757 xxxxx $3,361,027 1994-95 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 $4,530 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 $80,835 $165,342 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 $8,890 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 $14,777 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 $3,450 Reading $1,209 $115 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 $646 $920 lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( lOOOOO( Total Line Items $143,218 $137,573 $172,083 $109,678 $205,272 3rd Qtr. ADM or Prcj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 827.8 885.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 $3,109,757 $3,361,027 re-t-IM\u0026gt;U ,,VW V  AiJ8.Jm.C. .  $:,,$If '\"'\"\"l~,'7 .,  , $3,?Sr  iJ~.~ i~~~U:~~,tgtfiflli!Ili!!~1IiFt::\" $'btJ1 /Ac.wal. 92 .... ~  Ai.Wal: $$~~  f3tJQg~tad ' \u0026lt; Aal./ (M.,,\nm ::r3woet1K1 F.T.e Salaries F.T.e Salaries r.T.E  Salaries\"'  satarl8$ ~it.ft? $alar1es: CERTIFIED 01 Prlnclpal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $62,517 1.0 $64,582 $64,582 1.0 $65,747 STAFF 02 Asst. Prln. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $119,256 3.0 $152,394 $152,394 3.0 $153,428 03 Speclallsts 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $221,882 9.8 $283,232 $301,371 9.8 $311,985 04 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $118,446 3.0 $123,123 $124,940 3.0 $129,966 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $33,013 1.0 $34,026 $34,026 1.0 $34,026 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $302,605 7.0 $283,945 $276,023 7.0 $268,642 10 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $51,899 1.5 $63,868 $53,457 1.5 $53,457 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,370,962 39.6 $1,393,800 $1,371,266 39.6 $1,529,341 13 Substitutes $42,409 $49,179 $51,640 $45,634 $51,640 14 Other-Klndergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,490,483 66.6 $2,369,244 66.9 $2,491,279 $2,464,363 66.9 $2,638,902 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $123,490 6.0 $126,650 $143,706 6.0 $128,807 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $18,790 0.6 $19,227 $19,416 0.6 $19,415 17 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $113,791 8.0 $119,039 $120,368 8.0 $119,819 18 Paraprofesslonals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofesslonals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $122,263 5.0 $134,692 $97,365 5.0 $113,507 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $14,005 2.0 $30,125 $11,308 2.0 $22,493 21 Fringe Beneflts(20) 1)0()00( $321,375 llOOOCX $346,012 )0000( $335,564 $313,946 l\u0026gt;OOOCX $347,835 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $670,853 21.6 $738,351 21.6 $765,297 $706,109 21.6 $751,876 TOTAL (10-20) :ooooc $3,161,336 XXlOO( $3,107,595 XXlOOC $3,256,576 $3,170,472 ,cx)()OI $3,390,778 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ,ooooc $208,483 XXlOOI $179,513 xxiooc $185,462 $213,303 xiOci\u0026lt;X $183,100 SERVICES 23 Travel l0000I X)OOO(' i)(l()(l()C $1,310 )OOOOC $1,500 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XXXJOc IOOOOI :,ooocx XXXX)j 25 Other XX)Q0 $39,092 l)(lOOCX $18,792 0000 $19,170 $40,933 XXioo( $14,750 TOTAL(30) xxxxx $247,575 i6oooi $198,305 ccm $204,632 $255,546 XXiooi $199,350 MATERIALS, 26 Prlnclpal's Office )()()00( .lOCXlOi [)IIOO( XlOOOI SUPPLIES ~ Regular Classroom )000()( $87,767 \u0026gt;0000( $92,439 ocooc $94,288 $74,513 !0000 $98,173 (40) ~8 Media )0000( $16,883 .)()()00( $13,753 lOOOO( $14,028 $5,415 IOOOOI $7,642 129 Other :0000 !XXJOOI $3,136 ooocxx $3,200 $6,336 )OO(lQ $6,100 TOTAL(40) XlOOOI $104,650 ixiooo: $109,327 lioooo $111,516 $86,264 l0000C $111,915 CAPITAL l30 E.Quipment )(X)00I $37,950 il000CI $23,092 IOOOC $23,554 $11,086 )(Xl00C $16,000 OUTLAY ~1 Building Repair, etc. )(l()(iQ l(X)O()( ioooc )0000( (50) ~ Other lOOOCX iXlOOOC oooooc ~ TOTAL(50) l000CI $37,950 iXlOOOC $23,092 llOOOOC $23,554 $11,086 lOOOO( $16,000 OTHER 133 Dues and Fees )OOOQI $3,496 ilOOOOC $5,809 IXXXX- $5,925 $4,675 ~ $5,000 (60) 134 Other 1)0000( :ax'iOc XXlOO( ilcx\u0026gt;ooi TOTAL(60) !)C)QC)Q $3,496 lxxx'loc $5,809 llOOC()( $5,925 S-.,675 XXXXlC $5,000 TOTAL (30-60) i\u0026gt;OQCOC $393,671 l)(X)QOC $336,534 ix\nxxxx $345,627 $357,571 llOOOO( $332,265 TOTAL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,444,128 88.5 $3,602,203 $3,528,043 88.5 $3,723,043 TOTALLINEn EMS - (SECOND PAGE) XX\u0026gt;OO( $158,509 )00()()( $135,955 XX\u0026gt;OO( $167,720 $101,049 .XXX\u0026gt;O( $201,123 GRANO TOTAL  XXXlO( 13,713,516 l0000( 13.580.083 l0000( 13,769,923 43.629,092 Xl00cX ~924,166 l1il1ru1~1ll::~ill!l::\n~ll!lll:llli!II! ~==\n~=~\n=,,,, ,,,,,,\n~=\n::\n=== ~=:\n::=,,.,,,,.,,  ~=\n:~  ~=\n::=: Stipends $1,353 $1,425 $2,519 $1,425 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $105,548 $131,007 $75,743 $164,410 Vocational $17,696 $14,932 $16,000 $8,332 $16,000 Athletics $22,029 $13,884 $14,500 $13,850 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,071 $232 $3,420 $3,420 Reading $1,182 $114 $114 Science English $520 ($473) $342 $342 Special Education $876 $479 $912 $605 $912 xxxxxx lOOOOO( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $158,509 $135,955 $167,720 $101,049 $201 ,123 3rd atr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 848.3 870.0 ns.3 880.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,580,083 $3,769,923 $3,629,092 $3,924,166 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director October 24, 1994 Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: (501) 758-0156 or.r 2 t1 1994 As a part of the agenda for its October 11, 1994 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee {MRC) re-examined the 1994-95 budget submitted to the Court on June 1, 1994. This budget issue was placed on the agenda in light of recent enrollment developments in the interdistrict magnet schools program. A calculation of the number of students enrolled as of October 1, 1994, and the number of students projected for 1994-95, shows a discrepancy of approximately 300 students. This fact may determine changes in the 1994-95 budget submission. At the MRC' s October 11, 1994 meeting, Mark Milhollen, LRSD Controller, told the MRC that he is requesting a printout of all 1994-95 FTE positions in each interdistrict magnet school. He will plug this information into the budget and present this updated information to the MRC at a special-called meeting to be announced. (The MRC intended to address this at their October 25, 1994 meeting. Due to the recent fire at Chicot and attendant insurance and school plant-related activities, Mr. Milhollen has been unable to complete this information.) This presentation by Mr. Milhollen may underscore the need for additional Per Pupil Expenditure due to a lower enrollment than was projected in the initial budget. We will apprise you. of the information we receive and the outcome of our discussion as soon as possible. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please contact our office. BA/DGC:sl . . . Magnet Review Committee 1900 orth Main Street Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (50 1) 756 0156 June 1, 1994 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: JUN 6 1994 Ollice of De greg \\ion Morntoi 1ng At its May 24, 1994 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1994-95 school year (Draft 2). The total amount budgeted, $14,952,534, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,901 per student and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,833 students. In addition, a basic step or incremental increase in staff salaries and associated fringe benefits, as well as the effects of early retirement incentives, were factored in. On May 17, 1994, Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District, came before the Magnet Review Committee with a presentation of Draft 1 of the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1994-95 school year. He explained the cost calculations to the Magnet Review Committee, and made any corrections that were deemed necessary. At this same meeting, each of the interdistrict magnet school principals (with the exception of the Gibbs principal) provided information with regard to their school's proposed budget and answered questions from the Magnet Review Committee members. After this meeting, the Magnet Review Committee representatives presented the proposed budget information to their parties in order to be prepared to vote on it at the May 24, 1994 Magnet Review Committee meeting. As noted above, the Magnet Review Committee did approve the budget at the meeting of May 24, 1994 (Draft 2 which contained any corrections from Draft 1). This approved budget represents an increase of 2.04%, or $78.00 per student. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 1, 1994 Factors which may require a further adjustment in the interdistrict magnet school program budget for the 1994-95 school year include the following: 1) The Professional Negotiated Agreement (PNA) between Little Rock School District CTA and the Little Rock School District Board is in the renegotiation process, which may impact projected salary figures\n2) The State's contribution to employees' health insurance funding is not yet determined. When this information is forthcoming, revisions may be necessary to the figures represented in this budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1994-95 interdistrict magnet schools budget attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, ~J/:t~f:m, ~hairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attnchment: 1994-95 Interdistrict Magnet School Budget (Approved Draft 2) The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -3- June 1, 1994 cc: Attorneys of Record Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Gene Wilhoit, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Henry Williams, Little Rock School District Magnet Review Committee 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9 1992-9: 1993-94 1994-9: SUMMARY FOR MAGNE:T SCHOOLS F.T.S. Actual F.T,S, Actual F.T.S. Budget F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 6.0 $370,669 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 10.0 $478,891 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 39.2 $1,290,162 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 12.4 \"'is7,554 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $218,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 6.5 $238,592 06 Art-Perl.IP rod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 12.6 $483,414 10 Special Education 7.8 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 7.7 $285,726 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 5.4 $191,740 12 Classroom 181 .4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 175.9 $5 316,001 13 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 14.0 $457,467 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 294.5 $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,955,822 289.7 $10,225,141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $353,310 19.0  335,238 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154 ,424 5.4 $159,150 17 Custodians 28.5 $346,330 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $372,625 28.5 $375,432 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,1 03 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 6.0 $139,163 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 37.0 $292,027 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXXlCXX $1,254,324 xxxxxxx $1,366,607 )()Q()()()()\u0026lt;. $1,342,873 xxxxxxx $1,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 95.9 $2,684,040 TOTAL (10-20) )OOC)(JOO( $12,004,096 XlOOOOO( $11,883,532 XlOOOOO( $12,648,376 xxxxxxx $12 909,181 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $601,780 xxxxxxx $507,373 xxxxxxx $598,926 XXXXlOO(' $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO( XXXJOOO(' $33,980 XXXJOOO(' $36,215 xxxxxxx $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOCX lOOOOOO( lOOOOOCX lOOOOOCX 25 Other X)()OO()(X $166,508 X)()OO()(X $92,772 lOOOOOO( $94,428 xxxxxxx -$74,-250 TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $768,288 .lOOOOOO( $634,125 lOOOOOO( $729,569 lOOOOOO( : 727,223 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office XXlOOCXX XXlOOCXX lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XlOOOOO( $343,433 xxxxxxx $309,128 XlOOOOO( $315 ,284 xxxxxxx $302,337 (40) 28 Media  XlOOOOO( $56,509 XlOOOOO( $53,842 XlOOOOO( $54,884 xxxxxxx $57,242 29 Other XXXXlOOC XXXXlOO( $11,647 XXXXlOO( $11 ,856 XXXXlOO(' $19,510 TOTAL (40) XXXXlOOC $399,942 X\u0026gt;0000CX $374,617 XXXXlOO( $382,024 XlOOOOO( $379,089 CAPITAL 30 Equipment lOOOOOCX $111,824 lOOOOOCX $106,283 lOOOOOCX $104 ,215 lOOOOO(X $93,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other .lOOOOOO( .lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( TOTAL(50) xxxxxxx $111,824 XXlOOCXX $106,283 XXlOOCXX $104,215 lOOOOCXX $93,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )O()()(X)()( $8,358 XlOOOOO( $12,416 XXXXlOO( $12,665 xxxxxxx $15,655 (60) 34.Other XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx )()0()000( TOTAL(60) xxxxxxx $8,358 xxxxxxx $12,416 xxxxxxx $12,665 xxxxxxx $15,655 - TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $1 ,288,412 X\u0026gt;0000CX $1,127,441 XlOOOOO( $1,228,473 XlOOOOO(' Sl ,215,613 TOTAL (10-60) 390.9 $13,292,508 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 S 13,876,849 385.6 $14,124,794 TOTAL LINE ITE\nMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $595,333 xxxxxxx $537,465 lOOOOOO( $677,821 xxxxxxx $827,741 GRANDTOTAL lOOOOCXX $13,887,841 lOOOOCXX $13,548,434 lOOOOCXX $14,554 ,670 lOOOOCXX $14,952,534 Line ltemCosts - /' \u0026lt; \"'' 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $19,871 $20,739 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $716,116 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $677,821 $827,741 Per Pupil Cost 1991-92 1992-93 '1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3679.6 3807.0 3833.0 Tota l Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $14,952,534 Par Pupil Cost $3,682 $3,682 $3,823 $3,901 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9 Actual 1992-9~ Actual 1993-9~ Budgeted 1994-9 Budgeted Booker Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salarles F.T.E. Salarles F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 1.0 $55,764 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 1.0 $52,103 03 Specialists 6.0 $350,341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 7.0 $254,900 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 2.0 $65,200 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 1.0 $'17,836 - 06 Art-Pert ./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31 .2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 30.2 $963,879 1 O Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 1.3 $64,015 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 1.0 $36,876 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 [20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 4.0 $1~ TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47,9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 48.5 $1,673,807 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 2.0 $31,932 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 1.0 $211,104 - 17 Custodians 4.0 $44,176 4.0 $42,176 4.0 $47,081 4.0 S52,400 18 Paraprolessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $64,657 7.0 $75,718 7.0 $62,731 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOOCX $201,247 )000000( $225,867 XlOOOOCX $215,438 JOOOOOO( $222,697 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.0 $373,998 15.0 $388,766 14.0 $396,712 14.0 $397,864 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,890,430 )()()0000( $1,942,422 lOOOOOO( $2,006,780 )()()OO(XX $2,071,671 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $81,637 JOOOOCXX $71,492 JOOOOCXX $87,854 JOOOOCXX ~34.115 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO( .lOOOOOO( $4,654 JOOOOCXX $5,000 xxxxx:x:x. $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XlOOOOO( )0()0000( )0()0000( xxxxxxx 25 Other )0000()()( $27,963 XXlOOOO( $4,895 xxxxxxx $4,800 xxxxxxx $9,500 TOTAL (30) JOOOOOO(' $109,600 JOOOOOO(' $81,041 JOOOOOO(' $97,654 xxxxxxx $98,615 ' MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office JOOOOOO(' JOOOOOO(' xxxxxxx )00()()()()( SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom lOOCOOO( $53,613 lOOCOOO( $37,774 lOOCOOO( $38,500 lOOOOOQ( S34,900 I (40) 28 Media lOOOOOO( $4,698 lOOOOOO( $4,743 lOOOOOO( $4,800 xxx:x:xxx $4,800 29 Other .lOOOOOO( JOOOOCXX $1,255 JOOOOCXX $1,255 xxx:x:xxx $1,255 TOTAL (40) XXXlOOO( $58,311 XXXlOOO( $43,772 XXXlOOO( $44,555 xxxxxxx $40,955 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXXXlOOC $6,377 xxxxxxx $10,090 XXXXlOOC $6,100 lOOOOOO( $6,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. XXlOOOO( XXlOOOO( XlOOOOO( XXlOOOO( (50) 32 Other XlOOOOOC JOOOOOO(' JOOOOOO(' lOOOOOO( TOTAL (50) JOOOOOO(' $6,377 JOOOOOO(' $10,090 JOOOOOO(' $6,100 lOOOOOO( $6,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees lOOOOOO( lOOOOOCX lOOOOOCX lOOOOOO( (60) 34 Other lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( TOTAL(60) JOOOOCXX JOOOOCXX JOOOOCXX xxxxxxx TOTAL (30-60) .lOOOOOO( $174,288 XXXlOOO( $134,903 .lOOOOOO( $148,309 .lOOOOOO( $145,570 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,064,717 62.9 $2,077,325 62.5 $2,155,089 62.5 $2 2-, ',241 TOTAL LINE ltEMS- (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $88,028 xxxxxxx $75,446 xxxxxxx $99,618 xxxxxxx $122,300 GRAND TOTAL JOOOOOO(' $2,152,746 XlOOOOCX $2,152.771 xxxxxxx $2,254,707 xxxxxxx $2,339,540 Une Item Costs - .. 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 $118,637 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 $668 xxxxxx )()()0()()( xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $88,028 $75,446 $99,618 $122,300 Par Pupll Cost 1991-92 i992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,771 $2,254,707 $2,339,540 Per Pupil Cost $3,422 $3,562 $3.,551 $3,684 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9: Actual 1992-0C Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-9:: Budgeted Carver Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 1.0 $59,423 1.0 $60,587 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 1.0 $42,422 1.0 $43,417 03 Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 8.0 $236,265 8.0 $251,547 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 2.0 $60,101 2.0 SL2,i91 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $42,474 1.5 $43,532 1.5 $46,074 1.5 $48,443 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 24.3 $690,189 24.3 $674,007 1 O Special Education 1.0 $27,907 1.0 $30,734 1.0 $32,460 1.0 $33,805 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 1.4 $34,246 1.4 $48-,954 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 $17,150 $17,150 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 4.0 $117,132 4.0 $120,344 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.5 $1,183,059 41.1 $1,164,768 44.2 $1,335,462 44.2 $1,161,045 -- SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 3.0 $67,824 3.0 S:,4,572 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 1.0 $31,250 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 4.0 $42,645 4.0 $42,467 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $71,921 11.0  $76,016 11.0 $91,426 21 Fringe Benefits(20) JOOOOOO( $167,825 xx:xxx:xx $190,533 XlOOOOO( $192,561 XlOOOOO( $203,173 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 19.0 $410,297 19.0 $421-,997 TOTAL (10-20) lOOOOOO( $1,553,693 XJOOOO()( $1,557,097 lOOOOOO( $1,745,758 xxxxxxx $1,785,042 PURCHASEC 22 Utilities xxxxxx:x $68,924 xxxxxxx $53,586 xxxxxxx $69,730 XJOOOCXX $75,965 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOO(. XlOOOCXX $12,253 XlOOOOO( $12,500 XXXXJO()( $9,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements .lOOOOOO( .lOOOOOO( xxxxx:xx xxxxxxx 25 Other :xxxxxxx $22,843 :xxxxxxx $9,911 xxxxxxx $10,100 xxxxxxx  1 1\\ 700 -- TOTAL (30) xxxxxxx $91,767 xxxxxxx $75,750 )000000( $92,330 xxxxxxx S95,665 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office JOOOOOO( JOOOOOCX xxxxxxx xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $55,638 x:xxxxxx $52,759 lOOOOOCX $53,814 lOOOOOO( $63,330 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $11,410 lOOOOOO( $13,271 xxxxxxx $13,536 xx.xxxxx $11,500 29 Other xxxxxxx lOOOOCXX $2,593 lOOOOCXX $2,645 xx:xxxxx $3,500 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $67,048 xxxxxxx $68,623 lOOOOCXX $69,995 XXXXJO()( $78,330 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 XXXXlOO( $28,450 lOOOOOO( $19,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx - (50) 32 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx XJOOOOO( XJOOOOO( TOTAL (50) 1000000( $22,128 1000000( $27,894 1000000( $28,450 xxxxxxx $19,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees lOOOOOO( $2,857 lOOOOOO( $3,908 xxxxxxx $3,985 lOOOOOO( $3,000 (60) 34 Other XlOOOO()( xxxxxxx lOOOOQO( xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxxx $2,857 lOOOCXXX $3,908 lOOOOOO( $3,985 xxxxxxx ~1-.)0-0 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $183,800 lOOOOCXX $176,174 xxxxxxx $194,760 xxxxxxx $195,995 TOTAL (10-60) 61 .5 $1,737,493 60.1 $1 ,733,271 63.2 $1,940,518 63.2 $1,981,037 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $84,978 xxxxxxx $86,058 xxxxxxx $107,945 xxxxxxx $131,114 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,822,471 xxxxxxx $1,819,329 XlOOOOO( $2,048,463 XlOOOOO( $2,112,151 Upe lte~n Costs-. )  ...........   ......................... \u0026gt; )  1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 $114,527 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 $82 Science English $380 ($329) $239 $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx )0()()()()( xxxxxx Total Line Items $84,978 $86,058 $107,945 $131,114 Per PupH Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.0 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 $2,112,151 Per Pupil cost $3,036 $3,092 $3,386 $3,446 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9 Actual 1992-9'. Actual 1993-~ Budgeted 1994-9~ Budgeted Gibbs Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,234 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 1.0 $45,000 1.0 $39.9-65 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $160,752 5.8 $158,107 5.8 $ 2,699 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,433 1.0 $39,257 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $507,851 15.0 $466,921 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 1.5 $'\u0026gt;~ 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35 ,493 1.0 $33,443 1.0 $J4,246 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 2.0 $59,580 -- TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31 .3 $961,411 31 .3 $985,841 29.3 $1 ,007,242 29.3 $, 2,468 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 1.4 $22,613 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $11,304 0.8 $11,530 0.8 $12,446 17 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $33,776 3.0 $39,012 3.0 $39,803 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 5.6 $33,799 21 Fringe Benetits(20) XX)()(lOO( $129,439 XlOOOOO( $141,032 XXXXlOO( $136,618 xxxxxxx $1'l4-,836 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11 .8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 10.8 $243,497 TOTAL {10-20) xxxxxxx $1,204,513 lOOOOOO( $1,226,435 lOOOOOO( $1,254,041 xxxxxxx $1,215,965 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XJOOOOO( $35,102 xxxxxxx $26,879 xxxxxxx $38,531 )()()(XX)()( $41,385 SERVICES 23 Travel XJOOOOO( XJOOOOO( $2,066 xxxxxxx $3,407 )()()(XX)()( $3,407 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx XXlOOOO( xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx 25 Other xxxxxxx $11,464 xxxxxxx $7,309 xxxxxxx: $7,455 xxxxxxx '-14,000 TOTAL (30) XlOOOOO( $46,566 XlOOOOO( $36,254 XlOOOOO( $49,393 XXXXlOO( $48,792 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Oflice JOOOOOO( XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $25,426 lOOOOOO( $23,541 )00()(}()0( $24,012 xxxxxxx $25,068 {40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $6,241 lOQOOOO( $6,489 xxxxxxx $6,620 iXXXXXXX $6,600 29 Other lOO(XX)()( xxxxxxx $1,016 xxxxxxx $1,036 xxxxxxx $2,455 TOTAL(40) lOOOOOO( $31,667 XJOOOOO( $31,046 XJOOOOO( $31,668 XJOOOOO( $34,123 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $3,968 xxxxx:xx $2,594 .xxxxxxx $2,646 xxxxxxx 2-,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other XlOOOOO( XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xx:xxxxx $3,968 XlOOOOO( $2,594 xxxxxxx $2,646 XlOOOOO( $2,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees JOOOOO()( lOOOOOO( $1,132 xxxxxxx $1,155 )O(X)()O()( $1 ,155 (60) 34 Other lOOOOOO( lOQOOOO( lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx - TOTAL (60) lOOOOOO( $0 XXXlOOCX $1,132 XJOOOOO( $1,155 'xxxxxxx S1, 155 TOTAL (30-60) XJOOOOO( $82,202 XJOOOOC( $71 ,025 XJOOOOO( $84,862 XJOOOOO( $86,716 TOTAL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 43.1 $1 ,297,460 40.1 $1,338,903 40.1 $1,302,681 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $48,935 xxxxxxx $41 ,553 xxxxxxx $51,892 XXlOOOO( $63,184 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 xxxxxxx $1,339,013 xxxxxxx $1,390,795 xx:xxxxx $1,365,865 Line Item .Costs .. - \"' . ,,.,:}::/\\ .-\n-:-:-:-.. .-:\n-\n, ,\n:\n-_._. .?\\}\\ '\"\"' / \"'\"'? ., 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 $61,280 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1,305 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 $129 Special Education $360 $187 $348 $348 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $48,935 $41,553 $51,892 $63,184 Per Pupif Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 328.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 $1 ,365,865 Per Pupil Cost  ,. $3,933 $4,070 $4,214 $4,164 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-9' Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 1994-95 Budgeted MANN Magnet Schoel F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 1.0 $6t,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 - $143,289 3.0 $148,979 3.0 S 150,013 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 3.6 $129,650 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $109,509 3.0 $111,241 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41 ,729 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $208,475 5.6 $:'1 4,772 10 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 1.3 $49,958 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 46.8 $1,514,011 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 $36,135 14 Other -- TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 65.3 $2,311,765 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 4.0 $65,214 4.0 $67,206 4.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 1.0 $32,359 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $71,195 6.0 $69,490 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $22,947 1.0 $25,656 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $46,693 2.4- $37,142 2.4 , 35,982 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOOO{ $275,853 lOOOOOCX $292,062 xx:x:xxxx $296,293 XlOOOOO{ $298,108 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 15.5 $525,462 14.4 $526,829 14.4 $528,801 TOTAL (10-20) )000000( $2,697,653 )()00000( $2,584,578 xxxxxxx $2,805,067 xxxxxxx S2,840,566 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XlOOQOO( $164,666 XlOOQOO( $137,280 xxxxxx:x: $168,667 xxxxxxx $177,221 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx XlOOQOO( $11,214 xx:xxxxx $11,438 xx:xxxxx  1 J,000 - (30) 24 Ma,ntenance Agreements lOOOOOOC lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( 25 Other xxxxxxx $48,887 xxxxxxx $35,464 xxxxxxx S36,175 xx:xxxxx $27,300 TOTAL (30) x:xxxxxx $213,554 lOOOOOCX $183,959 XXXlOOO( $216,280 lOOOOOCX $214,521 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxx:x:x lOOOOOCX xxxxx:x:x XJOOOOO( SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom x:xxxxxx $76,512 )000000( $63,984 XXXXJOO( S65,265 xxxxxxx $49,168 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $10,301 xxxxxxx $9,352 xxxxx:xx $9,540 xxxxxxx $15,700 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $2,172 xxxxxx:x: $2,215 XlOOQOO( $4,000 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $86,813 xxxxxxx $75,508 xxxxxxx $77,020 xx:xx:x:xx :C68,868 CAPITAL 30 Equipment lCXXXXXX $26,417 lOOOOOO( $17,579 xxxxxxx S.17,930 lOOOOOO( $27,300 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. lOOOOOCX xxxxxxx lOOOOOCX x:xxxxxx (50) 32 Other lOOOOOCX lOOOOOCX lOOOOOCX xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 XlOOOOO( $17,579 XJOOOOO( $17,930 XlOOOOO( $27,300 -- OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )()()()000( $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxx:xx $1,405 XXlOOOO( -i,soo (60) 34 Other XXlOOOO( XXlOOOO( xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxxx $1,470 XlOOQOO( $1,377 XXX)()O()( $1,405 xx:xxxxx $4,500 TOTAL (30-60) XlOOQOO( $328,253 XlOOQOO( $278,422 xx:xxxxx $312,635 JOOOOO()( $315,189 TOTAL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 79.8 $2,863,000 79.7 $3,117,702 79.7 $3,155,755 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $143,218 xxxxxxx $137,573 xxxxxxx $172,083 xxxxxxx $205,272 GRAND TOTAL lOOOOOCX $3,169,124 lOOOOOCX $3,000,573 lOOOOOCX $3,289,785 x:xxxxxx $3,361,027 Une Item Cost,i :c ..)\\.-:-: .  . ) . -:-: .,. :- ,. \u0026gt; ::.:)\"':_. -\"' :,/\" :\n:\n.:,:/:\\:\n./ ... i':,::::\n:\n::/,\\/ :::: }':\\ \\)' 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 $165,342 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 $3,450 Reading $1,209 $115 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 $920 )()()()()0( )()()()()0( xxxxxx )()()()()0( Total Line Items $143,218 $137,573 $172,083 $205,272 Per Pupil Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 885.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 $3,361 ,027 Per Pupil Cost  $3,694 $3,588 $3,760 $3,798 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-9j Actual 1993-9~ Budgeted 1994-95 B \" J,ted Parkvlew Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E:. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F.T.E:. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $62,517 1.0 $64,582 1.0 $65,747 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $119,256 3.0 S152,394 3.0 $153.428 03 Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $221,882 9.8 $283,232 9.8 $311,985 04 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $118,446 3.0 $123,123 3.0 $129,966 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $33,013 1.0 $34,026 1.0 $34,026 06 Art- Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocation al 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $302,605 7.0 $283,945 7.0 $268,642 10 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $51,899 1.5 $63,868 1.5 $53,457 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,370,962 39.6 $1,393,800 39.6 $ 2J,341 - 13 Substitutes $42,409 $49,179 $51,640 $51,640 14 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 1.0 $40,670 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,490,483 66.6 $2,369,244 66.9 $2,491,279 66.9 $2,638,902 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $123,490 6.0 $126,650 6.0 $128,807 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $18,790 0.6 $19,227 0.6 $19,415 17 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $113,791 8.0 $119,039 8.0 $1-19,819 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $122,263 5.0 $134,692 5.0 $113,507 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $14,005 2.0 $30,125 2.0 $22,493 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XlOOOOO( $321,375 xxxxxxx $346,012 XlOOOOO( $335,564 lOOOOOO( $347,835 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $670,853 21.6 $738,351 21.6 $765,297 21.6 $751-,876 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $3,161,336 xxxxxxx $3,107,595 xxxxxxx $3,256,576 xxxxxxx S~ J),778 - PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $208,483 XlOOOOO( $179,513 xxxxxxx $185,462 xxxxxxx $183,100 SERVICES 23 Travel XlOOOOCX XlOOOOO( xxxxxxx )()()()()(JO( $1,500 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements XlOOOOO( lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( )()()()()()0( 25 Other xxxxxxx $39,092 xxxxxxx $18,792 xxxxxxx $19,170 xxxxxxx $14,750 TOTAL (30) xxxx.xxx. $247,575 lOOOOOCX $198,305 xxxx.xxx. $204,632 xxxxxxx. $199,350 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office lOOOCXXX XlOOOOO( lOOOCXXX xxxxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom XlOOOCXX $87,767 xxxxxxx $92,439 )000000( $94,288 xxxxxxx $98,173 (40) 128 Media xxxxxxx $16,883 xxxxxxx $13,753 XXXXXlOC $14,028 xxxxxxx $7,642 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $3,136 xxxxxxx $3,200 xxxxxxx $6,100 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $104,650 XlOOOOO( $109,327 XlOOOOO( $111,516 xxxxxxx $111,915 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $37,950 lOOOOO()( $23,092 lOOOOO()( $23,554 xxxxxxx $16,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx xxx:xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx - (50) 32 Other lOOOOOCX XJOOOO(X lOOOOOCX xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) XlOOOOO( $37,950 XJOOOO(X $23,092 lOOOOOCX $23,554 lOOOOOCX $16,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx $3,496 XXXXJOOC $5,809 xxxxxxx $5,925 XXXXlCXX $5,000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx XXXXJOO( xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) XlOOOOO( $3,496 XlOOOOO( $5,809 XXXJOOCX $5,925 XlOOOOO( $5,000 TOTAL (30-60) XlOOOOO( $393,671 xxxxxxx $336,534 lOOOOO(X $345,627 lOOOOO(X $332,265 TOTAL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,444,128 88.5 $3,602,203 88.5 $3,723,043 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $158,509 lOOOOOO( $135,955 xxxxxxx $167,720 xxxxxxx $2~1,123 GRANO TOTAL lOOOOOCX $3,713,516 xx:xxxxx $3,580,083 lOOOOOCX $3,769,923 lOOOOOCX $3,~24,166 L)ri:ifh_efu\\C\u0026amp;\n,.,,:,,ii:ii,it:::::::::\ni\n::::: Ii,,-- ,:,:,,,,,,,,,,':'\\i'''''''''\"''''' 1:::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::,,-:,,:,:-:::::::::: \"''''''\"  .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, \"'''''\"' \"''\"''''''\"''\"'\"\n:\n::::,:.:.:,,:,::-:,\n,:,:-:,\n,,:.:,:,:,:   1991-92 1992 93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,353 $1,425 $1,425 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $105,548 $131,007 $164,410 Vocational $17,696 $14,932 $16,000 $16,000 Athletics $22,029 $13,884 $14,500 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,071 $232 $3,420 $3,420 Reading $1,182 $114 $114 Science English $520 ($473) $342 $342 Special Education $876 $479 $912 $912 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $158,509 $135,955 $167,720 $201,123 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 848.3 870.0 880.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,580,083 $3,769,923 $3,924,166 \"Raf PUpiLC6sG:\\ : \u0026gt; :$4~49\np : l $4/420{ t :,~ ~ ~a~at : : $4A59} 1994-95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) 1991-9 Actual 1992-9~ Actual 1993-9 Budgeted 1994-9~ Budg\u0026lt;:ted Willlams Magnet School F.T.E. Salaries F,T.E. Salaries F,T,E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 1.0 $65,081 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 1.0 $39,965 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 5.0 $179,381 04 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 1.4 $47,686 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 1.0 $37,301 06 Art-Perf./Prod. - 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 20.0 $667,841 1 O Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1. 1 $27,792 1.1 $28,595 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 2.0 s-'1 C64 -- 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 3.0 $113,639 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 36.9 $1,183,042 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,233,533 35.5 $1,267,153 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 2.6 $30,108 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 1.0 $34,467 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 3.5 s5 453 - 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $32,748 9.0 $54,985 9.0 $45,596 21 Fringe Benefits(20) .lOOOOOO( $158,584 xxxxxxx $171,101 .lOOOOOO( $166,399 XJOOOOO( $176,381 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 16.1 $31 n.co5 - TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxx $1,496,470 xxxxxxx $1,465,402 xxxxxxx $1,580,155 xxxxxxx $1,605,158 PURCHASEC 22 Utilities XXlOOOCX $42,968 xxxxxxx $38,623 xxxx:xxx $48,682 xxxxxxx $57,280 SERVICES 23 Travel XXXXlOO( XlOOOOO( $3,793 JOOOOOO( $3,870 JOOOCXXX $5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOCX )00()()00( )00()()00( lOOOOOCX 25 Other lOOOOOCX $16,259 lOOOOOO( $16,400 xxxxxxx $16,728 xxxxxxx $8,000 TOTAL(30) XlOOOOCX $59,227 XlOOOOCX $58,816 xxxxxxx $69,280 XlOOOOO( $70,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxxxx XlOOOOO( XlOOOOO( i lOOOOOO( - SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx $44,477 XXlOOOO( $38,631 lOOOOOO( $39,405 XXXXlOO( $3\" ,698 (40) 28 Media xxxxxxx $6,976 xxxxxxx $6,234 XXlOOOO( $6,360 xxxxxxx $11,000 29 Other xxxx:xxx XXlOOOCX $1,475 xxxx:xxx $1,505 xxxxxxx $2,200 TOTAL (40) xxxx:xxx $51,454 JOOOOOO( $46,341 JOOOOOO( $47,270 XXXXXlO( $44,898 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx $14,984 )00()()00( $25,034 )00()()00( $25,535 xxxxxxx $22,7-00 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. :000000: :000000: :000000: xxxxxxx - (50) 32 Other XlOOOOCX lOOOOOO( xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx TOTAL (50) xxx:xx:xx $14,984 lOOOOOO( $25,034 xxxxxxx S25,535 lxxxxxxx $22,700 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx $535 XXXXlOO( $190 xxxxxxx $195 xxxxxxx $2,000 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxx:xxx $535 XXlOOOCX $190 xxxx:xxx $195 lOOOOOCX' $2,000 TOTAL (30-60) XXlOOOCX $126,200 XXlOOOCX $130,381 xxxx:xxx $142,280 lOOOOOO( $139,878 TOTAL (10-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,722,435 51.6 $1,745,036 TOTAL LINE I EMS - (SECOND PAGE) :000000: $71,665 :000000: $60,881 :000000: $78,563 xxxxxxx $10,:.,748 GRAND TOTAL lOOOOOCX $1,694,335 lOOOOOCX $1,656,664 XlOOOOCX $1,800,998 XXXlOOO( $1,849,784 Line Item Costs - Ji .,. .:c .:::::::-::::::: I ,.,ec.,.,.,., ... ,.ce,, /,:, ..  1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Stipends $1,537 $1,614 $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 $91,920 Vocation al Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx )()()(JOO( xxxxxx Total Line Items $71,665 $60,881 $78,563 $104,748 Per PupH Cost 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 473.3 492.0 492.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,656,664 $1,800,998 $1,849,784 Per Pupil Cost $3,343 $3,500 $3,661 $3,760 TAKE ONE TEL No .1-501-37 4- 37 12 Jun 2 ,94 16 : 07 No. 008 P. 03 STAFF lN-St~RVICE PLAN WILLIAMS MAGNET SCHOOL 1994-95 Five in-service sessions have been planned for the William's Magnet School Staff for the 1994-9.5 school year. Two of these sessions center around the effective and efficient use of the computers that have been purchased for use within the school\ntwo sessions emphasize the proper use of the newly adopted reading series\nand one session focuses on the analysis of Stanford-8 tests and the formulation of proper goals addressing areas of concern. A tentative plan for the in-service hours and the objectives to be reached i'\u0026gt; summarized below: ElRST SEMESTER IN-SERVICE: 1. Basic Computer Literacy: Objective: This in-service will be a practical work session to tram all certified staff on the proper use of the IBM Computers. (Six IBM Computers have been purchased for the 1994-95 school year, three were purchased for the 1993-94 school year, and three were purchased for the 1992-93 school year.) Staff members will learn the basfo DOS commands, how to format and copy disks, basic troubleshooting techniques, appropriate use of the printers.and will preview appropriate software for their particular grade level. Fall of 1994 In-service hours required: 3-6 40 participants@ $54.03/person Total cost: $2,161.20 2. Reading Tertbook In-Service: OJ:tj5\u0026lt;ctive: The staff will become familiar with the Harcourt-Drace-Jovanovich Reading Series that has been adopted for the 1994-95 school year. Sample lessons will be demonstrated featuring whole group and small group techniques. Teachers will be presented a model lesson pl.an designed specifically for the new reading seri~ and will be givm the opportunity to construct model plans for each grade l~l (This was done for the previous reading series and was a specific r~uest for any new adoption.) Fall of 1994 In-service hours required: 3-6 40 participants $54.03/person Total cost: $2,161.20 TAKE ONE fi TEL No.1-501-374-3712 Jun 2,94 16:07 No.00B P.02 Magnet Review Comm.ittee 1900 North Main Stl'C'ct  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Cre6r Ex .. cutlve Director TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJ: DATE: Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Donna Grady Cree~ Magnet Review Committee Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee Response to Questions Regarding the 1994-95 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budget June 1, 1994 (501) 758-0156 By this memo, I am forwarding the responses to your questions regarding the interdistrict magnet schools 1994-95 budget as per our recent telephone conversation. 1. What is the indirect cost rate for each school? The indirect cost rate is calculated by the Arkansas Department of Education, Administrative Services Federal Finance Division, L. J. Wesley, Coordinator. According to Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, LRSD, the indirect cost rate is the same for each school in the district. As indicated on the budget, the indirect cost rate for the 1994-95 school year is 5.03%, 2, Why the change in the FTB's from 1993-94 to 1994-95? LRSD's Support Services Office counted bodies for the 1993-94 school year, rather than actual FTE's. Careful study was given to this year's submission to accurately delineate the FTE's for each staff area. 3. Explain the change in Williams Magnet stipend line item. See attached. DGC:sl Attachment I i I 1989-1990 Projected ADM 4123 Actual ADM 3757 Difference ADM -366 Budgeted Per Pupil $ 3,100.00 Actual Per Pupil $ 3,099.68 Total Budget $12,781 ,300.00 Total Reimbursement $11 ,645,491 .00 Difference $ (1 ,135,809.00) Actual Expenditure ITrue Per Pupil??? $ 3,402.00 Magnet School Budgets and Per Pupil Expenditure 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 3741 .29 3878 3807 3771.8 3679.6 3570.54 30.51 -198.4 -236.46 $3,682.00 $3,682.00 $3,823.00 $ 3,682.02 $ 3,682.04 $ 3,823 .00 $13,775,416.00 $14,278,796.00 $14,554,670.00 $13,887,841 .00 $13,548,434.00 $13,650,174.00 $ 112,425.00 $ (730,362.00) $ (904,496.00) $ 3,652.21 $ 3,880.53 $ 4,076.32 MAG9495.XLS 1994-1995 3833 3529 -304 $3,901.00 $14,952,534.00 $13,766,629.00 $ (1,185,905.00) $ 4,237.05 I ~equested -- Asof9/6 u, ... :.u: :n.tn*:u  ttt , * * * n,*::tt. ** * ***** *n:u:.:\n,::i *-** * U]n:i:t:~ :u:. *** nu :u .. ru::t ******* * * P.01 *  TRANSACTION REPORT DATE START c::\n~,r 'R ..., ..... IL r_ RX TIME PAGES OCT-28-94 FRI 15:03 TfPt NOTE * * * .t ---------------------------------------- * '( n(T-?8 14:58 so. -~ I 24cG J' tp\" 6 RE ~EI',~ ,._,.., L. I I J. . - 'JK t +. i~ i ' 0 . .n.tp:fHh\"! 1Hd t' '.f- 10 28 : 9-! 15:02 '5'501 iil 2420 .U!ERIC HO)!E LIFE CI\\Y. i 5Ul/771-2 '1 J.0 @001 $71- 0/CJO COMPANY Nl\\..'lli: ___ 0 ..,2) /Y7 _ _ FROM: DATE: -~ ~ d_Lr~r-~ .C~~ d~ .\n2..,\n/9'9 _~ -------------- / ------------- --- --- - ~------------------ ---- ----- ---- ---- -- 10 : 28 , 9-1 15:03 '5'501 iil 2-120 AMER IC HO)!E LI FE Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 f4]002 Donna Crady Creer Execulive Director 1.so1 l 1se-01 se. October 2B, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown, Feceral Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. ~arkham. Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. B:rown: This letter comes to apprise you of information received from Mr. Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District, at an October 28, 1994 special-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee. The meeting was held for the specific purpose of receiving this information from Little Rock School District (reference my letter to you dated October 24, 1994). A copy of the revised budget infor.mation (draft 3) is attached, as well as a copy of the budget which has been submitted to the Court for approval (draft 2). At this time, each representative will discuss the information received at this meeting with their party and the impact of the proposed changes to the budget. The Magnet Review Committee plans to vote on this issue at its ne~t meeting scheduled for November 14, 1994. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please contact our office. Sincerely, ffi#-\n~/~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachments 10 .' 28 ,, 9\"1 15 : 03 '6'501 i71 2-!20 A)!ERIC H0)IE LIFE 141003 ll~1.~JWi,1glifM~E\u0026amp;~if.f'.g}i~ ~ t~:imii'iat-t~:l,,, ~-M$~WiJN.% ~~~,:~ ~i. ~~~\u0026amp;~ ~.Tif$i ffSiifa~(is~t-: FitJ\n\\ ~2~~r1M:\u0026lt;0 -=F sEiaiiiiifilL CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 $375,279 6.0 $34-0,086 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 $433,972 10.0 $473,907 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 $1,211,895 39.2 $1,224,208 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 $405,435 12.4 $452,360 OS Media Spec. 6.5 $218,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 $224,104 6.5 S230,137 06 Art-Per1./Prod. 0.0 SO 0.0 $0 0,0 $0 $0 0.0 SO 07 MUSIC 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. o.o so o.o so o.o $0 so o.o so 09 Vocational 14.0 SS07,273 12.6 $489,335 , 12.6 $492,420 $483,977 12.6 $404,921 10 Special Education 7.B $248,275 7.B $245,166 7.7 $276,790 $282,681 7.7 $263,527 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 $158,016 5.4 $189,153 12 Classroom 1B1 .4 SS,308,868 1n.s SS,354,901 175.9 SS,689,340 $5,377,867 175.9 $5,582,275 13 Substitutes 0.0 S153,B13 o.o S147.417 o.o $154,925 $182,975 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Klndargarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 S44a,634 $448,552 14.0 $459,595 TOTAL CERTIFIED $Al.AR 294.S $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289. 7 $9,955,822 $9,584,753 289.7 $9,775,094 SUPPORT 15 Sacretarias 18.0 $301,141 19.0 f,355,081 19.0 $353,310 $360,333 19.0 $323,508 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,659 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 $156,152 5 . .( $155,272 17 Custodians 28.5 $346,330 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $372,625 $360,957 28.5 $355,219 18 Paraproles.slonals-Chptr 1 0.0 SO 0.0 $0 0.0 SO 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofesslonals- Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 $122,210 6.0 $13.2,853 20 Other-Aldas 39.S $316,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 $237,662 37.0 $270,749 .21 Fringe Benerits(20) ~ $1,254,324 ~ $1,366,607 hiocd $1,342,873 $1,213,301 ~ $1,282,054 TOTAL SUPPORT SALAA'I' 96.4 '2,474,792 98 . .( $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 $2,450,615 95.9 $2,519,655 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $12,004,096 ~ S11,883,53.2 ~$12,648,376 $12,035,368 ~ $12,294,749 PURCHASE22 Utilities ~ $601 ,780 umi S.507,373 ~ $598,926 $598,876 ~- $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ - ~ , $33,980 ~ $31,215 $20,580 ~ $33,907 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements f~ !(Odcl' ~ ~ 25 Other ~ $166,508 ~ $92,772 ~ $99,428 $119,669 ~ - $74,250 ----.L..-.jr-~=\n-\n---\n:.-=:-- -...,.,.,.-+:,,.\n..\n.,--:::=~:-:--f....,.,.\n,\nr-~~-=-~~T\"-==='==:+~=~::--F~~--\"'.==\"=-~ TOTAL(30) mcioc( $768,288 ~ - $634,125 ~ $729,569 $739,125 XlClOboc $727,223 MATERIALS 26 Prlnclpal's Olllce i~ ~ ~ Xliooabc' SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom mime $343,433 ~ $309,128 ,oocido $315,284 $328,856 ~ (40) 28 Media )ClOObb( $56.509 ~ $53,842 mM $54,884 S34,2n ~ - 29 Other ~ iXXlOOdi $11,6\"7 lCixm $11,656 $18,873 l0Ctibi:li TOTAL (40) ~ $399,942 XlCDOOI $374,617 ~ $382,024 \u0026amp;382,006 ~ CAPITAL 30 Equipment ~ $111,624 ~ $106,263 -~ $104,215 $67,029 xxXl!Xi OUTLAY 31BulldlngRepalr, etc. ~ i~ ~ ~ (50) 32 Other ~ xnicoc ~ !~ $302,337 $57,242 $19,510 $379,089 TOTAL(S0) ~ $111,824 l00000I. $106,283 Xl0i:fu $104,215 $67,029 ~ S93,64S OTHER 33 Dues and Fees diem $8,358 ~ - $12,416 !xicn $12,665 $13,017 ~ $15,655 (60) 34 Other I~ ~ ~ ~ TOTAL (60) ~ $8,358 i~ $12,416 -ICliOOCOC $12,665 $13,017 ~ $15,655 TOTAL(30-60) iOOOOat $1 ,288,412 ~ $1 ,127,441 ~ $1,228,473 $1,201,177 l00000t: $1,215,613 TOT!.L(10-60) 390.9 $13,292,508 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 $13,876,849 $13,236,545 385.6 $13,510,362 TOTAL LINE_ TEMS - (SECOND PAGE) llbCXa: S595,333 Xl0r.l00\u0026lt; $537,465 l0000CX $677,821 $413,629 ~ $796,728 E~n\\fGRAN01'0'.fAC~f=i~\u0026gt; :mm iJUST~S.11 113..548~' ~ $'iA~,610~ Stl!,$0/114t ,oooocx ~1~.W.09Qi 10 128 19-1 15 : 05 '5'501 771 2-120 1\\JIERIC HOME LIFE @00-1 '. . 1\n11:2110 :mt,1'8!'~~:~i J@~~-'s:\nl ~@. ~.\" :~~~( ~tit!JHNf.ff,~i!t - Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Stipends $19,671 $20,739 S16,269 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $348,726 $685,103 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $17,222 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $28,627 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Sel'\\licas $18,271 $1.009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science Engllsh $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Educallon $3,9V $2,082 $4,000 $2,785 $4,000 l00000( XXl000( xxxxxx. J00000( Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $877,821 $413,629 $796,728 10! 28 19-1 15:05 'fi'501 iil 2-120 A~!ERIC H(l)!E LIFE 1 si~~~~~!to~:,\n!~~~::$Qt{OOis\ne{'\ntif:T::\n:~~ ,/:~~1\n6 ~~~/ ~T::~\u0026lt;t \u0026lt;,i:~~~:93 SF, 6_0 $\n~r~~ f~'l\\!'.6' ,, -!=~:.~~~-,:1 ' S1AFF 102-Asst. Prin. I ,o.o $456 057 10.D $438,462 10.0 1 $479,729 10.0 $478,891 l03 Specialists I 37.4 1 $1,274.519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 39.2 $1,290,162 1041Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431 ,093 12.4 , $457,554 1 05 Media Spec. 6.5 s2,a,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 S233,751 6.5 $238,592 l06 Art-Perf./Prod. , o.o i so 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 \\ $0 ' '071Music I o.o so 1 0.0 SO 0.0 so o.o $0 I I08'Foreign Lar.g. 1 o.O / $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0  o.o $0 09,Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 . $492,420\n12.6 $483,414 I 10 Special Edvcat:on I 7.8 1 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 I 7.7 $285,726 i 111 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 s.o $159,822 5.4 $174,623 5.4 $191,740 I 112 Classroom 181 .4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 175.9 $5,616,001 1 13 Substit,.,tas ' o.o $153,813 o o $147,417 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,925 114 Other-Kin1ergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 14.0 $457,467 I I I I TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 294.S $9,529,304 267.1 I $9,276,435 289. 7 $9,955,822 289.7 $10,225,141 I SUPPORT 115 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $353,310 19.0 $335,238 STAFF i1 51Nvrses 5.4 $148,659 5,4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 5.4 $159,150 , , 117 Custodians 28.S $346.330 i 28.5 $335,694 28 5 $372.625 28.S $375,432 I 118 Paraprofessiorals-Chptr 1 0.0 SO 0.0 SO 0.0 $0 I 0.0 $0 I 119 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.D $157,639 6.0 $139,163 1 120 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 37.0 S292,027 :21 Fringe Benetlts(20) ~ $1,254,324 ~I $1,366,607 ~- $1,342,873 ~ $1,383,030 I TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 95.9 $2,664,040 I TOTAL (10-20) __ $12,004,096 '   $11,883,532 ~ S12,648,376 ~ $12,909,181 I PURCHASEDl221Utilities ~I $60~ .780 ~ $507,373 ~ $538,926 -~ $619,066 ! SERVICES 123 Travel :JOOOOOQ( ~ $33,980 ~ $36,215 'lOOOOCXX' $33,907 (30) 124 Maintenance Agreements ,~ :lOOCXXl()( ~. ~ I ,25 Other ~ $166,508 .~ $92,n2 ~ - S94,426 .ix\u0026gt;boool: $74,250 r----:-----c--,------TOTA\\_ (30) :lCX'OOOCX, $768 .268 -~ $634,125 JQDOOOb( $729,569 lOOOOOCX. $727,223 ! MATERIAL$, 126 Principal s Otlice OOOOOOO{j ~ ~ f}(X)OOOO(: I I I SUPPLIES l2?1 RegularCl\n,s.sroorr xx:xxxxxl 5343.433 $309,128 ~I $315,284 $302,337 j $57,242 $19,510 (40) 28 M6d:a ~ $56,509 $53,842 XlOO(lO(X $54,664 ~ CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 29 Other ~ ~ $11,647 :ipooocix $11,856 ~- TOTAL (40) ~menc j31 Building Aepalr, etc: ~ $399,942 XlOaXlOI' $374,617 ~ $382,024 XlOOOOCX -1-------'--'----f..XXXlOOCX..._.- ,\n-.--.-~. ,-.\n..c$1:.:1..:.1. :..:,8....c24 ' $~ 06,283 )ooaxx'x $104,215 'XXXX)()O! XlOOOOCX. l00CXXlOI ~ ~ 132 Other lQOOOPa' JOOQ000(. XlOOQOOC :ixxxxxx T01AL (SO) ~-- $111,824  $106,283 ' $104,215 133 Dues ancl Fees X)(X)CQQ( $8,358 ~ S 12.416 ~ $12,665 XXXXXlC( '34 Otrier xxxxxx,c xixxmc ~ XXXXXXX $379,089 $93,646 $93,646 $15,655 I t----c-T_O_T_A_L~(_60~) __lO O_!c _ o_CQC__,\nf-- $8,358 xxJixxxx S12,4'6 :JQOOOOO(: $12,665 $15,655 , ___T O_T_A_L_,_(3_0_-_60'-'-) __ ._,oo o-o-=o'-'o.,c_:~:...$1_2.:..:8:..::a.:..:.4..\n.1~ 2lO OQQOO $1,127,441 ~ $1,228,473 ')(XX)ClXX $1 ,215,613 TOTAL (1 0-60) 390.9 1S13,292.508 I. 3B5 5 $13,010,969 385.6 1$13,876,849 365.6 jS14,124,794 I TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) J000()()0( $595,333 X)OOOOO(' $537,465 )()0()0()0( / $677,821 .lOOOOQQCI $627,741 I_ G__ R _AN_D_T_O_'r_A_l _l, _lOOOOOOC___:\n.c...=C'-$-'-,1..:\n.3-'-',,~7.84, X'.X:IOCXXX $13,548,.:34 l000000( ~14~55 ,670 J)OcXlO(l(l( $14,952.534 I 15: 06 '5'501 7il 2-120 ,\\JIERIC HO)!E LIFE 141006 Line Hem Costs - I iSU~e~d$ .... , .. :11991-92 1992-93 11993-94 1994-95 I $19,871 $20,739 $29,125 ---  I0 tner Ob,ects I l l~d irsct Costs $503,365 ' $458,905 $574,582 $716,116 Voc.:atio11aI : $30.837 $29.a64 $32,000 $32,000 ~cs I $31 ,231 $27,741 $29,000 $29,000 IGi'ted Programs I ~5 1 $500 $500 Plant Servcos $18,271 $1,G09 i $15,000 $15,000 ~f::~\nn_g _ _ I $5,334 $500 $500 . !En\\,, Si\"\\ I $2,3681 ($2,058)1 $1,500 s, ,500 I Special Ecucat,ol' I s2,oe2 I $4,000 $4,000 I )0()000( - .,_,,, I I r XXlOCXX I I I - ---- XlCXXXX I I ~ta Lire Items ' I I I l ss9s 333 I ss37,t.55 I $677,821 t $827,741 I Pe( Pupiteost \n, '  . -l199l-92- :/  1992~.93 .jJ99.:-:SE /,:. }:S~8S, ,'.,\n-?! 3rd O:r. ADM or Pro1. I 3TT1 .8 3679 6 I 3807.0 3833.0 I Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548.434 I $14,554,670 $14,952,534 I 1.Par Pupi l Cost '\" / l i . \" $3:\n682 ,.,:\n:\n::., . $S\n682J,~- .,. ,,\n:~ 1823 .\n\"''~:filSS,SQ~'l Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 October 28, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: This letter comes to apprise you of information received from Mr. Mark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District, at an October 28, 1994 special-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee. The meeting was held for the specific purpose of receiving this information from Little Rock School District (reference my letter to you dated October 24, 1994). A copy of the revised budget information (draft 3) is attached, as well as a copy of the budget which has been submitted to the Court for approval (draft 2). At this time, each representative will discuss the information received at this meeting with their party and the impact of the proposed changes to the budget. The Magnet Review Committee plans to vote on this issue at its next meeting scheduled for November 14, 1994. If you have questions, comments or concerns, please contact our office. Sincerely, ~ ~/,ot Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC: sl Attachments - r, 'I CERTIFIED 01 Principal STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 03 Specialists 04 Counselors 05 Media Spec. 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 10 Special Education 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 13 Substitutes 14 Other-Kindergarten 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 $375,279 6.0 $340,086 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 $433,972 10.0 $473,907 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 $1,211,895 39.2 $1,224,208 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 $405,435 12.4 $452,360 6.5 $218,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 $224,104 6.5 $230,137 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 $483,977 12.6 $404,921 7.8 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 $282,681 7.7 $263,527 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 $158,016 5.4 $189,153 181.4 $5,308,868 1TT.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 $5,377,867 175.9 , $5,582,275 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 $182,975 0.0 $154,925 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 $448,552 14.0 $459,595 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 294.5 $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,955,822 $9,584,753 289.7 $9,TT5,094 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 17 Custodians 28.5 $346,330 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 o.o SO 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 21 Fringe Benelits(20) ,xioclai $1,254,324 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $12,004,096 PURCHASE 22 Utilities :~ $601,780 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ - (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ 19.0 5.4 28.5 0.0 $355,081 $148,996 $335,694 $0 19.0 $353,310 5.4 $154,424 28.5 $372,625 0.0 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 lOOOOCX $1,366,607 lOOOOO(' $1,342,873 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 ~ -$11,883,532 ~ -$12,648,376 ~ $507,373 ~- $598,926 ~ $33,980 ~ $31,215 ~ - )t)(X)O(X 250ther ~ - $166,508 ~ $92,772 ~ - $99,428 TOTAL (30) xxiooa $768,288 xxioc:loc' $634,125 liXlCOOC $729,569 $360,333 $156,152 $360,957 $0 $122,210 $237,662 $1,213,301 $2,450,615 $12,035,368 $598,876 $20,580 19.0 $323,508 5.4 $155,272 28.5 $355,219 0.0 $0 6.0 $132,853 37.0 $270,749 )()()000(. $1,282,054 95.9 $2,519,655 ~ $12,294,749 ~ - $619,066 ~ $33,907 ~ - $119,669 ~ - $74,250 $739,125 xxiooa. $727,223 MATERIALS 26 Principal' s Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom -~ ~ i~ ~ ~ - $343,433 ~ . $309,128 !xxiX) $315,284 $328,856 ~ $302,337 (40) 28 Media ~ - $56,509 ~ - $53,842 i(x)()Oc)( $54,884 $34,277 ~ $57,242 29 Other ~ l(Xl00CX $11,647 XlOC00C $11,856 $18,873 :XX\u0026gt;OOOC $19,510 TOTAL (40) lOOOOa' $399,942 xiooooc $374,617 llOOOOCX $382,024 $382,006 l0000CX $379,089 CAPITAL 30 Equipment ~ $111,824 ~ $106,283 X)(X)O(X $104,215 $67,029 X)Cl0Q(X $93,646 OUTLAY c3~1~B~ui~ld~in-g~R~e-p-ai~r.-e~tc-.--r~0~~1~~,~r----T-!(X)OCO\u0026lt;--.,.......t----~~~~-oo-9~~t---'---t----'---t-a\u0026lt;x.~----,------'----, (50) 32 Other TOTAL(50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other TOTAL(60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE rrEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ........ ,.  GRANO. TOTAL.'\\/? XlOClCD $111,824 XXiCOa $106,283 liOOOOOC $104,215 $67,029 Xl!tXlOO{ $93,646 ~ $8,358 ~ $12,416 l(XlOOO( $12,665 $13,017 i)(X)OOO( $15,655 )a)OOO( ~ XX)00C)C iWOOcX, lOOOOOC $8,358 ,ooooa $12,416 lOOOCOC $12,665 $13,017 lOOOOOC $15,655 ~ - $1,288,412 Xl0000C $1,127,441 ~ $1,228,473 $1,201,177 lOOCCCX $1,215,613 390.9 $13,292,508 385.5 $13,010,969 385.6 $13,876,849 $13,236,545 385.6 $13,510,362 X)OOQ(X. $595,333 !XXX\u0026gt;.OO\u0026lt; $537,465 XXX)Oa $677,821 $413,629 )OO()O(X $796,728 \u0026gt;OOOOOC $1 UB7~Mf xxxxxx S13$.4B,434 XXlOOO( $14,554,670 S13,650, 174 lOOOOCX $14\n307,090 t!ntJJijrtf~~smmrnmrn :it:1~\naitt. mm+asnn Mfflf \u0026amp;Jttf rntiifflflltt rtiifflf 9$'Wi :fa:t\n:\nj\n\nt'.t:\n?ff}{ft:ff\n\\F Actual Actual Budget Actual Budget Stipends $19,871 $20,739 $16,269 $29,125 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 $348,726 $685,103 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 $17,222 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 $28,627 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 $2,785 $4,000 )0()()()()( )0()()()()( )0()()()()( )0()()()()( Total Line Items $595,333 $537,465 $6TT,821 $413,629 $796,728 t~em1tC($trtmmtti. t19Qlf ~ar mm +$$itt rt1~+~ m::: 1m1~~+ mr1~ 9'-Mt 3rd Ctr. ADM or Proj. 3TT1 .8 3679.6 3807.0 3570.5 3530 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 $13,650,174 $14,307,090 ~ ~M~tJtMifMtm. itMlIJ\ntt$2/ lltit@f$3t  IltltW i~ m %MlN/$3t~ { rmrnrn~t~ i 19947 95 Budget Proposal (Draft 2) __ 1991-9, 1992-9~ 1993-9~ 1994-9~ SUMr,1AAY FOR MAGNETSCHOOLS )? F.T.E?/ . Actual - FaT:E\n/ \\?\u0026gt;Actual \"\"''-''' - F.TE . .. ,:: \\\n:\n,. Budget F,T.E. . ,,_ Budget I CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 6.0 $370,669 I I STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 10.0 $478,891 I 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274 ,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 39.2 $1,290,162 I 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,G41 10.4 $356,314 12.4 $431,093 12.4 $457,554 I I 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $21 8,210 6.5 $222,455 6.5 $233,751 6.5 $238,592 I 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0  $0 I I 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0,0 $0  0.0 $0 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 _ $492,420 12.6 $483,414 I 1 O Special Education 7.8 $248,275 7.8 $245,166 7.7 $276,790 7.7 $285,726 I 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.4 $174,623 5.4 $191,740 I 12 Classroom 181 .4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.9 $5,689,340 175.9 $5,816,001\n13 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 0.0 $154,925 I 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 14.0 $457,467 I TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 294.5 $9,529,304 287.1 $9,276,435 289.7 $9,955,822 289.7 $10,225,141 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $30 1, 141 19.0 $355,081 19.0 $353,310 19,0 $335,238 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 5.4 $159,150 ' 17 Custodians 28.5 $346, 330 28.5 $335,694 28.5 $372,625 28.5 $375,432 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 I 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,1 03 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 6.0 $139,163 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $31 6,035 39.5 $256,806 37.0 $311,683 37.0 $292,027 I 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXXlOQ(: $1,254 ,324 XlOOOOO{ $1,366,607 .xx:xxxxx $1,342,873 xxxxxxx $1,383,030 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 96.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 95.9 $2,692,554 95.9 $2,684,040 I TOTAL (10-20) XXXXXl\u0026lt;X $12,004,096 xxxxxxx $11,883,532 xxxxxxx $12,648,376 XXlOOOCX $12,909,181 I PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxxx $601,780 XlCXXXXX $507,373 xxxxxxx $598,926 xxxxxxx $619,066 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx xxx:x:xxx $33,980 ')()00000( $36,215 ')0()0000(' $33,907 I (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements lOOOOOO( lOOOOOO( l()OOOOO( xxxxxxx I 25 Other l0000\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_1120","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","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","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"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/1120"],"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.\n7- 9-92 THU 10 14 Magnet Revieiv Committee 1900\n\\\north 1\\fain Street Suite 101 North Littk Rock, Arbnsn:\n72114 Donna Grady Crear E~8Clltivq oir~f::'jr Dec~mber 18, 1990 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, United States Distric~ Court F.astern District of Arkansas C. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. o. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: In September of 1990, the Little Rock School District presented the Magnet Review Committee with the proposed budget for the interdistrict magnet schools for the 1990-91 school year. This budgeted amount of $12,735,230 represents a $270.00 per student increase which results in bringing the per pupil expenditure from $3,100 to $3,370. During its December 4, 1990 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee adopted the 1990-91 budget proposed for the interdistrict magnet school program and changed the per pupil operational charge to $3,370 by a vote of 3 to 2, with one representative being absent. (This vote reflects a reversal of an earlier vote in which four votes were cast against the budget increase and two votes were cast for it.) In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Magnet Review Committee is now submitting this proposed budget to the Court for its review. The programs are operating currently under the budget . adopted by the MRC, Your review and response regarding this action will be appreciated. We will await notification of your response regarding this action. Please contact our office should you need additional information. Sincerely,\n:t7:att\n=. ' Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Pulaski County Special School District [) . . /} \u0026lt;.l('~ ~., r(_ Dana Chadwick North Little Rock School District ~ J/4/24~rr- Marcia Harding L-Arkansas Department of Education P.02 7- 9-92 THU 10 15 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Page 2 4.-. -d._-\n,J Q. '~ I') Evelyn Ja son Joshua Intervenors !~/iL~ 1 Estelle Matthis Little Rock School District MRC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Magnet Review Committee C,\u0026amp;-4,,'to-t,\u0026lt;\u0026amp;!, c(~ Clearence Lovell Arkansas Department of Education ~yf~M~ ---------- 2,281,009 2,755,142 1,687,077 3,333 2,450 4,275 !:- ,,,. lSu 56,000 29,000 27,000 r.,,~ ~\nrpur 186,028 233,039 88,821 ~ ..... ,..,. tt~ate 81,972 106,455 60,889 ~  ,t.---f--\nCapita 29,195 31,436 24,071 t ~\n,),, ... ~\n.s.- 1,100 5,500 1.0112~(' trndire' ~~,i.~.\n:~~. lV !\n.:-n~M .. ,f,~. .t ,.h.,,l,,_\nGifte ( '\u0026lt;!\u0026lt;. ,Plan }~\u0026gt;,A\n~~ iRea 1~-X'Yo'.,)\u0026lt;,, tSde i'f~g-1 .. .~ .-- --------- 357,628 407,880 :ws,oss ----------- ----------- 2,638,637 3,163,022 1,892,133  :  . ' ~ 1,~ . ' ~l~:r\nr,1,,--fu'J! : :}t\ni\nf ----------- 1,427,244 12,509 15,000 85,873 75,042 12,675 700 201,799 ----------- 1,629,044 1,060,744 5,170 30:soo 42,025 34,718 21,306 ----------- 133,719 _______ \\ __ 1,194,463 1,075,181 172,389 137,433 ------- 1,385,003 2,000 27,500 61,210 48,500 19,753 --------- 158,963 --------- 1,543,966 8,441,022 1,160,699 994,497 --------- 10,596,219 29,737 185,000 696,998 407,576 138,436 7,300 369,322 47,300 38,487 2,000 40,000 6,880 972 2,558 26,957 --------- 1,999,522 ----------- 12,595,741 --=======:. ==========-= --------- 235,789 107,518 11,218 -J -j I C f--' rn 1) MAY-29-91 WED 17:46 U, S, DI ST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO, 7406096 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, vs. LR C 82 866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., MRS. KATHERINE KNIGH'l', ET AL,, ORDER P. 04 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT ARKANSAS MAY 2 9 1991 ~~R~.,~ y DEP, CLERK PLAINTIFF, DEFD-.\"DANTS I INTERVENORS, INTERVENOR$, Without opposition, the proposed budget submitted by the Magnet Review Committee increasing -che per pupil operational charge to $3,370.00 is approved. DATED this 29th day of May, 1991, (JS/US\nAN~ WEBhBER ~IHT4 ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE '-.. .... Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 2, 1991 Ms. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: This letter is in response to your correspondence regarding the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet school budgets for the six stipulation magnets. As you may recall, the Magnet Review Committee, in its annual Report to the Court (Section IX, Interdistrict Magnet School Budgets, page 99, attached, dated May 27, 1991), called attention to the Magnet Review Committee's difficulty of cost containment due to the lack of input on hiring and personnel contract negotiations. The $312.00 per pupil increase requested on September 24, 1991, for this school year's proposed budget is largely due to increases in teacher salaries and Act 10 requirements. In some instances, expenditures other than teacher salaries were actually lower than the 1990-91 school year. The legend on the lower portion of the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet schools budget presented to the Court via your office on September 24, 1991 clearly delineates the areas of increase. The cover letter accompanying the budget also notes the reasons for the proposed increases. An item by. item review is best comprehended in a dialogue/reporting session. Such a session will be arranged upon request if needed. As usual, the Magnet Review Committee worked closely with the host district and the principals to assure the accurate and efficient expenditure of tax dollars. We are confident that every effort was, and is, being made to keep costs within reason. Ms. Ann Brown -2- December 2, 1991 The programs are operating and dollars are being expended. Therefore, a careful review and timely response to this request is appreciated. Sincerely yours, Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl I ' I : I I I i SECTION IX INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETS The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) adopted budget for operation of the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for the 1989-90 school year was $12,781,300.00. This figure was computed on a per pupil cost of $3,100 times a total seating capacity figure of 4,123 for the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for that school year. The fiscal year for expenditure of this budget was July 1, 1989, through June 30, 1990. Initially, each of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools was allotted a proportional share of funds to budget based upon its seating capacity. However, following close budgetary review, monies were shifted among the programs where necessary to accommodate program and services needs. The adopted budget was submitted by the MRC to the Court for approval. The Interdistrict Magnet School Program operated in accordance with the adopted budget during the 1989-90 school year. Final expenditures for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools during the 1989-90 school year were as follows: Mann Parkview Booker Carver Gibbs Williams TOTAL * Average Interdistrict Magnet Schools Cost Per Pupil 1989-90 (provided by Little Rock School District) 89-90 EXP ADM* PER PUPIL $2,598,149.00 880 2,952.44 $3,044,434.00 798 3,815.08 $1,849,132.00 633 2,921.22 $1,599,842.00 600 2,666.40 $1,130,522.00 337 3,354.66 $1,423,412.00 509 2,796.49 $11,645,491.00 3,757 3,099.68 Daily Membership The operating expenditures and per pupil cost rates varied across the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools. This variance is the same experienced within any school district, reflecting the general differences found in operating elementary versus secondary schools (junior and senior high schools) and special programs. In the magnet schools, the variance was also attributable to ongoing start-up costs of programs involving unique program design and the associated personnel, equipment and staff development needs. In summary, the total expenditure for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools for the 1989-90 school year was $11,645,491.00 at an average per pupil expenditure of $3,100. The allocated budget ($12,781,300.00) was based on magnet school seating capacity (4,123) while the expended budget was based on the ADM of 3,757.00 (actual adjusted enrollment). The total expenditure is in keeping with the guidelines set forth by the Court for operation of the interdistrict magnet schools. While the Magnet Review Committee does not hire or evaluate interdistrict magnet school personnel, the effect of personnel contract negotiations on salary directly impacts the budget. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work with the host district in configuring the budget for the next year. However, it should be noted that cost  containment is difficult when teacher contract negotiations cause budget fluctuations beyond the Magnet Review Committee's control. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. 0 R D E R FILED US. DISTRICT COUA'T EASTERN OISTRl9f ARKANSAS MAR 161992 cARL / el:s, ~ By: Ir (l II 1 OEP. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) for approval of the 1991-92 magnet school budget proposal. The proposal was communicated to the Court in a letter dated September 24, 1991 and forwarded by the MRC to the court on October 9, 1991. submitted. The court has reviewed the budget and approves it as The Court notes that the 1991-92 budget for the six original magnet schools is $13,775,416.00, bringing the magnet school per pupil expenditure for the current school year to $3,682.00, This amount represents an increase of approximately $312.00 per pupil above the amount spent for each magnet school student in 1990-91. An increase in the magnet school budget has been requested by the MRC and granted by the Court for at least the past three budget cycles. The Court expects the MRC to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet school budget that will ensure efficient management of resources and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. The MRC has also asked the Court to approve a modification in the M-to-M transfer policy adopted by the school districts' Student Assignment Officers Committee in February, 1991. The M-to-M transfer policy had been included in a lengthy status report on interdistrict magnet school development and progress which was published in May 1991 and forwarded by the MRC to the court on June 19, 1991. There was no indication that the transfer policy contained in the report was a departure from previous policy or that the MRC was seeking Court approval of a policy modification. The change in M-to-M transfer policy is approved. In the future, the Court will consider Magnet Review Committee requests for approval of budget adjustments or changes regarding any other matter only if such requests {1) are made in a timely fashion, well in advance of the anticipated need for the change\n( 2) are presented in a communication written for the express purpose of presenting such proposal to the Court\n{3) are set in context, including a clear rationale for the request that contains an explanation of the circumstances or events which have prompted the request, the expected impact of the requested change, identification of those individuals, groups, programs or operations which will be affected by the change, and the anticipated date by which the change is needed. Any change requested by the MRC should not be implemented by that Committee nor the parties represented on that Committee prior to the court's approval. DATED this /~-1:--day of March, 1992. Tl-llS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN )MPLIANCE Wfn~LE 58 ANDtm~!?:a) FRCP J JN ,3- t1-'+). BY ___ J/5\n----~ ~2r~2r~ TED STATES DISTRICT UDGE I I I j LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR June 1, 1992 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge and Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Littl~ Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: 72201 ECEIVED JUN 1 1992 omce ot Desegregation Monitoring Attached are budget projections for the Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as specified in the January 21, 1992 Court Order. The Order's requirement for a revised 1991-92 budget is met by Exhibit A showing the projected cost of certain desegregation programs in this year through agreement with Mr. Bob Morgan of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. A list of notes and assumptions is included and is an integral part of the document. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. Also attached is a procedure that the LRSD will use in future desegregation budgeting so that these costs can be more accurately known. The formats and procedures shown have been reviewed with Mr. Morgan, and we believe he understands and approves. We have stated to Mr. Morgan, however, that we view this as only a step in the process of working with his office on the definition and tracking of desegregation costs, and we will continue to work with him to perfect this process to our mutual benefit. Sincerely, ~~~r( -.Manager of SuppoJt Services JI/ch Attachment cc: R. R. Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring w/attachment c:\\project.wpd LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). Al though the LRSD implemented the TriDistrict Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. 2. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. 3. The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be done with accuracy, and for the District administration to do so precludes good faith negotiation. The ODM understands this problem but feels that projecting no increases presents an unrealistic picture. Consequently, they have asked us to use a 3% annual increase in these costs. We agree to do that but wish to publicly state that this represents no commitment or intent on the part of the LRSD. If the Court desires, we can present updated projections when these figures are known. We have also used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. 4. The LRSD is currently working to produce a balanced budget for 1992-93. Al though this cannot be completed until union negotiations are settled, programs must be reviewed and some must be cut in order to meet the legal requirement of a balanced budget. The projections herein assume that sufficient reductions will be made to balance the 1992-93 budget. These reductions will not result in violation of the Desegregation Plan nor of State law. These reductions are shown as a line item entitled 11 1992-93 Budget Reductions\". If the Court desires, we will define these reductions for the Court when they are known. 5. As stated in the previous paragraph, it is assumed that $7.7 million in expense reductions will be implemented in 1992-93 and carried forward. Additional shortfalls will occur if further reductions or increased revenues are not found. We are assuming a millage increase of five mills in September, 1993. This will not be required if sufficient reduction can be found. Note that the projections do not show use of the Desegregation loan in the revenues. It is our intent to use that as a reserve in the event that we cannot get millage rates increased at the time desired. The $1. 5 million available in 1992-93 may, however, have to be used to balance the budget. LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 6. Program #51-75, Incentive School Programs, requires discussion. In the years through the 1991-92 school year, the cost of programs in the Incentive Schools exceeded the mandatory level of two times the area school instructional cost per student. Since the programs are now functioning and the mandatory level is increasing, the mandatory funding level will exceed program costs in 1992-93 and beyond. Therefore, we have shown the cost of Incentive School programs in 1991-92 and have shown the mandatory funding level differential in 1992-93 and beyond. 7. The projections show the cost of programs that are funded by the revenue sources shown. Federal funds are utilized in some programs but are not shown in the expense. We don't show federal funds in our operating budgets and to do so here, we believe, would create confusion for the Court and for the public. We can provide information on federal funds if the Court desires. 8. Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. 9. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. We believe most of this is planned for. Any additional will be covered with second-lien issues. 10. The 1993-94 reduction in program #10, Academic Support Programs, reflects the completion of payments for PAL equipment. Some funding is added for replacement of this equipment. 11. The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not included in the projections because they are funded by federal grants or because their cost is small and the cost of tracking them exceeds the value of the information. The costs are not omitted\nthey are just not broken out. 12. The operating costs of the new King and Stephens Schools are shown as opening at the times requested in motions before the Court. If these motions are not granted, we can submit revised budgets if the Court desires. Operating costs in other schools are reduced somewhat upon the opening of these schools because 400 students will move to each of the new schools from others in the LRSD. 13. The fifth and sixth positions ( from the left) of the LRSD standard account code will be used for coding desegregation expenses. The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. 14. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified. Since most of this has been expended in previous years, the only significant one remaining is the PAL cost discussed above. Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number, so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. After the normal budget planning process is complete, a memo will be sent to each budget manager telling them what costs or types of cost may be charged to Desegregation and how they are to be coded. This will be agreed to by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager of Support Services. D. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will review Desegregation expenses monthly to assure proper charging. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,196,979 39,088,120 40,093,227 45,616,117 47,086,512 48,506,276 40% PULLBACK 21,081,833 21,736,595 25,253,744 25,996,645 26,766,307 27,518,335 DELINQUENT TAXES 3,900,000 3,500,000 3,805,000 3,819,150 3,933,725 4,051,736 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 141,400 142,814 144,242 145,685 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 400,000 365,000 368,650 372,337 376,060 379,820 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 225,000 227,250 229,523 231,818 234,136 MISC. AND RENTS 420,850 461,000 484,050 508,253 533,665 560,348 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 300,000 300,000 309,000 318,270 327,818 337,653 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 85,000 85,000 86,700 88,434 90,203 92,007 TOTAL 64,749,329 65,900,715 70,769,021 77,091,542 79,490,349 81,825,996 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 28,118,907 28,118,907 28,759,387 29,419,081 30,102,462 30,862,449 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 SETTLEMENT LOAN 4,500,000 APPORTIONMENT 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 VOCATIONAL 1,474,485 1,500,000 1,545,000 1,591,350 1,639,091 1,688,263 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 629,752 675,000 742,500 816,750 898,425 988,268 EARLY CHILDHOOD 147,050 147,050 154,403 162,123 170,229 178,740 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 TRANSPORTATION 2,983,190 3,100,000 3,348,000 3,615,840 3,905,107 4,217,516 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 874,311 875,000 918,750 964,688 1,012,922 1,063,568 M TO M TRANSFERS 1,798,665 2,490,900 3,248,910 3,760,540 4,140,580 4,491,150 ADULT EDUCATION 624,119 653,094 672,687 692,867 713,653 735,063 TOTAL 49,864,380 46,562,976 47,560,167 47,142,248 46,488,830 44,984,560 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 44,625 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANT 111,453 112,000 116,480 121,139 125,985 131,024 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 800,000 600,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 TOTAL 956,078 752,000 551,480 451,139 350,985 251,024 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 115,654,206 113,300,110 118,965,087 124,769,348 126,414,583 127,146,000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 3,370,820 4,474,288 4,563,774 4,655,049 4,748,150 4,843,113 CHAPTER II 224,423 215,020 219,320 223,707 228,181 232,745 TITLE VI B 558,810 569,986 581,386 593,014 604,874 616,971 OTHER 1,735,885 1,770,603 1,806,015 1,842,135 1,878,978 1,916,557 TOTAL 5,889,938 7,029,897 7,170,495 7,313,905 7,460,183 7,609,386 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 15,332,277 TOTAL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 15,332,277 TOTAL REVENUE 135,431,985 134,494,661 140,583,529 146,820,159 148,906,410 150,087,663 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES \u0026amp; MATERIALS OTHER OBJECTS CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY BUDGET REDUCTION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 67,748,508 71,437,088 73,765,037 75,316,854 76,822,807 7,808,935 9,022,067 9,202,509 9,386,558 9,574,290 16,910,424 19,141,451 18,887,119 22,144,629 24,940,080 6,791,207 6,992,544 7,202,320 7,418,390 7,640,942 3,817,539 3,927,703 4,045,534 4,166,900 4,291,907 887,696 755,079 777,731 801,063 825,095 1,606,543 1,621,715 1,670,366 1,720,477 1,772,092 8,718,196 9,597,115 9,090,123 8,845,248 8,258,921 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 (7,700,000) (7,931,000) (8,168,930) (8,413,998) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 114,289,048 115,294,762 117,309,739 122,331,189 126,512,136 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANT 5,889,938 7,029,897 7,170,495 7,313,905 7,460,183 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 TOTAL EXPENSES 134,066,827 136,489,313 138,928,181 144,382,000 149,003,963 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN 1,365,158 (1,994,652) 1,655,348 2,438,159 (97,553) FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 1996-97 79,373,940 9,765,775 25,864,401 7,870,170 4,420,664 849,848 1,825,255 8,041,468 900,000 (8,666,418) 130,245,103 7,609,386 15,332,277 153,186,767 (3,099,103) 4,001,302 902,199 Exhibit A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRiCT EXPENDITURE PROJECTION BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER OPERATING DESEG FEDERAL MAGNET TOTAL SALARY FUND GRANTS SCHOOLS 1105 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA 52,349.84 44,337.94 204,356.00 301,043.78 1110 KINDERGARTEN 2,795,060.64 325,000.00 425,733.12 3,545,793.76 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 28,811,085.64 7,562,955.21 6,686,389.30 9,069,517.95 52,129,948.10 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 4,037,827.87 1,224,081.75 11,626.28 362,373.04 273,945.79 5,909,854.73 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 4,071,829.27 1,238,599.52 118,050.36 351,162.00 601,212.16 6,380,853.31 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 698,543.12 35,608.75 130,509.54 864,661.41 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 756,490.90 537,715.75 1,649,581.34 3,522,602.96 6,880.00 6,473,27u.95 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 1,156,944.86 214,094.16 67,162.00 187,848.98 1,626,050.00 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2,598,700.99 1,102,812.86 317,475.66 428,580.73 651,786.63 5,099,356.87 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2,684,664.92 2.on,880.91 1,653,162.72 444,781.18 423,530.00 7,284,019.73 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 183,975.48 734,945.29 4,265,335.80 115,554.79 5,299,811.36 2410 PRINCIPAL'$ OFFICE 3,939,101.54 1,861,405.13 107,044.21 1,195,556.85 7,103,107.73 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 16,625,075.77 710,699.21 3,000.00 1,051,829.76 18,390,604.74 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 290,883.38 2,194,315.26 510,528.09 2,995,726.73 3000'S COMMUNITY SERVICES 839,750.00 640,566.28 464,212.24 1,944,528.52 5100 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 8,718,196.00 8,718,196.00 TOTAL 51,378,915.33 45,999,708.67 16,910,424.00 5,889,938.48 13,887,841.24 134,066,827.72 July 8, 1992 OFRCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee do Pulaski County Special School District P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Dear Bobby: The court needs additional information so that it may consider the Magnet Review Committee's proposed 1992-93 budget for the six original magnet schools. This information is necessary to comply with the court's March 16, 1992 order requiring that MRC requests be set in context and include a clear rationale. Furthermore, because of the acute financial difficulties currently experienced by all three school districts, it will be necessary to justify the requested budget in some detail. As you know, the court is mandated to scrutinize the parties' fiscal responsibility and accountability in relationship to the desegregation plans which, of course, include the magnet schools. To assist the court, please provide the following information: 1. Explain why the total 1992-93 magnet school budget is projected to be greater than the 1991-92 budget.  The requested 1992-93 budget of $14,164,654 is an increase of $389,238 over the 1991-92 budget of $13,775,416. The MRC proposal states that per-pupil expenditures will remain at the 1991-92 level of $3,682, yet it is not clear how the per-pupil amount can remain constant while the total budget rises, especially since the amount of the increase is not equal to the perpupil expenditure multiplied by the projected increase in student enrollment. 2. Explain step by step the process the MRC used in reaching the proposed 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal, including the method and results of independent MRC fact finding. 3. The committee's May 26, 1992 letter to Judge Wright states that the budget was approved on May 12, 1992 by a unanimous vote of those in attendance. Which MRC members attended the May 12 meeting? July 8, 1992 Page Two 4. What budget cost-cutting measures were considered by the MRC? 5. How will the MRC ensure that the 1992-93 magnet budget recommendation is aligned with the cost-containing budgets of the three school districts, especially that of the LRSD where a new superintendent must construct a significantly reduced 1992-93 district operating budget? 6. Section IX of the May 27, 1991 MRC annual report refers to some cost variations that are attributable to the \"ongoing start-up costs\" of certain magnet programs. Do these \"start-up\" costs remain \"ongoing\" in the 1992~93 budget? If so, provide details of what is considered start-up, the cost of each start-up factor, why the start-up phase has been prolonged, and when the start-up phase will be concluded. 7. Explain why indirect costs, vocational, athletics, gifted programs, plant services, reading, science, English, and special education are listed as separate line items. Even though these items have appeared separately on the magnet school budget for some years, it is not clear why they are separate. Also explain specifically how each of these items is related and apportioned to the operation of each magnet school. 8. What accounts for the increase in the amounts for purchases services and indirect costs? 9. When may the court expect to receive the MRC's 1991-92 annual report so the court can consider the proposed budget in conjunction with the MRC's evaluation of the magnet schools and any changes in their operation the committee may suggest? My associates and I will be glad to discuss any aspect of the magnet schools' budget if you'd like for us to get together. However, a formal response to this letter will be necessary so the court has the benefit of a written record. Thank you very much for your help. Very truly yours, Ck-- Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Donna Grady Greer OCT 6 19~2 Office of oesegr.zgation t\\ionitormg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRI CT NO:\"~1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT ~ASTEflN DISTPIW ARKANSAS OCT O 2 1992 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has received and filed of record a letter from the Magnet Review Committee concerning recent budget cuts by the Little Rock School District and the impact of those cuts on the six original magnet schools. The Committee sent a copy of the letter to the attorneys of record in this case. The parties are directed to file any response they might have to the Magnet Review Committee letter of September 28, 1992, within ten (10) days from the date of entry of this Order. ~ DATED this / day of October, 1992. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wl}H RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP 0N I[  2 -C!ce BY ____r_. _ ___ (  Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 28, 1992 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 DEC 2 8 19j2 (50 1) 758-01 56 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Offtee of Desegregation l,fonrto1 9 U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 1, 1992 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the , 1992-93 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,278,796, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,682.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,878 students. Of this amount, $86,469 is designated as contingency. While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. For the 1991-92 school year, the same per pupil expenditure figure was used for budgeting interdistrict magnet school monies. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: 1) In keeping with the Court's March 16, 1992 Order, which required the Magnet Review Committee to submit budgets to the Court for review and approval well in advance of the need for funds, the Magnet Revi ew Committee forwarded a preliminary budget to the Court on May 26, 1992. In that May 26, 1992 budget transmittal letter, the Magnet Review Committee made the Court aware of factors that could impact the budget. Included in that letter was a statement expressing the MRC's reluctance \"to endorse any blanket reduction of costs that would possibly have a deleterious effect on programs.\" Judge Susan Webber Wright -2- December 28, 1992 2) The Court, via the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, asked the MRC to provide a budget which would better reflect the total figure needed to operate the magnets for the 1992-93 school year. 3) The MRC received information on proposed LRSD budget cuts, which would have eliminated 14.9 FTE positions in the interdistrict magnet schools. In a special meeting held in the MRC Office on July 23, 1992, LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE positions rather than 14.9 FTE. As a normal part of the budgeting process, the MRC met with each interdistrict magnet school principal to review their budgets and get input as to how budget cuts would impact their program. As a result of this meeting, the MRC approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE positions, with LRSD being requested to reinstate the same individual staff members who had been impacted by those cuts. The LRSD agreed to reinstate cuts but declined to reinstate the same personnel. 4) The MRC forwarded a letter to the Court on September 28, 1992 seeking the reinstatement of the affected personnel. The Court ordered reinstatement in a November 5, 1992 Order. 5) The MRC reviewed the revised LRSD budget figures at the MRC meeting on December 1, 1992 and, upon determining that the figures had been adjusted t9 reflect the reinstatement of the 3.9 FTE positions, approved the budget which is attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1992-93 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Judge Susan Webber Wright -3- December 28, 1992 The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, ~Jlralk- Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Dr. Mac Bernd, Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Burton Elliott, Arkansas Department of Education Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO) OTHER (60) Cc  1991.:+9.:i -.ic\\ /' ,,:,._.,,,.,,. c/ci:CC:,c 1992':\"9:3 /- b  F.T:E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $356,933 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $481 ,040 Specialists 37.4 $1 ,274,519 36.2 $1,267,906 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $385,806 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $224,756 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,528 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $255,724 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $168,457 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 178.6 $5,243,059 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $158,428 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $419,788 Fringe Benefits(20) X)Q(XX* $1 ,068,359 xx:xxxxx $1,185,445 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $10,597,663 288.6 $10,636,870 Secretaries 18.0 $301 ,141 17.0 $310,176 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $153,326 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $356,721 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $111,191 Other-Aides 39.S $316,035 39.S $325,514 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $185,965 xxxxxx:l( - $227,463 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $1,406,433 97.4 $1,484,391 Utilities xxxxxxxi $601,780 mxx,\u0026amp; $627,700 Travel xxxxxx:ic Maintenance Agreements xxxxx?6( xx:xxxxx $166,508 xxxxxxx. $195,093 TOT AL (30) ~#XX $768,288 xAA~#. $822,793 Principal's Office xi1006qc Regular Classroom xx:xxxl{XI $379,717 $59,072 Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (40) $399,942 5dix.~~ $438,789 Equipment $120,394 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $120,394 Dues and Fees $5,895 Other TOTAL (60) $8,358 $5,895 TOT AL (30-60) $1,288,412 $1,387,871 TOT AL (1 0-60) 393.4 $13,292,508 386.0 $13,509,132 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $595,333 $769,664 GRAND TOTAL $13,887,841 $14,278,796 Stipends $0 $46,609 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education Contingency xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx $503,365 $521,176 $30,837 $35,000 $31,231 $35,000 $0 $2,000 $18,271 $25,000 $5,334 $6,880 $0 $972 $2,368 $2,558 $3,927 $8,000 $0 $86,469 * 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3878.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $14,278,796 * While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated.  ~2-93 Budget Proposal' ::nrn\u0026gt;tc :  . '  \". 1991-92   '   1992-93 BookecMagnet School  ..... : I] !\n:..\nf\ni::i:) ...... t F.T.E, ? Salaries yi  F,T.E, Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $48,442 STAFF r.A-s~st-.~P~rin-.--------t---:1~.o::-+-~$5~4~.~52~6=-+--1-.0::-+-----'-$-5~2,~5~93=---l Specialists 6.0 $350,341 6.0 $356,951 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $45 ,325 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,366 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 31.2 $751,321 31.2 $758,861 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,878 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,467 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,649 $23,328 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $112,766 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxx'.*- $172,697 ~~~: $181,564 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,689,129 47.9 $1,699,540 SUPPORT Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $31,661 STAFF rN-u-rs_e_s----------t---:-1-.0t ----:-$-2'4-,9-7-6+ ---+----,--,-- 1.0 $25,725 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Custodians 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $45,502 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $75,045 Fringe Benefits(20) xpc~iac $28,550 xx:xxxxx $34,827 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $201,301 16.0 $212,760 Utilities $81,637 xflb\u0026amp;x:xt $83,ooo Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $27,963 xltj(*-x5( $27,552 TOTAL (30) $109,600 xx:#xxx $110,552 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $54,789 Media $5,672 Other TOTAL (40) $60,461 Equipment $14 ,00Q Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $14,000 Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,718 63.9 $2,097,313 TOTAL LINE m MS- (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL *fxf6Hof $2,152,746 x#6obat $2,19a,8o5 !ii@~~~~1~:\n~\n~iji1~ : ~~\n~:\n1ii::\n  Stipends $8,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $85,830 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $3,016 $4,127 Reading $883 $1,137 Science $159 English $394 $419 Special Education $648 $1,321 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx e.~J106iiP.6$tJ%!:t\nt:Jltd% 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,198,805 ?ef'Ptlpil'Cost'tIIttr: h , t%@$~}4ZZ\\\" {lt\nt$~M~S{ Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1~92-~3 Budget proB9~aC: ... . t 1991-9~  1992-9 Ci!rv~(M~~~e(crh=oo-t\"\u0026lt;: --:----:-~~-~~~\"-t+ F. ......1.. ~\\E-:- \", -St-a~la--r'i-e-s'- A-+- -i-f- -F-.'T--.E+.- \"-=S-a=l-acri.e.=s,- =----j CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,981 STAFF r.A-s~st-.~P~rin-.---------t---:1~.o::-+---'-$~3~1.~3~28.c..+--1~.0.::...+----=$~3~2~.2~6~8 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $224,912 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $46,311 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,748 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $596,866 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $28,744 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,640 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,695 $23,376 Other-Kindergarten' 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $99,303 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $137,204 xxxxxxx $155,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,320,263 42.6 $1,341,783 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $52,743 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,795 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $42,578 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11 .0 $83,777 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxX $30,621 ~xxx $41 , 156 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $233,430 19.0 $250,049 Utilities Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL {10-60) ~~6{ $68,924 i9\u0026lt;,gxxx $79, 1 oo $22,843 ~  $91,767 ~  $22,128 ~~ $22,128 ~lq{ $2,857 ~  63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 $26,900 $106,000 $64,100 $12,000 $78,100 $16,290 $16,290 $1,020 $1,020 $1,791,242 TOTAL LINE IT! MS - (SECOND PAGE) $100,269 GRAND TOTAL $1,891,510 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $82,855 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,912 $3,984 Reading $852 $1,097 Science $153 English $380 $405 Special Education $625 $1,275 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,891,510 PerRut:\u0026gt;JJ ... cosf f,J@: mwt :trnrt~a\no35@tt tm~s:ns~r Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1@2-93 Budget ProposaF : :\n:{ \n:t: '., ,,,, 't '\n, ,, ...  1991 ... 92/\u0026lt; !Pfa~.Migm~!:#r0:0:1: \"\"\":\"\"\"\"'-:\"\"--'-:~=~r= F'-.T'-.E\".= =S=al'a\"r\"ieis- ---+-----+---+--- C ER TI FIE D Principal 1.0 F.T.E. Salaries $55,462 STAFF ~A-s~st-.~P~rin-.--------+-----=-1~.o:-+---:-=-::-'--:-':-::-+----:--::-+----'-~ 1.0 $57,126 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $164,307 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,766 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $490,762 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $49,414 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,081 $10,384 Other-Kindergarten ' 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $58,274 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx: $109,125 xxxxxxx $122,647 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $1,070,536 31 .3 $1,126,941 SUPPORT Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 1.0 $12,873 f-------------+---+------'--+- S TAFF Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $15,023 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) t--------------+---+-----+- C us to di ans 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $42,275 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $46,903 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXJQl:XX $20,314 XXX)()(X.X $23,254 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $133,977 10.8 $140,327 Utilities x~~xx $35,102 x\u0026gt;QClodat $38,300 Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $13,000 TOTAL (30) $51,300 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $29,668 Media $6,400 Other TOTAL (40) $36,068 Equipment $12,920 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $12,920 Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) $0 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 42.1 $1,367,556 TOTAL LINE IT:MS - (SECOND PAGE) $59,203 GRAND TOTAL $1,426,759 Stipends $7,009 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $47,713 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $1,676 $2,294 Reading $491 $632 Science $88 English $219 $233 Special Education $360 $734 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 353.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,426,759 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - g~~~~:.~~~~~e\n.\n~~~1~:::.:\nJ\n::1\n~:Ji'.::::\nI::\n lji:\n111~: i[j :.: ! ~~~9~ ::\naries  . ~~!~gs Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $64,070 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 .$144,375 3.0 $148,706 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $103,259 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $75,935 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $40,083 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $194,384 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,846 Gifted Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,344,079 Substitutes $45,577 $46,944 Other Fringe Benefits(20) xx\nx)O(xx $245,140 xx:xxxx:x  $275,053 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,440,016 64.3 $2,339,360 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $51,267 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,608 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $69,062 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $31,556 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $50,084 Fringe Benefits(20) XX:X~?CX $30,713 *~\u0026gt;tx( $37,395 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $257,637 14.5 $270,972 Utilities #xxxxx' $164,666 x5.cxxx5t $168,300 Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $60,941 TOTAL (30) $213,554 x~~xx $229,241 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $85,000 Media $11,000 Other TOTAL (40) $96,000 Equipment $28,Q00 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $28,000 Dues and Fees $1,375 Other TOTAL (60) $1,470 $1,375 TOT AL (30-60) $328,253 $354,616 TOT AL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 $2,964,948 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) $143,218 $162,358 GRAND TOTAL $3,169,124 $3,127,306 Stipends $8,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $117,877 Vocational $13,141 $15,600 Athletics $9,202 $10,440 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $5,668 Reading $1,209 $1,559 Science $220 English $537 $580 Special Education $890 $1,814 xxxxxx xxxxxx \\ xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 890.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,127,306 ae:r@mraost:t:::1,r::1: ::::Jr trnrrn::$$.ip~J :rn:m%J$.ii'$1\\ft Date Submitted - Principal 's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - J99:i\n~j Budget Proposal '' .,, . ..- , .. .,,. ''   1991-92 ...... 1992.:.93  =,=, E~f\u0026amp;'.!iW,=:Mi9D~JSchoot)@  ,,. },'.'',/{ d= ,.....F-T. -_-E-. -s-a~la-ri-es_ ..........- +-F-.T -.-E. --+-S-a-la-ri_e_s ---1 ~:---:-':--\"-=~.c...:.:\n..==\"-'~\"'----'=t---=t-::...:.:...:__:_..:..__-+...:...:...:..::..:...-+=-===-----1 CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $63,212 t----'--------------+----+------'---'...:....:....-+-----'-:..+----=-.::..=.c..::....:..:::...j STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $1.50,132 3.0 $154,636 t-=--:---:---,,-----------+----+------'--+----+-...:____:...:....:....~ Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $283,515 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $136,735 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $34,028 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $295,144 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $47,994 Gifted Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,394,697 Substitutes $42,409 $43,682 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxxx $271,685 XX:XXXXX . $302,475 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,762,168 66.6 $2,796,790 SUPPORT Secretaries t--------------+-----+------'---+-----+---- 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $129,665 S TAFF Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $19,117 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $107,724 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $79,635 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $23,821 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx' $49,690 xx:xxxxx $57,550 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $399,168 21.6 $417,512 +% , : 'ff 0tAC.ti\u0026lt;\u0026gt;t2on1 tr mt. xxxxxxx tl$s\n1s1\nau: x~~xi( @t-$s:214.\nao1 PURCHASED Utilities xxxxx~: $208,483 xxxx:ib\u0026amp;: $210,000 SERVICES Travel (30) Maintenance Agreements Other $48,700 TOTAL (30) $247,575 xx'.x\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;ldf $258,700 MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom $100,850 (40) Media $17,000 Other TOTAL (40) $117,850 CAPITAL Equipment $37,000 OUTLAY Building Repair, etc. (50) Other TOTAL (50) $37,000 OTHER Dues and Fees $3,496 m~ $3,500 (60) Other TOTAL (60) $3,496 $3,500 TOTAL (30-60) $393,671 $417,050 TOT AL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,631,351 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) $158,509 $172,976 GRAND TOTAL $3,713,516 $3,804,327 UiieltetnCosts~ r  ..... ::::\n: ..  : t  !ttiSli:Filpiii~atii\nHJ 1 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. Total Costs Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - I 1991-92 1992-93 $3,000 $112,135 $116,341 $17,696 $19,400 $22,029 $24,560 $4,071 $5,566 $1,182 $1,530 $221 $520 $577 $876 $1,781 1991-92 1992-93 837.6 870.0 $3,713,516 $3,804,327 LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $66,102 STAFF r.A-s-st~. ~P~ri-n.--------+-~1~.0-+---'-$~35~,~8~40-+--1-.0-+--=$~3~6~,9~15=--l Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $134,962 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,830 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,765 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21 .0 $657,794 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $32,848 Gifted 2.0 $58 ,913 2.0 $60,680 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,402 $10,714 Other-Kindergarten ' 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $108,775 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXXXXX. $132,508 xx.xxxxx $148,072 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,315,549 35.9 $1,332,458 SUPPORT Secretaries f-------------+---+----'--+----+---- S TAFF Nurses f---------- ---+---+-----+-----+---- C us to di ans 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $31,967 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $32,058 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $49,580 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $45,884 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxx:x $26,076 xx.xxxx:x $33,281 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $180,920 15.5 $192,771 PURCHASED Utilities xxlbo6\u0026amp; $42,968 xxxxxxx $49,ooo SERVICES Travel xxxxx* xxxxxxx (30) Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x Other $18,000 TOTAL (30) $59,227 xx:xxxxx: $67,000 MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom $44 ,4 n mxxx.t $45,310 (40) Media $7,000 Other TOTAL (40) $51,454 xxx~ $52,310 CAPITAL Equipment $12,184 OUTLAY Building Repair, etc. (50) Other TOTAL (50) $12,184 OTHER Dues and Fees (60) Other TOTAL (60) $535 $0 TOT AL (30-60) $126,200 $131,494 TOT AL (10-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51 .4 $1,656,723 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) $71,665 xxxxxx:i( $86,895 GRAND TOTAL $1,694,335 $1,743,618 t..ihti\"ifuitfcosts'#i:\\ViC  ---.,  .::::: ::\n: :',~0\"::: r \u0026gt;  ..   Arti'p6'~11'hatib(l I I ~~\n:\n~r ' 1992-93 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $70,560 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,455 $3,361 Reading $717 $925 Science $131 English $318 $344 Special Education $528 $1,075 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx RE!tiBilbifcbst%i@@:@%ViMI: 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 517.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,743,618 P~rtf{iJptlC6~f% ,,,/%/ :FL, :$$'\n3~fS{ n:]}$3)Sta Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suit~ 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 JUL 1 7 iS92 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director Oifice of Desegrcga::cn 1.,vnit0ring (501 ) 758-0156 TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Bob Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Altom${t't1ir, Magnet Review Committee Response to Letter from Ann Brown July 17, 1992 Attached herewith is a copy of the MRC response to the subject letter. Per our discussion, this is for your perusal prior to our meeting at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 1992. At this meeting, we can respond to any questions that might arise. If you need additional information prior to our meeting, you may contact me or contact the Magnet Review Committee Office at 758-0156. I look forward to our meeting on Tuesday. BA/DGC:sl Attachment RESPONSE TO ODM REGARDING INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS  BUDGET INFORMATION 1) Explain why the total 1992-93 magnet school budget is projected to be greater than the 1991-92 budget. The interdistrict magnet school per pupil expense of $3,682.00 is the amount for both the 1991-92 and the 1992-93 fiscal years. The ADM used to compute the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet schools budget is 3,741.29. The 1992-93 ADM figure of 3,847 results in a difference of 105.71. 105.71 times 3,682 is exactly $389,238. 2) Explain step by step the process the MRC used in reaching the proposed 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal, including the method and results of independent MRC fact finding. The MRC made every effort to comply with the Court's Order dated March 16, 1992. In this Court Order, we were told to present requests well in advance of the need for approval. A discussion of the interdistrict magnet schools' 1992-93 budget was on the April 21, 1992 MRC agenda. Minutes from that meeting indicate that the MRC directed Estelle Matthis to work with LRSD to bring a draft budget to the MRC on or before May 1, 1992. In our opinion, independent fact finding would mean that an outside individual would be employed or contracted to investigate the interdistrict magnet schools budget-making process. We have not found it necessary to go this route. Jim Ivey, Support Services Manager at LRSD, and Mark Milhollen, Controller for LRSD, presented the rationale for budget changes to the MRC. In the past, the MRC has invited the principals of each interdistrict magnet school to an MRC meeting to explain costs, especially where a significant increase was requested or a substantial decrease was recommended. No substantial changes of any type were predicted at this time. Changes in administrative costs were due to extraneous Central Office/State/ Court-ordered mandates, and not due to changes made by principals. 3) The Committee's May 26, 1992 letter to Judge Wright states that the budget was approved on May 12, 1992 by a unanimous vote of those in attendance. Which MRC members attended the May 12th meeting? Members attending the May 12, 1992 MRC meeting were as follows: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD Marcia Harding, ADE Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Estelle Matthis, LRSD Members absent were: Clearence Lovell, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors A proxy vote for Clearence Lovell was cast by Marcia Harding. 4) What budget cost-cutting measures were considered by the MRC? The MRC talked with the LRSD representative prior to placing a review of a draft budget on the agenda. The district was asked to be conservative since the MRC did not want to raise the per pupil expenditure. Several conversations were held with the host district for the purpose of cost containment. Cost-cutting carries a connotation of cutting services. Our objective was (and is) to retain quality, integrity and attractiveness of programs. The Court has repeatedly stated that the desegregation plan is to be implemented without regard to economic factors. The MRC has always viewed its role as one of maintaining the quality of the interdistrict magnet school program while exercising fiscal restraint. Each MRC party agreed to maintain the current level of per pupil expenditure. The MRC has always been fiscally responsible and empathetic to the financial status of all its parties. 5) How will the MRC ensure that the 1992-93 magnet budget recommendation is aligned with the cost-containing budgets of the three school districts, especially  that of the LRSD where a new superintendent must construct a significantly reduced 1992-93 district operating budget? By design, the MRC is a body that is to \"oversee the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program.\" The funding of the interdistrict magnet schools, by design, comes from the three districts and.the State. 1/2 of the operating costs for the interdistrict magnet schools is borne by the State, with the remaining 1/2 of the costs shared by the three school districts. The MRC also recognizes that personnel costs typically account for about 80% of a school's budget. The MRC will be receptive to any fiscal options that do not hinder program effectiveness. The districts are least likely to make significant reductions in interdistrict magnet schools - key components of the desegregation plan. Even though the districts may be reducing in areas of the overall budget, the districts have to be cautious not to take cuts in any area that will adversely affect desegregation. 6) Section IX of the May 27, 1992 MRC annual report refers to some cost variations that are attributable to the \"ongoing start-up costs\" of certain magnet programs. Do these \"start-up\" costs remain \"ongoing\" in the 1992-93 budget? If so, provide details of what is considered start-up, the cost of each start-up factor, why the start-up phase has been prolonged, and when the start-up phase will be concluded. Not all components of the magnet school theme areas were initiated at the opening of the programs, but were phased in over a period of years. The curriculum guides for each school determine when and if additions or updates of programs initially implemented at that school are needed. At this time, the preliminary budget most likely has few, if any, new start-up costs. The MRC will continue to closely examine each school's needs to determine if, in fact, the variance from school to school is due to ongoing start-up costs or ongoing specialty/magnet program costs. 7) Explain why indirect costs, vocational, athletics, gifted programs, plant services, reading, science, English, and special education are listed as separate line items. Even though these items have appeared separately on the magnet school budget for some years, it is not clear why they are separate. Also, explain specifically how each of these items is related and apportioned to the operation of each magnet school. One of the early Court Orders establishing the interdistrict magnet schools allows indirect costs. A district accounting practice holds each interdistrict magnet school accountable for funds expended from that department. For example, if Parkview spends funds for athletics, it is taken from the athletics line item in the interdistrict magnet school budget. At times, departments buy items in bulk for several schools and give each school its share of that item. The proportional cost of that item is taken from the budget accordingly. 8) What accounts for the increase in the amounts for purchased services and indirect costs? The purchased services increase is due to a projected increase in the costs of utilities. The indirect cost item is an item allowed from the original Court Order which reimburses LRSD for the costs of running the interdistrict magnet school program. This cost is always tied to the indirect cost rate calculated annually by the State. LRSD's rate is 3.65% of the per pupil expenditure. 9) When may the Court expect to receive the MRC's 1991-92 annual report so the Court can consider the proposed budget in conjunction with the MRC's evaluation of the magnet schools and any changes in their operation the Committee may suggest? The MRC is to report to the Court on a yearly basis. The budget is usually forwarded to the Court when the final revisions are made. It has been our practice to deliver the report when the budget for the reporting year can be included. The evaluation report is forwarded upon completion by our independent evaluation team. If it is the Court's desire for these three reports to be presented simultaneously, we can adjust our schedule accordingly. However, the budget cannot be finalized until the LRSD has completed the teacher contract negotiation process.  Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 July 29, 1992 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: 'JUL 3 0 1992 The Magnet Review Committee met yesterday with Dr. Mac Bernd of the Little Rock School District to hear his request for reductions in the original magnet schools' budgets. No formal action was taken, but the following consensual decisions were made: The Little Rock School District has agreed to complete the new budgetary format developed as a resul~ of inquiry into the budgetary process from the Office of besegregation Monitoring as a representative of Judge Wright. Copies of a school budget and the summary budget forms are included with this letter. The Magnet Review Committee will review a preliminary draft of the 1991-92 School Year Evaluation Report during a special meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 26, 1992, at 4:30 p.m. Reviewing the report prior to looking at the budget requests will provide insight for the budgeting process. After the evaluation report review has been conducted, the Little Rock School District will present its budgetary requests. The district will submit, in writing, the impact of the requested budget cuts on its desegregation plan and the interdistrict plan. The principals of the magnet schools will be present to answer questions about their individual budgets. The proposed date of approval for both the magnet school budgets and the evaluation report is September 15, 1992. Ms. Ann Brown -2- July 29, 1992 The Committee accepted the proposed timelines for the budgeting process with one modification. The April and May activities were combined. A copy is included. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling its oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, ,,,-, ~ cI. 4t'ft.  1/1~ Altom~ hairperson Magnet Review Committee BA:sl Enclosures TIMELINE for THE INTERDISTRICT ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETING PROCESS JANUARY FEBRUARY MAY JUNE The LRSD submits previous fiscal year end of year budget information to the Magnet Review Committee on MAC-approved format. The MRC submits next fiscal school year budget forms to LRSD and interdistrict ~agnet schools. Interdistrict magnet school budgets are submitted to the Magnet Review Cammi ttee. The MRC reviews requests with LRSD representatives, including the principals of the magnet schools. The MRC approves the budget and submits it to the court.* *At least two (2) factors, contract negotiations and health insurance rate changes, will cause the budget to be less than a certainty. Date 29-Jul-92 STAFF SUPPORT STAFF Pagel ialists Counselors Media S c. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational S ial Education Gifted Cha ter 1 Substitutes Other 0.0 $0 Nurses Custodians Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 Para rofessionals-Other Other Frin e Benefits(20) ~ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 $0 :mtmmn~~tilit: .. : 1m1v.=  \n:'/t.f.'.I~:s:.. PURCHASED Utilities SERVICES Travel (30) Maintenance A ments Other MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTIIER (60) TOTAL (30) Other TOTAL (40) Equi ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (10-60) $0 $0 $0 0.0 o.o TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL $0    : . .  . filename-booker.wql $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 Page2 er Objects irectCosts ocational x:xxxxx x:xxxxx x:xxxxx xxxxxx filename-booker. wql Date 29-Jul-92 Date Submitted. - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature-filename- booker.wql Page3 Date 29-Jul-92 . Page 4  ,~ ~-'sV::: ::::\n:\n:::::~-:t:::'::: :\n:\n::\n:.}:'.-\n-i~~\n:'.:r-:-::\n:\n:::::::::::: .. . . .. . .. . . . .. .......................... . STAFF Asst. Prin. t------------t-----+-----+---+--------11 Specialists Counselors MediaS ec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational S ial Education Gifted Cha ter 1 Substitutes Other Frin e Benefits(20) :::::.::::::::.%:. TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries 1---------------+-----t----i--------\n1 STAFF Nurses 1---------------+-----t----i--------\n1 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) Custodians Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 Para rofessionals-Other Other Frin e Benefits(20) Travel Maintenance A ments Other TOTAL(30) MATERIALS, Princi al's Office SUPPLIES Re ar Classroom $0 (40) ~M~ed:_!1~a ______ _umlffl __ _J!mL----ll CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTIIER (60) Other TOTAL (40) Equi ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL(60) +tWMPMl'QlWB.\\(Qf~~l)WfaWH:tt TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL filename-booker.wql $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 Pagel NA NA NA NA NA NA Counselors NA NA NA Media S c. NA NA NA Art-Perf./Prod. NA NA NA Music NA NA NA Foreign Lang. NA NA NA Vocational NA NA NA s ial Education NA NA NA Gifted NA NA NA Cha ter 1 NA NA NA Substitutes NA NA NA Other NA NA NA Frin e Benefits(20) _. ...... .::::,,:../ NA :-:-:-::::::::'.y'.\n.  ... TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY NA NA NA SUPPORT Secretaries NA NA NA STAFF Nurses NA NA NA Custodians NA NA NA Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 NA NA NA Para rofessionals-Other NA NA NA Other NA NA NA,, Frin e Benefits(20) .. .... ......... .-. .-:-:---. NA --,--------:-,-- PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OU1LAY (50) (60) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY c:\u0026gt; \u0026gt;:::L .'.WM{t\u0026amp;,,Rl@H1%M\n: Utilities Travel Maintenance A reements Other TOTAL(30) Re lar Classroom Media Other TOTAL(40) ui ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL(S0) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (10-60) OTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL filename-summary.WQl NA NA : SXlU?'/tNAb   NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA AM:3\\:.:mt,:,:NA, ... : NA $0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA . NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Date 29-Jul-92 Page2 NA er Objects NA NA t Costs NA NA ocational NA NA Athletics NA NA Gifted Programs NA NA Plant Services NA NA Reading NA NA Science NA NA English NA NA S ial Education NA NA xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx filename-summary.WQl Date 29-Jul-92 Total Costs Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 NA LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-summary.WQl Page3 NA Magnet Revieiv Comntittee Donna Grady Creer Executive Di,ector February 4, 1993 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansa5 72114 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: (501) 758-0156 When the Magnet Review Committee became aware of the potential of $5.5 million in cuts being made in Little Rock School District's 1993-94 budget, we were concerned as to the impact these proposed cuts might have on interdistrict magnet schools curriculum and personnel. In mid-to-late November, we polled districts across the United States as to their policy(ies) regarding magnet staff during a Reduction in Force (RIF). As a result of the responses we received, we began to act to request a hearing with regard to the development of a policy that, when enforced, would protect magnet staff positions which impact heavily on theme implementation. We have enclosed the guidelines that we plan to follow for your perusal and will keep you apprised of our work. Sincerely, ~~' Chair Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Enclosure , I. THU lE,:10 Rationale The Magnet Review Committee is taking the following steps to support its rationale for the proposal of a staffing policy that protects certain interdistrict magnet positions from the Little Rock School District's Reduction in Force (RIF) policy: A. Solicit letters from those persons already contacted regarding their RIF policy and how it impacts magnet schools staff. B. Review the literature and research on magnet themes and how critical the staffing is to the implementation of themes. c. Review/share/recount related experiences encountered when visiting other school districts as to their comments on how critical staffing is in establishing curriculum, as well as attracting and maintaining students. D. Include local experiences in cause/effect relationships that would encompass course development and staff development. E. Plan for input from other groups. II. Procedures A. Donna Creer will again contact the school districts mentioned in I.A. She will provide background information to the districts as to why we are asking for this information. Questions to be answered are: 1) Do they have a policy? If so, please include a copy. 2) Has the policy/lack of policy in this particular area encountered any difficulties? If so, what are they? 3) Please provide the pros and cons of the current practice. THU 16 :~11 B. The regular meeting of the MRC scheduled for February 16, 1993, will be devoted to developing a document for the Court regarding Little Rock School District's RIF policy. Invitees to this meeting are as follows: 3 Leadership members of the LRCTA 7 Magnet Review Committee representatives 4 LRSD Central Office members (minimum number - possibly more will be in attendance) 6 Magnet school principals ? Special invitees - ODM, other C. A survey will be provided to parents of magnet school children. Parents will be asked to give their perception of which people should be retained in their positions if the district is forced to use its RIF policy. The positions would be those that are deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of the magnet therne(s). The results of the survey will help to determine which positions the MRC may request to be protected from the Little Rock School District RIF policy. P.03 / THU 15:59 P  0 1 .371- 0/00 DATE: TO: FIRH: RE: FROM: PAGES: FAX COVER SHEET FAX MACHINE# (501) 771-2420 d1F~,__~-~ Lv. ~ ~--- .!/ (INCLUDING 'l'HXS COVER SR!::ET) PL:SASE CALL BACK IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN TRA'.'lS:-~rss:::m,s OR IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED. NOTES: FEB 1 8 \\993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Ofnigng'ition Mon,iori\nig LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER F~LED . ' .C. DISTRICT COURT .::.:Ei\u0026lt;:, DISTRICT ARKANSAS ~B 1 2 1993 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for approval of the 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal. The proposed budget was forwarded to the Court on December 28, 1992. (See attached letter and document.) The Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring have carefully reviewed the budget and the Court finds that it should be approved as submitted. -r.l, SO ORDERED this /J-__ day of February, 1993. Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 28, 1992 1900 North Main Street  suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. s. Post Office and Courthouse P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 1, 1992 meeting, the Magnet Review (501) 758-0156 Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1992-93 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,278,796, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,682.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,878 students. Of this amount, $86,469 is designated as contingency. While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. For the 1991-92 school year, the same per pupil expenditure figure was used for budgeting interdistrict magnet school monies. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: 1) In keeping with the Court's March 16, 1992 Order, which required the Magnet Review Committee to submit budgets to the Court for review and approval well in advance of the need for funds, the Magnet Review Committee forwarded a preliminary budget to the Court on May 26, 1992. In that May 26, 1992 budget transmittal letter, the Magnet Review Committee made the Court aware of factors that could impact the budget. Included in that letter was a statement expressing the MRC's reluctance \"to endorse any blanket reduction of costs that would possibly have a deleterious effect on programs.\" Judge Susan Webber Wright -2- December 28, 1992 2) The Court, via the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, asked the MRC to provide a budget which would better reflect the total figure needed to operate the magnets for the 1992-93 school year. 3) The MRC received information on proposed LRSD budget cuts, which would have eliminated 14.9 FTE positions in the interdistrict magnet schools. In a special meeting held in the MRC Office on July 23, 1992, LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE positions rather than 14.9 FTE. As a normal part of the budgeting process, the MRC met with each interdistrict magnet schooi principal to review their budgets and get input as to how budget cuts would impact their program. As a result of this meeting, the MRC approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE positions, with LRSD being requested to reinstate the same individual staff members who had been impacted by those cuts. The LRSD agreed to reinstate cuts but declined to reinstate the same personnel. 4) The MRC forwarded a letter to the Court on September 28, 1992 seeking the reinstatement of the affected personnel. The Court ordered reinstatement in a November 5, 1992 Order. 5) The MRC reviewed the revised LRSD budget figures at the MRC meeting on December 1, 1992 and, upon determining that the figures had been adjusted to reflect the reinstatement of the 3.9 FTE positions, approved the budget which is attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1992-93 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Judge Susan Webber Wright -3- December 28, 1992 The Magnet Review Connnittee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, \u0026amp;~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Dr. Mac Bernd, Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Burton Elliott, Arkansas Department of Education Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District lifillllrdlll~~jjJJJliiiii~j:Jlii:ljiJ:l!llil ~~~:-9 Salaries :~~:fl !anes '  CERTIFIED Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $356,933 STAFF Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $481,040 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 36.2 $1,267,906 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $385,806 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $224,756 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,528 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $255,724 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $168,457 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 178.6 $5,243,059 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $158,428 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $419,788 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $1,068,359 ~  $1,185,445 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $10,597,663 288.6 $10,636,870 SUPPORT Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 17.0 $310,176 STAFF Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $153,326 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $356,721 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $111,191 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $325,514 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $185,965 ~  $227,463 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $1 .406,433 97.4 $1.484,391 nm@t}tlJY:OTAb.\\((1042.0, ....................... ,\n............. xx:xxxxi ($1.2\n00'4J~ t ~  #$Ji2~1'21{261@ PURCHASED Utilities ~  $601,780 ~  $627,700 SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL LINE IT Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal' s Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) MS-(SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL XXXlOOCX ~ ~ \n:::~::::-:~-::--\n-:-:-:-: )0.l:lQ()OIX XXXXXXJC $166,508 ~ . $195,093 ~ $768,288 ~ . $822,793 XXX\u0026gt;OOOC imxx'x:, XXXJOOO(. $343.433 ~  $379,717 xxxxxx:x $56,509 mxxxx' $59,072 \u0026gt;000000( xmcxxx xx:xxxxx. $399,942 xxxxxxx $438,789 \u0026gt;000000(' $111,824 ~ - $120,394 xxxxxxx ~  XXXX\u0026gt;OOC xxxxxxx. XX:XXXX:X $111 ,824 xx:xxxxx $120,394 xxxxxx:x $8,358 XXX)OO(X. $5,895 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $8,358 XXlOOOO( $5,895 xxxxxxx $1,288,412 xxxxxxx $1 ,387,871 393.4 $13,292,508 386.0 $13,509,132 xxxxxxx  $595,333 xxxxxx:x $769,664 xxxxxxx $13,887,841 xxxxxx:x $14,278,796 Stipends $0 $46,609 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $503,365 $521,176 Vocational $30,837 $35,000 Athletics $31,231 $35,000 Gifted Programs $0 $2,000 Plant Services $18,271 $25,000 Reading $5,334 $6,880 Science $0 $972 English $2,368 $2,558 Special Education $3,927 $8,000 Contingency $0 $86,469 * xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3878.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $14,278,796 * While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $48,442 STAFF Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $52,593 Specialists 6.0 $350,341 6.0 $356,951 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $45,325 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,366 Art-Pert ./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 31.2 $751,321 31.2 $758,861 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,878 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,467 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,649 $23,328 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $112,766 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ r $172,697 ~ : $181,564 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,689,129 47.9 $1,699,540 SUPPORT Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $31,661 1------------+----+--------1-----t--- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 1.0 1------------+----+----..\n...._---1------ $24,976 $25,725 C us to di ans 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $45,502 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $75,045 Fringe Benefits(20) ~~r $28,550 ~  $34,827 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $201,301 16.0 $212,760 ItMIJ@lt@tarAU:J1042.0'1:  , ,   ~  i?f$1t890!43Qi! ~  #$.tU~1aJPt PURCHASED Utilities ~  $81,637 ~ : $83,000 SERVICES Travel ~  ~ : (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ i. ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) Other \u0026gt;a:XlOCXX. $27,963 xuioax. TOTAL(30) ~ . $109,600 ~  Principal's Office \u0026gt;OOOCXXX xxii\u0026amp;xx: Regular Classroom XXJOCXXX $53,613 ~  Media \u0026gt;dxxxxx $4,698 xxiiixx Other xmcxxx ,oo\u0026amp;xxx TOTAL (40) xx:xxxxx: $58,311 XJXli()QIX Equipment m,oocx\n$6,3TT ~  Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $6,3TT xxxxxxx. OTHER Dues and Fees XXXX:XXX. XXJOOCXX (60) Other xxxxxxx )000000(. TOT AL (60) xx:xxxxx $0 XX:lOOOOf TOTAL {30-60) \"  xxxxxx:x . $174,288 xxxxxxx: TOTAL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,718 63.9 TOTAL LINE IT MS- (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxx:x $88,028 xxxxxxx GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $2,152,746 xxxxxx:x: $27,552 $110,552 $54,789 $5,672 $60,461 $14,000 $14,000 $0 .. $185,0ts.: $2,097,313 $101,493 $2,198,805 1992-93 Stipends $8,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $85,830 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $3,016 $4,127 Reading $883 $1 ,137 Science $159 English $394 $419 Special Education $648 $1,321 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,198,805 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,981 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,268 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $224,912 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $46,311 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,748 Art-Perf ./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $596,866 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $28,744 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,640 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,695 $23,376 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $99,303 Fringe Benefits(20) XXlCXlOQf $137,204 ~  $155,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,320,263 42.6 $1,341,783 SUPPORT Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $52,743 1--------------t---1-------1------1-- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,795 1------------+----+-----'---l------+-- C us to di ans 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $42,578 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $83,777 Fringe Benefits(20) x\u0026gt;\u0026amp;ib( $30,621 ~\u0026gt;ob $41,156 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $233,430 19.0 $250,049 Mi@W:J{)fJ'OT.At.rtto\"c\"20}\\.. ., ti l()OOOO(X @i$1\\$$9\n69:3t jppooo\u0026amp; .. ::t$.l\n$9\nt\nssa\nPURCHASED Utilities ~ : $68,924 ~\n$79,100 SERVICES Travel ~ : ~ : (30) Maintenance Agreements lOOl'XX)(X ~\nMATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other lOCXXXXX $22,843 ~ - TOTAL (30) :iobooO\u0026lt;X: $91,767 X\u0026gt;OOOOOl. Principal'sOffice ~  X)(XXX)O( Regular Classroom xxxx:100, $55,638 xxxx:xxx Media xxxx:xxx $11,410 XX)OO()(X Other lOOOOCXX lOOCXXl(X TOTAL (40) XXXXJOOr $67,048 xxxxxxx Equipment $22,128 ~ Building Repair, etc. lOOOOOCX p0000(X Other XXXXJO(X. xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $22, 128 xxxxxxx Dues and Fees lOOOOOO{ $2,857 lOOOOOO( Other XXXXlOOr xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxx:xxx: $2,857 lOOOOCXX XXXXJCXX .:. ..  $1sa,aoo xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-60) 63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 TOTAL LINE ITI MS - (SECOND PAGE) lCXXXXXX $84,978 lOOOOCXX GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,822,471 XXXXXXX $26,900 $106,000 $64,100 $12,000 $76,100 $16,290 $16,290 $1,020 $1,020 $199,410 $1,791,242 $100,269 $1,891,510 ~~~~liilili\\~l~~~:~::~:::\n::~~,,\u0026gt;\u0026lt;= ,\n~92-93 ::::: Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $82,855 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,912 $3,984 Reading $852 $1,097 Science $153 English $380 $405 Special Education $625 $1,275 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ee.r e.upij c.\u0026amp;stI@t@rnrnnwcn 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,891,510 m.m:e.uoo,tst:rn,:wrmmmmm rnmmmis~o.aeJ tmwnis\noser Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $57,126 STAFF Asst.Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $164,307 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,766 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $490,762 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $49,414 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,081 $10,384 Other-Kindergarten \\ 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $58,274 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $109,125 ~ r $122,647 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $1,070,536 31.3 $1,126,941 SUPPORT Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 1.0 $12,873 STAFF Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $15,023 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $42,275 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $46,903 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $20,314 ~ : $23,254 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $133,977 10.8 $140,327 MMMWt@[QT.Allti0420lHMmrnwm ~  I@$1t20#\n$.1$] ~ : l@$1~2$.'tl26'ai PURCHASED Utilities ~ $35,102 ~ $38,300 SERVICES Travel ~  ~  (30) Maintenance Agreements xiioocii\n. ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other ~  $11,464 ~ . $13,000 TOTAL(30) ~  $46,566 ~  $51,300 Principal's Office ~ . ~  Regular Classroom xxixm: $25,426 ~  $29,668 Media ~  $6,241 )000000( $6,400 Other x:xxxxxx xiii\u0026amp;xx: TOTAL (40) xxixxxx $31,667 ~  $36,068 Equipment ~  $3,968 )000000( $12,920 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx\n$3,968 ~ . $12,920 Dues and Fees Other xxxxxxx TOT AL (60) XlOOOCXX $0 XXlOCXXX $0 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 42.1 $1,367,556 TOTAL LINE IT:MS -(SECOND PAGE) xxxxxx:x $48,935 xxxxxxx. $59,203 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 XXlOO\u0026lt;XX $1,426,759 l1~~~~,[j1i!~lll[lllt\ntt\n~':!\n\\(@% '~~\n~~\n:' .c.= Stipends $7,009 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $47,713 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $1,676 $2,294 Reading $491 $632 Science $88 English $219 $233 Special Education $360 $734 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ' xxxxxx Rif POtm\nsdstwmmrmwnrn@ 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 353.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,426,759 ~ fofffimftl.bitdjfak:ihi+1 ffhiii$3i933.i 6@faiM1H-2.i Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - ~lill!r\u0026amp;:l!:,::r::\n~::~\n.:::::~:::::::i:1~!:::\n.:::!\n::\n:::::::\n:i:::::::i::::::~:::~~: ~~~~~ Salarie:  ~~~:-il\n:\n:\n:~=!MW@f CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $64,070 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $148,706 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $103,259 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $75,935 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $40,083 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $194,384 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,846 Gifted Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,344,079 Substitutes $45,577 $46,944 Other Fringe Benefits(20) ~OOb.j\\t $245,140 ~  $275,053 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,440,016 64.3 $2,339,360 SUPPORT Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $51,267 1-----------+---+-----'----+--- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,608 -----------+---+---------- Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $69,062 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $31,556 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $50,084 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxiaxx $30,713 ~  $37,395 TOTALSUPPORTSALARY 14.5 $257,637 14.5 $270,972 nm:rn@iMfa1t.OTA.ii tt@1m:m::\ntm\nrnw ~ \n@:$za.az~2\ni ~ t 1m:12.~ec1:t11.a.!1 PURCHASED Utilities ~ i $164,666 ~  $168,300 SERVICES Travel ~  ~  (30) Maintenance Agreements ~  ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other ~ : $48,887 ~  TOTAL(30) ~\n$213,554 ~ : Principal's Office Regular Classroom $76,512 xixxxx'x. Media $10,301 mxxxx Other TOTAL (40) $86,813 xxxxxxx Equipment $26,417 xxxxxxx Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx Other )OO(XX)(X mxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 xx:xxxxx Dues and Fees $1,470 xxixxxx Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) $1,470 mxxxx TOTAL (30-60) $328,253 xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx. $143,218 mxxxx GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx. $3,169,124 xxxxxxx $60,941 $229,241 $85,000 $11,000 $96,000 $28,000 $28,000 $1,375 $1,375 $354,616 $2,964,948 $162,358 $3,127,306 - ::!:~~t~:\n~i\\~llil~1i:iii\n:\n~\n:::~~::~:  ~99\n~9\n Stipends $8,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $117,8n Vocational $13,141 $15,600 Athletics $9,202 $10,440 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $5,668 Reading $1,209 $1,559 Science $220 English $537 $580 Special Education $890 $1,814 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ee.teu.riBtb.sttm1tninw1rnrn 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 890.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,127,306 a::eu.mt@b.it:tlMi@%NtdJ{ liMi@ff$1lWi mntrn@$$\n$1Ji1 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - _ ll!i-{t~ll~ll\nli:\n:\n!::li\n!i\n1!~::\nil~!~1:!:!l!ii!l~[\n:i!i!\n!!~:~!!:!!Jill~~ ~~~  Jtift#t~- .. ,.,.,, ... ., ..., .. , .. , .,,. .. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $63,212 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $154,636 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $283,515 Counselors 3.0 $132,5TT 3.0 $136,735 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $34,028 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $295,144 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $47,994 Gifted Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,394,697 Substitutes $42,409 $43,682 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Fringe Benefits(20) ul\u0026amp;xr $271,685 .fix\n$302,475 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,762,168 66.6 $2,796,790 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $129,665 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $19,117 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $107,724 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $TT,316 5.0 $79,635 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $23,821 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ , $49,690 ~  $57,550 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $399,168 21.6 $417,512  1\nmnw:rnr\nr.o.1tAt41p\n:201wrnrrn1mw ~ - m1a~~1e1::aasrn ~ : wm:s.s~214~an1@ Utilities ~ : $208,483 ~ : $210,000 Travel ~  ~  Maintenance Agreements ~ t ~\nOther ~ : $39,092 ~  $48,700 TOTAL(30) ~ $247,575 ~ ' $258,700 Principal's Office xixxixx: ~  Regular Classroom mxxxx $87,767 ~  $100,850 Media ~ $16,883 xxii6a:x $17,000 Other ~  mooooc: TOTAL (40) xuxxxx' $104,650 XXlOOdx\n$117,850 Equipment A ' $37,950 \u0026gt;OOQOOIX' $37,000 Building Repair, etc. XlOOOiCXi ~  Other XXX\u0026gt;CXXX )OOO()i(XX TOTAL (50) $37,950 lOOClOOOC $37,000 Dues and Fees XXXJCXXX $3,496 XXJQCXXX'\n$3,500 Other TOTAL (60) $3,496 XX\u0026gt;OOOOC $3,500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxx:ir $393,671 lOOOCXXX $417,050 TOT AL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,631,351 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx: $158,509 XX:XXXX:JC\" $172,976 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx:x $3,713,516 xx:xxxx:x $3,804,327 -~\u0026amp;~2rtr 1991-92 1992-93 Stipends $3,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $116,341 Vocational $17,696 $19,400 Athletics $22,029 $24,560 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,071 $5,566 Reading $1,182 $1,530 Science $221 English $520 $577 Special Education $876 $1,781 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx \\ xxxxxx ffli\\\\Pii\u0026amp;tea1ttrnmirn:@tt@ 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 870.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,804,327 R iPOb.itCostMNfaiJf@@m+@ MWE%$4i4i.iU tMM@Ulat.at Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - lBi+ ,,:::::::::::::::@::::::::::::: Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $66,102 STAFF Asst. Prin. 1. 0 $35,840 1.0 $36,915 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $134,962 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,830 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,765 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $657,794 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $32,848 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $60,680 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,402 $10,714 Other-Kindergarten ' 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $108,775 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $132,508 ~ : $148,072 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,315,549 35.9 $1,332,458 SUPPORT Secretaries ------------t-----1'------t- ST AF F Nurses ------------t----\"1'------1- Custodians 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $31,967 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $32,058 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $49,580 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $45,884 Fringe Benefits(20) mxxxx= $26,076 xxixxxxf $33,281 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $180,920 15.5 $192,771 PURCHASED Utilities ~ : $42,968 ~ - $49,000 SERVICES Travel XXXXXXX' iil\u0026amp;xixI (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ ~ : Other ~X\u0026gt;bix $16,259 xxxxxxx= MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60) TOT AL (10-60) TOTAL LINE IT:MS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL ~ xxxxxxx XXlQOOOO XX:lOOOOC\" $59,227 )OOQC)OO(. umxx\n$44,477 ~ : $6,976 xxxxxxx: $51 ,454 ~ $14,984 xxxxxxx.. $14,984 XXXXXXX' $535 xxxxxx:ic: xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x: $535 xxxxxxx xx:xxxx:x $126,200 xxxxxxx 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 XX:XXXXX $71 t 665 XXXlOOO( XXXXXXX $1,694,335 XXXXXXlC $18,000 $67,000 $45,310 $7,000 $52,310 $12,184 $12,184 $0 $131,494 $1,656,723 $86,895 $1,743,618 =~~~~\n,\n~1:i:t:i::\n::::i:i\ni::\n~\n=~~:::::::::\n: :~9\n~93 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $70,560 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,455 $3,361 Reading $717 $925 Science $131 English $318 $344 Special Education $528 $1,075 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Pif!tffiffiB)ist:@:fl@JIJllM 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 517.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,743,618 Peifffibiftfost#Wi@ltt :::\n:::~ ltMJ:\n:::U\n313i f:tJI$ala1ai Date Submitted - Prlncipal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director August 19, 1993 Ms. Estelle Matthis Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Matthis: RECEIVED AUG 2 3 W93 Q!tice al oesegreg ation Monitoring (501) 758-0156 In an effort to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the Stipulation magnets, the Magnet Review Committee has within its role and responsibility the approval of funds budgeted for Stipulation magnet programs for each fiscal year. As you may recall, the Magnet Review Committee, at the request of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, worked with the Little Rock School District to establish a timeline for the Magnet Review Committee to review, approve and submit a budget for the interdistrict magnet schools to the Court for final approval. (See enclosure.) While we realize that the unusual events of the year have wreaked havoc with the timelines we mutually agreed upon, we are still in need of information as to: 1) when we can expect information on the previous fiscal year's end-of-year budget information\n2) when the preliminary Fiscal Year 1993-94 budget will be submitted to the Magnet Review Committee\n3) when the principals will be available for review and justification of the budget for their individual building. For your convenience, we have also submitted a sample copy of the form to be used for the submission of budget information. Ms. Estelle Matthis -2- August 19, 1993 Immediate attention to this issue is of vital importance and will be appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, !l!t~rn, Chair Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Enclosures cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent - LRSD / Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring MRC Members TI MELINE for THE INTERDISTRICT ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETING PROCESS JANUARY FEBRUARY The LRSD submits previous fiscal year end of year budget information to the Magnet Review Committee on MRC-approved format. The MRC submits next fiscal school, year budget forms to LRSD and interdistrict magnet schools. Interdistrict magnet school budgets are submitted to the Magnet Review Committee. The MRC reviews requests with LRSD representatives, including the principals of the magnet schools. The MRC approves the budget and submits it to the court.* *At least two (2) factors, contract negotiations and health insurance rate changes, will cause the budget to be less than a certainty. Date 29-Jul-92 Page 1 STAFF Asst. Prin. Specialists Counselors Media Spec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational Special Education Gifted Chapter 1 Substitutes Other Fringe llenefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries t-:-:------------+----+-----+--~1------11 STAFF Nurses r:C::::-u-s-:-to-d=-=-ia_n_s--------+----+-----+--~-----II Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 PURCHASED ~~\n~!\ntcl.P.!.'l~Ji1($l~QXThlC3t:'\nl~f }2:KN~HU ~Xffl: SERVICES 1-Tra--ve-I----------\ni\n~,,\n~.,,\n\n\n.\n\n\n\n:\n. t ------f.im\"\"C:\"\"J~\"\"\"'\"\"?'''.ffi,\n-------ll (30) Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom (40) Media CAPITAL OU1LAY (SO) OTIIER (60) Other TOTAL (40)  uipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL(S0) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL(60) ~ ~ i~ ~\n~ ~ :~ ~ ~ $0 $0 $0 ~:li'i.i ~ $0 $0 $0 $0 =?f+1if/WtifflW$1l~i(~,m~o}.JiWW:PJW xffim .~M%%#W$m\n:,::: ::: wrnrn'\n'':\n''F'.'.l.*-f TOTAL (10-60) 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) d.,,~~ .... ~,u. , $0 $0 11 GRAND TOTAL ~ $0 ' $0 filename-booker. wq 1 Date 29-Jul-92 Page 2 Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx:xxx filename-booker.wql Date 29-Jul-?2 ~ifntillt@1:k\u0026amp;1MttWi\u0026gt;0Jl 1991-92 Qtr. ADM or Proi. tal Costs $0 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-booker.wql Page3 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 1111111::4~~~:m\n,,\n. Page 4 '\" iiiti  .. ,iW'.iV ' CERTIFIED Principal STAFF \"A~s:s~t.~P~r~in~.--------f---t-----l---t----____jl Specialists Counselors Media Spec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational Special Education Gifted Chapter 1 Substitutes Other Fringe Ilenefits(20)  :..,,,\\ ,,, TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries STAFF r-N7u_r_s-es----------t----t-----+---+-----~I PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OU1LAY (SO) OTHER (60) Custodians Paraprofessionals-Cbptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other Frin2e Benefits(20) ~ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 Utilities Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Re2ular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (SO) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) ~ ~ ~ -~ -~ ~ -~ $0 0.0 ~ {ffi $0 ,. $0 $0 ~l~Jf4@~tf\\TmWm(3~Wi9)\\1fui%J~!t :~ :~'l~~\\\\\\Wri$0.t TOTAL (10-60) 0.0 $0 0.0 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~ $0 11 GRAND TOTAL '.fixxm $0  filename-booker. wq 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 . Puge 1 liiM~~t1fi~~c: ey  : :,,,,,,,::::::..  .,.m,,~~,,::,~J\n.fi~=~ii~iii~l~\n.~\n: ~~::::~:,\n:.~:.: ~~~ m ~  m m STAFF Asst Prin. NA NA NA NA Specialists NA NA NA NA Counselors NA NA NA NA Media Spec. NA NA NA NA Art-Perf./Prod. NA NA NA NA Music NA NA NA NA Foreign Lang. NA NA NA NA Vocational NA NA NA NA Special Education NA NA NA NA Gifted NA NA NA NA Chapter 1 NA NA NA NA Substitutes NA NA NA NA Other NA NA NA NA Fringe Benefits(20) .~ NA NA TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY NA NA NA NA SUPPORT Secretaries NA NA NA NA STAFF Nurses NA NA NA NA Custodians NA NA NA NA Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 NA NA NA NA Paraprofessionals-Other NA NA NA NA Other NA NA NA NA Fringe Benefits(20) !~ NA ,}. . _.. .... ~=:::::. NA TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY NA NA NA NA PURCHASED Utilities ~ NA NA SERVICES Travel .~ NA ' ww'' NA (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ NA  .. w\"\"\" NA Other NA :  :.w:,::,....-. NA TOTAL(30) MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom NA NA NA NA NA NA NA (40) Media NA CAPITAL OUTIAY (50) OTHER (60) Other TOTAL(40) Eouipment Building Repair, etc. Other ~ ~ NA NA\u0026amp;\\~ NA NA : ... c::.:::: ::: NA NA NA NA i~ NA~ NA TOTAL (50) m NA m\u0026amp;~~ NA Dues and Fees :~ NA NA Other ~ NA ~:.:\n,:' ' ... \" NA rnmki:n=:wdt~~=~~(}1f%ikt,\n:y ---~::. :::::::~::::::::::~: .\n:\n.\n:\n:\n:\n~\n:\n2~~I TOTAL (10-60) NA NA NA NA TOTALLINEITEMS-(SECONDPAGE) ~ $0\n...... :  NA 11 GRAND TOTAL ~ NA  ..    NA !Jlename-summary. WQl Date 29-Jul-92 Page 2 1991-92 1992-93 ... NA NA Other Objects Indirect Costs NA NA NA NA Vocational NA NA Athletics NA NA Gifted Programs Plant Services NA NA NA NA Readin NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA x:xxxxx x:xxxxx filename-summary.WQl Date 29-Jul-92 3rd Qtr. ADM or Pro.i. Total Costs NA NA Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-summary.WQl Page3 Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director September 22, 1993 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-01 5G RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: SEP 2 4 1993 At its September 14, 1993 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1993-94 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,554,670, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,823.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,807 students. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: On November 17, 1992, the Little Rock School District, via its representative Estelle Matthis, reported to the Magnet Review Committee that, in accordance with the budgeting process outlined by Little Rock School District Superintendent, Dr. Mac Bernd, the Little Rock School District 1993-94 budget meeting with the Board would not be until the end of April, 1993. (The actual budgeting process was not complete until July, 1993.) The Little Rock School District, represented by Dr. Henry Williams, new Superintendent\nEstelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent\nLeon Adams, Alternate Magnet Review Committee Representative\nand Mark Milhollan, Controller, presented Draft 1 of the 1993-94 interdistrict magnet schools budget to the Magnet Review Committee on September 9, 1993. Each of the six interdistrict magnet school principals made a presentation on their school's budget. The Magnet Review Committee members presented budget information to their parties. The Magnet Review Committee met on September 14, 1993, and approved the budget. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright September 22, 1993 Page 2 The approved budget represents an increase of 3.82%, or $141.00 per student. The increase is largely due to Little Rock School District's negotiated salary agreements and indirect cost factors. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1993-94 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, !J4aJ:t= Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment: 1993-94 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budget (Approved Draft 3) cc: Attorneys of Record Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Gene Wilhoit, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Henry Williams, Little Rock School District Magnet Review Committee PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET (DRAFT 3) ORIGINAL SIX MAGNET SCHOOLS RECE~VEO SEP 2 4 1993 Ot:ica Qf Desegraqaticn ~,1onitorin3 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 September 14, 1993 Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Mark D. Milhollen, Controlle~ THROUGH: Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Proposed 1993-94 Budget (Draft 3) Attached for your files is Draft 3 of the proposed 1993-94 magnet budgets which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee on September 14, 1993. I appreciate the cooperation of the Magnet Review Committee and look forward to working with them in the future. cc: Jerry Malone 1 g~3.,..94 Budget Proposal (CJ raft 3) .. --:... .,--:-:-:-\n.:.:..\n::\n:-:\n.,., ' 1991-92 1992-93 .., ../ 1993-94 l,,::C, ...... / . SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS .? \u0026gt;. F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.5 $431,093 05 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $222,455 7.0 $233,751 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 10 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $245,166 9.7 $276,790 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.0 $174,623 12 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.2 $5,689,340 13 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $9,529,304 288.6 $9,276,435 291.2 $9,955,822 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 18.0 $355,081 18.0 $353,310 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 17 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $335,694 29.0 $372,625 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 38.0 $311,683 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx::xxxx::x $1,254,324 xx::xxxx::x $1,366,607 xx::xxxx::x $1,342,873 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 96.4 $2,692,554 ) . . TOTAL (10\n:.:20)\u0026lt; f/}\n{t) xx::xxxx::x $12,004\n096 xx::xxxx::x  $11\\883,532 xx::xx:xx::x $12,648\n376 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx::xxxx::x $601,780 xx::xxxx::x $507,373 xx::xxxx::x $598,926 SERVICES 23 Travel xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x $29,326 xx::xxxx::x. $31,215 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x 25 Other xx::xxxx::x $166,508 xx::xx:xx::x $97,426 xx::x xxx::x $99,428 TOTAL (30) xx::xx:xx::x $768,288 xx::xxxx::x $634,125 xx::xxxx::x $729,569 MATERIALS, 26 Principal' s Office xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx::xxxx::x $343,433 xx::xxxx::x. $309,128 xx::xxxx::x. $315 .284 (40) 28 Media xx::xxxx::x $56,509 xx::xxxx::x $53,842 xx::xxxx::x $54,884 29 Other xx::xxxx::x. xx::xxxx::x $11,647 xx::xxxx::x $11,856 TOTAL (40) xx::xxxx::x $399,942 xx::xxxx::x: $374,617 xx::xxxx::x $382,024 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx::xxxx::x $111,824 xx::xxxx::x $106,283 xx::xxxx::x $104,215 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x (50) 32 Other xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x TOTAL (50) xx::xxxx::x $111,824 xx::xxxx::x $106,283 xx:xxxx::x $104,215 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xx:xxxx::x $8,358 xx:xxxx::x $12,416 xx::xxxx::x $12,665 (60) 34 Other xx::xxxx::x xx:xxxx::x xx:xxxx:x TOTAL (60) xx::xxxx:x $8,358 xx:xxxx::x $12,416 xx:xxxx:x $12,665 TOTAL (30-60) xx::xxxx::x $1,288,412 xx::xx:xx::x $1,127,441 xx::xxxx:x $1,228 473 TOT AL (1 0-60) 393.4 $13,292,508 387.0 $13,010,969 387.6 $13,876,849 TOTAL LINE ITE MS - (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxx:x $595,333 xx:xxxx:x $537,465 xx::xxxx::x $677,821 GRAND TOTAL xx::xxxx::x $13,887,841 xx::xxxx::x $13,548,434 xx::xx:xx::x $14 ,554,670 Line item Costs - . Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $19,871 $20,739 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total'Line Items    $595,333 1 $537,465, . I// $677 ,821.:\u0026gt; 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3679.6 3807.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 Per Pupil Cost $3\n823\\ 1 ~~~~ Budget Prop?sal (Draft 3) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 36oker Magnet School   y F.T.E Salaries ... F.T.E:. Salaries F.T.E:? Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 03 Specialists 6.0 $350.341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31.2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 10 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 17 Custodians 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $42,176 5.0 $47,081 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 ,$64,657 8.0 $75,718 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xx:xx:x $201,247 xx:xx:xxx $225,867 xxxx:xX::i. $215,438 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $373,998 16.0 $388,766 16.0 $396,712 / \\t ... TOTAL(10-20)i \u0026amp;+ xx:xx:xx:x I $1\n890 ,.430 xx:xx:xx:x.:  $1\n942,422 xx:xx:xx:x $2,006,780 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx:xx:xx:x $81,637 xx:xx:xx:x $71,492 xx:xx:xx:x $87,854 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xx:xx:x xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxxx (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x. xx:xx:xx:x. 25 Other xx:xx:xx:x $27,963 xx:xx:xx:x $9,549 xx:xxxx:x $9,800 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $109,600 xx:xxxx:x $81,041 xx:xxxxx $97,654 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xx:xx:x xx:xx:xx:x. xx:xxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx:xx:xxx $53,613 xx:xxxxx $37,774 xxxxxx:x  $38,500 (40) 28 Media xx:xxxx:x $4,698 xx:xxxxx $4,743 xxxxxxx $4 ,800 29 Other xxxx:xxx xxxxxx:x $1,255 xx:xxxx:x $1,255 TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $58,311 xx:xxxx:x $43,772 xx:xxxx:x $44,555 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $6,377 xx:xxxx:x $10,090 xx:xxxx:x $6,100 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxx:x XX:XXXX:X- xx:xxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxxx xx:xx:xx:x TOTAL (50) xx:xxxx:x $6,377 xx:xx:xxx $10,090 xx:xx:xx:x $6,100  OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxx:xx:x xx:xxxxx xxxx:xxx (60) 34 Other xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxx:x $0 xx:xxxx:x xxxxxxx TOTAL (30-60) .,::-:. xxxxxx:x  $174,288 xxxxxx:x $134,903 xxxxxx:x $148,309 TOT AL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,717 63.9 $2,077,325 64.5 $2,155,089 TOTAL LINE ITE MS- (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxx:x $88,028 xxxxxx:x $75,446 xxxxxxx $99,618 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $2,152,746 xxxxxx:x $2,152,771 xxxxxxx $2,254,707 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 ' 1993-94 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx   Total. Line ltems.tft ) )Cf $88,028:- $75,446 \u0026lt;)$99,618. Per Pupi'I Cost) .\n\\\n, 1991-92 1992-93: . 1993-'-94 . (f 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,771 $2,254,707 199~94 Budget Proposal (Draft 3)    \u0026gt; : \u0026gt; 1991-921 Actual 1992-93 t Actual C.if.Y~fMagn~tSchool \u0026lt; ) :\n: t F.T\nE. / lt Salaries F.T.E3 .  Salaries  CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 05 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,532 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 1 0 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $30,734 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,183,059 42.6 $1,164,768 1 5 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 F1,921 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xx:xxx $167,825 xx:xxxx:x $190,533 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 1993-94 F.T.E. 1.0 1.0 8.0 2.1 2.0 23.6 2.0 1.0 4.0 44.7 3.0 1.0 3.5 11.0 xxxx:xxx 18.5 Budgeted ..:. Salaries : $59,423 $42,422 $236,265 $60,101 $46,074 $690,189 $32,460 $34,246 $17,150 $117,132 $1,335,462 $67,824 $31,250 $42,645 $76,016 $192,561 $410,297 TOTAL(10-20} xx:xxxx:x . $1,553\n693 xxxxxxx : $1\n557\n097 xxxx:xxx I $1,745.758 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxx:xxx $68,924 xxxxxxx $53,586 xxxxxxx $69,730 ~+-------------!----i~----'----+----+------,----,---.,----,,-+---+------,-----,-'------j SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx xxxx:xxx $12,253 xx:xxxxx $12,500 ~+-------------1----1~----+----+------+----+----'------j (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx. xx:xxxx:x 25 Other xx:xx:xxx $22,843 xxxxxx:x $9,911 xxxxxx:x $10,100 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $91,767 xxxx:xxx $75,750 xxxx:xxx $92,330 MATERIALS, 1-2--6+-P_r_in--c-'-ip_a_ls' _O_ff_ic_e ___~ x_ xx_xx_xx-1------+x_xx_xx_xx--+-----+-x_x:x_xx_x:x-+--------j SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxx:xxx $55,638 xxxxxxx $52,759 xxxx:xxx (40) 28 Media xx:xxxx:x $11,41 O xxxxxxx $13,271 xxxxxxx 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x $2,593 xxxxxx:x CAPITAL I OUTLAY (50) I OTHER I (60) TOTAL (40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60} TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL xx:xxxxx $67,048 xxxxxx:x $68,623 xx:xxxxx . xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 xx:xxxx:x xxxx:xxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx $2,857 xxxxxxx $3,908 xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx $2,857 xxxxxxx $3,908 xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $183,800 xxxxxxx $176,174 xxxxxxx 63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 $1,733,271 63.2 xxxxxxx $84,978 xxxxxxx $86,058 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx $1,822,471 xxxxxxx $1,819,329 xxxxxxx $53,814 $13,536 $2,645 $69,995 $28,450 $28,450 $3,985 $3,985 $194,760 $1,940,518 $107,945 $2,048,463 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 Science English $380 ($329) $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Llne Items.:, ..  { $84,978 I: ..... $86\nosa .  $107\n945 Per Pupil Cost -:,:  1991~92 ./ 1992-93? 1993-94 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.00 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 PerPupil. Cost ..... .-.. .-. : ..., .. .... , .. $3,036? /\\ .:: $3,092: $3,386 1~~~94 Budget Proposal (Draft 3) , .. 1991-92 Actual 1992-92 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted G.ibbs Magnet school       F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 1.0 $45,000 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $160 ,752 5.8 $158,107 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,433 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $507,851 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $961,411 31.3 $985 ,841 29.3 $1,007,242 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $11,304 0.8 $11,530 17 Custodians 3.0 $41 ,043 3.0 $33,776 3.0 $39 ,012 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxx:x,: $129,439 XX:XXXX:X' $141 ,032 xx:xxxx:x $136,618 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11 .8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 TOTAL (10-20}:\\ : t xx:xxxx:x:: \u0026lt; $h204i513 , XXXXXXJCc. 1-\u0026lt; $1\\ 226\n435 xxxxxx:x \\ $1,254,041 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxx:x: $35,102 xxxxxx:x $26,879 xx:xxxx:x $38,531 SERVICES 23 Travel XX'X)O(X:X xxxx:xx:x, $2,066 XXJOO(X:X- $3,407 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxx:xce XX:XXXX:X' xxxx:xxx.. 25 Other xri:xxx:x: $11,464 xx:xxxx:x $7,309 xx:xxxx'x $7,455 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x,. $46,566 XX:XXXX:X, $36,254 xx:xxxx:x $49 ,393 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx:: $25,426 xxxxxx:x: $23,541 xx:xxxx:x $24,012 (40) 28 Media xxxxxx:x. $6,241 xx:xxxx:x $6,489 xx:xxxx:x $6,620 29 Other xx:xxxx:x xx:xxxx:x $1,016 xx:xxxx:x $1 ,036 TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $31 ,667 xxxxxx:x $31 ,046 xx:xxxx:x $31 ,668 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $3,968 xx:xxxx:x $2,594 xxxxxx:x $2,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxx:x TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx  $3,968 xx:xxxxx $2,594 xxxxxxx $2,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $1,132 xxxxxxx $1,155 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxx $0 xxxxxxx $1 ,132 xxxxxxx $1 ,155 TOT AL (30-60} XX:X)O(X:X $82,202 xx:xx.xxx $71 ,025 xxxxxxx . $84,862 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 43.1 $1 ,297,460 40.1 $1 ,338,903 TOTAL LINE m MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $48,935 xxxx.xxx $41,553 xxxxxxx $51,892 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 xx:xxxxx $1,339 ,013 xxxxxxx $1,390,795 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 Special Education $360 $187 $348 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx :\\::::,. . TotaLLine Items : ..... \u0026lt;} $48,935  ft:. $41,553 .-.-\n-\n,:_ $51,892 Per Pupil Cost '\u0026gt; . ,:: ::,\u0026gt; 1991,-92\\ / 1992-93}/\n\\ ... 199S-::94 /.' 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 PerPupil Gosr,,:.-\\,:,,,:\n:::t/ :\\ft } $3,933. tt : $4,070  )) $4\n214? ~~\n~1~~~~:~ :~~~~~:: . \u0026lt;~(\nft 3 ) ... ::::: ii :: 1991,-92 Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted   F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 04 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 10 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $27,792 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,183,042 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,233,533 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 _$32,748 9.0 $54,985 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx::xx:xx::x $158,584 xx::xx:xx::x $171,101 xx::xx:xx::x $166,399 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 TOTAL (10-20)/   XX::XX:XX::X $1,496,470 xx::xx:xx::x  $1,465,402 xx::xx:xx::x $1,580,155 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx::xx:xx::x. $42,968 xx::xx:xx:x $38,623 xx:xx:xx::x $48,682 SERVICES 23 Travel xx::xx:xx:x  xx::xx:xx::x $3,793 xx::xx:xx::x $3,870 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx::xx:xx:x xx:xxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x 25 Other xx:xxxx:x $16,259 xx:xx:xx::x $16,400 xx::xx:xx::x $16,728 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $59,227 xx:xxxx:x $58,816 xx::xx:xx:x $69,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx::xx:xx:x xx::xxxxx xx::xx:xx::x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx.: $44,477 xxxxxxx: $38,631 xxxxxxx $39,405 (40) 28 Media xx::xxxxx $6,976 xx:xxxx:x $6,234 xxxxxx:x $6,360 ' 29 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x. $1,475 xxxx:xx:x $1,505 ! TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $51,454 xx:xxxx:x $46,341 xx:xxxxx $47,270 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $14,984 xx:xxxx:x $25,034 xxxxxx:x $25,535 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx:xxxxx xx:xxxxx xx::xxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx::xxxxx xx:xx:xxx xx::xxxx:x TOTAL (50) xx:xxxxx $14,984 xx:xxxx:x $25,034 xx::xxxx::x $25,535 I  OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xx::xxxxx $535 xx:xx:xx::x $190 xx:xxxx:x S195 (60) 34 Other xx::xxxxx xx:xxxx::x xx:xx:xxx TOTAL (60) xx::xxxxx $535 xx::xx:xx:x $190 xx::xxxx::x $195 .. ,, TOTAL (30-60) xx::xx:xx::x $126,200 xx::xx:xx::x $130,381 xx::xx:xx::x $142,280 TOT AL (1 0-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,722,435 I TOTAL LINE IT! MS - (SECOND PAGE) xx::xxxx:x $71,665 xxxx:xxx $60,881 xx:xxxx:x $78,563 GRAND TOTAL xx::xxxx::x $1,694,335 xxxx:xx::x $1,656,664 xx::xx:xxx $1,800,998 Line Item Costs - ... Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 199\n3-94 Stipends $1,537 $1,614 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx / Total Line ltems/\u0026gt;c \u0026lt; {$71,665\\ t ~60,aa1  ................. .$78\n563 Per Pupil Cost\u0026gt; 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 473.3 492.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,656,664 $1,800,998 11 ~g3'\"\"91: Budget Proposal (Draft 3) )!j:Jill 1 tI\u0026lt; . . 1991-92 1. Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 . Budgeted iA,NN Magnet School  F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $143,289 3.0 $148,979 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $109,509 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $208,475 10 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 14 Other TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $65,214 3.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $71,195 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $22,947 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 , $46,693 2.4 $37,142 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxx:x: $275,853 xx:xxxx:x $292,062 xx:xxxx:x: $296,293 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 14.5 $525,462 13.4 $526,829 .:\u0026gt; .. -:- TOTAL(l0-20)) :\n:- xx:xxxx:x: i $2,697,653 xx:xxxx:x ' $2,584\n578 xx:xxxx:x $2,805,067 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx:xxxx:x: $164,666 xx:xxxx:x: $137,280 xx:xxxx:x S168,667 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxx:x xx:xxxx:x $11,214 xx:xxxx:x $11,438 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx xx:xxxx:x 25 Other xxxxxxx $48,887 xxxxxxx $35,464 xx:xxxxx. $36,175 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxxx .. $213,554 xx:xxxx:x $183,959 xxxxxxx $216,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xxxxx xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx:xxxxx $76,512 xx:xxxx:x $63,984 xxxxxx:x $65,265 (40) 28 Media xx:xxxxx. $10,301 xx:xxxx:x $9,352 xxxxxx:x: $9,540 29 Other xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx $2,172 xxxxxxx $2,215 TOTAL (40) xxxxxx:x $86,813 xx:xxxxx $75,508 xxxxxx:x $77,020 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx. $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxxxx $1,405 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxx $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxxxx $1,405 TOTAL (30-60) . xx:xxxxx $328,253 xxxxxxx $278,422 xxxxxxx $312,635 TOT AL (1 0-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 $2,863,000 78.7 $3,117,702 TOTAL LINE IT$MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $143,218 xxxxxxx $137,573 xxxxxxx $172,083 GRAND TOTAL xx:xxxxx $3,169,124 xx:xxxx:x $3,000,573 xxxxxx:x $3,289,785 Une Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 \" 1993-94 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 Reading $1 ,209 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items,:\\ . .: \\1 $143,218? t $137,573 \\/ $172\n083.- . 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 1 ~394\n!udget.proposal. (Draft 3) ) .  ::..-, ::::::\n::::::'.::::::\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_1179","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Magnet school principal positions","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"],"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 law and legislation","School principals","School management and organization","Magnet schools","Parents' and teachers' associations"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Magnet school principal positions"],"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/1179"],"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\nCorrespondence from Bobby Altom, chairman of the Magnet Review Committee to Ann S. Brown, federal monitor (July 21, 1994) with supportive material on how the Little Rock School District fills interdistict magnet school principal positions\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nMagnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114  Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156  July 21, 1994 Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: RECE. I~ JUL 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Thank you for requesting information needed to address questions that have arisen regarding the Magnet Review Committee's role in the process Little Rock School District used to fill interdistrict magnet school principal positions for the 1994-95 school year. We have responded to each point to the best of our ability. The necessary documentation is attached and enumerated for easy reference. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, !3drty~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachments 1. The date(s) the MRC reviewed the procedures the LRSD used in recommending staffing assignments for magnet school principal vacancies. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The Magnet Review Committee held a special-called meeting on Thursday, May 12, 1994, for the purpose of discussing Little Rock School District's procedures used to recommend staff assignments for magnet school principal vacancies. 2. A list of the MRC members who participated in each review session. 3. All MRC members were present at the May 12, 1994 meeting: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua lntervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Dana Chadwick, NLRSD, was absent from the June 27, 1994 meeting\nMarcia Harding, ADE, and Oliver Dillingham, ADE, were unavailable for the July 18, 1994 meeting. The minutes of all review sessions. The minutes of the meetings which addressed items mentioned in number 1 . above are attached as a part of this information packet. These meetings took place on May 12, 1 994, June 27, 1994 and July 18, 1994. 4. A copy of the procedures which were \"previously presented to the MRC with reference to original magnet school principal positions\n\" indicate the date the MRC received these procedures\nindicate the date they were disseminated to each Committee member. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The procedures were discussed as a part of the May 12, 1994 and June 27, 1994 meetings. The written copy of these procedures was disseminated at MRC's July 18, 1 994 meeting and are attached as a part of this information packet. 5. 6. 7. The date(s) and names of MRC members who participated in identifying the \"appropriate action\" the MRC has determined it will take to ensure that the LRSD administration fulfills its obligation to follow the Court's Order for future staffing changes in the original magnet schools. Provide minutes of that meeting. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The MRC held a special-called meeting on July 18, 1994 to discuss and formulate language which will guide the Little Rock School District and the Magnet Review Committee discussions regarding consultations on original magnet school vacancies. Members present at the July 18, 1994 meeting were: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Evelyn Jackson, Joshua lntervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD The minutes from all other MRC meetings in which the principal selection process was considered in any way. Indicate those who were present at those meetings. The minutes are included as a part of this packet. The list of members present is a part of the minutes. The date(s) and copies of correspondence through which the MRC learned of each impending principal vacancy in a magnet school for the 1994-95 school year. The Little Rock School District customarily informs the Magnet Review Committee of magnet vacancies via job announcements placed in the MRC school mailbox at LRSD's Central Office. Copies of the job descriptions are attached. 8. For each of the following, a copy of the written information, the date that information was committed to writing, and the date it was disseminated to all Committee members: a. The written procedures that guide the MRC in relation to selection of principals of the magnet schools. copy attached - Interim Order Enforcing Mandate of Court of Appeals Date Committed to Writing: March 4, 1987 Date Disseminated: March 4, 1987 b. The written MRC policy or guidelines about using interview committees in selecting magnet school principals. copy attached - Interview Protocol and Selection of Applicants, School Principals Date Committed to Writing: June, 1994 Date Disseminated: July 18, 1994 c. The written annual timeline the MRC follows in relation to principal selections. No specific written timeline is followed\nhowever, notification of staff vacancies is noted at the annual review sessions for the interdistrict magnet schools budgets, which begin in March before each school year. d. Any written guidelines, suggestions, or criteria the MRC may have established regarding principal qualifications, characteristics, experience, or other criteria, especially as it relates to the individual theme, programmatic emphasis, or other unique aspects of the individual magnet school community at each of the magnet schools. copy attached - Court Order \"Stipulation for Proposed Order Concerning Magnet Review Committee\" Date Committed to Writing: September 3, 1986 Date Disseminated: September, 1986 copy attached - Court Order Regarding the Role of the Magnet Review Committee Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: July 2, 1987 July, 1987 copy attached - Court Order Regarding MRC's Request to Court on Staffing Date Committed to Writing: November 5, 1992 Date Disseminated: November, 1992 9. Copies of any patron or staff letters the MRC has received regarding the most recent principal selection process. Patron/staff letters received by the MRC are attached and separated by school. MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 12, 1994 A spe~ial-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Thursday May 12, 1994. 1 Members Present: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Dr. Altom opened the meeting at 8:40 a.m. by th~nking all MRC members for coming to this special-called meeting. He then provided a basis for requesting this meeting. Dr. Altom reminded the Committee that when it became public that LRSD was making a change in principalship, he began to review the Court Order because he was afraid the Court would admonish the MRC regarding the staffing changes. In looking through the Court Order of November 5, 1992, Dr. Altom's understanding was that the MRC had an expanded role from years past. Because of that, Dr. Altom polled each of the MRC members to see if they thought that MRC's role had been expanded and the consensus was \"yes, they did . \" Dr. Altom then contacted Dr. Williams unofficially to share this information with him. They had a very cordial meeting. Dr. Altom noted that about two years ago, with regard to budget cuts, the MRC became concerned about the themes of the magnets . The Court had admonished the MRC for not taking a more active role. It now seemed appropriate that the MRC would come together to make an official statement about the items in the Court Order, page 12. It should be pointed out that the following terms should be reviewed: 1) consult 2) staff (who it includes) 3) staffing changes (what does this mean) The MRC will need to write a letter to the Court saying that \"as a body, this is what we believe and if this is not so , please tell us if you see it differently.\" STAFFING Does it mean to give the MRC the authority to overturn? The language says the Court decides. MRC merely states what the appropriate action should be. STAFF When staffing changes are made, does it mean teachers, administrators, or support staff as well? This needs to be clarified because MRC needs to determine who the critical people are with regard to the theme. Does a magnet principal being assigned to another magnet consist of a staffing change? Estelle Matthis then asked for an executive session to address the personnel issue. Ms. Matthis said the Superintendent has every intention of working by the Court Order and the MRC. Dr. Williams wants to assur_e you that the district will advertise positions, etc. and will follow the procedure as in the past - interview, make recommendation to the MRC, the Board approves, etc. He does plan to abide by the Court Order. Ms . Harding noted that in defining terms, the term \"prior to\" should be clarified. Things should not come as a surprise to this body. Ms . Harding said that some of the Court filings of some time ago were filed with regard to RIF's. Since then, this has come into play, and the MRC had asked the Court to have a hearing with regard to staffing. This was not tied to budget. It does not appear to be tied to only to the budgeting process . Ms . Matthis said LRSD understands that issues are related to budget. Their Program Budget Guide governs daily activities . Dr. Altom said he called Dr. Williams' attention to RIF and that MRC feels very strongly about it. He told him the MRC may ask the Court for a speedy resolution. Ms. Matthis said that Judge Wright understands the agreement . The 8th Circuit says that unless the re-assignment has an impact on desegregation, the assignment will go on. -2- Dr. Altom reminded the Committee that Donna Grady Creer, Marcia Harding and Oliver Dillingham will be meeting with Gene Wilhoit on May 23, 1994 with regard to the State's role in monitoring. CONSULT Ms. Matthis said the critical item will be the timing in terms of when we consult. Does LRSD come to the MRC first, and .when? We have to get the timing down on this. Dr. Altom noted the definition of \"consult\" is \"to ask the advice or opinion of.\" This does not say you have decision-making authority, but your thoughts are considered. A combined definition would be, \"consider by asking the advice or opinion of.\" STAFF Ms. Harding noted that, from earlier on, when staff came up in Judge Woods' court, it encompassed all certificated personnel. MRC was asked to make recommendations on these personnel. The MRC reviewed information that LRSD used prior to that time for hiring purposes. MRC made recommendations and changes with regard to thematic parts. Ms. Matthis said LRSD is basically of the same feeling. She also noted that LRSD says staffing is certificated positions. STAFFING CHANGE 1) The hiring of a person to come into a building and be either a teacher, administrator, or support individual. 2) The oth~r has to do with the possibility of transfers. This would mean thc\nit the term \"prior to\" needs to be defined for both of these. What does \"prior to\" mean with regard to posting a position? With regard to a transfer, what does \"prior to\" mean? Ms. Harding said that under any condition, the MRC notified as soon as possible when LRSD is thinking reassigning or making a transfer of an individual. representation should report any staffing changes, the regularly-scheduled meeting of the MRC. -3- should be of The LRSD etc. at PROCEDURE Ms. Matthis said that she does not believe it would be problem to report at the MRC meeting every two weeks. LRSD representation could give a status report when something is happening. a The Ms. Creer noted that, just as a normal procedure, when a vacancy is posted, a copy could be given to the MRC immediately. Ms. Harding said clarification is needed about looking at non-certificated people also with regard to the budget. It was agreed that the MRC Office would screen job postings and place these postings on the agenda for every MRC meeting with regard to staffing in magnet schools. HIRING VS. TRANSFER Any staffing change means either hiring or transferring. Question: MRC has always been comfortable with the selection process of hiring. That is acceptabl~. \"LRSD will consult with MRC before making change.\" What does \"consult with\" mean? Ms. Matthis said the procedure is: Post the position publicly\nApplicants apply to Human Resources\nThe applications are checked by Assistant superintendents\nSelection Committee reviews\nInterview is scheduled\nTop three candidates go to Superintendent for consideration/possible interview\nsuperintendent makes recommendation to the Board or refers it back to the Selection Committee and the job is re-advertised. With regard to a transfer, the MRC will be looking at the same situation. Does this person meet the qualifications, etc.? Discussions will be held in Executive Session. The MRC should then report to the Court. Ms. Harding has a concern as this relates to transfers. Dr. Williams says change for change sake would not be made. Where transfers are concerned, when they are involuntary, that information needs to be presented to us (particularly if it has disruptive effects). -4- The Committee took a five-minute break. After the break, Estelle Matthis made a motion for the MRC to go into Executive Session to discuss peronnel changes at the original magnet schools. Marcia Harding seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. After Executive Session, Estelle Matthis made a motion to return to Open Session, and Marcia Harding seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Altom reported that no action was taken that needs to be affirmed in Open Session. In summary, a letter will go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, indicating that the MRC has reached consensus on the language in the sentence on Page 12, of the Court Order dated November 5, 1992. A copy will be sent to all MRC members. The MRC does approve the LRSD selection process for the selection of principals. In order to be more pro-active in the future, MRC will have on its regular agenda .~n item on the staffing of magnet schools to address these issues in a more timely manner. When no more business was brought to the table, Evelyn Jackson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Estelle Matthis seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. The next MRC meeting will be on Tuesday, May 17, 1994 and will encompass discussion of the interdistrict magnet schools budget. -5- MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 27, 1994 A special-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Monday, June 27, 1994. Members Present: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Absent: Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Guests: Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent - LRSD Horace Smith, Associate Monitor - ODM The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m. by Chairperson Dr. Bobby Altom. He explained the meeting was called to examine the process used in the recent selection of magnet school principals and because the MRC had agreed in its May 12, 1994 meeting to send a letter to the Court telling the Court of MRC's opinion regarding its role in staff selection in magnet schools. Dr. Altom noted that two items will be discussed: 1) The unapproved minutes of the May 12, 1994 MRC meeting\n2) The May 18, 1994 letter to the Court outlining what the MRC had delineated in its May 12, 1994 meeting in its interpretation of the language used in Judge Wright's November 5, 1992 Court Order describing MRC's input in original magnet staffings. Dr. Altom called for a reading of the minutes of the May 12, 1994 meeting. After discussion, and a few corrections, Oliver Dillingham made a motion to approve the minutes and Estelle Matthis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Matthis opened the discussion by outlining the process LRSD uses in selection of principals. She noted that LRSD asks PTA presidents for the names of three parents to serve on the principal's interview team, and LRSD looks at these submissions with regard to race and gender. Two teachers are selected for the committee, one black and one white, and one curriculum person. Central Office administrators are represented by two Assistant Superintendents. These people make up the selection committee for elementary schools. Secondary schools follow the same procedure as noted above, but incentive schools have staffing committees, including a representative of the Joshua Intervenors. Once all the people for the selection committee are identified, letters are sent to them notifying them to serve on the committee. Ms. Matthis noted that there was some question as to the number of parents to be included. Gibbs wanted five parents and five teachers. Ms. Matthis explained how the process worked, and she also oted that parents could ask questions if they wanted when they get to the interview process. However, parents were requested to ask the same questions of all applicants. Most applicants had no school preference. If an applicant were an assistant principal, they were automatically given an audience. She noted that three assistant principals, one principal and one specialist applied for the Gibbs job. Once the applicants had been identified, dates and times were given for the interviews. Letters were sent to the participants telling them of the dates and times. The procedure for the interviews went as follows: The interview team is brought in and a folder is given to them. A listing of all the people serving on the team was included in this folder. A list of questions was provided and participants were told that \"if you want to ask applicants a question, that's fine\nhowever, you must ask that same question to all candidates.\" A rating sheet was included in the folder also, and it was explained to committee participants. The rating sheet is process. Committee applicants by their one part of the whole evaluation members were asked to rank first choice, etc., and the -2- committee tries to come to a consensus. After that, there will be questions from the interview team. Ms. Harding asked what happens if there is a situation where the committee cannot reach a consensus. Ms. Matthis said the committee reports back to the Superintendent and notifies him that no consensus has been reached. At that point , the job will be re-advertised. Ms. Matthis noted that State law gives the Superintendent responsibility to re-assign or transfer personnel. Ms . Harding asked Ms. Matthis and Ms. Gremillion why there are such large numbers in movement. They noted that options for staff to take the early retirement incentives have created a lot of the open positions. At this point, Ms. Matthis requested that the Magnet Review Committee go into Executive Session to discuss personnel for the interdistrict magnet schools. Ms. Harding made a motion to go into Executive Session, and Ms. Matthis seconded the motion. The motion car~ied unanimously. When Executive Session was completed, Ms. Harding made a motion to re-convene the MRC meeting and Estelle Matthis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Altom reported the results of the Executive Session. He said the MRC will go on record in a letter to the Court stating that the MRC does not believe that LRSD has followed the Court Order of Judge Wright when it says that \"in the future, the LRSD must consult the MRC and must seek Court permission prior to making any staffing changes in the magnet schools.\" The MRC does not believe that that consultation was made. Dr. Altom also said that the MRC will go on record that MRC believes that the interview, recommendation and selection process does have integrity. Also, in the letter, the MRC will ask Dr. Henry Williams to work with the MRC to make sure the Court Order is followed for future original magnet staffing changes. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Evelyn Jackson made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. -3- MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES July 18, 1994 A special-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Monday, July 18 1994. ' Members Present: Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Absent: Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. He informed the Magnet Review Committee the meeting was being called to discuss Little Rock School District's recommendation for the principalship at Carver Elementary Magnet School. Dr. Altom asked for a motion to go into Executive Session, and Estelle Matthis provided the motion. Dana Chadwick seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. When Executive Session ended, Ms. Matthis made a motion to return to the general meeting, and Evelyn Jackson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously to return to a general session. Dana Chadwick made a motion that, after hearing the Little Rock School District's representative regarding the principal selection process and the protocol, MRC accept the recommendation of the LRSD for the principalship of Carver Elementary Magnet School. Estelle Matthis seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. Dr. Altom recapped the events of the Executive Session. He said the Magnet Review Committee will submit, by way of formal letter to the Court through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the action taken during this meeting. As a part of the letter, a statement will be made that the Magnet Review Committee does not believe that the process has been done in as timely a fashion as what the MRC would like. But, the late date, the fact principals are already under contract and the belief that magnet school parents are anxious to meet and support that individual, the Magnet Review Committee does support the selection. The Little Rock School District did provide a more in-depth discussion of rationale for selection of the CarveI principal. By consensus, the Magnet Review Committee agreed to send a letter to Dr. Williams asking him to work with the MRC on procedures or policies affecting staffing of the original magnet schools. The MRC will ask him to work with the MRC regarding the following items: timely notification of vacancies arising\nthe procedures for recruitment of candidates\nscreening procedures for candidates\nmake-up selection of the interview committee\nthe development of the interview itself\nwritten criteria or factors considered for the selection of the final principal selection\nreassignment and/or removal of magnet school principals. The MRC will ask him to help look into any changes that might be appropriate for principal job descriptions in the magnet schools. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Estelle Matthis made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Dana Chadwick seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. -2- 5. Verbal Communication/Instruction to Interview Teams INTER VIEW PROTOCOL Prior to the consideration and selection of Interview Committees for the 1994-95 principalships at various schools in the district, a meeting was held on May 31, 1994, to discuss the interview protocol to be used. It was agreed between the participants that although there was no written procedure or policy, there has been a well-known long-standing past practice of interview protocol. The above-mentioned interview protocol was to be used for selection of the 1994-95 principalships. It was further agreed that this protocol would be documented and incorporated into the Personnel section of the Policy and Procedures Manual. Attending the meeting were Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent\nMr. Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations\nand Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Hu~an Resources.   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. Persons desiring employment as a School Principal shall file an application in writing (Reswne, letter of intent, or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact. District application forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with Little Rock School District.) 2. District administration officials will screen the applicants 3. for acceptability. Taken into consideration are certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. The Deputy Superintendent and/or the Assistant SuperiDtendent(s) will prepare a list of interview questions to be used in the interview process. 4. The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (ie: E.E.O., Affirmative Action, Americans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be selected/appointed, as follows: Three Two Three (3) Parents/Patrons (2) Teachers (3) Administration Representatives Note:1 Note:2 Note:3 1. The Parent/Patrons representatives will be selected by a process: designated by the PTA president of the of the affected school. 2. The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by the Administration. 3. The Deputy Superintendent (in consultation with appropriate staff - Assistant superintendents, Supervisors, and Principals) may designate the Administration representatives. *NOTE: The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB 6. The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will be provided folders containing the following: 1) An interview schedule 2) The approved interview questions 3) An approved candidate rating form 4) The applicant's application materials 7. The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the Superintendent. ~ (Note: Although the applicants are rated, the ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) 8. The Superintendent shall review the recommendations of the Interview Committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The Superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. 9. Once the Superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of Directors for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a Principal, the Superintendent may reassign the Principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. 10. When approved, the candidate shall receive a contract which details his salary, pay grade, and other pertinent information. ,, . . PLEASE POST PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL OISRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 10, 1994 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following positions for the 1994-95 school year: POSITIONS: Principals - Six (6) Positions - (1) Williams Magnet (1) Gibbs Magnet (1) carver Magnet (1) Mitchell Incentive (1) Franklin Incentive (1) Rightsell Incentive QUALIFICATIONS: At least five (5) years experience as a teacher and/ or administrator. 1. 2. A master ' s degree or higher, with eligibility for Arkansas certification as an elementary principal. __ 3. 4. Evidence of strong organizational skills. Knowledge of curriculum development and successful teach5. 6. 7. 8. ing methods . Demonstrates the conviction that all students can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. Evidence of strong experience in dealing with student problems. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Assumes responsibility for the management and monitoring of his/her school, and serves as a chief advisor to the appropiiate assigned Associate/Assistant superintendent on matters pertaining to administration, budget, and program implementation in his/her school. 2. works with staff and patrons to determine educational program priorities and goals for his/her school . Principals BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Continued) 3. Implements the process whereby school-level educational programs needs are identified. Informs the appropriate Associate/Assistant Superintendent regarding needed logistical and consultative support in order to accomplish this task. 4. Serves on such advisory groups and task forces as assigned by the appropriate Associate/Assistant superintendent. 5. oversees the development of educational programs and the plan for implementing them on the school level. 6. Works with supervisory and building staff to make the necessary program changes. 7. Assumes responsibility for conducting the performance evaluation of all personnel assigned to his/her building. 8. Assumes responsibility for all record keeping and other administrative tasks. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with the provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIP: Reports to the Deputy superintendent. SALARY AND TERMS: 37-0003 Salary Schedule - An Eleven (11) Month Contract plus Educational stipend, car Allowance, and Benefits APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 19, 1994, or any time later until satisfactory applicants are recommended and approved. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INOUITY TO: or. Richard E. Hurley Director of ~an Resources Little Rock school District 810 west Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 Principals NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. .P. r LITILE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. Cite u 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) 363 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. Faulkner\nBob Moore\nDon Hindman\nShirley Lowery\nSheryl Dunn\nDavid Sain\nBob Stender\nGrainger Williams Richard A. Giddings\nGeorge A: McCrary\nBuddy Raines\nand Dale Ward, Uefcndants, Katherine Knight, Individually and as President of The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA)\nLRCA\nEd Bullington, Individually nnd us President of The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)\nPACT\nJohn Harrison, Individually and as President of The North Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (NLRCTA)\nNLRCTA\nand Milton Jackson, Individually and as a NonCertified Educational Support Employee of the Little Rock0.School District, Lorene Joshua, as next friend of mi nors Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua and Wayne Joshua\nRev. Robert Willing ham\nSara Matthews, as next friend of Khayyam Davis, Alexa Armstrong and Karlos Armstrong\nl\\lrs. Alvin Hudson, as next friend of Talia Hudson\nl\\lrs. Hilton Taylor, as next friend of Parshu Taylor, Hilton Taylor, Jr. and Brian Taylor\nRev. John r,t. Miles, as next friend of Janice Miles and Dcreck Miles\nRev. Robert Willingham on be half of and as President of the Little Rock Branch of the NAACP\nLorene Joshua on behalf of and as President of the North Little Rock Branch of NAACP, Intervenors. No. L~C-82-866. United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, W.D. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1\nNorth Little Rock School District\nArkansas State Board of Education\nWayne Hartsfield\nWalter Turnbow\nHarry A. Haines\nJim Dupree\nDr. Harry P. McDonald\nRobert L. Newton\nAlice L. Preston\nJeff Starling\nEarle Love\nBob Lyon\nJohn Ward\nJudy Wear\nLeon Barnes\nMa rianna Gosser\nSteve Morley\nMac Feb. 27, 1987. Order March 4, 1987. School desegregation plans were sub milted. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 597 F.Supp. 1220, held that countywide inter [1059] , 364 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT district remedy had to be utilized to correct countywide interdistrict violations. Appeals were taken. The Court of Appeals, Heaney, Circuit Jude, 778 F.2d 404, held that violations could be remedied by less intrusive measures and remanded. On remand, the District Court, Henry Woods, J., held that: (1) stipulations between State Iloard of Education and defendant school districts, whereby districts proposed to desegregate schools, inter alia, by allowing black and white students who were in racial majority to transfer to other schools within any participating district, would be approved in its entirety\n(2) plan for desegregation of school district, whereby district agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for recruitment and promotion of blacks to administrative positions within school system, to provide early childhood program to identify and provide special assistance to black children who continued to suffer trickle-down effects of past segregation, and to improve participation of blacks in gifted and talented programs by using racially neutral screening tests, would be approved in all respects\nand (3) that portion of school district's plan for desegregation, which proposed to correct overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes through use of culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring, and to assure black student participation and extracurricular activities by affirmative recruitment plan, would also be approved. So ordered. See also, 805 F.2d 815. 1. Schools e:\u0026gt;13(14) Magnet review committee report and related stipulations, whereby defendant in school desegregation case agreed to use 50-50 black to white ratio for magnet program enrollment while allowing students presently enrolled at existing magnet schools to continue in those schools as appropriate, would be approved in their entirety. 2. Schools e:\u0026gt;13(14) In school desegregation case, students who were presently enrolled at magnet (1060) schools would be allowed to finish their education at such schools, where evidence was presented that involved parents had contributed greatly to schools' success. 3. Schools e:\u0026gt;!3(1~) Stipulations between Slate Ooard of Education and defendant school districts, whereby districts proposed to desegregate schools, inter alia, by allowing black and white students who were in ratio majority at their respective schools to transfer to other schools within any participating district, would be approved in their entirety. 4. Schools e:\u0026gt;13(6) Plan for desegregation of school district, whereby distn'ct agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for recruitment and promotion of blacks to administrative positions within school system, to provide early childhood programs to identify and provide special assistance to black children who continued to suffer trickledown effects of past segregation, and to improve participation of blacks in gifted and talented programs by using racially neutral screening tests, reflected solid and workable approach to end segregation in district and would be approved in all respects. Order 5. Schools e:\u0026gt;!3(6) That portion of school district's plan for desegregation, which proposed to correct overrepresentation of blacks in special education  classes through use of culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring, and to assure black student participation in extracurricular activities by affirmative recruitment plan, would be approved. P.A. Hollingsworth, Philip E. Kaplan, Janet L. Pulliam, John M. Bilheimer, Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff. r C I I LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. 365 Cite u 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987)  Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, Little Rock, tion of the magnet school plans of the Ark., Neal, G:rber \u0026amp; Eise~berg, Chicago, other parties and a critique of the plan of Ill., for Pulaski County Special School Dist., the Magnet Review Committee. At the No. 1, Mac _Faulkner, Bob Moore, Don close of the testimony on January 30, r Hindman,_ Shirley Lowery, Sheryl Dunn, suggested that the parties again confer and David Sain and Bob Stender. attempt to reach an agreement on the mag- C.R. McNair, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Shar- net school portion of the Eighth Circuit on Streett, Dept. of Educ., Little Rock, mandate. (R. 568-69). Ark., for Arkansas State Bd. of Educ., Wayne Hartsfield, Walter Turnbow, Harry A. Haines, Jim Dupree, Dr. Harry P. McDonald, Robert L. Newton, Alice L. Preston, Jeff Starling and Earle Love. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, Little Rock, Ark., for North Little Rock School Dist., Bob Lyon, John Ward, Judy Wear, Leon Barnes, Marianna Gosser and Steve Morley. . Stephen L. Curry, Little Rock, Ark., for Graing:er Williams, Richard A. Giddings, George A. McCrary, Buddy Raines and Dale Ward. Theodore Shaw, New York City, John W. Walker, Little Rock, Ark., for intervenors Joshua, et al. Richard Roachell, Cearley, Mitchell \u0026amp; Roachell, Little Rock, Ark., for interven\u0026lt;irs Knight, et al. INTERIM ORDER ENFORCING MANDATE OF COURT OF APPEALS HENRY WOODS, District Judge. In conformity with the opinion of the Court of Appeals dated November 7, 1985, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir.), and the ensuing mandate, a hearing was held on January 29-30, 1987, to consider the recommendation of the Magnet Review Committee concerning the locations, themes, dates, operation, transportation, seat allocations, targeted ratios, and administration of the magnet schools in this county. January 29th and 30th were devoted to testimony adduced by the Magnet Review Committee on behalf of its plan. The hearing was adjourned to continue the week of February 17, 1987-a presenta- [1] On February 17, 1987, the hearing was resumed to take up not only t,l1e magnet school issues but also the student assignment plans submitted by the Pulaski County Special School District (hereafter PCSD), the North Little Rock School District (hereafter NLRSD), and the Little Rock School District (h.ereafter LRSD). The three districts and the State Department of Education then advised the court that they had agreed by stipulation to a magnet school plan for the County which had been submitted to the Magnet Review Committee and approved by the latter. (R. 577). In open court the Joshua intervenors advised that they had no objections to the stipulation and were in general agreement with its terms. Since the Knight intervenors had not been party to the negotiations leading to the stipulation, they declined to approve the plan but interposed no objection thereto. I have examined the stipulation in detail. In my opinion it is an excellent compromise of the many complex issues involved in magnet schools. The stipulated settlement is in all respects approved. A copy of the stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference in this order. All of the parties except the Joshua and Knight intervenors have also stated in open court that the provisions of the Magnet Review Committee Report dated January 22, 1987 (MRC) not superseded by Exhibit A were stipulated as binding on the tl,1ree districts and the State Board of Education. (R. 582-21). The Magnet Review Committee Report is attached her.etc as Exhibit B The stipulation and agreement as aforesaid are approved in all respects. On behalf of all the parties, the attorney for the Little Rock District dictated into the record some minor supplemental under[ 1061] I 366 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT standings in connection with Exhibit A. (R. 577). These understandings have been reduced to letter form and have been marked as Exhibit C to this order and are incorporated herein by reference. These understandings are approved as supplemental to Exhibit A. [2] One issue remains with reference to the magnet schools presently in existence. That is the question of whether the students presently at the three magnet schools should remain and finish at the schools which they have been attending. Based on the evidence presented, I am convinced that the past success of these schools is the best argument for continuing the present student body as much as possible. Involved parents, black and white, of children attending these schools have contributed greatly to their success and have invested a huge amount of time and energy in making these schools outstanding. It would be a mistake in my opinion to dump these students and start anew. There will of course be attrition and new seats available through graduation, but the students presently enrolled in Booker, Mann and Williams shall have a right to continue in these schools. , - The responsibilities of the Magnet Review Committee, as agreed by the three districts and the State Board of Education, appear at pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit B hereto. The Committee shall be financed as agreed by the parties with a budget of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) with Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,- 000) or half to be paid by the State and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) by each of the three districts. The MRC will necessarily work closely with the three districts and the State in order to have the six magnet schools ready for the 1987-88 school year. The MRC should report to the court on May 1, 1987, on July l, 1987 and again on September l, 1987 to inform the court of progress made in implementing the magnet schools. While the reports need not be lengthy, so as to be burdenlome to the MRC, certainly the MRC reports should keep the court abreast of the status of critical aspects of (1062) implementation of the magnets including: renovations, teacher recruitment, staff training and development, community input 1 and involvement, and student recruitmt:~~_i The Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors have both asked for representation on the Magnet Review Committee by a voting membership. I am unable to comply with this request. The Court of Appeals set forth in clear and unequivocal terms the makeup of the Magnet Review Committee. At the request of all the parties, I did give the Joshua intervenors a non-voting member of the Committee. This was a modification agreed upon by all the parties that did not affect the basic structure of the Magnet R!!\"vicw Committee. The request of the Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors for a voting representation on the Magnet Review Committee is hereby denied. The financing of the magnet school plan has been stipulated\nit is approved as covered in the stipulation (Exhibit A) and in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. In addition to the financing relating to magnet schools and to majority-to-minority transfers, there is only one other reference to state financing in the Court of Appeals decision, Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 435 (8th Cir.1985): If the four all- or nearly all-black elementary schools as conditionally allowed by this Court in Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir.1983), are retained in LRSD, compensatory and remedial programs of the type that we required for the nonintegrated schools in St. Louis shall be put into effect for the four schools. See Liddell v. State of Missouri, 731 F.2d [1294) at 1312-18 [8th Cir.1984). The additional cost of these programs shall be paid for by the State of Arkansas. Since there are no all-black schools in the LRSD student assignment plan, the conditions are not present which would trigger state financing of compensatory education, as is obvious from the above language. The Little Rock District has requested other funding from the State. None of the Ll'ITLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. Cltr a.. 659 F.Supp. J6J (E.O.Ark. 1987} funding _is required by the Court of Ap- principalships and coaching positions\n(b) peals ruling. The State's share of the mag- concentrated whites in schools north of and net school funding will be considerable. It blacks in schoo:s south of Interstate 40\n(c) will strain the already meager resources of assigned students to special education clasthe State at a time when the State has sifications on a discriminatory basis and {d) committed itself to new standards for all failed to apportion the burdens of transporArkansas public schools. Although the tation equally on black and white students. blacks in Little Rock have suffered from LitUe Rock School Distn'ct v. Pulaski the ravages of segregation, so have the County, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D.Ark. blacks in every section and every county of 1984). These findings were affirmed by the State. Significantly the new state stan- the Court of Appeals. Little Rock School dards provide for compensatory education District v. Pulaski County Special School for all students whe~e performance is sub- District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (8th Cir.1985). standard. (State Exhibit MX 25). In March, 1986, the NLRSD submitted 367 [3) The parties have agreed upon a sys- an implementation plan designed to remedy tern for handling majority-to-minority the interdistrict effects of its constitutional transfers. The stipulation setting forth violations. (March plan). Subsequently, in this agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit October of 1986, the NLRSD submitted a D, is approved and is incorporated herein supplement to its implementation plan (supby reference. The three districts and the plement plan) which addressed remediation Joshua intervenors have also agreed upon of intradistrict impact of its prior segrea Pulaski County Education Cooperative gative acts. for staff development, distribution of audio The NLRSD student assignment plan, visual resources, \"teacher center\" activi- the \"Storm Plan,\" has been in effect for a ties, purchasing and other cooperative ef- number of years. When properly impleforts of mutual benefit. The stipulation mented, the Storm Plan provides for a conestablishing the cooperative venture, at- stitutional student assignment system and tached hereto as Exhibit E, is approved. for equitable busing burdens between After carefully considering the student assignment plan submitted by the PCSD, I have decided that it must be rejected for the reasons set forth in the record at pages 61\u0026amp;-17. The district was given two weeks to submit an alternative plan. At the time the County's student assignment plan is considered, the court will deal with the other criticisms set forth by the Court of Appeals. The broad outline of the student assignment plan submitted by the LRSD is hereby approved. Detailed assignments have been awaiting the resolution of the magnet school issues. The Little Rock District is hereby .authorized to proceed with its student assignment plan as submitted to the court in March, 1986. [41 The North Littlir Rock School District was found to have purposefully committed a number of segregative acts, including the following which had an interdistrict effect: (a) failed to assign blacks to its central administration or to high school blacks and whites. According to its March plan, all NLRSD schools are currently desegregated and deficiencies found by this court have been corrected. This evidence was uncontradicted at the June, 1986 hearing. The NLRSD plan includes a detailed staff recruitment component which, if implemented, should result in substantial gains in the area of recruitment and promotion of blacks to positions where they are currently underrepresented. Supplementally the NLRSD has agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for increasing the number of blacks to these positions. (Supplement plan 2.1). Remediation of the unconstitutional overrepresentation of blacks in \"special education\" classes consumes most of the NLRSD's March implementation plan. As with the rest of its plan, if put into effect as proposed, the imbalance caused by the categorization of inordinate numbers of black st-udents as \"retarded\" would be eliminated. NLRSD has suggested several .:::::=--- (1063] 368 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT important monitoring procedures to insure compliance. (Supplement plan, 3.1). The NLRSD supplement plan also addresses remedies for intradistrict segregative acts. In the area of compensatory education for black children who continue to suffer the trickle-down effects of past segregation, the NLRSD plan proposes an early childhood program. The program includes a testing process so that educationally disadvantaged children, both black and white, can be identified and targeted for help at an early age. For the early grades, that help will be provided through teacher aides who will provide one-to-one tutoring, through supplementary reading instruction, and through implementation of the State Minimum Performance Tests. Reading remediation will also be provided at the junior high school level, as will computer assisted instruction in basic skills with individualized programs. The NLRSD supplement plan includes a number of programs aimed at the problem of students who leave school prematurely or \"drop out.\" The excessively high dropout rate of blacks in the NLRSD is one of the most pressing problems for the blacks in that district. Proposed programs such as the WIN (We Intervene Now) and SAC (Student Assignment Class-which serves students who are suspended from their regular classes) are sound and should prove beneficial. The violation relating to the disproportionate numbers of black students who are suspended or expelled for disciplinary reasons has largely been eliminated. For example, in the 1985-86 school year, 48o/o of the suspended students were black. While this percentage is somewhat higher than the actual percentage of black students enrolled (40%), the deviation is not so great as to indicate a continuing problem at this time. Expulsions are now infrequent (only 20 over the last three years) and are now made only by the board of education, after a hearing. The NLRSD has made strides in improving the participation of black students in its Gifted and Talented program. The LRSD supplement plan includes a number of safeguards to insure identification of (1064] black children who are gifted/talented but culturally disadvantaged. In addition to the screening tests which recognize cultural differences (i.e. System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment), the NLRSD now uses an identification process which involves nominations and r.?commendations based on multiple criteria from a number of people. The ultimate placement of a child in the program is a group dec1s1on. (Supplement plan 8.1-8.4). In sum, the NLRSD has made great progress in each area where it was found to have been deficient. The NLRSD's March 1986 plan, as supplemented in October 1986, reflects a solid and workable ap proach, if implemented, to end segregation in that school district. The NLRSD plan is hereby approved in all respects.' ORDER (5] The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) was found purposefully to have committed a number of segregative acts with an interdistrict effect: (a) failed to comply with a 1968 desegregation court order (Zinnamon v. Board of Education of the Pulaski County Arkansas Special School District, No. LR-CR-C-154)\n(b) constructed schools in locations which ensured that they would become racially identifiable\n(c) failed to allocate the burden of busing equitably between black and white students\n(d) failed to hire and promote black teachers and staff\n(e) refused to allow deannexation to or consolidation with the N.\u0026gt;rth Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Little Rock School Dis trict (LRSD)\n(0 failed to assign students to schools in such a way as to maximize desegregation\n(g) assigned students to special education classifications and gifted programs on a discriminatory basis\n(h) assigned black principals to schools with high black enrollments\n(i) created and maintained a racial imbalance in almost half its schools\n(j) closed and downgraded schools in black neighborhoods and failed to build new schools there. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Co. Special School District, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D. Ark.1984). These findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Little Rock t-i LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST 369 . . Clle u 659 F.Supp. J6J (E.D.Ark. 1987) 0 School Dis/net v. Pulaski County Special into sites for proposed  Scch ool District, 778 F.2d 404, 418 (8th While no schools have nbeew construction. 198-) . en construred 1r.\n:,  during the pendency of this case, two , w Many of the violations have already been elementary schools are now proposc.:d. The cured-ither by court order or by affirma- sites chosen conform to the board's new tive actions of the PCSSD. The deannexa- policy and are approved. In that same tion/consolidation violation has been cured vein, progress has been made recen' 'v\n, by the redrawing of boundary lines which improving the physical plants in sc , s separate the districts. The failure to com- such as Harris and Scott which were rac::1lply with Zinnamon includes the failure to ly identifiably black. appoint black members to the PCSSD The PCSSD has made continuous board. By order of this court dated De- progress in hiring and promoting black faccember 1, 1986, the PCSSD will now elect ulty. An affirmat1,e action pbn was board members from zones. According to adopted by the PCSSD board in 1984 the plan submitted and approved, one of which has apparently been successful. A~ the zones will be majority black and anoth- of November, 1985, 22.Go/o of the PC 30 er will be 40% black, 58% white and 2% teachers w,.ere black as compared wit ,1 a other. This remedy supercedes that por- 23.6% black student population. PCSSD tion of Zinnamon dealing with black Plan Appendix I. Further, the district has school board members. The ceding of the a goal to have black teachers maln 1\n, Granite Mountain area from LRSD to 20-30% of the faculty in each school  e PCSSD includes the transfer of public district. PCSSD Plan, Appendix I. housing areas to PCSSD. Moreover, there Similarly, the affirmative action plan for are apparently other public housing devel- administrative staff appears to have been opments in the PCSSD. PCSSD Exhibits successful, although there remains under- 18 and 20 in June, 1986 hearing. PCSSD representation in two specific categories: has created a new position in the superin- coordinators and directors. In spite of tendent's office, the Coordinator of Hous- these specific areas which should be careing and Integration. This staff person will, fully monitored, the percentage of l ick among other duties, relate to realtors, de- administrators (24.7%) is good and indicates velopers and planning agencies. PCSSD a positive step toward curing this deficien- Exhibit R-2, p. 4. The PCSSD student cy. assignment plan will soon be submitted and The overrepresentation of blacks s e-at that time the issues of desegregation in cial education classes can perhaps t :ie student assignments and equitable alloca remedied through the use of culturally untion of busing burdens will be addressed. biased screening and subsequent rr.onitor- School site selection involves two sepa- ing. The PCSSD plan includes both of rate violations. First, the construction of these,elements. The result of the plan has new schools where they are likely to be been a marked drop in the percentage of racially identifiable and second, the closing blacks classified as requiring special eduor downgrading of schools closest to cen- cation. PCSSD Plan, Appendix G. While ters of black population. Since this lawsuit the percentage of blacks design:1 te for was filed, the PCSSD board has adopted a special education is 4.2% higher than the policy making desegregation and equal ac- percentage of white children so designated, cess to school primary goals in decisions to that deviation is within an acceptable build, renovate, or discontinue use of a range. school. PCSSD Implementation Plan, The PCSSD plan includes a comr  1nt March 1986 (hereafter PCSSD Plan) Appen- to assure black student participation 111 ex dix B. The Coordinator of Housing and tracurricular activities. Notably, in the Integration obviously should have input 1985-86 school year, black students (1c0o6m5] I 370 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT EXHIBIT A STIPULATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MAGNET SCHOOL.s prised 28% of the membership in extracurricular activities. PCSSD plan, Appendix G. An affirmative recruitment plan will be implemented to remedy underrepresentation in activities where it occurs. PCSSD Plan, Appendix H. The foregoing proposals of the PCSSD desegregation plan represent not only a turn in the right direction, but also significant progress toward achieving a unitary school district. While much remains to be done, much has been accomplished. Accordingly, this portion of the PCSSD deseg regation plan is hereby approved. The undersigned parties have agreed to make the following describi!d recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee for its consideration in formulating its recommendation regarding magnet schools. School \u0026amp; Program Carver-Basic Skills Math-Science Williams-Basic Skills Booker-Arts Gibbs-Foreign Language/ International Studies Mann-Math-Sciences/ Arts Parkview-Arts-Per!orming Arts Total The curriculum at magnet schools will emphasize the magnet theme and all magnet students must fully participate in mag net courses. As well as the magnet theme, all magnet schools will have strong aca demically-oriented curricula. New magnets or expansion of magnets already existing may be provided for in subsequent school years beginning 1988-89 under the provisions of the Order of September 3, 1986. Any party may present applications for a magnet school or pro gram not later than the beginning of each school year preceeding the proposed year of implementation. The Committee's decision and recommendation shall be sub mitted to the parties no later than November 15. The MRC shall make its recom mendation to the Court not later than December 15. IMPLEMENTATION The parties propose that the District Court order the implementation of the six (6) aforementioned magnet schools for the 1987-1988 school year. The host district shall provide to the MRC and to the parties (1066] LOCATIONS AND THEMES The parties have agreed to recommend the following magnet school locations and programs: ~ K-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 7-9 10-12 Target Enrollment  475 530 720 348 975 1150 4198 its implementation timetable at the time a magnet proposal is submitted to the Court. FINANCING The parties agree to the financing formulas proposed by the Magnet Review Committee at the hearing held on January 29 and 30, 1987. These formulas require the State to pay one-half(} of the actual costs of the construction or renovation of magnet schools as well as the customary state aid and one-half (} the cost of educating the magnet students attending those schools. It is understood that any district which does not provide a student to fill an allocated seat, and said seat is not occupied by any other student, will be required to pay to the host district as its full liability for said unfilled seat the per child cost of the host district's debt service payment, both principal and interest, for the construction or renovation of the schools in the magnet program. The host district will provide separate accounting and budgeting information regarding the magnet program lo the Magnet Review Committee for review. LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. Cllc u 6,9 F.Supp. J6J (E.D.Ark. 1987) 371 INTERDISTRICT TRANSPORTATION PLAN The State Board of Education remains committed to underwriting the entire actual cost of transporting magnet and M-to-M transfer students, which includes the cost of transporting these students for extracurricular activities. The districts agree that transportation of magnet/M-to-M students should be performed utilizing measures which are most cost efficient. The interdistrict transportation plan shall not be used as a means to seek compensation for additional transportation vehicles unless such vehicles are directly necessary because of the interdistrict transportation plan. New full-sized school buses purchased in order to transport magnet/Mto- M students will be added to the total transportation fleet costs and applied on a pro rata basis to the transportation of magnet/ M-to-M students. The cost of any other vehicles purchased to transport isolated magnet/.M-to-M students will be prorated according to their actual use in transporting magnet/M-to-M students. Each district agrees to separately account for the costs of transporting magnet/M-to-M students and to make those records fully available to representatives of the State Department of Education at any reasonable time. The parties agree that the Interdistrict Transportation Plan for both magnet schools and M-to-M transfers will be administered by an Interdistrict Transportation Authority (ITA). The ITA shall be composed of the Transportation Director or other designee of each district and a representative of the State. The parties agree that any conflict may be determined by a U.S. ~agistrate acting as a Special Master for the District Court. SEAT ALLOCATION All magnet schools shall have a student population which is fifty percent (50%) black and fifty percent (50%) non-black. The parties agree that for the 1987-88 school year the magnet school seats shall be allocated according to the following for-  mula: Twenty-five per centum (25%) of the capacity of a magnet school shall be re-served for the shadow area in the host district. The remaining seventy-five per centum (75%) of the seats shall be allocated to each of the three districts in proportio~ to that district's percentage of county-wide students at each school level (elementay, junior high, or senior high). At the elementary level each district shall allocate its seats in proportion to the racial ratio present in such district at the elementary level. At the secondary level, each district shall allocate all its seats on the basis of 50% black, 50% non-black. However, the total number of seats assigned to the North Little Rock School District shall n'.:t exceed 475 seats with no more than 100 seats being allocated to the North Little Rock School District from Parkview. It is understood that seat allocations will not be made by district to a particular school, but only by elementary, junior high and senior high level. Therefore, a particular district will be permitted to use its allocated seats in accordance with the desires of its students subject to space limitations in particular magnet schools and the maintenance of a 50-50 racial balance. If there is oversubscription among the districts by race, grade or school each district may make a recommendation to the MRC for its approval regarding actual distribution of seats. The three districts agree that each district will establish an open enrollment policy for magnet schools and will be permitted to determine how children will be selected for the magnet seats allocated to each district pursuant to that policy. This provision shall not prohibit the establishment of geographic preference areas where appropriate. In the event there are unused seats by any district then persons on waiting lists to attend from the other districts shall be permitted to attend before any seat is left vacant. No student attending a magnet school will be considered as an M-to-M transfer student for incentive payment purposes. TARGETED RATIOS The parties have previously submitted to the Court a proposed stipulation for M-to-M (1067] 1 372 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT transfers which in part recognizes that if :-!-to-:-f transfers occur, ratios targeted by any of the districts for particular schools might be affected depending upon the locations from which M-to-M transfers occur. The parties in that stipulation agreed that the first priority should be a successful :'11-to-\n\\I transfer program and that if it did affect targeted ratios, such departures wou Id not be regarded or urged as cons titu tional violations or departures from desegregation plans. The parties further recognize that a successful operation of the magnet school program could potentially ha ,e the same or similar effects upon targeted ratios. The parties therefore recommend that any magnet transfers not be counted as a departure from a desegregation plan or urged as a constitutional violation. LITTLE ROCK MAGNET GRANT The parties agree and recommend that, should the Little Rock District now or in the future prove successful in obtaining grants for the operation of magnet schools, any such monies shall be applied off the top to the obligations of all parties. The parties further agree and recommend to the Court that they cooperate in the development of an application for any future magnet grants. ADMINISTRATION The daily administration and operation of the magnet schools shall be the responsibility of the host district. The host district shall designate a person who shall have principal responsibility for overseeing the de,elopment and implementation of its magnet program. STUDENT RECRUITMENT The parties agree that the Magnet Review Committee shall establish a Magnetl M-to-M Educational Team (MET). The major responsibilities of the MET shall include community education and information dissemination of educational opportunities in the magnet programs and recruitment for both magnets and M to M transfers. It shall report to the MRC. The MET shall [1068] be composed of the person from each school district and the State responsible for desegregation !Jlanning, and two additional persons selected by each of the following parties: Joshua Intcrvenors Little Rock School District North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District State of Arkansas These additional representatives of the MET shall not be employees or officials of any of the districts or the State. February 16, 1987 PCSSD Administrative Offices The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) endorses the foregoing stipulations. Pulaski County Special School District Isl _____G _e_n_e_J_o_n_es _____ North Little Rock School District I I James R. Smith s --------------- Little Rock School District Isl ____ J_e_ss_e_L_. R_a_nc_i!_e_r ___ _ Arkansas Department of Education Isl ____M_ a_rc_ia\n__A:..:...:H:..:.a:..:.r:..:.d:..:.in,::g_ ____ Arkansas Department of Education Isl ____r. _i_orr_is_F_._H_o_lm_e_s_ ____ r EXHIBIT B MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE COURT January 22, 1987 The Honorable Henry Woods U.S. Federal District Court Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Woods: The Magnet Review Committee submits for your consideration the attached report including nine separate recommendations concerning magnet schools in Pulaski County. ,I. 5. Verbal Communication/Instruction to Interview Teams I1 TERVIEW PROTOCOL Prior to the consideration and selection of Interview Committees for the 199-t-95 principalships at various schools in the district, a meeting was held on May 31, 199-t, to discuss the interview protocol to be used. It was agreed between the participants that although there was no written procedure or pol.icy, there bas been a well-known long-standing past practice of interview protocol. Toe above-mentioned interview protocol was to be used for selection of the 1994-95 principalships. It was further agreed that this protocol would be documented and incorporated into the Personnel section of the Policv and Procedures Manual. Attending the meeting were Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent\nMr. B~ady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations\nand Dr. Richard Hurley, Direstor of Human Resources. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAE3 SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. Persons desiring employment as a School Principal shall file an application in writing (Resume, letter of intent, or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact. District application forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with Little Rock School District.) 2. District administration officials will screen the applicants for acceptability. Taken into consideration are 3 . certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. The Deputy Superintendent and/or the Assistant Superintendent(s) will prepare a list of interview questions to be used in the interview process. 4. The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (ie: E.E.O., Affirmative Action, Americans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be selected/appointed, as follows: Note:l Note:2 Note:3 Three Two Three ( 3) ( 2) ( 3) Parents/Patrons Teachers Administration Representatives 1. The Parent/Patrons representatives will be selected by a process: designated by the PTA president of the of the affected school. 2. The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by the Administration. 3. The Deputy Superintendent ( in consultation with appropriate staff - Assistant superintendents, Supervisors, and Principals) may designate the Administration representatives. *NOTE: The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender.  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB 6. The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will be provided folders containing the following: 1) An interview schedule 2) The approved interview questions 3) An approved candidate rating form 4) The applicant's application materials 7. The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the Superintendent. (Note: Although the applicants are rated, tne ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) 8. The Superintendent shall review the recommendations of the Interview Committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The Superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. 9. Once the Superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of Directors for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a Principal, the Superintendent may reassign the Principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. 10. When approved, the candidate shall receive a contract which details his salary, pay grade, and other pertinent information. I --:J'---.   - , . IN' TIJE mHTED ST,\\7ES DISTilICT COURT EASTEIU: DI STl1 JCT O!' ARJCANSAS WESTERN DIVIS ION FKLED U.5. OI STlllCT COURT EASTU)N n1s,q1cr \"~K/\\\"'SAS SE\n) 1 1985 CARL R. B~ENTS, Ci...En/ 8y: -------- 1 ITTLE ROCJ( SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINT I ff.::.\".cLtr\u0026lt;I\u0026lt; V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULAS!\u0026lt;I COillffY SPECIAL SCIJOOL DISTRICT, ct al DEFENDANTS rvm.s. Lon.ENE JOSHUA, ns l-ieXt F1iend of Minors LESLIE JOSliU/,, ct al onDE}l INTERVENORS Pursuant to the o.grccmcnt entitled 11 Stipulc.tion for Proposed Ordi:!r Conce,ning Magnet Review Corrmittee\" filed by the three rarty school districts a~d the Arkansas State Board of Education,: the following Order is hereby eritered: The subject of this stipulation wa5 addressed by the Court 6f Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its opinion of.November 7, 1985, styled as above and reported at 778 F,2d 404, 436 (8th Cir. ,,. 1985). 1, Plaintiff end each of the defendant school districts will appoint a member of the Magnet Review Comnittee (MRC) and rep or t th~ name of t 11 at person to the Co u r t w i th in ten ( 10 ) days of the entry of this Order. The defendants State Department of Education will appoint two members of the ~me and report the names of those persons to the Court within ten (10) days. The Joshua i n t er v en or 5 w i 11 appoint a person to the MRG to 6 er v c, SEP -8 1986 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF '.4RKANSAS .. (  C e):-off icic, und report the nurnes of that rerson to the Court within t en (1 0 ) days. Plaintiff and defendants will confer wi U1in t he ten-d uj period conccrninG those to be nomed in on attempt to insur12 that the l\\iRC l:ns at lee.st two blac1\u0026lt; me:rr.'.)e rs, excl:.idinz the cx-offieio member. 2 . W i th i n t w c n t y - one ( 2 1 )  days f r om th c en t r y o f th i s Order, the MRC she.11 rr:'!et to beg-in plannine an intcrdistrict ms. g n ct school pro g- run. The MRC sh al l d c v el op a t i me tab 1 e for planning and irnplcmentin~ tbe mag11et school program. During the p l a n n i n g p r O CC S S , t h e r-.mc S h a l l : A. Consider plans and proposals for mogn~t schools by the p,rrties\nB. Heur evidence presented by the parties\nc. Submit, for comnent and evaluation, interim pro[)osnls to the rarties fo1 their corrment ond/ot criticism\nD. Evaluate both the segregative and 1escgregative efJects of any l_)roposnls advanced for magnet schools. E. Make findings concerning the number, location, staffing, racial rntios, and themes of the magnet schools . In determining the number and location .of magnet schools, the MRC shnll have as its [)rimary objective the furtherance Consistent with this objective, of effective desegregation. magnets ordinarily shall be established in school facilities located in or proximate to black residential areas. The MRC may make cxce[)tions to this general rule\nfor example, Williams School may be retained as a magnet. 2 - ~fy ~ ~ .. C C 3 . Th c l\\1RC sh u 1 1 r c po r t i ts f ind i n is to the Co u r t , toge th c r w i th such rec 01m1e n d at ions as mn y be n e cc s s n r y to th c cf f i c i en t operation nnd ndministrotion of the muanet schools. Any member of th c l\\IR.C mo. y f i 1 e con~ u t r i n g or d i s sent in g rep or t s  Th c MRC report and recomncndatio11s, and nny concurring or dissenting reports, must be submitted to the Court on or before December 15, 1986, which de:~dlinc may be ext.ended by the Court fur good cause shown. The parties will seek a prompt hearing and determination by t !1 e Co u r t on the MRC rec onmc n d at ions  .' 4. Upor in:plementntion of the magnet school program, the l\\filC will continue to monitor, evaluate, nnd reconrncnd changes in the actual operation of the ma1,\n11et schools. The MRC w i 1 1 f i 1 e an an nu a 1 r e [) o r t w i t h t h i s Co u r t  In performing its functions under this paragraph, :he t\\lRC shall follow the guidelines and procedures outlinec in the precedini paragraphs. 5. The 'ffiC may retain a consultant to assist in the rnagr.et planning process, and the parties may retvin other experts and consultants to make presentations or assist in the process. G. The representative of the Joshua intervenors on the lvIR.C shall be nonvoting, but shall otherwise be entitled to pa r t i c i pc. t e f U 1 1 y i n . a l 1 as p e c t s o f the de 1 i b e r a t i on s o f t h e MRC. 7. Any party, at any time, may move the Court for a hearing JULo61987 ru.1.0.fill  y G EJ:i~ OF, f..RM~l'jAl IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 2 \\337 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI CX)lJNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al DEFENDANTS ORDER A f t er hear in g fr om a number of w i t n es s es , i n c 1 u d i n g magnet school principals and curricula specialists, and upon reviewing the Magnet Review Comnittee (IvIBC) reports, I remain steadfastly o p t i m i s t i c t h a t s i x q u a 1 i t y i n t e r d i s t r i c t ma g n e t s c h o o 1 s c a n a n \u0026lt;  will be ready by fall. This will, of course, require the full cooperation of everyone involved. The principals are most impressive and will provide selected. ex c e 1 1 en t 1 ea de r sh i p , in s p i t e of the manner i n w  i ch they we r e Proper procedures have now been instituted for stnff~ selection. The at tor~ys ___ .~~~:_ _.:_:~~ed _ a comprorni se on the budget fo . ~e 1987-88 school year of $3100 \u0026gt;er magnet ~tudcnt. This f i gu r c is hereby approved. A 1 1 par t i es agree that the r o 1 e of the MRC mus t be c la r i f, i e d so th a t the i n t e rd i s t r i c t mag n e t s ch o o l s can be e f f i c i en t 1 y an c successfully implemented and operated. Divergent opinions in a corrmittee such as the MRC are not only inevitable but are helpfL . in thoroughly examining options. The current problem with the l\\IB.C is not that members differ in perspectives and opinions, but ..'\\ that any vote which is less than unanimous is viewed by the parties as a stalemate to be resolved by the attorneys. At first blush it is tempting to allow the par~ies to compromise and reach agreement however they choos~, whether through their attorneys or th r o ugh the rviRC. i t r u n s c o u n t e r t o t h e c 1 e a r i n t e n t o f t h e E i g h t h C i r c u i t Co u r t That is not a realistic long-term solution a~d of Appeals in ordering the rviRC to \"administer\" the magnets. A' _\n, Gene cal lY educ a ti ona 1 decisions should be made by educators, not by lawyers. with For the most part, the rviRC is composed of members excellent credentials and abilities in the field of education. The recent opinion in the St. Louis desegregation case shed s light on what the court of Appeals intended the role of the MRC in our comnunitY to be.\n:,iddell, et al v. Board of Education, et ~ No. 86-1511, slip 01- (8th Cir. June 8, 1987). 1 n i t i al 1 y it is c 1 ear that the MRC i s a de c i s ion -making, ~ rather than merely an advisory, body. Rock/North Little Rock and Metropolitan coordinating Comnitt .:.c (MCC) in St. Louis were charged with the task of administering specialty schools. (\"Liddell Both the rviRC in Li t t le authority to administer the interdistrict vocational schools just In St. Louis, the MCC was formed and given as the\n-\nIB.C was formed in this case to administer the ma%n c t schools. In the St. Louis case, by agreement, the da y-to-day opecation of the schools rested not with the MCC but with bo s d of education of the reserved to the boards host districts. The responsibiliti e s included \"the operation of the respective t. - 2 - . . \\ programs, emolovment of staff, development of personnel and eo.ch district's needs.\" appropriation of fund.s to meet Subsequent to the agreement, the district court ordered two v o c a t i on a 1 s ch o o 1 s c l o s e d and f u r t h e r o r d c r e d t h c I\\ CC t o d c v e 1 op a staffing plan to accorrmodo.te the reduced and re assigned stnff members in those closing schools, argued on appeal that empowering the MCC to develop a restaffin g The City Board of Educatio plan infr.inged on the powers reserved to the boards of education. The~~_D of appeals held: .we find little merit in this contention. It is clear ~ that the MCC mus t be g i v en add i t i on al au tho r i t y and  must be permitted to act with more independence and objectivity than it has in the past if the  schools are to be integrated. Even with its pow tR enhanced, the MCC must have the close cooperation o: the school districts if [the] plan is to succeed. - Liddell X at 27. Similarly the parties to this case have agreed that the host district of a magnet school should make the day-to-day decision s regarding the operation of the school. This agreement cannot and ~ w i 1 1 not be cons trued to r el e gate the MRC to the s ta tu s o f an unused appendage. The court in unequivocal language directed t .,'-' MCC in St. Louis to make independent investigations, evaluations and decisions: There is no evidence that [the MCC] thoroughly revi~wed the matter, or made an independent decision wi~ respect to it. As the district court indicated, th is practice cannot be permitted to continue. The l\\1CC must be permitted to exercise the responsibility given to it by the district court and this Court. Liddell X at 22. According 1 y, the r o 1 e of the MRC is to make rec orrrne n de d - 3 - po 1 i c L_~_L.Q.!}__S~g a rd ~g _ ____!_!:_E:_ . o p_e r_a,. _t ion .. of _the mag n e t sch o o 1 s  Those decisions should tben be corrrnunicated, in a written report, to the court for approval. The report should reflect the process used to reach decisions and should reflect independent fact-finding. Objections to MRC reports should be filed with the court within 20 days, after which the court will approve, modify or reject the MRC's recorrrnendations. The court has neither the time nor the inclination to provide a laundry list of \"policy\" decisions as distinguished By way of example, in selecting f r om \" day - t O - day II de C i S i On S  s t a f f , t he MRC sh o u 1 d s e t the c r i t e r i a to be u s e.d o r p r o c e s s by which teachers are selected for magnet schools\nthe host district would implement that policy by appropriately selecting th  teachers. W i th r e s p e c t _ t o s ea t .. a l l o ca t i on , t h e MRC s ho u l d e s t ab l i s h a po l_i_\u0026lt;:.)'__f_E_r_ 2 ~-at _ al loca ti on __ _wj_j_h_ i..!!.__t~ _ p_o_~!_li_s __ ~ ~__0e st i pu 1 at ion which will maximize participation in the magnet schools from all ------  --- - ---- ---- - -------- ------ three districts. Each district should set its criteria for selection of its students for magnet schools to enhance it - --------------------------- --- ----------  -- For ___ ~he 1987_-_S~ __ school year, the parties desegregation efforts. have agreed, and it is hereby approved 1 that all North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special Schpol District (PCSSD) students who applied for magnet schools as of May 22, 1987 may attend the magnet schools they have chosen. As agreed by the parties, the -n--u-mb-e r- ---of seats allocated to NLRSD and PCSSD ar-e -t-o- b-e- -br-o-ken --do-wn- - -o-n- --a-n- -o--rga n-iz-at- io n-a-l- -l-e-v - 4 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN 0ISTR!~T ARKANSAS NOV O 5 1992 CARL R. BRE1\\J TS, CL\n:?.i\u0026lt; By: /1 , -!kJ1 \u0026lt;'kl J/\\. / DEP. C' ERi\u0026lt; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS I\"NT ERVENORS On May 26, 1992, the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") submitted to the Court for review and approval a budget for the 1992-93 - school year for the six original magnet schools. (Document #1609.) On July 31, 1992, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a Special Status Report setting forth its operating budget for 1992-  93. (Document #1649.) At a hearing on August 3, 1992, the Court heard tes~imony on budget reduction proposals by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Some of those cutbacks resulted in staff reductions at the magnet schools. The Court, with some exceptions, approved the LRSD's proposed reductions in an order filed on August 4, 1992. On September 28, 1992, the MRC wrote the Court, expressing its concern about certain LRSD budget cuts. It also addressed staffing changes at two of the magnet schools which resulted in a white principal and assistant principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School and a black principal and assistant principal '=t Wr.1shington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet Elementary - - / School. (Document #1693.) The MRC complains that the LRSD failed in its obligation to work with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. The LRSD filed a response to the MRC' s letter, basically arguing that the role of the MRC has changed since the establishment of the magnet schools during a period of the \"controlled choice desegregation plan. 11 It contends that the MRC' s role now is to recommend policy decisions which must be communicated in writing to the parties and approved by the court. In addition, the LRSD contends there are no numerical goals or quotas in the parties' desegregation plans and the-MRc' s position that the new assistant principal at Gibbs should be removed from her job because of her race is in conflict with the law and the parties' plans. The Pulaski County Special School District ( \"PCSSD\") and the North Little Rock School District ( \"NLRSD\") responded that they support the LRSD's views. 1 Background of the Magnet Review Committee. In a November 1985 opinion, the Eighth Circuit found constitutional violations on the part of the state of Arkansas, the PCS SD, and the NLRSD and included in the remedy the establishment of magnet schools. \"The district court may require a limited number of magnet or specialty 1The Court al.so =ivcd a JC(ler dated September 23, 1992, from the attorney for the Joshua Intervenors, expressing concern about the effect of the LRSD budget cut, on the magnet schools and the assignment of a white vice-principal lO Gibbs . See Exhibit A. -2- schools or programs to be established at locations to be determined initially by a Magnet Review Committee and approved by the district court after a hearing.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 436 (1985). The parties subsequently agreed upon the responsibilities of the MRC, which included oversight of staffing. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 659 F. Supp. 363, 373 (E.D.Ark. 1987). Furthermore, on May 13, 1987, Judge Henry Woods stated that \" ( s) taffing of the magnets shall be made in close consultation with the principal and the MRC.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 660 F. Supp. 637, 644-45 (E.D.Ark. 1987). Judge Woods further 'noted that the Eighth circuit stated that the magnet schools were to be adnlinistered by the MRC and that he considered staffing an important aspect of adnlinistration. Id. at 645. In orders entered later in May 1987, Judge Woods established the procedure for MRC review of staffing decisions: 8. Tentative selections shall be promptly submitted to the MRC for its review and comment. Any reservation or question raised by the MRC shall be promptly addressed by the LRSD. The MRC may, if it deems appropriate, address unresolved concerns to the Court before any actual assignments are made by LRSD. Order filed May 26, 1987, Document #843. See also Document #833. That the MRC was more than an advisory body was made clear in Judge Woods' Order of July 2, 1987: All parties agree that the role of the MRC must be clarified so that the interdistrict magnet schools can be efficiently and successfully implemented and operate~  . . . At first blush it is tempting to allow the parties -3- to compromise and reach agreement however they choose whether through their attorneys or through the MRC. That is not a realistic long-tenn solution and it runs counter to the clear intent of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in ordering the MRC to 'administer' the magnets. Initially it is clear that the MRC is a decision-making rather than merely an advisory body. [T]he parties to this case have agreed that the host district of a magnet school should make the day-to-day decisions regarding the operation of the school This agreement cannot and will not be construed to relegate the MRC to the status of an unused appendage. Accordingly, the role of the MRC is to make recommended policy decisions regarding the operation of the magnet schools. Those decisions should then be communicated, in a written report, to the court for approval. The report should reflect the process used to reach decisions and should reflect independent factfinding. Objections to MRC reports should be filed with the court within 20 days, after which the court will approve, modify, or reject the MR.C's recommendations. By way of example, in selecting staff, the MRC should set the criteria to be used or process by which teachers are selected for magnet schools\nthe host district would implement that policy by appropriately selecting the teachers. Little Rock School District v. PUlaski County Special School District, 663 F. Supp. 1554, 1555-56 (E.D.Ark. 1987). In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), the Court addressed the argument that the MRC's authority with respect to the assignment of teachers was too broad. The Eighth Circuit stated: In our view, the District court order outlining the -4- duties and responsibilities of the Magnet Review ~ommit~ee _was well conceived. It recognizes the interdistrict character of the magnet school program and carefully allocates responsibilities between the Magnet Review Committee and the host district .. we specifically agree with the court's order with respect to the procedures to be followed in recruiting and hiring faculty for the magnet schools and the part that the Magnet Review Committee is to play in staffing operation. We do, however, make it clear that the collective bargaining agreements between host school districts and the classroom teachers associations remain applicable to the extent that such agreements are not inconsistent with the responsibilities heretofore given to the Magnet Review Committee or with orders of the District Court with respect to the staffing of magnet schools. 2 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski county Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1314 (8th cir. 1988). The Reductions in Staff. The LRSD Board of Directors approved budget reductions proposed by the LRSD administration on July 23, 1992. The LRSD proposed to reduce magnet positions by 14.9 full time equivalent (FTE) positions. The MRC says it learned of the reductions through the newspaper and called a special meeting for the LRSD to present its budget. During that meeting the LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11. J FTE rather than 14.9 FTE. More meetings followed during which the MRC discussed personnel cuts with magnet school principals and LRSD central office administrators. On August 28, the MRC voted on the proposed personnel cuts and approved the reduction of 7. 4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE 2m a footnote, the Eighth Circuit quoted from Judge Woods' July 2 order in which he stated that the role of the MRC is to make recommended policy decisions, which would be communicated to the court for approval. Su LRSD v. PCSSD , 663 F. Supp. 1554, 1556 (E.D .Arie. l 9S7). -5- positions. According to the MRC, the LRSD verbally agreed to reinstate the positions but declined to reinstate the people who had occupied the positions. The MRC now asks the Court to affirm the decision to reinstate 3.9 FTE positions cut from the original magnet programs by the LRSD and to reinstate to those positions the individuals who held them prior to the cuts. In response, the LRSD contends that following the implementation of the magnet schools programs, the MRC' s role changed from that of administering to evaluating and monitoring the magnet schools. It asserts that the MRC failed to act in accordance with a properly established policy, citing language from Judge Woods' Order of July 2, 1987. LRSD v. PCSSD, supra, 663 F. Supp. at 1556. In addition, the LRSD contends that it has no authority under the Professional Negotiations Agreement (\"PNA\") to reinstate the individuals to the 3.9 FTE positions because those individuals have been reassigned according to the PNA. It states that the 3.9 FTE positions must be filled in conformity with the PNA. (Exhibit B to Doc. #1693.) The LRSD' s position concerning the role of the MRC is not well-taken. The MRC's administrative oversight responsibility was not rejected along with the LRSD' s \"controlled choice\" student assignment plan as the LRSD suggests. The MRC's responsibilities continue and include staffing decisions. The MRC continues on an annual basis to submit to the court for approval a proposed budget for the six original magnet schools. The budgets proposed by the MRC represent its efforts to assure that the magnet schools -6- continue to provide those special programs that attract and retain pupils, thereby assisting in the desegregation effort. The MRC is made up of representatives of the parties and the State of Arkansas, a former party to the action, and the LRSD has been a member of the MRC since its inception. Dr. Mac Bernd, the new Superintendent of the LRSD, acknowledged the role of the MRC when he presented Proposal No. 14 to the LRSD Board of Directors. That proposal is titled \"A Recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee\" and suggests the reduction of 14.9 FTE positions at the magnet schools. In the proposal, Dr. Bernd states: \"It is our position that any reductions of personnel in the area schools should also be made in the magnet schools monitored by the Magnet Review Committee. Therefore, it is recommended that you authorize the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions to the Magnet Review Committee \" (Doc. #1649.) In a July 28, 1992 memorandum to the MRC, Dr. Bernd relates that the LRSD Board of Directors authorized him to propose a reduction in positions at the magnet schools. He states: \"Because the reduction in positions would create a total reduction in costs, we recommend that the per pupil rate be reduced from $3,682.00 to $3,585.17. 11 (Exhibit A to Doc. #1693.) The court is dismayed and somewhat confused about the LRSD's actions. The LRSD did not consult with the MRC prior to gaining approval from its Board for the recommended staff reductions even though the district has a representative on the MRC and was aware that the MRC was in the process of preparing a budget for the -7- magnet schools. Furthermore, the LRSD, after presenting the proposal to the MRC, failed to heed the MRC's recoIDIDendation that the same individuals be returned to the positions the LRSD had cut before securing the MRC' s permission to do so. The LRSD now attempts to dismiss the MR.C's administrative role and chastises it for not following through on court directives to establish policies and criteria for staffing decisions. If the MRC has been remiss in failing to come up with such policies and criteria, the LRSD, as a full-fledged member of the MRC, must share the blame. It appears that the LRSD wishes to recognize the MRC's authority to administer the magnet schools only when it agrees with MRC decisions. The court also has considered the arguments concerning the effect of the PNA on the staffing reductions. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has said \"that the authority of a federal court to alter or modify collective bargaining contracts in school desegregation cases must be based on a finding that the alteration or modification is necessary to further the effort to integrate the schools in question.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski county special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1316 (8th cir. 1988). The LRSD claims that the PNA does not allow it to reinstate the particular individuals who were transferred from the 3.9 FTE positions in compliance with the PNA. The Court believes, however, that by reinstating those individuals who were moved out of their jobs as a result of an action the Court finds was in violation of directives in this case, it is not setting aside the PNA. The magnet schools were designed to guarantee substantial -8- integration and important educational choices and they have proven successful in fulfilling this intended purpose. The court has stated on a number of occasions the importance of maintaining excellence in the magnet schools. \"Magnet schools . will be distinguished by the features that have made them successful in other cities: individualized teaching, a low pupil-teacher ratio, specialized programs tailored to students' interests, enriched resources and active recruitment.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1309 (8th cir. 1988). The magnet schools are racially balanced as a result of efforts to make sure that they are \"recognized throughout the county as truly high quality schools, with excellent teaching staffs and unique programs of interest to suburban and city students alike . \" Id. at 1312. The success of these magnet schools is critical to desegregation, and tampering with a prover success could undermine public confidence in the magnets and the school district as a whole. The Court recognizes that some authorities oppose magnet schools as tools for desegregation but it cannot question the concept because the parties agreed to the magnet schools and they are working. When it approved the parties' settlement plans, the Eighth Circuit stressed the need for a period of stability. While the court does not wish to become involved in individual hiring decisions, the Court must see that court directives are being followed. The LRSD must cooperate with the MRC as it fulfills its responsibility to administer the magnet schools. As has been -9- stated, administration includes decisions concerning staffing levels adequate to effectively deliver the magnet programs. While it does appear that the MRC has failed to develop criteria for staff selection and the Court believes that actual selection of personnel is the responsibility of the host district, the MRC's role in determining staffing requirements is not to be undermined. The Court, therefore, affirms the MR.C's decision to reinstate the 3.9 FTE positions cut from the original magnet schools' programs and orders the LRSD to reinstate the individuals who previously held the following positions: 1) the 1. O FTE music teacher at Gibbs International studies Magnet Elementary School\n2) the 1.0 FTE counselor at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School\n3) the .4 FTE counselor position at Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School\nand 4) three ( 3) . 5 FTE Gifted and Talented positions, one each at Booker, Gibbs, and Williams Magnet Schools. Ass i stant Principal at Gibbs International studies Magnet School. The MRC also asks the Court to vacate the assistant principal position at Gibbs and allow the LRSD to advertise and the principal to select a black assistant principal from among qualified candidates. The LRSD disputes that there is a requirement that magnet school staff positions be racially balanced and contends that the MRC's position violates the parties' desegregation plans and the law. The MRC does not contend that there is a requirement that LRSD label certain magnet school staff positions as \"black\" or \"white.\" -10- It does state that there is a goal of equal representation for blacks and whites both for administrators and teachers. The goal of equitable staffing appears throughout the LRSD settlement plan, and the Court notes that the Eighth Circuit has admonished the NLRSD and the PCSSD for not hiring blacks. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (1985)\n778 F.2d. at 440 (Arnold, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The court finds that this goal of equal representation is an admirable one and should be attempted at every opportunity. Additionally, there does not seem to be a problem here with the availability of a pool of qualified applicants because the LRSD recently hired a black as the assistant principal at Washington to serve with that school's black principal. The LRSD appears to have made an unwise personnel placement decision in its selection of the assistant principals for the two magnet schools. The Court, however, will not require the LRSD to remove the assistant principal at Gibbs. It does expect the LRSD to select staff not only at the magnet schools but at all its schools consistent with the staffing goals of the desegregation plans and the law of this case. Conclusion. Although a superintendent and his board ought to have the right to run their schools in ordinary day-to-day matters, this is no ordinary matter. order and court oversight The LRSD must function under court in a lawsuit the district itself -11- initiated ten years ago this month. The districts have agreed to abide by both the spirit and letter of their own desegregation plans and they would do well to act in good faith in fulfilling the commitments made in their plans. In Freeman v. Pitts, U.S. __ , 112 s.ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992), the Supreme court held that in the course of supervising desegregation plans, federal courts have the authority to relinquish supervision and control in incremental stages, before full compliance is achieved in every area of school operations. Aillong the factors to be considered in ordering incremental withdrawal is whether the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance  . . . A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations. U.S. at 112 s.ct. at 1446, 118 L.Ed.2d at 135. In summary, the LRSD is directed to reinstate to their former positions those individuals listed on page 10 of this order. It is further directed to consider racial balance in selecting staff for the magnet schools. In the future, the LRSD must consult the MRC and must seek court permission prior to making any staffing changes in the magnet schools. Any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year shall be presented prior -12- to preschool registration in the early spring of 1993 . .f ( . ,I- SO ORDERED this~ day of November, 1992. (U (1'\"' }Jr.\n~ ),~t) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -13- .JOH:-J W \\\\'..\\LKER R.-\\LPH \\\\'.-\\SHINC\nTON ~!.-\\RK BCRNETTF: \"WILEY.-\\. BR.\\:-,.\nTO\\ .. JR . . -\\1..iSTIN PORTER. JR.  Also adm1a.ed to Pract 1C'I! ,n G..-o r:z 1a \u0026amp; l.~ D1stnct o( f'ulum01a JOHN W. WALKER. P.A. :\\'!TOR\\EY AT LAW 1723 BROADIV A Y L!TILE Ron\n, ARK..\\:-JSAS i~206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) :37-1-4187 September 23, 1992 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: I have several requests outstanding before the Court regarding the Little Rock School District. I wish to add to that list concerns which have been raised within the Magnet Review Committee regarding the budget cuts proposed by the Little Rock School District. The District proposes to cut approximately 15 teaching positions in the Magnet school. See copy of letter to Magnet Review Committee from Dr. Mac Bernd dated July 28, 1992. I am concerned because in the budget cut proposals, the District has taken at least one action that makes absolutely no sense. It has removed the assistant principal at Gibbs Elementary School who had a salary of approximately $34,000.00 and replaced her with an administrator in the District who has a salary of $60,000 or more. I just don't understand this. Moreover, the removed assistant principal at Gibbs was African American\nthe replacement for her is Caucasian. The further irony of this whole matter is that the African American principal was placed at Washington with another African American principal while Gibbs now has two Caucasiar. principals. Exhibit A U. S. D:STR!CT JUDGE Page Two Honorable Susan Webber Wright September 23, 1992 The entire matter is suspect, we believe. requesting that Ms. Ann Brown's office inquire prior to any scheduled (hopefully) hearing or with the Court. JWW:lp cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Ms. Donna Creer Ms. Evelyn Jackson We are, therefore, into these matters meeting before or TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKIIAM STREET LITTT,E ROCK, An 72201 July 28, 1992 Magnet Review Committee FROM: Dr. Mac Bernd, superintendent of Schools C... l.  l3 SUBJECT: Budget Reduction Recommendation As a result of the Little Rock School District Board approving the 1992-93 Operating Budget, it is our position that any reductions of personnel in the area schools should also be made in the magnet schools monitored by the Magnet Review Committee. Therefore, the Board has authorized the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions as follows: Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - Elementary Counseling - Elementary Counseling - Secondary Music Teachers - Elementary (Except i3ooker) Teaching Vc1cancies - secondary 1. 5 1. 4 2. 0 3.0 Because the the reduction in positions would create a total reduction in costs, we recommend that the per pupil rate be reduced from $3,682.00 to $3,585.17. Zach Polen if 501-376-2423 ~6/17194 \\518.02AM GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 TO: Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent FROM: Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSO Deputy Superintendent Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Preparation for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Meeting By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials: 1) A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesday's interviews. 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview process. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. Attachments [j2/5 Znch Polett l:f 501-316-2423 Qll 6/1 /194 Partial List of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee \\YtJ.WAM 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain why this lesson worked well. 2) Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficiency in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? S) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? 6) What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary matters? 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 1 O) What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/ or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children? JJ/o Zach Polett it 501-3/6-2-423 QlJ6/17/94 \\!\nd:04AM Partial List of Applicants We Would I ike to Interview on Tuesday, June Z Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan Strauss Zach Polett V' 501-376-2423 12l16117/94 ~ 8:0SAM Proposed Procedures for Interview Process 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. 2) We understand from discussion with Estelle Matthis on Friday, May 27 that the application process was being kept open. If after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next principal of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working dosely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible principal for Gibbs Elementary. C)S/5 TO: GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/15/94 FRO~: Dr. Henry Wi II iams, LRSD Superintendent Easter Tuc~er WI I I le Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Wilhelmina Lewellen Vickie Gonterman Gibbs Staff Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: F o 11 ow Up to Our Memorandum of June 4, 1 994 As members of the LRSD's Gibbs Principal Selection Committee. we again respectfully request to interview the fol lowing people for the prlnclpalshlp of Gibbs at the earl lest convenience: Sharon Davis Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchel I Diane Barksdale Katherine Tweedle Please ask your staff to schedule these interviews as soon as it is feaslble. Thank. you in advance for your assistance in this matter. GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION June 17, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 HAND DELIVERED RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Dr. Williams: Again, on behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank you for your time in discussing the selection process with us. I think we can all agree that an important component to this successful functioning of not only an individual school such as Gibbs but of the entire school district is the meaningful and significant involvement of parents and teachers in the decision-making process. As parents and teachers, we observe, on a daily basis, how our schools operate and, therefore, can offer relevant input in the selection of a principal for our school. At the conclusion of our meeting, you indicated that you would review the process and procedures which have taken place to date. You agreed to advise the committee whether or not you would permit us to interview additional candidates for the principal's position. Recognizing that you will be involved in other activities through the end of this week, we ask that you notify us by 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 20, 1994. Although I believe we made it quite apparent during the course of our meeting, I would like to reiterate that our primary concern is with the validity of the procedure by which the next principal of Gibbs is to be determined. Although it has been stated by the administration that this particular procedure had \"worked\" in prior applications, it has been our experience that the process in this instance is inherently and fatally flawed. Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Two When we initially learned that there would be a vacancy, the Gibbs PTA met and determined that we would like to be involved in the selection process. Subsequently, we undertook efforts to determine what the process would be and what we, the parents and faculty of Gibbs, needed to do in order to become a part of the process. At no time were we ever given specific or accurate information regarding the process and procedures to be employed in the selection of a new principal nor were we told what our role would be. Upon the recommendation of Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis, we met and selected a committee to represent Gibbs and drafted communications to the school district requesting involvement in the process. we also requested information regarding the names of applicants for the position but were not provided that information until third party filed a freedom of information request. Upon obtaining this information, the committee met and on June 4, 1994, submitted a list of names of candidates that we wished to interview, a list of questions to be posed to the applicants, and after learning by word of mouth some aspects of the selection procedure, a list of proposed procedures that we wished to be included. This letter was hand delivered to both your office and that of Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent by a member of the Gibbs Committee. However, it is apparent that neither you nor any administration representative on the selection committee ever saw this communique prior to the June 7, 1994 interview session. On June 7, 1994, the parents and faculty of Gibbs posed several questions to the administrative representatives on the selection committee. We asked how the five interviewees were selected and were told that all five had been selected based on their expressed interest in the Gibbs position. We are now told by you that that was misinformation. It was not until the interview session that we were informed as to what the procedure for selection of the principal would be. Both before the interview process and at the conclusion of the interviews, we inquired of the administrative representatives whether, in the event that we were not satisfied with any of the applicants interviewed, could we interview additional applicants. In response to our inquiries, we were told that the answer to our inquiry was unknown but were later told that, yes, if we could not come to a consensus on the applicants to be recommended to you, the process would remain open and we would be able to Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Three interview additional candidates. During the course of our meeting of June 15, you indicated that your representatives were misinformed. The parent and faculty members of the selection committee also expressed serious reservations about the utilization of the evaluation forms. Our concerns were the lack of prior input into the questions to be posed to the applicants as well as the use the forms would serve in the selection process. We were assured that it would not simply be a matter of tabulating the scores and then selecting the top three candidates based on simple mathematics. There was substantial reluctance on the part of the faculty and parent members of the committee to fill out the forms until we gained assurances from the administration that those forms would not be used as set forth above. At the conclusion of the interview process, the consensus was that we had not interviewed a candidate that we -could recommend to the administration for the Gibbs principal position. After lengthy discussions, the group agreed not to submit any names to the administration and that we would request the opportunity to interview additional candidates. Administration representatives insisted that the forms be filled out and that was done only after again receiving assurances that the forms not be used and the scores tabulated to arrive at three candidates based on the highest scores obtained. We were told that the only reason to fill out those forms was to document the fact that the committee had interviewed the five applicants. Additionally, several members of the committee expressly stated that any recommendation to the administration would not be based solely on the evaluation forms as those forms did not accurately reflect an individual's choices. As a general matter, it is difficult to understand how a principal can be selected based solely on a thirty minute interview. Dr. Williams, based on the foregoing, we simply ask that you provide us with an opportunity to interview additional candidates and complete what we believe is an incomplete process. I am, under separate cover, sending a copy of this letter to the individual members of the Little Rock School Board as well as to Judge Susan Webber Wright and Donna Creer of the Magnet Review Committee. Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Four We look forward to your response. AFAjr/jc cc: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 T. Kevin O'Malley Ark. Board of Review Tower Building, Suite 700 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dorsey Jackson 1400 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John A. Riggs, IV J. A. Riggs Tractor Co. P.O. Box 1399 Little Rock, AR 72203 Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman Linda Pondexter Fuller Jr. High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Patricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Oma Jacovelli 6622 Gold court Little Rock, AR 72209 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Judge P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 \\.,/2onna Creer Magnet Review Committee 1920 N. Main North Little Rock, AR 72114 3860d GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION Dr. Katherine Mitchell T. Kevin O'Malley Dorsey Jackson John A. Riggs, IV Linda Pondexter Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli June 17, 1994 RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Members of the Little Rock School Board: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to Dr. Henry Williams following our committee's meeting with him on June 15, 1994. This letter is being provided to each of you so that you will be aware of our concerns regarding the selection process and procedures employed by the district administration which was designed to result in the superintendent's recommendation to you of a new principal for Gibbs Magnet School. we believe that it is important for each of you to know that the parent-teacher members of the committee unanimously believe that the process was inherently and fatally flawed, if for no other reason than it substantially eliminated any significant and meaningful input by the parents and faculty at Gibbs. Additionally, the selection committee did not recommend any names to Dr. Williams for consideration for the principal position at Gibbs. Members of Little Rock School Board June 17, 1994 Page Two As you can see, we have simply asked Dr. Williams to allow us the opportunity to interview additional candidates for the position of Gibbs' principal. AFAjr/jc Enclosure 3861d Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman BY,,\u0026amp;g~\u0026amp;b I MAY-04-1994 15:38 FR0'1 J.B. tJAN HJ0\u0026lt; RE~ TY, !NC TO May4, 1994 Dr. Remy P. Williams. Supcrint.e:lld=i Little Rock. School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Wi.Iliam8: 7712420 P .01 We, the faculty and trupport staff ofWilmms Magnet School, wish to express our deep concern over the possible reasssgomem of our principal, Dr. Edwin S. Jackson. Dr. Jackson, through bis effective administralive stylo and leadership. bas \u0026amp;uided Willi.ams Magnet School to a kvel of superior acbievemcot. OUr school's high-performance record spew for itself We highly recommend that Dr. Ja.cbon's transfer be reooosidc:rcd. Also. attached you will find a list of :actors that ~ hope you will consi.d before you make yout final decision. These are j ust a fr\nw of the numerous accomplishmeats that Dr. Jackson bas helped achieve during his tenure at Williams Magnet School. He bu truly helped to make our school a choice for ex\u0026lt;ielleooc.\" As we close this 1993-94 academic year, -we want to thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns about the future of our school. Re8pCCtfuily yours, Williams Magnet School Faculty/Staff I t1AY-04-1'394 15:39 FRO\"l J. B. ~ 1-o:J\u0026lt; RER..TY, I t\u0026lt;: ... Strong leadernup ... Staff commiument ... Parental support and tru\u0026amp;t ... Extensive leadership experience ... Low staff tum--over ... Pupil committment to K-6 ... 100%P.T.A. membership ... C.O.E. leader ... Staff support ... C...ontinuity in support of Magnet prubophy md goals ... High expectations TO ... firm, fair and coomtcnt with studcMI, staff and ~15 ... Knowledgeable o.f Magnet Review Committee Federal standards ... Good relationship with the ~ world ... ChOSM to serve on the 1oint Interim CommiUcc oo Education ... Scan~ ta.t scores aro ~ high ... Conceived idea of new building design and construction ... Profession.al in all aspects of his podtion ... National Association ofElcmenary Principals member ... Ovenight and Directions Cormniuc:e repm\nemativc ... Attends annual Intemational Magnet School Convention ... Fc:da.11 Legislative Chairman for Arlcamas Elc:mentaty Principals 7712420 P.02 TOTR.. P.02 45 Huntington Road Little Rock, AR 72207 May 3, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: -- C!ofy -- Thank you so much for visiting with me this morning by telephone t o discuss my strong support for Dr. Ed Jackson, Principal at Williams Magnet Elementary School. As an active member of our PTA, I've seen how dedicated a r i concerned Dr. Jackson is in promoting the goals of our magne t school. He is uniquely qualified in temperment and background to help us achieve our goals. My daughter is in the fifth grade and my son is a kindergarten student at Williams Magnet. My main concern is that our school continue to have the stablility that I feel Dr. Jackson affords us. He has worked hard and under his leadership all the children at our school have benefited as evidenced by consistently high test scores each year. Dr. Jackson has high expectations for the classroom teachers and ensures that the philosophy of academic achievement and discipline are consistently followed throughout the school at every level. Our PTA is looking forward to a much needed expansion in our school building scheduled to get underway this summer. Dr. Jackson has been involved in the planning and development of this project and, because of his familiarity, would be a great asset in seeing the construction to its end. My husband and I support the public school system and are eager to see it strengthened. Please hear our concerns in this matter and know that our need for stability and consistency in our school system is essential. Again, thank you for carefully considering this situation and fa , allowing me to share my feelings that Dr. Jackson should remain a s the Principal of Williams Magnet Elementary School. //\",,,- '-fV! .,J) /--0r-- tl-' (!_ IL.UU,j bee Magnet Review Committee Sincerely, Dorothy Dt- (Mrs. Paul B. Young, Jr.) Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent little Rock School District 810 West Markham little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: 16 Huntington Road little Rock, AR 72207 May 3, 1994 It has come to my attention that you are considering the transfer of Dr. Ed Jackson, the principal of Williams Magnet School. As the parent of a fifth grade student at Williams, I would respectfully ask that you reconsider this action. I believe that Dr. Jackson has done an excellent job of promoting the ideals of our school, basic skills, and has helped Williams to consistently lead the little Rock School District in test scores. His support of the classroom teachers and our strong discipline policy have created a learning environment where Williams Magnet truly is \"a choice for excellence.\" Williams has achieved and maintained excellence through a partnership of an excellent teachins staff, a strong principal, an involved PTA, and students who are interested in learning. Our school is very successful and I see no need for a change in this partnership. I was educated in the little Rock Public Schools and have served on the PTA Board of Williams Magnet School in various capacities for the past five years. I strongly believe that if the little Rock Public School System is to survive and flourish, a sense of stability must be established. With all the changes in the top administrative positions in the past several years, I woul\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_628","title":"Middle Schools","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/1998"],"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 management and organization","School boards","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Middle Schools"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/628"],"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\nSENT by: Olivetti FX 2100 :12- S-94 : 8:29AM : LR SCHOOL DI ST-* 5013710100:# 2 TO: RE I Thank LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock, ar 72201 Deceahar 5, 19S4 Monitor _ orrioa of Desegregation FROM I Monitoring nda Young, Restructuring Diraotor/K, Middle School atsering CoBlttee 'w yuturea Liaison you fot aug^faationa. your tlaa today. X appraoiata your ideas and Tha first will ba tbs ^Fing conunittaa Mdnesday, Decaabsr Adainistratlon Building Maating ton Middle 7f at 4J15   J School Planning P-a. in the Board Room of Will notify you earlier froa this point forward. I I I C/= tCi LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 NCV /3 1993 NOVEMBER 10, 1995 TO\nFROM: RE: Middle Level Steering Committee Members Linda Young, New Futures Liaison Meeting, Wednesday, November 15 - 4:30 p.m. A meeting of the middle level steering committee will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 15 at 4:30 p.m. in the Board Room at 810 West Markham. The facility study has been completed and the information regarding the capacity issue for the middle school concept has been addressed in the study. As you will recall, the committee felt that further progress would resume after the capacity data was available. I have requested that Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services, make a presentation on the facility study to the committee at this meeting. The Middle School concept was recommended through the strategic planing process that the district has been involved in over the past 11 months. The committee will receive an update on that process and the specifics of the recommendation regarding the middle school study and concept. Community presentations and discussions on the middle school concept have continued on a regular basis since the last meeting of the committee. Understanding and interest continue to grow as more and more folks learn about the concept. I hope each of you will be able to continue your participation on this committee. Please contact my oBce(324-2112) if you will not be able to attend this meeting or prefer not to continue as a member of the committee. Thanks so much.LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501-324-2032 Mar 7 95 8:49 P.Ol LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. Markham Little RocR, AR 72201 March 7, 1995 to: Vic Anderson Gayle Bradford 1^o3 Ann Blaylock Sam Grandy Greg Harris Clementina Kelley Dr. Russ MayotS'S^l Leon Modeste Dennis Snider Linda Bellc^^UAip Charlotte Best3cx\u0026gt;( Debbie Glasgow John Gross ^\u0026lt;^3^ _ Sherrye Keaton ^0 Marian Lacey Betty Mitchell Margie Powell 3\"? FROM: RE: J-^inda Young, Restructuring Director/New Futures Liaison Middle School Steering Committee Meeting Due to the scheduling of a Special Board meeting on March 8th, we have changed the date for the next Middle School Steering Conmittee _Li The meeting will be on meeting. Thanks for your cooperation and patience. If you have any questions, please call Mia at 324-2112,\"lPSD admin. 0XMN6 ro\n,Fa\u0026gt;t:l-501-324-2052 Nov 29 95 14:10 LITTLE ROCK. SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 November 29,1995 Middle School Steering Committee Members FROM:' Ln linda Young Meeting P.02. 'T5T: p i- li .?5\u0026lt; \u0026lt; The Middle School Steering Committee Meeting scheduled for today, Wednesday, November 29, at 4:30 p.m. in tire LRSD Lounge is postponed. The meeting has been rescheduled for Tuesday, The lime and location will remain the same.  December 5 -^4 If you have any questions call Blondell at 324-2112. *1 t vi\n. \"S  -11   Sj.' T -1 01.'10\u0026lt;1'?96 15:41 FROM JOHN U.WRLf'\u0026amp;R P, fl . TO 3710100 P. 02 . li.\"  Middle School Steering Committee t Annie Abrams 1925 Wolfe Street Little Rock, AR 72202 374-3459 (h) Mary Banks 3419 W. Capitol Avenue Litde Rock, AR 72205 686-5180 (w) 661-9218 (h) ____________ Ann Blaylock Pulaski Heights Jr. High 401 N. Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72205 671-6250 (w) 671-6294 (fax) Dr. Victor Anderson LRSD/ Asst Supt Secondary 324-2010 (w) 324-2032 (fax) Linda BeU^^ Mann Magnet Jr. High 1000 E. Roosevelt Road Little Rock, AR 72206 324-2450 (w) 324-2496 (fax) Gayle Bradford Hall High SchooL Principal 6700 \"H\" Street Little Rock, AR 72205 671-6200 (w) 671-6207 (fax) John Burnett 904 West Second Street P.O. Box 2657 Little Rock, AR 72203 376-2269 (w) (h) 372-1134 (fax) Debbie Glasgow 1104 Fawnw'ood Little Rock, AR 72207 227-7554 (h) _________ John Grosjs Dunbar Jr. High 11000 Wright Avenue Little Rock, AR 72206 324-2440 (w) 324-2439 (fax) _______________ Pat Higginbotham, Principal Woodruff Elementary 3010 W. 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72205 671-6270 (w) Cynthia East Cynthia East Fabrics Inc. 1523 Rebsamen Park Rd. unlo Rock, AR 72202 663-0460 (w) Sam Grandy Pulaski Heights Jr. High 401 N. Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72205 671-6250 (w) 671-6294 (fax) Greg flarris King Magnet 905 Martin L. King Jr. Dr. Little Rock AR 72202 524-2135 (w) 324-2150 (fax) Terry Huitt 10411 Mann Road Mabeivale, AR 72103 372-2900 (w) 372-0482 (fax) I I I f15:42 FROM JOHN M.kifiLKEF P.fi. TC 3710100 P. 03 Middle School Steering Committee (Continued) t i Kathi Jones 1416 Spring Street Little Kock, AR 72202 821-5500 x228 (w) Clementine Kelley Booker Arts Magnet 2016 Barber Street Little Rock, AR 72206 324^2482 (w) ___________ Patrick Mahafffey Mabelvale Jr. High 10811 Mabelvale W, Road Mabelvale, AR 72103 ^5^7400 (w) 455-7403 (fax) Sherrye Keaton Southwest Jr, High 3301S. Bryant UttieRock, AR 72204 570-4070 (w) 570-4015 (fax) Marian Lacey, Principal Mann Magnet Jr. High 1000 E. Roosevelt Road Little Rock, AR 72206 324-2450 (w) 324-2496 (fax) Susan Merry Pulaski Heights Jr. High 401 N. Pine Street Little Kock, AR 72205 671-6250 (w) 671-6294 (fax) Betty Mitchell, Pi'esident Little Rock Classroom Teachers Assoc. 1500 West Fourth, Suite 305 little Rock, AR 72201 372-3519 (w) I,eon Modeste LRSD/SpeciaJ Asst to Supt 324-2011 (w) 324-2146 (fax) Donna Morey J.A. Fair High School 13420 David O. Dodd Rd. Little Rock, AR 72210 228-3100 (w) 228-3133 (fax) Beth Munson Pulaski Heights Jr. High 401 N. Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72205 671-6250 (w) 671-6294 (fax) Margie Powell ODM/Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 little Rock, AR 72201 376^200 (w) 371-0100 (fax) Diane Vibhakar 3917 Lookout Little Rock, AR 72205 661-8030 (h) Ricky Woole Pulaski Heights Jr. High 401 N. Pine Street LR, AR 72205 . 671-6250 (w) 671-6294 (fax) . Charily Smith Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 306B LitUe Rock, AR 72201 682-4472 (w) 682-5013 (fax) Janice Wilson Woodruff Elementary 3010 West 7th Little Rock, AR 72205 671-6270 (w) Linda Young LRSD Restructuring Dir./New Futures Liaison 324-2112 (w) 324-2032 (fax) I 20 1  1 0 1 9 9 6 1 S ! 4 3 FROM JOHN U.USlKEF P.S. TO 3710100 P.04 J- MIDDLE school Steering Committee December 7, 1S94 Minutes The meeting was called to order by Linda Young. She thanked everyone for their interest and commitment to the Little Kock School District for participating on the comHsittea. Dr. Williams addressed the coinmittee and thanked everyone for joining the committee. Ke discussed the importance of the middle school and the specific needs for early adolescents. An overview of the planning process, the role of the steering committee, and goals of the committee was presented by Ms. Young. Information was distributed regarding the Middle School concept. The committee was asked to study the information and be prepared for discussion at the next meeting. Also, included in the packet was the Kiddle School Transformation Planning Checklist, Executive Summary, the Middle School Planning Committees, and ths membership of the Steering Committee. The committee requested that each member receive information on the middle school concept to read independently. be incorporated into meeting discussions. The information will The need was stated for J the committee to be operating from a common knowledge base in order to successfully complete the assigned tasks. Committee members volunteered tasks of -he committee. o assist with the various initial The comai' time of 4 discussed -he regular meeting times and agreed to the The nex' Janx Suij c.. y cm 10 West m. Markham. meeting date was set for Wednesday, in the Soard Room of the Administration A m 1 o t a t The meeting was adjourned. j01/I0Z1996 15!44 FROM JOHN U.WflLKEP P.P. 10 3710100 P . 05 I 1 / Middle School Steering Committee Meeting Minutes January 18, 1995 The refocus on the goals for the committee was discussed. The committee reviewed the Executive Summary, is to develop a \u0026lt;------  * - - . . The committee's task , _ ... common base of knowledge and help develop compelling vision for the middle school concept. a Repojrts and dxscussion of the community given, from the forums were shared with the committee.  the forum was reported as 70/40/30 respectively. Minutes The attendance at Interdisciplinary teaming information was discussed with the committee. The committee will be looking for helpful articles tw helw understand the process of the middle school concept and reviewing them at the upcoming meetings. to help The sub-committee on establishing the S additional middle committees was to begin work on task. school r 3*aJ5 I  J , ii01/10x1996 15:45 FROM JOHN W.URLKER P.fl. TO ,3710100 P. 06 ( , Middle School Steering Committee Meeting Minutes February 1, 1995 The meeting was opened with a presentation from teachers on the w.o.w. Team, an interdisciplinary team at Pulaski Heights Junior High. Interdisciplinary teams are an integral part of middle level pro^rftsusiing  I (- A discussion on 9th grade issues was given by students' perspective from Janelle Marks and Kamika Gaines, 12th graders at Parkview High School that had participated interdisciplinary teaming at Cloverdale Junior High in their Sth through Sth grade in years. Issues and concerns were raised by coamittee members. __i were encouraged but due to cosmittee participation was tabled? Discussions Next meeting was to be scheduled to accommodate conflicting late afternoon schedules. .'i't J:\ni t 5 I i01z10z19'96 15: 45 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 R. 07 I Middle School Steering Committee Minutes April 12,1995 Present: Annie Abrams, Vic Anderson, Charlotte Best, Ann Blaylock, Gayle Bradford, Sam Grandy, Pat Higginbotham, Terry Huitt, Sherrye Keaton, Patrick Mahaffey, Susan Merry, Margie Powell, Dennis Snider, Diane Vibhakar, Linda Young Members discussed current status of the steering committee. Teachers have concerns regarding the committee's willingness to explore change. The committee discussed invested money in staff development, curriculum supervision, school board, superintendent and central office training. Magnet schools have more electives than other schools. District in financial crisis and getting out proves to be a very difficult task. It is important to sustain support of existing restructuring schools and leadership to have an effective middle school implementation. The committee adjourned pending finalization of the facilities study. I I 101^10x1996 15S46 FROM JOHN U.ldftLKER P.fl. TO 37.10100 P. 08 -z Middle Level Steering Committee Minutes November 15,1995 Meeting was brought to order by Linda Young. All members introduced themselves. There were 17 members present. Linda Young gave the members an update of what was accomplished last auviiivci^ Oil u|A\naie oi wnai was accQznpHshec! last year The focus of the past year was awareness, gathering data and informing the public of Middle School concept. It Doug Eaton and his staff. was discontinued until the facility study was completed by I i ! } I I A brief update of this year: The facility study was complete Mabelvale Junior High was now a restructuring school Maintained two prep periods Continued middle school schedule at Southwest and Cloverdale Strategic planning was complete after 12 months of hard work Strategic planning group #3 had recommended Middle School . implementation and was approved by the Strategic Planning Steering Committee Guest speaker was Doug Eaton with a facility study update, Study evolved around two factors\n(1) Education ramification of Middle School and (2) Facilities to do this change. The two major concepts were the moving of the ninth eraders and the moving of the sixth graders. The movement of the ninth graders was the biggest factor and the most important topic to be discussed. Eaton said that the high schools could accommodate 7000 students which was a 74% capacity rate or utilization rate. He said that the study did not address the curriculum in the schools. He did state that the LRSD district had a wide curriculum m the schools therefore lowering the utilization rate. He said that when the study was made that the building utilization of curricula controlled the x number of students in the building. He confirmed that if the ninth graders were to be moved that they could be moved the school year of 1997-98 and would be done by anendanr-e zones. Linda Young then stated that the advantage to the ninth grade moving is that they hltVA trlrtra I.-!X*_____________________  would have more opportunities for more electives. Vic Anderson agreed and also said graders would still have the core subjects intact. The only course that is not offered and would have to added is the Applied Math course but Algebra and Geometry are being offered at the high school level. It was also stated that alot of electives are b^ne I01/10/1996 15:47 FPOM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. TO 3T10100  i. P . 09 duplicated at the junior high and high school and this would be a plus for the district and ninth graders would have a broader array of electives. Eaton then turned his attention to the attendance zones. He stated that zones do not match up for junior highs and high schools. He said the study strictly dealt with total numbers and that the 9-12 configuration exceeds capacity but by next year the numbers would fall below capacity and 200 seats would be available in the schools except for Parkview. In this panicular high school there would be 43 scats short, but that all of this could be handled according the curricula offered. He said that to solve some of the overload that some sections would have to be cut. (example, two instead of three sections offered) I I I t I room Dr. Anderson then voiced a concern of alot of staff having to rove (moving from to room every hour) and the Middle Level study would have to focus on the utilization of staff members and all rooms being used every hour. Arm Blaylock responded to his concerns by saying that every room was being used at Pulaski Heights Jr High and several teachers were roving. She said that this had not caused a problem but only r w. V iwiiu uiau uit^ iMu uQi, causea a prooiem out only was aji inconvenience to the roving teachers. She said that PHJH had been doing this several years due to the numbers of students in the building. Eaton then suted that the proficiency rate of schools being lower because of the amount of choices in curricula being offered. The percentages were 95% in elementarv OrWX. nan OCO/ 1 1_1 __1. 9 t ** 90% in junior high and 85% in high school. His rationale for this was that the number of sections offered in junior high was lower that in high school. He said that the Meher the grade levels the tougher it got to make all classes meet the student population and vice versa. He also stated that the problem this year was that the projected number of students that were not going to be in the district was wrong for this year. Those students suved the district instead of leaving. in The movement of the sixth grade was not a problem. He said that there . tie saio that there was more excess capacity tn the junior highs because the ninth grade would be gone. He said there would be seats to bum and this would cause one junior high to close which would be Mabelvale Junior High He said right now, senior high schools are the problem because of the XX. .xgui uvw, xmor man scnoois are the problem because of the amount of cnoices offered m the curriculum and the drop rate of students was not a big number but w^ efficient to the study. Dr. Anderson stated that the consultants fed that more kids will leave the district, therefore lower the enrollments. .A positive note was that not as many students left this year as thought. Annie Ahbrams ask about the Mn M transfers. Eaton answered bv talldnc about eseg adjustments. He said new schools had been created in the years of 92 and 93 and (01/10/1996 15:49 FROM JOHN k'.WfiLKER P.fl. TO srieice P. 10 these schools were filled to the max. He said that these numbers were not focused w iiiv iJioA. Jtt (.Udi ine^e ijumpers were not zocused on these kids because the district did not know how these kids would continue in the system He said that he did not know how these students would affect the district in later years. He said that since these children were transferring from one district to another, there was really no way to project how they would affect the enrollment in future years. He did say that the district would need the five high schools to handle the move of the ninth grade but again stated that Mabelvale could be closed because the junior highs would be at lower capacities. Patrick Mahaffey then ask if other grade configurations such as 6*7, 7-8, 9-10 and 11-12 had been looked at. Mr. Eaton said no because these configurations would absolutely not work due to the bus transportation problems that would arrive and the cost would astronomical. Pat Higginbotham ask about the problems with the magnet schools. Eaton said that Mr. Modeste and Sue Ellen would be going around to eight schools of possible closures to evaluate the possibility of neighborhood schools, which would problem for the magnet schools. not be a I Annie Ahbrams ask about year-around schools. Eaton stated that the budget as of now could, not handle this concept. He sated that Project 2000 was aimed at this concept and could adopt this concept but only with major costs to the district. He said that possibly schools could be in sessions by shifts such as four and a half hour shifts which would mean that the schools would have two daily shifts. He felt that this concept was far into the future. Pat Higginbotham then ask about the rumor that eleven schools being closed instead of eight. Eaton said that actually 14 schools could be closed but this not beine of now only eight schools were being looked at, but according to the different options being presented, that three more could be closed. These schools  were called swing schools and they were Wilson, Pulaski Heights and Meadowcliff Qememrys. He said that the number of students had to be looked al. He said that if you closed School A then Schools B,C, and D have to be larger. Then there may not be enough seats in neighborhood schools to accommodate the numbers and we didnt want to lose our kids to private schools. So this was a very sensitive and critical part of the study. The options were Option C would close Wilson and Meadowcliff and Option M would close ail the swine schools. Eaton said the impact of the Middle Level movement would better balance the meh schools. He said that the zones would have to be siowlv moved and eventually the ok could handle the ninth ^ders with no problem^. He said that at present that - 5/a of the students going to the junior highs are in the correct aneudance zones. Kids would so back to their zone schools and by doing this that there would be pienn- of seats for the sixth grade. This included the closing of Mabelvale Junior High.01/10/1996 1^*50 FROM JOHN W. lPLkER P.A. TO 37,10100 P. 1 1 A concern brought forward was if ninth goes to high school and sixth g\u0026lt;^ to junior high, will parents still able to keep the attendance zones for their children intact? Eaton said yes to this question and that it would be better because neighborhood  1 _t-___I- .4.1 ..... * schools would arise again. High school students would be able to go the high school in their zone which would really impact ninth graders. Junior high schools would continue with the normal attendance zones. (Example - If a sixth grader is at PHE, with the middle school configuration that student would go on to PHJH except for those that was in a different attendance zone. He said that the only changes would be those students at M^elvale Junior High. He said that a child would attend a junior high based on where h\u0026amp;'she lives.) He said that those students that live in the Southwest and Ooverdale zones but go to Mabelvale would go back to their zone schools. The exception would be the satellite zones that place students at PH and Dunbar. He said with the closing of Mabelvale there would be six zones and certain students would have to go back to their neighborhood zone. Therefore, ah junior highs would stay the same with their attendance zones. Annie Ahbrams voiced her concerns over the racial balance. Mr. Eaton said that Option M would cause schools to become closer to being racially balanced in the other six schools He .said that the sixth grade could not be moved untii the ninth grade was moved because o(the sensitive level of the ninth grade. Leon Modeste ask, would this throw the racial balance out of sorts according to ODM? His question uas focused towards neighborhood schools, Eaton answered bv saying that if we looked at the 20th century facts, the devices proposed ten j vyAvcu BV UK 2.UVU ceutuiy racts, me aevices proposed ten years ago were dehniteiy not working. His recommendation was to redefine racial balance in the LRSD. Mr. Modeste then ask if the LRSD ever considered sueing the city over the houMg patterns of the city? He said that this was a definite player in the racial balance of the distnct. The answer was no, but a look at a new housing strateg)' was a must to make the balance work m the city and the schools. The development of Southwest Little Rock was going to be a big factor in the school districts racial balance therefor\" would be a big impact.  Margie Powell said that Mr. Eaton made an outstanding presentation and ail memoers agreed and gave Eaton a round of applause. Eaton finished by saying there were IJ volumes of this study m the communications office if anvone was interested in seeing them.  Lmaa Young ask ail memoers to rer ead purpose of the committee. The handout, ve Summa^', gave information of the purpose, goals, etc, to rcffiesh the mraaories ot the Dusmess at hand. She also gave a handout, Middle School Planning Committeees that contained the planning process. She suggested that the committee construct a ^sion sutement but was reconsidered to wait until other information was looked at such the philosophy, cnarges and tasks of the committee. It was also agreed upon that no I0 1 ' 10/1996 1 5 5 51 FROM JOHN W.ldRLk6R P.A. TO 3?J0i00 P. 12 sub-committee would be formed until the committee was again familiar with what the school board had charged them with. Linda also stated that last year was a season for debates and this year would be for the next steps to be taken and to establish a time line She said that the committee needed to look at the major initiatives such as being a pan of the puzzle instead of a separate piece. She stated that with the facility study and strategic planning a big pan of the district changes that this committee should make declsons alone with these other groups and that all the components should be put into place at the same time in an effort to benefit the kids. in Linda had a handout of critical questions that basically challenged the members in the major question - Do we believe in the Middle School concept? This brought the discussion of the upcoming calendar year and its preparations for the change process. It was said that we needed assessments, and should we have business cases written to be plac^ before the school board in February? It was discussed maybe we should just work on the planning process that would not involve alot of money except for staff development. Pat Mgginbotham said that if we were looldng at impiemenution in the years 1997-98, then we needed a business case ready by February 20,1996, Linda said that maybe we needed two business cases - one that covered rationale and staff development and the second one to cover curriculum and contractual issues. Pat said that we must decide whether we were going to meet the deadline. Van Light then ask if we were going to stay intact with the facilities group and what was their time frame? Pat recommended that we stay in the time frame of the facility group, not be separate. Ann suggested that we go forward just with the philosophy and methods study and not worry about the grade changes. But Linda said that under any plan, we could move grades. She then ask could we move ahead, no matter what option was used? Vic stated that we should go forward, but just be slow about the movement of grades. He said that we could talk about all factors that make a successful middle school, but not move the grades until r^dy. Susan then ask, was he considering leaving the grade configuration movemect out of the ousmess case and if so, would it not lock the committee out if they should decide to move the ^ades m the year 1997-987 Vjc said that the whole package should be ask for because changing over to the middle school concept ask for a new philosophy by the stnct, which was m the strategic planning #3 recommendatioii, and that the whole enwmpassed not only the change of district philosophy, but grade configuratioii and middle school concepts, too. to This brought the question, do we as a committee embrace the Middle Schoo! concept, Ail committee members were in consensus that they did. Ann made the motion move forward and adopt Middle Level concepts. All concurred. Lmda then ask about the grade configuration and what do we do about it'? Margie that no matter what we decided that there would be some that disagreed, and tho'se that nin HfCrTT-ck^ -_____}._____ t. , ................................ ***'* that did disagree should speak out. It was then decided that as a comirattee consensus on i ' \" \" '   !, we needed a V?^ configuration, Pat ask which confiiiration and aoTpir coninee then took a tally to see who agreed and who didnt. The results are as follows:01/10/1996 15:53 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.A. TO 37,10100 P. 13 Agree Disagree Undecided Margie Powell Pat Higginbotham Linda Young Susan Meny Sammy Grandy Ann Blaylock Patrick Mahaffey Beth Munson John Barnett Linda Bel! Betty Mitchell Vic Anderson Van Light Marian Lacey Leon Modeste Conclusion: For-9 Against-2 Undecided \u0026gt; 4 I j i Linda then said that we would phase in the program over a multi-year process and would alert parents and schools through the belief statements adopted by the committee Linda Bell voiced her concerns over the ninth graders and about no one wanting them. Margie assured her that this had been discussed last year and that there would be a special implementation program for the ninth grade. She said that these kids would not feel like they had been abondaned. One suggestion was that the ninth graders be left in a teaming process which would make them feel safe, wanted, and part of the program. Patrick stated that by the ninth graders going to the high school setting that they would feel like they count and feel more grown up. He felt like they did not want to be in the junior high setting and that it definitely helped with the discipline in the schools. And jf the sixth graders moved up that they would learn to become more indqjendent and they would adapt 'fester to the system. Linda Young then established the next meeting date which is Wednesday November 29, 1995, at 4:30 PM in the board room. Meeting was adjourned at 6:30 PM. Members present\nMargie Powell Linda Bell Vjc Anderson Pat Higginbotham Van Light Clementine Kelley Betty Mttcheil Cynthia East Linda Young Sammy Grandy Patrick Mahaffey John Barnett Marian Lacey Leon Modeste Susan Meny AsnBiaylo^ Annie Ahbrams Guest Speaker. Doug Eaton Mil 1  101/10/1996 15S54 FROM JOHN U.UPLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 14 I I i. MIDDLE SCHOOL UPDATE NOVEMBER 15, 1995 I f The initial activities of the middle school initiative focused on creating community awareness regarding the middle school concept and gathering feedback from parent and community regarding the concept and implementation issues, The issues, supportive statements, and concerns will provide information and guidance to the steering committee throughout the process I ! Community forums were held as well as numerous community presentations to parent groups, PTA groups, student cabinet, magnet review committee, area school adviwry committee, and superintendents parent advisory committee. These have continued throughout the summer and fall. The Steering Committee met regularly last from December through April. The comnuttee reviewed public comments raised during the forums, reviewed research on effective middle level practice, and prepared to begin implementation of the various subcommittees. The committee agreed that this initial phase of community awareness was critical and that adequate time should be provided to this issue. Resistance to change was encountered, rumors were rampant rwarriino implementation plans, and contractual issues have been raised and discussed. At the last meeting, the committee agreed that information from the facilities study was needed before further progress could be made I Z ! I01/10/1996 15:55 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 15 Middle Level Steering Committee December 5, 1995 The second meeting of the steering committee was brought to order by Linda Young. She introduced new members' Mary Banks, a Woodruff Elementary parent\nI t i Katbi Jones, a Jefferson Elementary parent\nand Charity Smith, from the State Deparonent of Education. 1 1 Dr, Williams visited the meeting and welcomed the members and their continued interest in the middle level movement He was very supportive of the middle school concept and told the members that he wgs pleased to see the members at the meeting. The meeting was then turned over to Dr. Vic Anderson. He gave an update of the facility study He spoke of the future plans to move the ninth grade to the high school level in the 1997-98 school year, but also assured the committee that there was no hurrv fnr th#* fyrftdA Uaa ____i______ am I - -   -------- WXIM1 W Si^ *1W ill for the grade configuration to be put in place. He said that eventually that the 6-7-8 configuration would be in the middle schools but immediate plans must leave the 7-9 grade configuration for the year 1996-97. He told the committee that their charge was to develop plans to ntake the change from junior high to middle school and that . - . -----------------------------------we had to move forward with the plans such as programming, teaming, and making schools more appropriate for students. Linda Young restated what Mr. Eaton had stated in the November 15th meeting and that was that projections were based on a very tight fit in adding the ninth grade into I the high schools. Dr Andereon, who is in charge of the implementation of Strategic Pian Number 3 then stated for the record that the committee needed to have a philosophical statement W. .M M. AM__A_______! A A.__ I about the appropriate size for a middle school. AU members agreed with this need. He men informed tne comgiijjeethaia busings ca^arffu^d be M^ented to the cabinet ! The business case must contain 'areas of proeiamming for the coming year plus the financial cost It must show ke\\- elements of wh the first year would \" include such as programmatic changes, philosophical changes, curriculum modifications. and the impact and how this plan would effect the magnet schools. Leon Modeste then ask the committee Did wx know where we were at the present^' Lmaa A oung then explained to the committee that they needed to start working on the charge assigned to the croup to make sure the committee was thinking alike and did know wnere we were at the present. She divided the committee into two groups She ask each group to brainstorm two different topics. Group A was to brainstorm and report oack to the committee the topic, Needs for early adolescents.'' G.vuo  to br^istorm and report back to the committee the topic, Effective middle school practices and programs Group B was to 1 IeMl 0/1996 15! 56 FROM JOHN U.WfiLKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 16 Pat Higginbotham was put in charge of Group A. Linda Bell reported the results of the group and those results are as follows: I i Needs for early adolescents 1. Patience 2. Boundaries-structure r 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, IS. 16. Conflict resolution skills Security-sense of belonging Increasing responsibility for choices Basic skills-academic/social Positive role models Advocates Self-esteem Activities-academic, recreational, social Love Respect Understanding Choices in curriculum Peer approval Consistency 17. Fairness 18 Consideration 19. A place in the community-opportunities to contribute 20. Bridge building (How they fit in the community\nacross-the-curricuium connections) 21. Opportunities for success 22. How to cope with disappointment 23, How to set goais-plan Group A was assigned to Gayle Bradford and she reported the following items to the comrruttec. Effective middle school practices and programs 1. Interdisciplinary teaming 2. Common kids/teachers 3. Flexible scheduling-block 4. Common area of building 6. 7. 8, 9. 10. Sense of community Shared vision Shared decision-making Students - active vs. passive learning Advisory programs (significant adult for each child) Individualized student planning I I i01/10/1996 15:57 FROM JOHN Id.WALKER F.R. TO 3710100 P. 1 7 II. 12. 13. 14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20 21. 22. Higher order thinking skills Intramurals Community service Team identity - logo Interdisciplinary units Parent involvement 1 ( 1 Common planning - interdisciplinary curricular planning Extended activities/high interest clubs Celebration of success/student recognition Inclusion (Special Education) Extended day programs Building leadership for administration and teachers (teacher empowerment) .1 r r Linda Young then reported about our programs in the restructuring schools. It was concluded that the schools have met the needs of the students. Block wheduling, loss of students, and the return of bells in the schools have caused major problems and a revamp for next year must be put in place The wnmtiee then discussed Part C of the charge - \"Recommendations regarding process for developing and implementing the middle level program. This part brought several key questions. 1. How do we deal with this tranation? 2. How do the schools make this new concept wotk? 3. Why cant we do middle school with the ninth grade? The answers were not given but several topics were put on the table for the committee to discuss. They were as follows\nNinth grade Scheduling Related arts Sixth made Needs - physical, academic, and social Intensive training for administrators, registrars - must become advocates middle schools .Miow transfer of teachers, principals, others without penaltv /. A.* A 1 mA* __ Professional staff development Educate and inform the public The committee came to a consensus that all these topics were vital to the middle level transipon and a solution must be found and implemented for each  The next discussion was about ninth graders. It was agreed that the ninth grade tk\u0026lt;i ___ area. would move and continue with the teaming wmponents. Teacher credentials problem in that if a teacher held werea a secondary certificate then he/she would go to the hieh schoo level. The Grandfather Clause was discussed and agreed tW issue for teachers was discussed and agreed that this was a major district-? u transition be throuithout the sir?' -n,^ involved? Again, an issue tha had to be a^ th^'\" POsWity of a pilot school was brought up before the committee and was agreed that people like to see and want to see success. That bought about where would I I01/10/1996 15:58 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.ft. TO 3710100  *  P . IS this pilot school be or would there be more that one pilot school? Or do wc evw want pilot school? 8 Pat Higginbotham then recommended that the LRSD adopt the Middle School structure district-wide. Ann Blaylock seconded the motion. There were i 7 yeas and one no. Motioned was carried. Linda Young then announced that the next meeting would be December 14 and the committee agreed to this date. Time was set at 4:30 PM in the LRSD lounge. Members in attendence were: J Margie Powell Mary Banks Kathi Jones Linda Bell Diane Vihakar Leon Modeste Patrick Mahaffey Sherrye Keaton Pat Higginbotham John Burnett Linda Young Beth Munson Van Light Clementine Kelley Cynthia East Janice Wilson Dr. Vic Anderson Gayle Bradford Charity Smith Terry Huitt Ann Blaylock Susan Merry f .I -.I ,1 J J t 01^10/1996 15559 FROM JOHN U.WflLKEP P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 19 .4*  K' Middle Level Steering Cornmittee Minutes December 14,1995 { Linda Young opened the meeting at ^\n30 PM. She told the committee that the discussion of the ninth grade transition would be discussed later in the meeting but first the committee needed to hear the update from the board. The board, one year ago, agreed for the committee to be formed and to research the possibility of the district to be transformed to the middle school programming. The strategic planning plan number three endorsed that the middle school concept be set in motion and the board agreed Dr. Williams ask how things were going with the committee and as of today we dont have allot to report. Therefore we are instructed to give the superintendent and the board an update at the next board meeting which is January 25, 1996 at 6 00 PM. Also any business cases to be submitted before the board are due on Januarj' 8, 1996. In the business case a model of the middle school concept and implementation time (two years) will be presented. Ann Blaylock, Ricky Woole. Sammy Grandy and Susan Merry have agreed to be on a committee to help Linda Young write the business case. In the meeting last week, the committee found out that there are no required courses in the curriculum except .Arkansas history, This gives freedom on the course configuration, which will allow new options for a more progressive curriculum. This will make schools only responsible for student performance. A planning checklist is being constructed and this will allow the oommiffee to look at the different programs that can be implemented and these programs can be amended, added, or deleted to meet the needs of the students and the curriculum. This will be written and impiemented for ail eight schools. Therefore subcornmittees need be started and ready to work especially the program development committee. It v.'as reported that Maiuj Magnet is definitely not ready for the Transition and Dr. .'Anderson suggested that we not try to implement any new programs but focus on staff development for the schools not involved in the restructurins. Kathi Jones ask if these schools would be behind and Dr. Anderson said that thev were already behind and it would take awhile for them to be caught up with the other schools. He said that ve needed to help the staffs to adopt the middle school concept and lorm a new mina set. He said that at the magnet level, that upper level of skills in Arts/Scaences would be placed in the eighth grade since the ninth grade would be in the high schools. He said that all schools had been briefed on the middle school concept. Kaihj voiced her concern that if the magnet schools stayed a junior high and all Other schools went to the middle school concept, that this would cause problems. Everyone agreed. Eveiyone felt that since the middle school concept was the best concept, then all schools should be involved in the transition Dr. Anderson said that in the junior high grades w'as when we lost allot of students. This was the years when allot of discipline problems arose. The middle school 101 .'10'1996 16J00 FROM JOHN M.WALKBP P.fl. TO 3710100 P.20 concept will provide a better environment and curriculum for kids and would prevent the lose of students to the private schools or other districts. The committee discussed if ail schools would be part of the transition and the big issue was the staffs changing over to this concept. Linda brought up the time frame for implementation and the committee felt that two years was needed just for the staff development of teachers and planning the transition. The pilot school issue also arose in this discussion and the committee agreed that all schools would change. Beth Munson made the commit that since the sixth grade would be affected in this change and that the money and busing issues were something that needed to be discussed. She said that it made more sense to change all schools at once and that allot of problems would arise if we didnt do this transition all at once. Everyone agreed. Diane ask how this new concept would be introduced in the magnet schools. Staff development and workshops in-state as well as out-of-state would be provided for all staff members. Diane then ask. could we start now and Dr. Anderson said that we had to continue with the community forums because this would be a dramatic change for the communities and parents. He said we needed to introduce a model change to the parents and let them know what would happen to their schools and curriculums. The magnet schools was an issue that everyone was concerned about and how things would work, such as how would the selection of students be done and basically it would stay the same. The only problem that would arise is will all the ninth graders be able to attend Parkview? This is a concern of parents and this would h3^e to be worked out. I ! I i i i The next issue discussed was how many seventh grade teachers are involved in the restructuring concept at the present. One hundred percent in the four restructurina schools and 95% at Mabelvale. These teachers would become trainers for the other schools and that this training needed to start as soon as possible. Another issue raised was teacher credibility and it w-as reported that the state department was looking at a new certification of grades four through nine for middle school. zVter a iong discussion it was decided that subcommittees should be set up to articulate the problems that concerned the steering committee. The final issue discussed was the business case to be presented to the board January 8. Three categories had to be answered and those were the time frame, the magnet review and the shift distnctwide. Linda said that it would be possible to set time frames for each component needed for unplemerrtation. Dr. Anderson put forth to the committee that the first year would be for intensive outreach to the communities establish a new way of thinkmg, encourage evaluation of the new idea, introduction of middle school, and enhance school benefits. The second year would be training and orientation and the third year would be the implementation of the concept. Charitj Smith suggested was suggested that January throu^ June would be for training the subcoramfrtees on how to do their work, ^e topic discussed was when the staff development would start. It was Su^ested I(levelopment could stan for those teachers ready for the change and that teaminu could be staned before the grade changes began. It was then ask of those teachers01/10Z1990 16!0I FROM JOHH W.UftLKER P.A. TO 3710100 P . 2 1 w* involved in teaming to tell their feelings about the concept. This was done by Beth, Sammy, Ann and Patrick. John ask what percentage of other schools knew how this teaming concept worked and Ann said that SWe had no idea what it was but the other half could or want^ to start teaming in their schools. Motion was made to start the middle school concept in the year 1998-95 and there was a second. It was a unamnious vote on the year of implementation. i Dr. Anderson presented an initiative to the committee. FRAMEWORK Teaming  master schedule  construction problem (balance in stafSng)(block scheduling) - seventh grade level (element of choice-art/music two nine weeks and vocational course-one semester)(more sections of large classes and smaller classes )  poor uses of staff - state changing requirements  need curriculum frameworks - wants and needs to modify the curriculum framework  compare semester course wth semester course - ask permission to do business  must have keyboarding (more important than Home Ecnomics) Meeting was adjourned by Linda. Next meeting tenatively set for January 4,1996 at 430 PM at the LRSD lounge. Attendance' Charity Smith Sharrye Keaton Linda Young Beth Munson Ann Blaylock John Burnett Mary Banks Kathi Jones Leon Modeste Pal HigginbothaTn Dr. Vic Anderson Susan Meny Patrick Mahaffey Terry Huitt Sammy Grandy Janice Wilson Diane Vihakar I I 1 1 I TOTAL P.21 I I AS'- !? ^,or'  W. Walker To: AnnStown Date: r\"0.-96 Time\n52:01:17 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW- \u0026lt; 1T23 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 722J TELEPHONE (501) 374-375^ ,  FAX (501) 374-418Y Page 2 of 2 \u0026lt; G' \u0026gt; JOHN W. WALKER RALPHWASHINGTON MARX BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR, I J ^XJ\n2 U-'- January 10, 1996 [DELIVERED BY FAX \u0026amp; U.S. MAILJ 7-S ) Ms. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock. AR 72201 r\u0026gt;\n' Dear Ms. Brown\nLlJ ,1* There is a Middle School Planning Committee for the LRSD. I have been trying to get the names of the members from Ms. Linda Young for the past three (3) days She declines to give it to me advising me that she is giving it to the superintendent to give to me. I still do ' not have it. Would you be kind enough to intercede and help obtain this information for me. iv Thank you for your assistance. 'Si Sincerely, (Original Signed By Undersigned Counsel} John W. Walker JWWJp cc: Ms. Linda Young Dr. Henry Williams f r r\n(  J 4. 6. ,-,5 1  . . r-yJOHN W. WALKER, PJL received JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 .JAN 1 2 1996 Office of Desegregafion Moniionng January 10. 1996 DELIVERED BY FAX \u0026amp; U.S. MAIL] Ms. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: There is a Middle School Planning Committee for the LRSD. I have been trying to get the names of the members from Ms. Linda Young for the past three (3) days. She declines to give it to me advising me that she is giving it to the superintendent to give to me. I still do not have it. Would you be kind enough to intercede and help obtain this information for me. Thank you for your assistance. JVVW:lp Sin^rely, co: Ms. Linda Young Dr. Henry Williams Little Rock School District, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT receives DEC 1 7 199/ December 16, 1997 Office OF DESESRESXnOMMQNirORlMQ Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: The Little Rock School District is preparing to enter into the planning phase of middle school implementation. We believe that this will be an important improvement in the educational experience for young adolescents. The need for this change has been recommended by parents, community members, district staff, and in both the Strategic Plan and the Student Assignment and Revitalization of Secondary Schools Work Teams. As a result of these recommendations, middle school implementation has been included in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. It is my hope that you will agree to serve on the middle school steering committee. The first meeting will be held on January 6, from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 West Markham. We anticipate this committee will function throughout the planning and initial implementation phases of this program. I hope you will plan to attend this session and participate on this committee. If you cannot personally participate, please consider designating a representative. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Leslie V. Gamine Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 DATE: deceived Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 1 7 1998 OFFICE OF MSEGftEGATlONMONITDBlKie February 6, 1998 TO\nFROM: RE: All Middle School Steering Committee Members Linda Young, New Futures Liaison and Restructuring DirectorcX^^ Draft Mission Statement Please find enclosed the draft mission statement for the LRSD Middle School Program. Thanks so much to Annie Abrams, Ann Blaylock, Marian Lacey, Liz Lucker, Beverly Maddox, Walter Marshaleck, Vic Anderson, and Diane Vibhaker for all your hard work and efforts in drafting the mission statement! The mission statement sub-committee will present this draft to the full committee for acceptance at the meeting on February 10, 1998. See you there!!RECEIVED DRAFT February 5, 1998 FEB 17 1998 omCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LRSD MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAM MISSION STATEMENT The mission statement of the Little Rock School District Middle School Program is to meet the unique needs of all young adolescents, equipping them with the knowledge and the Intellectual, physical, emotional, and social skills to successfully accomplish the transition to high school. This is achieved through: a developmentally appropriate curriculum that is challenging, integrated, relevant and exploratory\nspecially trained, nurturing educators using varied teaching and learning approaches within a flexible organizational structure\nstrong family and community partnerships\nprograms and policies that foster health, wellness, and safety\nand a faculty advocate for every student.CF Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 MAR 1 1938 DATE\nMarch 12, 1998 OFFICE OF desegregation MONtTORlNQ TO: Vic Anderson, Ann Brown, Pat Brown, Dana Chadwick, Don Crary, Donna Creer, Jo Evelyn Elston, Sara Facen, Ray Gillespie, Charles Green, Yvonne Henderson, Marion Lacey, Sadie Mitchell, Cassandra Norman, Margie Powell, Sam Stueart, John Walker, James Washington FROM: RE: Linda Young, New Futures Liaison and Restructuring Director Middle School Steering Committee Handouts Please find enclosed handouts from the Middle School Steering Committee of March 10, 1998. The next meeting is scheduled for April 14, 1998 at 4:30 p.m. in the Board Room. I look forward to seeing you there!Little Rock School District Middle School Steering Committee RECEIVED Agenda MAR 1 5 1998 March 10, 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING II. III. IV. V. VI. Submission of Middle School Mission Statement How Do Middle Schools Differ From Junior High Schools? Interdisciplinary Teaming  What is it?  Advantages for students, teachers, and parents. Beliefs, Strengths, Issues/Weaknesses, Strategies Focus Committee Chairpersons Meeting Wednesday, March 18,1998 - 2:00 p.m. Board Room Next Meeting - April 14,1998LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 26, 1998 TO\nBoard of Directors FROM: Middle School Steering Committee THROUGH: Dr. Les Gamine, Superintendent SUBJECT\nLRSD Middle School Program Mission Statement The Little Rock School District Middle School Program Steering Committee is pleased to submit to the Board of Directors for adoption the following mission statement. The mission of the Little Rock School District Middle School Program is to meet the unique needs of all young adolescents, equipping them with the knowledge and the intellectual, physical, emotional, and social skills to successfully accomplish the transition to high school. This is achieved through: a developmentally appropriate curriculum that is challenging, integrated, relevant and exploratory\nspecially trained, nurturing educators using varied teaching and learning approaches within a flexible organizational structure\nstrong family and community partnerships\nprograms and policies that foster health, wellness, and safety\nand a faculty advocate for every student.How Do Middle Schools Differ From Junior High Schools? Goal Area Junior High Middle School School Environment Content centered\nSchool components function separately. Child and need centered, designed to address needs of adolescent students. Knowledge (includes what society expects students to learn during their schooling experience) Accumulated pieces of infomnation that can be identified and listed. A combination of needed skills and information that is rapidly changing and infinite in scope. This initial difference in views provides the base from which the rest of the factors flow. Curriculum Divided into academic and special subject areas separated by category. Thematic and interdisciplinary units closely related to the students real world and including complex skills and factual infonmation. Teachers Seen as subject specialists who understand and relate well to students-usually for one period each day. Seen as generalists who are competent in several areas and can teach a wide variety of students by adapting the program to the students needs\non teams that form close relationships with their students._________ School Organization Subjects compartmentalized by faculty, facility, and schedules. Subjects integrated through interdisciplinary teaching teams and flexible time blocks. Grouping for Instruction Students grouped in classes according to their acquired knowledge as determined by test scores and other measures. Flexible grouping based on the needs and interests of the students and the skills to be developed.___________________________ Classroom Activities Information is imparted to students primarily through teacher talk, textbook assignments, or audiovisual presentations\nthe student is a passive learner. Infonmation that is useful and meaningful to the student is imparted through active student participation in the classroom. Student Placement Standards of desired physical, social, emotional, and intellectual growth used for student placement in school levels. Wide diversity of physical, social, emotional, and intellectual growth with the school adapting to students.___________ Requirements Specific competencies for particular grades that are sequential and have prerequisites. Skills developed according to students' individual levels of growth and readiness. Student Assessment Evaluation primarily through teacher- developed tests, textbooks tests, or standardized tests that focus on recall of learned facts. Evaluation through perfonnance-based activities (observation, products, and tests). Health Services/ Community Connections Generally provided by part-time nurse. Health promoting environment. Provides linkages/access to health/social services. Augments resources for teachers and students.WHAT ALLOWS A TEAM TO WORK SUCCESSFULLY? Management of Team 1. 2. 3. 4. The team is fully operational only when they share a group of students, a block of instructional time, and a daily scheduled team meeting time (Prep period) The team develops and puts in place a set of team expectations and policies. The team monitors student behavior and academic performance on a regular basis. The team uses team detentions and after-school work sessions to relieve administrators of dealing with the less serious discipline infiactions. 5. The team conducts full team meetings and programs with all the students on a regular basis. What And How The Team Teaches 6. The team balances the students workloads by coordinating projects, homework, tests, etc. 7. The team regularly showcases student work on team bulletin boards and displays. 8. The team develops and uses interdisciplinary, cross- disciplinary, and integrated units where feasible. 9. The team coordinates with exploratory teachers as much as possible.10. The team makes full use of flexible block schedule and manages student contact time as needed to maximize learning. SCHOOL-HOME COMMUNICATIONS 11. The team and administrators enjoy mutual understanding of roles, respect, trust, and confidence. 12. 13. 14. The team and the students develop and constantly use a team identity. The team commimicates regularly with parents and conducts parent and student conferences as a team. The team meets regularly with counselor, special services teachers, administrators, and exploratory teachers on a regular basis. Thanks to Howard Miller, some of whose ideas appear here Amrppcg SCHOO/ THOHOorno 6Vha/ Zr a Sajo or fnore teachers' ujho share the sar^e stiAdents- for core CAtrricaleAfn coA.rses. -fti/e t\u0026amp;ach.er /e-afK: ne^lis^hi ^eadint^y T^ath\u0026amp;fnafics^i So\u0026amp;iaL Stcidi\u0026amp;s^^ Sd\u0026amp;n\u0026amp;\u0026amp; fo(A.r t\u0026amp;ach\u0026amp;r (Ar/s^^ l^a/ke/Ka/Lcs^y Social S/mUcs'^ Science- IA tiAAo teacher tean^.'- Cam^iA/Ai^e i^rZjr[]5o6viaZ StcAjdieSy T^athe/natic^Science /hr\u0026amp;e fcacher fcat^y u^i/h ^(Axients^ faking at Icasf one core coiArs^e oiAois'ide the ieart: Cam^cAat^e Sxr/s^y Social Siadies'y ScienceTeaching in the Middie Ways to Use Common Pianning Time 1. Hold formal and informal team meetings to discuss students, parents, schedules, curriculum issues, school business, and team policies and procedures. 2. Plan grade level/departmental meetings or sessions with administrators and/or colleagues to foster communication and an appropriate level of shared decision-making. 3. Offer special staff development activities or a mini-workshop for selfimprovement, including short audio/visual training tapes, lectures by district personnel, or programmed texts/workbooks. 4. Develop interdisciplinary approaches or units. This could be a high priority for common planning time get-togethers. Try integrating a concept, skill, or topic on a daily basis in at least some small way to help students understand the correlation between their teachers, subject areas, and skills development. 5. Reward students. Celebrating student success should be a regular occurrence and should vary from appreciation roles and verbal praise to student work displays. 6. Conduct student and parent conferences. It is important to build talking time into the weekly schedule for dealing with both student and parent problems as they arise. Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of n 7. Share teacher ideas, concerns, worries, failures, and successes. Fostering morale, emotional health, and well-being and providing outlets for sharing war stories or brainstorming creative ideas are musts. 8. Update team records. Documenting team events, discussions, and decisions is important to team success. This includes everything from student records to team minutes so that paperwork does not become a burden at any given time. 9. Organize team events, celebrations, or field trips. Building a strong team identity depends upon a teams ability to plan and implement a wide variety of special happenings for all teachers and student members of the team. 10. Update team calendar to coordinate course requirements, test dates, class excursions, and special lesson plans. Avoiding duplicate or conflicting class requirements or regulations can pave the way for considerable academic achievement. 11. Brainstorm solutions to problems or alternatives for decisions. Holding short stand-up team meetings during the day can help solve short-term problems or aid in making short-term decisions as the come up. 12. Enjoy a social time with special treats or a potluck lunch. Take time for fun and socializing among yourselves. cure. Source: The Definitive Middle School Guide: Imooene Forte and Sandra SchurTeaching in the Middle Definitions Essential To Teaming Success 1. Interdisciplinary Teaming: The interdisciplinary team is the heart of the middle school and requires that the same group of teachers share the same group of students housed in the same part of the facility for the same block of daily instructional time. Teams vary in size from two to six teachers representing core curriculum areas and serve students ranging from 70 to 150 in number. 2. Interdisciplinary Instruction: Teams of teachers combine their expertise and course content to integrate the disciplines and interface common areas of the curriculum. 3. Team Teaching: Team teaching is a practice that allows for two or more teachers as instructional leaders in the planning, teaching, and evaluating of a single lesson or a unit of study. 4. Flexible Block Schedule: A team of teachers shares a group of students for an uninterrupted block of instructional time ranging in length from 120 to 210 minutes each day. Teachers have flexibility during that period of time to group and regroup students for instruction as well as to vary the length of each instructional period. 5. Common Planning Time: Interdisciplinary teaming works best when teachers on the same team have a common planning period during which they can meet together on a daily basis to hold team meetings, student/parent conferences, and plan interdisciplinary instruction. 6. Team Identity: An interdisciplinary team works hard at creating smallness within bigness for its group of assigned students. This is accomplished through the mutual development of a team name, colors, logos, slogans, cheers, handshakes, etc. It is also enhanced through team events such as team parties, traditions, celebrations, and contests. 7. Team Leader: Every interdisciplinary team has a team leader who facilitates the teaming process for its members by coordinating the teams meetings, activities, budget decisions, and communications with the schools administrative team. 8. Team Handbook: An effective interdisciplinary team develops a team handbook for the students and parents they serve. The purpose of this handbook is to share the teams philosophy, goals, policies, procedures, expectations, and plans for the school year. 9. Team Meeting: An interdisciplinary team holds daily team meetings during its common planning time in order to carry on the assigned duties and responsibilities of the team itself. 10. Team Rules and Discipline Plan: Interdisciplinary teams place a high priority on establishing a meaningful set of team rules and discipline procedures that are consistent throughout the school day regardless of the varied teacher personalities, styles, and disciplines. Source: The Definitive Middle School Guide: Imogene Forte and Sandra SchurCreating a Model Middle School The team process is successful when... needs of students are met.  students feel good about themselves.  the administration and school district support the teams efforts.  block-of-time scheduling is utilized.  there is flexibility in daily, weekly, and monthly schedules.  teachers believe in the middle school concept.  special needs students are included within the team process.  conflicts among team members are resolved.  team members are willing to share ideas and responsibilities.  organized knowledge and skill development are correlated regularly.  parents are integral to the team.  there is adequate time for team planning and that time is productive.  resource people are available to the team.  the team leader successfully involves all members in team activities.  local options are utilized by the team.  pupils are in various grouping arrangements during the day.  team members practice good human relations skills.  teams take time to evaluate their effectiveness.  staff development activities are provided. Source: Elliott Y. Merenbloom, The Team Proces: A Handbook for Teachers. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association, 1991.by Peter C. Sculps S' 9K omeone once said that if you wanted to invent an institution designed to make people fail you would come up with the traditional junior high school. The grades 7-8-9 junior high used to be the most common form of middle grades school in America. Today, however, the grades 6-7-8 middle school is both the most common and the fastest growing type. (A middle grades school is any school that includes at least one grade within grades 5-9.) This is good news for parents and for their young adolescent sons and daughters. A few years ago, the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development published an influential report, Tumiyiff Points: Prepanng American Youth for the 21st Century, which described the fundamental mismatch between w'hat young adolescents need from a school - physically, intellectually and socially-and what most middle grade schools offer. If your son or daughter is now or will soon be 10 to 15 years old, here is what you need to know about middle schools. Balai'icing ehonge with intimacy Middle schools are especially designed for the developmental characteristics and needs of young adolescents, not younger elementary school children or older teens. As a parent, you know (or will soon know!) that young adolescents are changing in all aspects of their lives. In fact, development between ages 10 and 15 is more rapid than at any time other than infancy. To balance the personal changes they are going through, young adolescents need stability and continuity in their surroundings. Instead of going to a junior high where, as in high school, students switch classmates and teachers every 50 minutes, the middle school approach builds a more .stable peer and teacher group by assigning slutienls and tcacliers to teams. to which the team members often attach colorful names and catchy slogans. 16 a word S!, ikiS  =i These students take their classes together, from the same group of teachers, often stajang together for all three years of middle school. This team approach provides stability and intimacy in what would otherwise be a large and impersonal setting. Instead of being just one unattached boy or girl in a school of 1,000 or more, most middle schools (which ideally have a size of no more than about 600-700 students) divide their students into teams of 80-100 students and three to five teachers. More and more, these team teachers also play a bigger guidance and advisory role than teachers in the junior high setting. Middle school teachers are supposed to help young adolescents develop social skills and understand their own and others emotions, assist them in developing better study routines and learning skills, and in general, provide tliem with at least one adult at school who they know really cares for them. The team structure of good middle schools is rellected in classroom activities, too. Instead of individual students working alone, middle schools make use of cooperative learning.\" Students are gi-ouj^ed together, whether in pairs or slightly larger gi'oups, to work jointly on projects. This approach stimulates participation and leadership by students who normally take a back seat, taps young adolescents need for large doses of socializing, and helps young jjeo-ple learn a skill that they will need in the real world-how to work in groups to solve problems. Connecting the pieces of the curriculum The middle school team approach allows teachem to \"integi'ate their As a parent you know that youno adolescents are changing in efi aspects of their fives. To bolonce the persona! chonges they are going through, young adolescents various subject areas into broader themes and units. Young adolescents are trying to make sense of their world, to make connections between the pieces of knowledge they get in separate subjects and undei-stand the relationships among them. Middle schools build tliese connections across the cuniculum. The study of ecology, for example, can easily include knowl^ge from life and earth sciences, mathematics, social studies, health and language arts/communications. Woven together, these subjects become far more interesting to young adolescents because thej' can see how school helps them understand their world. Exploring and contributing to Young adolescents are in a quest discover themselves, to constmet a n fc s o COsVi ..J -d\niTy ona liYV ll frie!f surrcunc personal identity and self-definition that includes what they believe in (values), what they like (interests) and what thw're good at doing (talents). Tlierefore. middle schools offer plentiful op}\u0026gt;or-tunitics for young adolescents to take \"ex-ploratoiy\" minicoui'ses that are usually ungraded and simply provide a range of exijenenees that allow them to discover their interests and talents. G(km1 middle school educators also know that young adolescents need to rZ/i IO DP Sept'Oc: 1W3 piH'tieipatf ..meaningfully in their schools, faniilie.s anti communities. They need to know how they fit into  the larger world and how they can make a difference. They arc more able than younger children to take part in (iecision making at home, school and other settings. This development is sometimes unsettling to parents and other adults, but it is part of the normal process of growing up. At home, young adolescents often argue as much to understand themselves as to convince parents. Even as they are concerned with themselves, however, their intellectual and moral development increasingly enables them to understand the needs of others and to want to contribute to the larger community. Middle schools encourage this prosocial behavior by providing opportunities for young adolescents to serve their communities, from tutoring younger children, to making recommendations about safety in the parks, to producing public service announcements about social issues ranging from P7A TODAY, 5ept.lOc\\. 1993 pollution to AIDS. The best middle schools lake service a step farther and offer \"service learning.\" They incorporate service experience.s into the curriculum and require reading and observational study before the service and writing and speaking about it afterwards. The results '^he bottom line question is, of course, a do middle schools and middle school practices work? The evidence is beginning to mount up, and the answer is yes. For example, in an ongoing study of more than 4,000 students, the University of Illinois and the Association of Illinois Middle Level Schools have found the following: Middle schools with cooperative learning, integrated curriculum, team teaching, health promotion programs and teachers as advisors, among other elements, have students whose families are more involved with the school, who score higher on self-esteem and academic adjustments, achieve higher scores on stamiardized tests of Ian-gtiage. inalhemalics awl reading'and experience lower levels of delin()uen-cy. stres.s and substance abuse. Parents sometimes wonder whether the middle school emijhasis on a nurturing and supportive school environment is consistent with a strong academic program and high achievement. The studies available today suggest the two are strongly connected: The secret Io the academic success of students in middle schools is th.e schools' atlentireness to the social and emotional needs of youny adolescents. The caring, connections and support found in a good middle school help even previously low achievers adjust better to school and achieve at higher academic levels. Middle schools make sense. If your son's or daughters middle school uses the practices listed above, count yourself and your children lucky. If your middle school doesnt do these things, or if your community has a junior high that isnt sensitive to what your young adolescent son or daughter needs, let your voice be heard. And take heart. Although it might seem as if your community wont do all that is involved in having a good middle school, there are now more middle schools than junior highs, and that trend shows no sign of diminishing. Most communities are changing to middle schools-some more slowly, but changing nevertheless. In a 1992 study of middle school principals across the country, the National Association of Secondary School Principals reported that parent groups like the PTA were the single most influential special interest group having an impact on their middle schools. Family participation is a big part of the middle school philosophy. Middle school educators expect to see your involvement and hear your voice. Let them know you want responsive middle schools for your children, and that the parents in your community wont settle for less!  Peter C. SrMks. PhD. in the St. director of national iyiitiatire.': of the Center Jar Early Adolescence. Unirer.sity ofE'orth C'aralina at Chapel Hill. Hr i.s a jTcyuent eiintril/ntar tn natianiil pnlilications and is the author of many articles and sc.ecral honks, incliidiny Windows of Opporluiiitv: Improving .Middle Craiies Teacher Preparation and 1\\ Portrait of Young Adole.s-cents in the 1990s, 6o'// ]iabtiskcd by the Center Jar Early Adalenrrnce. D-y Carr Mill Toirn Cenlii', C'lrrburu. .VC .7510. 17  Middle School Steering Committee Meeting February 10, 1998 Strengths Group 1 1. A pool of trained and experienced middle level teachers. 2. Ethnic diversity and potential for greatness. 3. Support of community and Board of concept. A = in place Group 2 B = the way it ought to be 1. Developmentally appropriate. (B) 2. Strategic plan with middle school component. (A) 3. Cross-curriculum instruction. (B) 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. District leadership (downtown) commitment. (A) Cadre of trained personnel already in place. (A) Ability to utilize smaller units that focus on individuality as part of family/team. (B) Site-based management is accepted as practice. (A) Safe, nurturing environment developed from middle school approach fosters capacity to improve discipline - attendance, reduce dropouts, etc. (B) Group 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Existing staff (core knowledge, enthusiasm, prophets, and reservoir of ideas/strategies. Growing consensus for change. Site-based management developing. Community far more supportive of schools than in the past. People open to idea that were perhaps not effectively addressing needs of this age group. Strategic plan contains middle school buy-in. Existing pool of students who have been through programs. Group 4 1. Trust building underway and collaboration. 2. Strong foundation among faculty/administrators 3. Flexibility in time and staff use. 14. Parents recognize need for change. 5. Enables exploratory curriculum. 6, Board commitment/support and leadership. Issues/Weaknesses Group 1 1. Test oriented rather than student oriented. 2. Fear/anxiety in dealing with change. 3. Public perception of lack of safety and an academically challenging education at some schools, i.e., junior highs. Group 2 1. Time as a finite resource. 2. Parental concerns - 6 grade and 9* grade/lack of community 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. cohesiveness regarding middle school. Limited staff development. Space - physical capacity in buildings and rezoning, and school closings/consolidation - definite directors. Money. Assignment/reassignment of staff and attitude about it. Attending to the whole person or student. Group 3 1. Resources and dollar focus. 2. 3. 4. 5. Conflicting agendas/parents/teachers/administrators/community\nvested interest in status quo! Staff fears change\n job security,  placement,  job description,  working conditions, and  LRSD past track record. Parents fear change:  dont really understand why, what, how,  (some) distrust over another reform. LRSD has history of not implementing change well. 26. Administration buy-in and support (downtown.) 7. Community not wanting to consider more big changes right now. 8. Top down decision-making. Group 4 1. Facilities. 2. Teacher/administrator/parent resistance, uncertainty. 3. Difficulties with keeping the philosophy and mission central. Strategies Group 1 1. Comprehensive and broad based articulation of model. 2. Strong public relations campaign. 3. Continued community participation throughout planning process. Group 4 1. Adequate time and training for teachers to plan. 2. Work with the universities. 3C-, Vj Little Rock School District t. '1 April 1. 1998  Ms. Ann Brown, ODM 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown\nThe LRSD. LRCTA and New Futures for Youth professional development designed to acquaint LRSD teai^ers^ middle school concept. This is the event that was referenced committee meeting. are jointly sponsoring a grades 6-8, with the in the last steering Please accept this special invitation to attend this an overview of the middle school program J at 11:45. Grainger Ledbetter will be the . u IIS, special invitation to attend this confprpnro nr i n wdl provide the opening remarks for the conferen^ MaXS a na ionak \" thr   overview the Sddle jSioXroorani n the morning session. Lunch will be served at 11:45 Grainger Ledbetter will^hp^thp Enclosed for your information is teachers in grades 6-8. a copy of the flier that was distributed to If you plan on attending, please call Biondell reservation. or me at 324-2112 to make your Thanks so much. Sincerely, Linda Young Chairperson, Middle School Steering Committee 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000A Special Invitation to \"An Introduction to Middle Schools\" (Designed to Acquaint LRSD Teachers, Grades 6-8, with the Middle School Concept) National Presenter, Mary Mantei Presentations From LRSD Teachers Friday, April 10,1998 (LRSD Staff Development Day) Registration Begins at 8:30 a.m. Program 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Little Rock Hilton Inn 925 South University RECEIVED APR 3 1998 Lunch Provided OFFICE OF PESEGREGATION MONITORING Don't Miss This Opportunity Limited Enrollment!!! First Come - First Serve! Call Now 324-2112 To Make A Reservation Sponsored by the Little Rock School District, Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, And New Futures for Youth RECSIVEO APR 2 Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 OFflCc OF 0SESRGARQ.MOWrafl|Aie DATE: April 16, 1998 TO: Annie Abrams, Nancy Acre, Ann Brown, Pat Brown, Dana Chadwick, Sara Facen, Brady Gadberry, Ray Gillespie, Charles Green, Katherine Wright Knight, Grainger Ledbetter, Mark Milhollen, Lou Ethel Nauden, Cassandra Norman, Gene Parker, Vernon Smith, Sam Stueart, John Walker, James Washington From: 1/ inda Young, New Futures Liaison and Restructuring Director RE: Middle School Steering Committee Handouts Please find enclosed handouts from the Middle School Steering Committee of April 14, 1998. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 12, 1998 at 4:30 p.m. in the Board Room. I look forward to seeing you there!0 Little Rock School District Middle School Steering Committee Agenda AR? 2 0 1998 OFFICE OF 'OSBREGATION MONITORINS April 14, 1998 Update on Professional Development held on 4/10 II. Committee Activity Chairpersons Meeting Curriculum Committee\nParent/Community\nStaff Development: Student Programs: Elementary: 4/15, Board Room, 4:15 4/9, 5/19, IRC, 4:30 4/21, PHJH Library, 4:30 4/8, 4/30, Board Room, 4:00 4/13, 5/11,4:00 III. 9'^ Grade Centers IV. Beliefs, Strengths, Issues/Weaknesses, Strategies V. Next Meeting - May 12RECEIVED AGENDA AN INTRODUCTION TO MIDDLE SCHOOLS APR 2 0 1998 OffiCEOF toREGATIOfJMONlTORlN'Q Presented by the Little Rock School District, Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, and New Futures for Youth APRIL 10, 1998 9:00 Welcome Linda Young South Ballroom Opening Remarks Dr. Les Carnine 9:30  The Middle School Puzzle Mary Mantel 11:45 Lunch South Ballroom Introductions Dr. Vic Anderson Luncheon Speaker Grainger Ledbetter 12:45-3:00 Afternoon Sessions Session One Teaming At Its Efest LRSD teachers share their experience and expertise on teaming. Board Room Ann Blaylock Wayne Knight Bettie Williford Beverly MaddoxSession Two Catch a Unique Bird Instructional strategies that work for adolescents South Ballroom Mary Mantel Session Three Paideia: A research based curriculum reform program that engages students in the learning process. A team of Cloverdale teachers join a Paideia consultant to share successes, information and expertise about Paideia. Ozark Room Joyce Tatum Estella Nesmith Clarence Allen Keena Eddington Marie Boone Homer Fairchild Session Four Teaming Together Senate Room Learn from the expertise of LRSD teachers how working together as a team makes a difference for students, teachers, and parents. Susan Merry Sam Grandy Carolyn Lamb Note: Each participant should select to attend one afternoon session. Please register for session of your choice by signing the session sheets at the registration table between 8:30 and 9:00. All sessions will have maximum enrollments as a courtesy to all participants and presenters.An Introduction to Middle Schools Pluses and Wishes April 10, 1998 2 0 i938 Office 0? OfSEGRfGATOfJMOTOfillVfi Pluses  I was fully motivated by the things Mary shared about the Middle School concept. I wish our district was ready to implement now. The ideas were refreshing and unique. Im so glad I came to this workshop. I was going through a dry period but now Im rejuvenated. so  The session was very informative and helpful. After 14 years of teaching. New ideas and approaches are always welcomed.  Good stuff on block schedules. Fabulous ideas! Thanks for the packet.  Good overview of the Middle School Concept. Lots of great ideas to incorporate into our classroom.  Very good. Things that can be applied on Monday.  Mary is a wonderful presenter. She is energetic and informed. Good examples.  Excellent participation by all presenters and hands on experience.  A good reaffirmation of the middle school beliefs. Good workable ideas from Mary.  Great presentation but redundant for Jr. High teachers. Mary is wonderful.  The presenter was an excellent speaker and varied the activities.  Good speaker. Veiy encouraging. Very organized and knowledgeable about the teaming - made you want to do it.  Ms. Mantei ideas were great! I plan to use some. Great ideas about how to get students more involved in book reports and novels. Great ideas about schedule changes. _  No wasted time. Clear explanation of how middle schools and junior highs different. Good presenter. Chock full of great ideas. Excellent pacing. are  Mary Mantei was great! I love the ideas that were given.  Mary Mantei was an excellent presenter. Great chince!'   Presentation of personal knowledge and experiences by Dr. Gamine which gave evidence that this new approach and direction can work and has a positive outcome. Participation in actual activities that can be used in the classroom.  Good!  Everything great! Both sessions were very informative.  I enjoyed everything, there should be more days like this!  Great information about middle schools. Wonderful break out session Paideia!  Very well organized. Speakers were easily understood (verbally) and energetic.  Excellent!  Nice speaker. Loved seminar.  Mary Mantei was very energetic and very well informed.  Excellent!  Interesting, focused, well-organized. Good ideas from smart strangers.  Session was very informative. I was enlightened of the expectations of middle school. Wonderful presentation.  More interaction. More time to discuss.  Speaker introduced positive methods of implementing team teaching. Specific examples in which students can succeed.  The session was outstanding, and I really enjoyed all the speakers. Mary Mantei did an outstanding job.  Good information. Good general information.  Speaker was interesting. Good classroom ideas.  Presenter and subject matter are pluses. Effective planning. Good instruction. Positive presentation.  Good session. The activities were most interesting. Sorry we had to rush.  Very informative!  Presenter did an excellent job. Perhaps teaching can be fun again. The sharing and video added flavor to the workshop.  Morning motivational speakers whom reinforced some critical options. Great team teaching strategies and success stories.  Good. I enjoyed everything. The district needs to follow through. Wishes  More of the same!!  The Turning Points 4s at the begiiming might need to be a preliminary course. Either we already know it forwards and backwards,, or we need much more.  I wish teachers in the Junior high schools could be present at a session like this one. We had more time to talk to 6* grade teachers. More time to go over the activities.  More, more, more of Marys ideas!  Not all my questions were answered - such as: When do we as a district plan to go to the Middle School concept? How will it be determined? Which teachers go to which school? Will my experience allow me the chance to choose a middle school to which I would like to move? Will our curriculum change or will we continue to add to and change as new texts are adopted? Some of this sounds more like sight based managed schools. Will I as a teacher really have an input as to what I teach and how I teach it? Im sure there are a thousand other questions of which I have not thought and perhaps Im jumping the gun a bit. We elementary people seem not to know as much as some of the junior high teachers!  For more opportunities like this.  More!  More days should be spent like this\nalong with more interaction and sharing of experiences with teaming!  We had more staff developments like this one. To be trained in Paideia.  More, more, more. Excellent!  I would like to hear how ciuriculum might change when junior highs change to middle schools.  We had more time to view the middle school.  I hope that the school district and administration commits to this project financially and supportive. I really hope that this is not just another fad or trend. I wish Mary Mantei had more time to go through the remainder of her material.  Very good - would like to hear Mary Mantei more.  Use the speaker as a refresher for schools that are already doing teaming or other aspects of middle school concepts.  More time - 2 days. _  A larger room to accommodate teachers.  More of the same attributes of teaming.Middle School Steering Committee Meeting February 10,1998 Strengths Group 1 1. A pool of trained and experienced middle level teachers. 2. Ethnic diversity and potential for greatness. 3. Support of community and Board of concept. Group 2 A = in place B = the way it ought to be 1. Developmentally appropriate. (B) 2. Strategic plan with middle school component. (A) 3. Cross-curriculum instruction. (B) 4. District leadership (downtown) commitment. (A) 5. Cadre of trained personnel already in place. (A) 6. Ability to utilize smaller units that focus on individuality as part of family/team. (B) 7. Site-based management is accepted as practice. (A) 8. Safe, nurturing environment developed from middle school approach fosters capacity to improve discipline - attendance, reduce dropouts, etc. (B) Group 3 1. Existing staff (core knowledge, enthusiasm, prophets, and reservoir of ideas/strategies. 2. Growing consensus for change. 3. Site-based management developing. 4. Community far more supportive of schools than in the past. 5. People open to idea that were perhaps not effectively addressing needs of this age group. 6. Strategic plan contains middle school buy-in. 7. Existing poo'lof students'who have been through programs. \" T Group 4 1. Trust building underway and collaboration. 2. Strong foundation among faculty/administrators 3. Flexibility in time and staff use. 14. Parents recognize need for change. 5. Enables exploratory curriculum. 6. Board commitment/support and leadership. Issues/Weaknesses Group 1 1. Test oriented rather than student oriented. 2. Fear/anxiety in dealing with change. 3. Public perception of lack of safety and an academically challenging education at some schools, i.e., junior highs. Group 2 1. Time as a finite resource. 2. Parental concerns - 6* grade and 9^^ grade/lack of community 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. cohesiveness regarding middle school. Limited staff development. Space - physical capacity in buildings and rezoning, and school closings/consolidation - definite directors. Money. Assignment/reassignment of staff and attitude about it Attending to the whole\" person or student. Group 3 1. Resources and dollar focus. 2. 3. 4. 5. Conflicting agendas/parents/teachers/administrators/community\nvested interest in status quo! Staff fears change: _  job security,  placement,  job description,  working conditions, and -* -' '  ' \"  LRSD past track record. Parents fear change:  dont really understand why, what, how,  (some) distrust over another reform. LRSD has history of not implementing change well. 26. Administration buy-in and support (downtown.) 7. Community not wanting to consider more big changes right now. 8. Top down decision-making. Group 4 1. Facilities. 2. Teacher/administrator/parent resistance, uncertainty. 3. Difficulties with keeping the philosophy and mission central. Strategies Group 1 1. Comprehensive and broad based articulation of model. 2. Strong public relations campaign. 3. Continued community participation throughout planning process. Group 4 1. Adequate time and training for teachers to plan. 2. Work with the universities. 3received Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 MAY 1 4 1998 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITORINS DATE: May 13, 1998 TO: Annie Abrams, Nancy Acre, Ann Brown, Pat Brown, Dana Chadwick, Jo Evelyn Elston, Sara Facen, Ray Gillespie, Charles Green, Marian Lacey, Carolyn Lamb, Grainger Ledbetter, Liz Lucker, Walter Marshaleck, Mark Milhollen, Lou Ethel Nauden, Cassandra Norman, Vernon Smith, Sam Stueart, Tom Teeter, John Walker, James Washington FROM: ida Young, New Futures Liaison and Restructuring Director RE: Middle School Steering Committee Handouts Please find enclosed handouts from the Middle School Steering Committee of May 12, 1998. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 9, 1998 at 4:30 p.m. in the Board Room. I look forward to seeing you there! Encl.Little Rock School District Middle School Steering Committee Agenda May 12, 1998 Remarks Dr. Les Gamine 11. Committee Reports Curriculum Gene Parker Elementary Sadie Mitchell Staff Development Ann Blaylock High School Jodie Carter Communications Suellen Vann Student Programs Jo Evelyn Elston III. Committee Chairpersons Meeting 4:00 prior to each steering committee meeting IV. Next meeting June 9,19981 EARLY ADOLESCENCE: A TIME OF CHANGE 2 Early Adolescent Characteristic Characteristic Description 3 Impact on Curriculum Development and Decision Making 4 Impact Description YES NO \u0026gt;Rapid growth \u0026gt;Short attention span/ resting brain \u0026gt;Ten minute attention span \u0026gt;Hormonal imbalance \u0026gt;Attention span \u0026gt;Low self-esteem \u0026gt;Makes transitions slowly \u0026gt;Physical maturation \u0026gt;Aches, pains\ncant sit on hard surfaces very long\nbrain shuts down\nphysical hunger \u0026gt;Impulsive\ninattentive\nunorganized\nseems lazy \u0026gt;Trouble sitting\nfidget}'\nmentally bounces from one topic/activity to another \u0026gt;At one moment sleepy -\u0026gt; hv'per\nmood swings \u0026gt;10 minutes, cant sit still \u0026gt;Emotional\nsensitive\nselfcentered\nlack of motivation\nmood swings \u0026gt;Gro\\\\1h spurts\nbody parts become body parts\npreoccupation with sex J \u0026gt;Cant stay in seat - need to go to the nurse, eat in class, tired, head on desk \u0026gt;Multi-sensory teaching\nflexible scheduling \u0026amp; grouping \u0026gt;Design of the content areas/ curricula\ndelivery/integration of the curriculum \u0026gt;Opportunities supplied for both action (hands on) and quiet (lecture) \u0026gt;Change in teaching sh ies \u0026gt;Appropriate sensitivity training  for teachers\nself-awareness training for students \u0026gt;Time must be provided for an appreciation of the physical maturation (socialization of sex) \u0026gt;Mood swings \u0026gt;Excessive energy \u0026gt;Moral and ethical concerns (faimess/justice) \u0026gt;Dried-up brain syndrome \u0026gt;Insecurity \u0026gt;Critical/judgmental \u0026gt;Mood swings \u0026gt;Happy, sad, anxious\nwear feelings on their sleeves \u0026gt;Horseplay\nteasing\nfidgeting\ninappropriate physical contact \u0026gt;Want to make own rules\nbend rules when con\\ enient \u0026gt;Gradually students ha\\e become unaware of education, especially in 8th grade \u0026gt;Peer pressure\nfear of failure\nnon-joiner\nhighly critical \u0026gt;Depend on peers emotionally J \u0026gt;Rcproductive organs grow \u0026gt;PhysicaI changes/ appearance \u0026gt;Body changes\ngiggling\nsexual overtures \u0026gt;Seating arrangement\npersonal space\nunderstanding teacher\nflexibility \u0026gt;Classroom management\nevaluations \u0026gt;Less didactic instruction and more coaching is necessary \u0026gt;Defensive\naggressive behavior\nfights\nhe said - she said Embarrassmentcommunity partnerships\nelementary transition: athletics\nlogistical support\nand communications. Because of the many decisions which must he made, a long lead time is necessary. We don't have all of the answers yet, hut as parents, teachers and other committee members provide us (the communication committee) with information, we'll keepyou informed. Little Rock School District Soard of Directors Katherine Mitchell,Zone! Michael Daugherty, Zone 2 Judy Magness, Zone 3 hECEIVEO JUN 9 1998 Specialthankstoallofthe parents, teachers, administrators and other community residents who are volunteering theirtimeto this exciting and worthwhile endeavor. John A. Riggs, IV, Zone 4 Larry Berkley, Zone 5 Middle School Update Patricia Gee, Zone 6 Remember, our students will benefit as we work together to make middle schools successful in ourdistrict. Sue Strickland, Zone 7 Superintendent Dr. Leslie V.Carnine Information included from the National Middle School Association. Implementation in the Fall of 1999 Published by the Middle School Communication CommitteeThis brochure is the first in a series of publications which will provide some general information about middle schools and what the Little Rock School District is planning with regard to middle schools forthe fall of1999. Whatare middle schools? A middle level school Isa friendly and safe place that provides a challenging academic environment designed to address the needs of young adolescents in grades 6-7-8. How did our district decide to implement middle schools? During the strategic planning process, middle schools were recommended by parents, teachers and community residents who served on the middle school committee. The Little Rock School Board approved middle schools as part of the Strategic Flan and as a component of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Why should we institute middle schools in Little Rock? Young adolescents experience rapid growth and change -- intellectually, socially, emotionally and physically- but they do notall grow at the same time or at the same rate. The result is a student population at any one grade level that may be of the same age but vastly different from one another. Young adolescents seem almost grown up one minute, then behave like children the next. Students in grades 6-7-6 especially benefit from educational experiences that match their varied rates and levels of development. Are we changing just forthe sake of change? No, we are developing a middle school program that will specifically address the needs of students in the sixth, seventh and eighth . grades. A good middle school supports the healthy growth and development of its students. While the school holds high expectations for all students academic achievement, educators are careful to see that programs are appropriate to young adolescent learners. What outcomes are expected after we make the change to middle schools? We expect to see middle school teachers use many different teaching strategies such as individual and group projects to keep students excited and interested in their classwork. Teachers will work together as teams. Each student will have a team of teachers who will address the students needs. Parents will be able to schedule a meeting with the team to discuss concerns related to the student's education. Students just leaving the warm, nurturing environment of elementary school will not feel lost in the crowd in middle school since they will be a part of a team. Where will ninth grade students goto school? Ninth grade students will move to the high school level. Flans are being developed to help ninth grade students, their parents and teachers make this transition a comfortable one for all involved. Who is putting together the middle school program? Several committees have been working for many months to develop specific plans for the middle school transition. Committees were formed to address issues related to: curriculum, instruction and assessment: student programs/services: high school transition\nstaff development\nhuman resources\nfamily/RECESfBS JUN 9 1998 Little Rock School District Middle School Steering Committee OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda June 9, 1998 Committee Reports II. 9^^ Grade Discussion III. Other IV. Next MeetingI i j .. i Q\u0026gt; f^Zsess -fo Se^ic^ j '^'-.'^fJcli/2^. ..K. Ji I rrvccJn da.^ S /la)G. \u0026amp;^r^^\u0026lt;d-)C:\u0026gt;c\u0026gt; L. i~ra. '.m L^r^ \u0026amp;\\/e. Ln\u0026amp;a. 1 I f^J . ^e.K-yic^s.. hccc/Hj..^ ..._^_d2r 11 Lin(^__ -hi rcso oL.^e_es^/^p\u0026lt;zapJc..,, ... ______ ___^o-Ai \u0026lt;^rd-z\u0026gt;~:h'.Q.n)__ ------^\u0026gt;\u0026lt;=hcc\u0026gt;ls. ~ a-p prac^s5 Kni^-hi pr- rc^rd,-i-na^ni JTffiS- m k:\u0026gt;i\u0026lt;.dd/n(^ 4 d^d^.d^Jy./dh.S-.dTtdyQr} yTj\u0026gt;S- P\u0026lt;gf4. 'ht\u0026gt;{ ^cA-e,\u0026lt;^n it I 4 s^rvicps . _iL_/^ODs JL i^p. in \u0026lt;s 4.6 A) SchaaJ '-dl^G.Stc/7C\u0026gt;_\u0026lt;o_ )rexr7~) r _____ dor}^.d^nii-pj:!i=.p. ------14hzij:^he^.\u0026amp;.cU(.c^., rryy^r.Q.d.e._3z) ^^ncLdo,} h\u0026amp;il/6 Pi^trohop -.. \\^6c\u0026gt;fr}municzO.~hc\u0026gt;n _, J rz\u0026gt;nme.n .. \u0026gt; W(xllc._-f-he. CHA.c,h.hea.li-h 4cfie/isr^lpa.i'C^Tis/6\u0026gt;/r)r\u0026gt;7o/i'f^.. ____heblth. ^rGn/n^ for ___^iiporis )r\\c.di4cjnz^ pr^r-arT)__________ , ___ fjrs'h.G.fd. /^ds. _ __ ^ cn^fcdcnCL pr^mbic haa-lfhy j^adir)^ ___Food.. fa Ir/...Kisflr^3s_ Fair___________ __........................................ . . ,,........... ___!.^^.si~Kcl^n3~. lnVc\u0026gt;l\\/e.friczriiii________ |: __i d^jL /:x. hi^dh^rz\u0026gt;C).t2::}_.prv^ /T3./7n .^SC-lf can ~h.rnec/.^ (bea. iib z cd^n fine53. po-c/^\u0026amp;f^}, ^-_/74tOc/ z^up dJjrjX^ PT) onii~z\u0026gt;r ri:,ar\u0026gt;n3_ _J22.^r^ _ cz.(ckj2.f^ I__ryii 'dd^ ^_..e^}\u0026lt;\u0026lt;src4Se..d:L/oZS................ .. . .. _.As - 5 c\u0026lt;.l:?.2\u0026gt;/ cLizJZ-d-^ I nj^5S ._ cxc-jn VI:.i S' i i i i i i I ! i^bynnj(^ ho/Tye (S) ^col/ . ^^0^7 Sr s-kn-j-Zy\"} _AL. fpy^.K^(cJdls_^hoo/ z^fj^e. a.ccess) I A-' Compic^-lc^ \u0026lt;z.h^cJo.-Du'i' p\u0026gt;rc\u0026gt;ci, _ ____ ________________ ___ H , 'U , Coon-'fhreaJ\u0026amp;n/n^ \"nO,!r)/r\u0026gt;^ ...iio.-.CxinnfXiuni^p^}is.o3.^_(^.y'p._K.ic\u0026gt;0S _.hc\u0026gt;ors.. ^.. S_._ \u0026lt;! cl_io^^rc_ s//TCsse.s_ . .. It.___ I i njrnj'ZJZj___Schcx:\u0026gt; l_, 4- \u0026lt;-'OOi^lZ on-a. ............. A- yp- l^.'^Pr-ilQ.!^.__________C._Z-).urc,Z^S- -Z^C-Or^rrio n i !! ._. CSo.rr\\e ) \"h fTic: rr3jr)^^.\u0026amp;tyero:i~SQb orc-he^ S-c/icc ! \u0026gt; I  nn m I iS^ i! oo/S -}) I (d::. p6C^\u0026lt;s^gtse hg/vf-fAy 1 ^LU'.Q.-j-/uei~hgU innacJels 'hs 4oo.k ._ itn-f-Zuen-ho^L^ :pOcJjncx.^_^pO^Lh l/gr // 5 I I 1 I I iI  rc^Lurces fbr ka^A\u0026amp;r'\n, 4 S'tuJcn'hs j ^.-JDclD.dc._\u0026lt;^TA ____.5U\" 5^spzr7d...ibc_ ruJes'L. fi\u0026gt;r_. CoorcHn^iMirJ jor' P^cJtc^ de-ue^lc^_/iQnavL:/i.vC.^^ri^n:i^2._ e^QCourcLje bo^tAjQsss^ /o I 1 o iclz^rrjun:f^l.ficn_d(r)^..^^ . OJ'-A~-.. A.^(\u0026gt;Loii , A:\u0026gt;r.._. Lcr\u0026gt;ol\u0026lt;^a^e ._________ ! I caryip^jh^r^ 'h^ ^cJqqo^s . .A.^dr^xin I ii J c in^- Cai:)lX4^z::h\\/e^P Oc:T~L\u0026lt;:\u0026gt;c\u0026gt;r^J- [ ^X-S/\u0026gt;XX2.iS -^e, rzsJ-i-Q!^___ z-fetcc./c, s y7i^_y75^ m (J n J-  hc\u0026gt; ........ ^-^.}^\u0026lt;o_^j^on L4::^ !_t::\u0026gt;(:)rcbr)Gd^/2i..jA)_j^^ __... ___cz2/C,,_y/5i:\u0026gt;)col rad~ion ________d'eojcJye^l ^'bL^f-..._^Af 'h^//'yecd_.dc jj------- _Cfe4i-hs'l'^ IC.C.CIAj' 1... -rt ? .' : *'*\u0026gt; 1 ^.. ___cl^a, \u0026amp; 1 \u0026gt;:.. -Fl ! I So/7c\u0026gt;e2 }ne\u0026amp;c/s. c^,^ -hr/n g :_. .a. bo oFL.b..l^bia\nb^F^ ,r,C,n\na^_-------------- 'p Scd)ee\u0026gt;/ ^Fccdei^-F^s^ ZLboe\u0026gt;F. \"Ldha.F .^... \u0026lt;Le)m.iyi a a / a J I! Carrin}^ .CJLC7 IC'F!^. __b^\\_jUzin i I A-L- -fc47col...hD:crj lynor^ cede. '\u0026gt;C-'^ ^o\u0026lt;iS- f=^ onc/t '-lfZ}yjLnzj?2Q^ -h. cX.G^r4-^f7D/-:^p3 I ATI One. -a\u0026lt;l -cno^ e.rzs aal^ c^ _ e ______ ^rCLcl\u0026lt;S._ OO I.. REC PC? f JUN 9 1998 A Middle School Is A Place That Provides ...  A. friendly, inviting, and academically challenging school climate.  Abundant opportunities to build positive relationships between and among students and teachers.  Small communities of learners where groups know each other well, and where learning experiences are interrelated and meaningful.  A caring adult advisor or mentor who knows and is concerned about each students academic progress and adjustment to school and life.  An enthusiastic staff that provides programs designed to help students reach their potential.  An environment that capitalizes on the curiosity and creativity of students and displays student projects, art work, and reports.  Flexible grouping of students to provide the best learning environment for students of varying abilities, interests, and rates of learning.  An activity program that encourages student participation in sports and interestcentered activities.  Extensive opportunities for students to explore, experiment, and discover.  A positive discipline program that guides students in becoming responsible for their own behavior.  Social experiences appropriate for the age level.  Partnership with families and communities.  A culture that celebrates human diversity and promotes tolerance among students and adults from diverse backgrounds.  Learning in grades 6-7-8.Needs/Characteristics of Young Adolescents Physical Needs/Characteristics 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Experience irregular growth spurts in physical development Experience fluctuations in basal metabolism causing restlessness and listlessness Have ravenous appetites Mature at varying rates of speed Highly disturbed by body changes Intellectual Needs/Characteristics 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Are highly curious Prefer active over passive learning experiences Relate to real-life problems and situations Are egocentric Experience metacognition (the ability to analyze complex thought processes) Psychological Needs/Characteristics 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Are often erratic and inconsistent in behavior Are highly sensitive to criticism Are moody, restless, and self-conscious Are optimistic and hopeful Are searching for identity and acceptance from peers Social Needs/Characteristics 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Are rebellious toward parents and authority figures Are confused and frightened by new school/social settings Are fiercely loyal to peer group values Are often aggressive and argumentative Need frequent affirmation of love from adults Moral and Ethical Needs/Characteristics 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Are idealistic Have strong sense of fairness Are reflective and introspective in thoughts and feelings Confront moral and ethical questions head on Ask large, ambiguous questions about the meaning of lifeThe Needs Of Students Must Shape The Development Of Educational Programs Students typically experience early adolescence from the ages 10-14. During this time, they have distinct physical, social, emotional, and intellectual needs. Recent evidence from medical science, psychology, and other areas has confirmed that this period is a critical time in human development. It is a time when dramatic changes occur in appearance, self-concept, and intellectual development. Because of these dramatic changes, young adolescents need the following:  A strong learning program that provides competence and achievement and that recognizes different styles and rates of learning.  A learning environment that recognizes the diversity of abilities and interests and rates of development.  Learning activities that provide for self-exploration and self-definition.  Learning activities that provide for meaningful participation in their schools and communities.  Organized opportunities that provide for positive social interaction with peers and adults.  Physical activities that address their rapid changes and their varied physiological needs.  Structure and clear limits that provide security and allow for learning and growth.Recommendations For Transforming Middle Level Schools In Accordance With The Carnegie Report ft 1. Create small communities for learning where stable, close, mutually respectful relationships with adults and peers are considered fundamental for intellectual development and personal growth. The key elements of these communities are schools- within-schools, students and teachers grouped together as teams, and small group advisories that ensure that every student is known well by at least one adult. 2. Teach a core academic program that results in students who are literate, who know how to think critically, lead a healthy life, behave ethically, and assume the responsibilities of citizenship in a pluralistic society. Youth service to promote values for citizenship is an essential part of the core academic program. 3. Ensure success for all students through the promotion of cooperative learning, a variety of teaching strategies that actively engage students in the learning process, flexibility in arranging instructional time, and adequate resources (time, space, equipment, and materials) for teachers. 4. Empower teachers and administrators to make decisions about the experiences of middle grade students through creative control by teachers over the instructional program linked to greater responsibilities for students performance, governance committees that assist the principal in designing and coordinating school-wide programs, and autonomy and leadership within teams to create environments tailored to enhance the intellectual and emotional development of all youth. 5. 6. Staff middle grade schools with teachers who are expert at teaching young adolescents and who have been specially prepared for assignment to the middle grades. Improve academic performance through fostering the health and fitness of young adolescents by providing a health coordinator in every middle grade school, access to health care and counseling services, and a health-promoting school environment. 7. Re-engage families in the education of young adolescents by giving families meaningful roles in school governance, communicating with families about the school program and students progress, and offering families opportunities to support the learning process at home and at the school. 8. Connect schools with communities, which together share responsibility for each middle grade student's success, through identifying service opportunities to ensure students access to health and social services, and using community resources to enrich the instructional program and opportunities for constructive after-school activities.Major Distinctions Between The Middle School And The Junior High School MIDDLE SCHOOL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1. Is student-centered\nspecifically designed to address needs of adolescents. Is subject-centered\nschool components function separately. 2. Focuses on interdisciplinary, high content curriculum that emphasizes thinking skills and hands-on authentic instruction. Focuses on mastery of concepts and skills in separate disciplines. 3. Thematic and interdisciplinary units closely related to the students real world and including complex skills and factual information.  Divided into academic and special subject areas separated by category. 4. Allows for flexible scheduling with large blocks of time. 5. Encourages multi-materials approach to instruction. 6. Uses varied delivery systems with high level of interaction among students and teachers. 7. Organizes teachers on interdisciplinary teams with common planning period. Requires a regular six/seven period day of 50 to 55-minute periods. Depends on textbook-oriented instruction. Uses lecture styles a majority of the time with high percentage of teacher talk time. Organizes teachers in departments with no common planning period. 8. Arranges classrooms of teamed teachers adjacent to one another. Arranges classrooms of teachers according to disciplines taught. 9. Each student is a member of an interdisciplinary team. Each student team shares a common team of teachers. Each student is an individual within the total school population. 10. Emphasizes both affective and cognitive development of student. Emphasizes only cognitive development of student. 11. Organizes athletics around intramural and/or interscholastic concept. Organizes athletics around interscholastic concept. 12. Health promoting environment. Provides linkages/access to health/social services. Augments resources for teachers and students. Health services generally provided by part-time nurse.RECEIVED community partnerships\nelementary transition\nathletics\nlogistical support\nand communications. Because of the many decisions which must he made, a long lead time is necessary. We don't have all of the answers yet, hut as parents, teachers and other committee members provide us (the communication committee) with information, we'll keepyou informed. Little Rock School District Soard of Directors Katherine Mitchell, Zone 1 Michael Daugherty, Zone 2 JudyMagne5S,Zone3 DE! JUL 2 7 1998 'C\nSpecialthankstoallofthe parents, teachers, administrators and other community residents who are volunteering theirtimeto this exciting and worthwhile endeavor. JohnA. Kiggs, IV,Zone4 Larry Berkley, Zone 5 Middle School Update Patricia Gee, Zone 6 Remember, our students will benefit as we work together to make middle schools successful in ourdistrict. Sue Strickland, Zone 7 Superintendent Dr. Leslie y. Carnine Information included from the National Middle School Association. Implementation in the Fall of 1999 Published by the Middle School Communication CommitteeThis brochure is the first in a series of publications which will provide some general information about middle schools and what the Little Rock School District is planning with regard to middle schools for the fall of1999. Whatare middle schools? A middle level school is a friendly and safe place that provides a challenging academic environment designed to address the needs of young adolescents in grades 6-7-0. How did our district decide to implement middle schools? During the strategic planning process, middle schools were recommended by parents, teachers and community residents who served on the middle school committee. The Little Rock School Board approved middle schools as part of the Strategic Plan and as a component of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Why should we institute middle schools in Little Rock? Young adolescents experience rapid growth and change - intellectually, socially, emotionally and physically - but they do not all grow at the same time or at the same rate. The result is a student population at any one grade level that may be of the same age but vastly different from one another. Young adolescents seem almost grown up one minute, then behave like children the next. Students in grades 6-7-0 especially benefit from educational experiences that match their varied rates and levels of development. Are we changing just forthe sake of change? No, we are developing a middle school program that will specifically address the needs of students in the sixth, seventh and eighth grades. A good middle school supports the healthy growth and development of its students. While the school holds high expectations for all students' academic achievement, educators are careful to see that programs are appropriate to young adolescent learners. What outcomes are expected after we make the change to middle schools? We expect to see middle school teachers use many different teaching strategies such as individual and group projects to keep students excited and interested in their classwork. Teachers will work together as teams. Each student will have a team of teachers who will address the students needs. Parents will be able to schedule a meeting with the team to discuss concerns related to the students education. Students just leaving the warm, nurturing environment of elementary school will not feel lost in the crowd\" in middle school s i nee they wi 11 be a pa ft of a tea m. Where will ninth grade students goto school? Ninth grade students will move to the high school level. Plans are being developed to help ninth grade students, their parents and teachers make this transition a comfortable one for ail involved. Who is putting together the middle school program? Several committees have been working for many months to develop specific plans for the middle school transition. Committees were formed to address issues related to: curriculum, instruction and assessment\nstudent programs/services\nhigh school transition\nstaff development\nhuman resources: family/SEVENTH GRADE COMMON TEAM PLANNING DOROTHY GANTZ, JACQUELINE mSE, SARAH POWERS AND WILLIS WINSTON The purpose from: Turnins Points Preparinz American Youth for the 21 st Century Carnegie Council On Adolescent Development Carnegie Corporation of New York, page 38. A better approach is to create teams of teachers and students who work together to achieve academic and personal goals for students. Teachers share responsibility for the same students and can solve problems together, often before they reach the crisis stage\nteachers report that classroom discipline problems are dramatically reduced through teaming. This community of learning nurtures bonds between teacher and student that are the building blocks of the education of the young adolescent. Teaming provides an environment conducive to learning by reducing the stress of anonymity and isolation on the students. (The Ejfects of Teaming on Students, Middle School Journal, Arhar, J.M. et.al.). Common planning by teachers of different subjects enables students to sense consistent expectations for them and to strive to meet clearly understood standards of achievement. Teaming creates the kind of learning environment that encourages students to grapple with ideas that may span several disciplines, and to create solutions to problems that reflect understanding, not memorization. Application: The effectiveness of teaming is reflected through curriculum, discipline, activities, communication and organization. Common team planning time has advantages for students, parents and faculty. It works for the following reasons: 1. COMMUNICATION a. Students can meet with all four teachers. Impacts academics, discipline, recruiting and evaluation. b. Parents can meet with all four teachers in a 50 minute period as opposed to four different times, (convenient and successful) c. Administrators can meet with all four teachers (possibly more) to coordinate school activities, classroom activities, and/or district-wide activities. d. Team preparation of curriculum, calendars for parents and students, planning team activities, mail outs, and team interim reports for all students each nine weeks can occur more effectively during common team plarming. 2. CURRICULUM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT a. Interdisciplinary lessons need common team planning to be successful and effective. b. Interdisciplinary activities also need common team planning to be successful and effective. c. Academic and Teaming field trips for all students need common team planning to be successful and effective.d. Scheduling and coordination of team activites, tests, projects, etc. is greatly enhanced by common team planning. 3. RECRUITING (necessary and essential) a. Every year all sixth grade Alpha students are given guided tours of the school facilities by program teachers. This past recruiting year, 26 different sixth grade tours were taken during common team planning time (no need for substitutes). b. Numerous parents and children have visited the team during common team planning on various occasions other than recruiting days listed above. c. Planning calendars, events and visits for recruiting during the common team planning have all contributed to the success of recruiting and filling slots in the TAG Specialty program. d. Meetings with administrators to plan recruiting during common team planning has been vital to the success of recruiting. 4. DISCIPLINE a. Team planning can be used to meet with individual students (\"hot seating\") and reduces discipline problems in the classroom. b. Meetings with groups of students having the same problem has proven to be an effective intervention strategy available because of the common team planning. c. Planning discipline strategies with parents, other teachers and administrators during common team planning has proven to be most effective and beneficial to all concerned. d. Referral meetings for further testing of students are easier for all (teachers, parents, counselors, and administrators) to attend. C Vcl/J-oaeNew Futures RECEIVED OCT 261998 DATE: October 27, 1998 TO: Middle School Steering Committee OFFICE OF desegregation MONITORING a FROM: RE: ia Young, New Futures Liaison and Restructuring Director Committee Recommendations of October 13, 1998 Please find enclosed the steering committee recommendations in the areas of athletics, professional development and curriculum standards. For Jr. High Principals: Your attachments were included in your Middle School Leadership Book. The modifications recommended at the meeting have been included in the final draft. I have also enclosed a copy of the memo sent to Dr. Carnine for your information. Thanks again to committee chairpersons Ann Blaylock, Gene Parker, and Wayne Knight for their outstanding leadership and commitment to middle level education. Thanks also to all members of each committee who worked so diligently to develop the excellent recommendations. The next Middle School Steering Committee meeting is Tuesday, November 17, 1998 at 4:30 p.m. in the Board Room, 810 West Markham. Hope to see all of you at the meeting! Attachments LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 To\nFrom: Through: OCTOBER 15.1998 Dr. Les Camine Linda Young Dr. Bonnie Lesley received OCT 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREfiAWmORWiS Re: Middle School Steering Committee Recommendations The Middle School Steering Committee met on Tuesday, October 13 and approved by consensus the recommendations of the following focus comminees: athletics, curriculum standards, and professional development. The reports from each committee are attached. During the discussion on the athletic recommendations, the issue of stipends for coaches, cheerleading sponsors and drill team sponsors was discussed at length. Tne committee requests that the District make every effort to equalize the stipends for these responsibilities. At this time, coaches receive a higher stipend than the cheerleading and drill team sponsors. The committee is aware that this issue is outside the charge and tasks assigned to the committee but requested that their concerns be shared with you through the cover letter. The current Board policy on interscholastic athletics, IDGC, and staff development, IBAA, will not require modification as a result of these recommendations. As the policy section on instruction is rcvdcwcd laler this year, some modifications may be considered for clarity or enhancement purposes. The curricuiura program standards are scheduled for Board presentation at the October meeting. The focus committee chairpersons, Ann Blaylock, staff development, Wayne Knight, athletics, and Gene Parker, curriculum, and their committees have worked countless hours to formulate these quality recommendations. Many teachers, administrators and parents have actively participated in shaping the work. Due to their commitment and leadership, the District has an excellent foundation, in these important middle level areas.RECESVEO OCT 261998 OFFICE OF desegregation momhorimg Administrative Procedures ON Middle School Athletics Submitted by the Middle School Athletic Committee Little Rock School District Little Rock Arkansas October 13,1998TABLE OF CONTENTS L Administrative Procedures on Middle School Athletics n. Membership in the Middle School Athletic Program HL Objectives of the Middle School Athletics Program IV. Administrative Responsibilities of Principals and Cbaches V. Title IX Statement VL Player Participation and Eligibility Vn. Administrative Procedure for Individual Sports or Activities A. Basketball B. Cheerieading C. Drill Team D. Football E.Golf F. Soccer G. Spirit Squad H. Tennis I. Track J. Volleyball VDI. Middle School Athletic CommitteeI. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ON MIDDLE SCHOOL ATHLETICS 1. The Little Rock School District shall establish and conduct an interscholastic athletic program for middle school students to include sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. The athletic program will consist of one (1) football team\none (1) volleyball team\ntwo (2) basketball (boys and girls) teams, two (2) track (boys and girls) teams, one (1) co-ed soccer team, one (1) co-ed golf team, one (1) co-ed tennis team, one (1) cheerleader squad, one (1) drill team, and one (1) sixth grade spirit squad Middle schools will be encouraged to organize pep dubs to allow interested students the opportunity to become more directly and actively involved in the support of their schools athletic teams. The golf and tennis teams will be non-competitive with the primary focus being on the introduction of these life sports to the middle school student and the development of the basic skills necessary to enj oy and participate in these sports. In addition, middle schools will be encouraged to organize dubs focusing on other leisure activities. Junior varsity teams will be established in all sports to provide skills development for sixth grade athletes. 2. Middle school athletics shall be administered as a segment of the schools curriculum under the supervision of the athletic director and administration of the Little Rock School District, and under the direction of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District 3. The athletic program shall be for the benefit of all middle school students. All athletic contests shall, therefore, be plaimed and executed in a mannor that will make an educational contribution to the lives of the partidpants and spectators. This shall indude proper gamo administration, scheduling of contests, and competent ofiSdating. The athletic program shall be conducted in conformity with sound educational, administrative, and athletic prindples, thus giving reasonable assurance that the pregram contributes significantly to the purpose of education.4. Athletic competition for seventh and eighth graders shall be limited to schools in Pulaski County. All participating schools shall be approved members of the Arkansas Activity Association and shall administer the schools athletic program in conformity with the policy and procedures of the Association, and according to directives of the athletic director and the administration of the Little Rock School District, and the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District 5. Athletic competition for sixth graders shall be limited to the middle schools of the Little Rock School District Sixth grade students may not participate in competitive, school sanctioned, athletic events with or against seventh or eighth graders. All participating schools shall be approved members of the Arkansas Activity Association and shall administer the schools athletic program in conformity with the polity and procedures of the Association, and according to directives of the athletic director and the administration of the Little Rock School District, and the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School DistrictII, MEMBERSHIP IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL ATHLETIC PROGRAM 1. Membership in the middle school athletic program shall be limited to Little Rock School District middle schools. 2. The Little Rock School District middle school athletic program shall consist of the following member schools: Cloverdale Academy Middle School, Dunbar Magnet Middle School, Forest Heights Middle School, Henderson Magnet Middle School, Mablevale Middle School, Mann Magnet Middle School, Pulaski Heights Middle School, and Southwest Middle School 3. Member schools will be aligned into two divisions. Forest Heights, Henderson, Mablevale, and Pulaski Heights will be members of the Northern Division. The Southern Division will consist of Cloverdale, Dunbar, Mann, and Southwest Factors taken into account when determining division assignments were the geographic locations of the campuses within the district, the continuation of existing rivalries, as well as consideration for competitive balance within each division. 4. The divisional format will be used for championship play in footbaU, volleyball, boys and giris basketball, and soccer. It will not be implemented in boys and giris track or any type of spirit group competition.in. OBJECTIVES OF THE MIDDLE SCHOOL ATHLETICS PROGRAM It shall be the objectives of the middle school athletic program to: 1. Provide the opportunity for all Little Rock School District middle school students who desire to do so, to be directly involved in the interscholastic a\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_639","title":"Newsletters, Scattered issues","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":["1994/2001"],"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 management and organization","School improvement programs","School employees","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Newsletters, Scattered issues"],"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/639"],"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\nIncludes: Home and School (1998-2002\n4 issues)\nLRSD News (August/September 2003)\nNews and Views (September 1994-May 5, 1997)\nParent Talk (October 1990)\nUpdate (spring 2003)\nand \"\"A Progress Report on the Little Rock School District, 2000-2001 School Year,\"\" Arkansas Democrat-Gazette(October 31, 2001)\nHome \u0026amp; School FIRST QUARTER 98-99 CONNECTION District Unveils New Programs and Initiatives for 1998-99 School Year Our schools are experiencing many positive changes this schoolyear. School and district leaders are implementing new programs and other initiatives designed to improve student achievement and to better serve the residents of Little Rock. We are instituting campus leadership at all schools this year. Campus leadership allows a team at each school to set school goals and establish ways to measure progress toward these goals. Specific results expected from campus leadership are: - improved student performance: - improved community involvement in the school improvement process\n- clearly established accountability parameters for student performance: - raised staff productivity and satisfaction\n- improved communication and information flow\n- consensus-based, effective decisions: - increased flexibility for schools to allocate resources\n- coordination of program components. Each school is forming a campus leadership team this fall. The team will include parents, teachers, principal and neighborhood representatives. Please feel free to visit with your principal for information about the campus leadership initiative and how you can be involved. Another major program we are working on this fall is middle schools. You will find articles with more information on middle schools in this issue. Please note that we will implement middle schools in the fall of 1999. That means that fifth and sixth grade students thisyear will move to middle schools next fall where grades six. seven and eight will be taught. This year's eighth and ninth grade students will move to high schools next fall which will serve grades 9-12. Parents, teachers and administrators are working diligently to prepare for middle schools next _year. Middle schools are much more than changing the grade levels within the school buildings. We are overhauling our curriculum and student support services to provide the best education possible for our students. The articles on pages 2 and 3 describe how your child will benefit from middle school education. A third major initiative this fall is CONTINUED ON PAGE 4 INSIDE . . Davis Named LRSD Coach of the Year Marcus Davis, coach and 8\"' grade health and RE. teacher at Cloverdale lunior High Academy, was named Little Rock School District Coach of the Year for 1997-98. Cloverdale's boys basketball, girls volleyball and girls track teams have all enjoyed success under Davis leadership.  Middle Sclw^'ITClpc^c-- pgs___  School.' j^paIs TisL\"'xQj^ '\\ pg. 4  Hall .2-3  Nevy^^V'  Voliml^r  HeaflTi' ahs- 4 ,. 5 ,. 5 Principal Cassandra Norman described the winning coach as an exemplaiy person as well as an exemplary educator: Marcus' instructional ability goes far beyond teaching students the skills of sport. He teaches them skills for successful living.\" Davis' record of achievement for the 1997-98 school year included Cloverdale's administrative MARCUS DAVIS  SchooKCpi  Public 9a PS- 7 pg- 7 award, Teacher of the Year. Students see Davis as a tough, by-the-book, but fair, teacher. Fellow staff members see him as a model educator who maintains a clear picture of where he is and where he is headed, and as one who is admired and respected by all. 'implementation I N THE FALL O F 19 9 9 What is guiding the development of the middle schools in Little Rock? Parents, teachers and district staff are working in committees to design the middle schools. Our plan is based on the Turning Points\" model developed by the Carnegie Council of Adolescent Development. This plan evolves from the idea that young adolescents face many opportunities, or turning points, during the ages of 10-15. These turning points\" are: - Teaching a core of common knowledge: Every student in the middle grades should learn to think critically through mastery of an appropriate body of knowledge, lead a healthy life, behave ethically and lawfully, and assume the responsibilities of citizenship in a pluralistic society. - Ensure success for all students: Al I young adolescents should have the opportunity to succeed in every aspect of the middle grade program, regardless of previous achievement or the pace at which they learn. - Empower teachers and administrators\nDecisions concerning the experiences of middle grade students should be made by the adults who know them best. - Improve academic performance through better health and fitness: Young adolescents must be healthy in order to learn. - Reengage families in the education of young adolescents: Families and middle grade schools must be allied through trust and respect ifyoung adolescents are to succeed in school. - Connect schools with communities\nResponsibility for each middle grade students success should be shared by schools and community organizations. Will magnet junior high schools convert to middle schools next year? Yes, the magnet junior high schools will become middle schools next year, as will all of our junior high schools. Parents may apply for magnet schools or transfers as they presently do. Magnet school applications/assignments will not change. Published by the Middle School Communication Committee Which grades will be taught at each level? Kindergarten through fifth grades will be in elementaiy schools: grades 6-8 will be in middle schools: and grades 9-12 will be in the high schools. My child wants to participate in after-school activities next year. How will these be organized in the middle schools? Parents, teachers and administrators are developing a wonderful program of sports (both intramural and interscholastic) and other extracurricular activities. The middle school philosophy addresses more than just academic needs of children - health and fitness are important aspects of a childs well-being. How will the ninth grade students fit\" into the high school buildings? District staff members are visiting high schools in early September to determine the exact capacity which exists in each of the high school buildings. Some students in 12th grade may enroll in the Accelerated Learning Center which opened this fall. This program helps students who are veiy close to meeting graduation reouirements - but who may have family and work commitments which prevent their finishing school - to accelerate their pace toward graduation. (For more information on the accelerated program, please call Carol Green at 570-4043 or Alicia Finch at 570-1400.) Will ninth grade classrooms be isolated from other grades in the high school setting? It is our intent that they will be housed in a specific area unless their course work repuires them to attend class in a specialized area, such as band or art classes or a science lab. Committees are working on the transition of students into the high schools and logistics of the move. Parents concerns about their children are paramount in this planning process, and we will structure the high schools, as well as all other schools, with safety of the students as one of our top priorities. Brown Bag Lunches Bringyour ideas to conversations on middle schools in the LRSD Board room, 810 W. Markham - FROM NOON - I P.M. - TUESDAY. OCT. 27 THURSDAY, NOV. 19Home \u0026amp; School Connection ^Bchool. UpxlaCc What are the major differences between middle schools and junior high schools? MIDDLE SCHOOL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Pages THE PRUDENTIAL SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY AWARDS Is student-centered\nspecifically Is subject-centered\nschool designed to address needs of components function separately, adolescents. Focuses on interdisciplinary, high Focuses on masteiy of concepts and content curriculum that emphasizes skills in separate disciplines. thinking skills and hands-on authentic instruction. Thematic and interdisciplinaiy units Divided into academic and special closely related to the student's real subject areas separated by categoiy. world and including complex skills and factual information. Allows for flexible scheduling with large Reouires a regular six/seven period day blocks of time. of 50-55 minute periods. Encourages multi-materials approach to Depends on textbook-oriented instruction. instruction. Organizes teachers on interdisciplinaiy Organizes teachers in departments with teams with common planning period. no common planning period. Arranges classrooms of teamed Arranges classrooms of teachers teachers adjacent to one another. according to disciplines taught. Organizes athletics around intramural Organizes athletics around and/or interscholastic concept. interscholastic concept. Promotes healthy environment, Health services generally provided by providing links/access to health/social part-time nurse, services. For more information about LRSD middle schools, please contact Linda Young at 324-2112, or visit the LRSD web site at www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Special thanks to all of the parents, teachers, administrators and other community residents who are volunteering their time to this exciting and worthwhile endeavor. Information included from the National Middle School Association. Remember, our students will benefit as we work together to make middle schools successful in our district. Help us honor middle-level and high school youth for their volunteer community service! More than 600 awards Each states top middlelevel and high school youth volunteer receives $1,000, a silver medallion and a trip to Washington, D.C., for recognition ceremonies In Washington, Americas top five middle-level and five high school volunteers of the year are named, each receiving $5,000, a gold medallion and trophy Application deadline is October 30 Prudential, in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals For information: Contact school principals Visit our web sites: htlp://www.prudential.com, or WWW. nassp. org/services/awards.htmHome \u0026amp; School Connection Page 4 Principals for i998-99 School Year Hall High Planning for University School SENIOR HIGH Central ............. |.A. Fair............. Hall ................... McClellan......... Parkview............ . Rudolph Howard William Broadnax ... Gayle Bradford .......lodie Carter ..Dr. Linda Brown Vocational Technical Center Metropolitan Michael Peterson lUNIOR HIGH Cloverdale Academy Dunbar.................... Forest Heights........ Henderson.............. Mabelvale................ Mann....................... Pulaski Heights....... Southwest............... Cassandra Norman .....Deborah Beriy .......Vernon Smith lames Washington .... lames Fullerton ..Dr. Brenda lames ... Nang/Rousseau .............|im Mosby The Hall High University School, opening on the Hall High campus in the 1999-2000 school year, is a joint effort with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to enable Hall High students to take concurrent college credit courses at Hall and UALR. Many of the courses will be taught with an Advanced Placement curriculum by Hall teachers while other courses will be taught by UALR professors. Initially, courses will be taught on the Hall High campus for maximum convenience of the students. Marilyn Brewster, Assistant ELEMENTARY Badgett............ Bale.................. Baseline.......... Booker............. Brady............... Carver.............. Chicot.............. Cloverdale....... Dodd............... Fair Park.......... Forest Park...... Franklin............ Fulbright......... Garland............ Geyer Springs.. Gibbs.............. lefferson........... King.................. Mabelvale........ McDermott..... Meadowclilf..... Mitchell........... Otter Creek..... Pulaski Heights Rightsell......... Rockefeller...... Romine............ Teriy................. Wakefield........ Washington..... Watson............ Western Hills .. Williams........... Wilson............. Woodruff......... ...........Mary Golston .... Barbara Anderson .............Eleanor Cox ....Dr. Cheryl Carson ..............Ada Keown ......Diane Barksdale ..............lane Harkg .......Frederick Fields ..........Faith Donovan ...Dr. Samuel Branch ....Theresa Courtney ...........Ethel Dunbar .... Deborah Mitchell .............Lionel Ward ..............Donna Hall ...........Felicia Hobbs .............Susan Beard ...........Tyrone Harris .......Tabitha Phillips .........Virgina Ashig/ ..............Terry Worm .................Lillie Scull ............lanice Tucker .............Lillie Carter .........Sharon Brooks .........Anne Mangan ............Sharon Davis ..............Nang Acre Mag lane Cheatham ..........Gwen Zeigler ........Michael Oliver ...........Scott Morgan ..........Mag Menking ...........Beverly Iones ....Pat Higginbotham Principal, has been designated as the Universiy School Coordinator. She will be working with UALR during the 1998- 99 school year to finalize courses to be offered for college credit. It is anticipated that the courses will cover the spectrum of academic areas in English, history, foreign languages, art and science. A complete list of concurrent credit courses will be published and distributed to parents throughout the city. Research shows that increasingly it takes students more than four years to complete a college degree. The University School will give Hall students a chance to complete hours of college credit while still in high school. This program will save mong/ for families by shortening the time required to complete a post-secondary degree program. Students can begin accumulating college credit without the expense of room and board at an institute of higher learning. Courses accepted by UALR for credit and posted on the students permanent college transcript should be transferable to other institutions of higher learning. The Hall High University School is modeled after a program in Wichita Falls, TX. As with the Wichita Falls program, it is anticipated that pledges of financial support being sought from area businesses will make possible the granting of scholarships for either reduced tuition rates or full tuition paid. Aid will be based on financial need. Applicants will be screened for aid by Hall High School. Hall students who want to participate in the University School must meet the admissions requirements of UALR. They must have a 2.5 GPA and make a composite score of 21 on the ACT. Once admitted to the University School and UALR, students will have access to all the facilities available on the UALR campus. The Hall High staff is excited about the establishment of the University School and will be happy to provide additional information upon request. Interested patrons should call University School Coordinator Marilyn Brewster at 671-6209 or Principal Gayle Bradford at 671-6203. New Programs FROM PAGE I SPECIAL PROGRAMS Alternative Learning Ctr. Accelerated Learning Ctr ... Lloyd Sain Carol Green the announcement of new school assignment zones. A school is more successful when the surrounding neighborhood supports the school. By redrawing school assignment zones children will be able to attend a school close to their homes. Schools will benefit by increased parent involvement due to convenience associated with a shorter commute to attend meetings and other schoolevents. Students can still request transfers to other schools and apply for specialized programs, such as magnets. when the new zones are in place. The major proposal would be the elimination of \"satellite zones\" which were established to desegregate schools. Currently, satellite zones do not have a desegregative benefit and result in longer bus rides for children. The committee which is developing new school attendance zones is comprised of parents, district staff and other interested parties. One of the issues the committee is addressing is allowing children to continue at the school they presently attend\nthis is called \"grandfathering. A final recommendation on this is expected in the next few weeks.Home \u0026amp; School Connection Pages Cloverdale Academy Host to St. Vincent Health System and The Partnership fora Healtly with health and wellness programs through the school's New Clinic Community has opened a free community clinic at Cloverdale junior High Academy. Clinic hours will be 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. each Tuesday. \"The clinic has a dual mission: first, we want to reach theyoung people and teaching staff at Cloverdale junior High Academy. Second, we want to touch the lives of the Southwest Little Rock community,\" said Melonese Clarke, RN, Director of Health Promotion and Community Outreach for St. Vincent. \"The Cloverdale junior High Community Clinic is one-of-a-kind in that we will have the opportunity to reach the students 1*^ I )( Celebrating Cloverdale Academy's new clinic opening arc (front, l-r) Liz Lacker. LRSD: Superintendent Les Carnine\nprincipal Cassandra Norman: NLR Fire Chief Bill Nolan: city director Linda loyce: Melonese Clarke. St. Vincent Health System RN: and Sister Carole Kaucic. also of St. Vincent Health System. curriculum. In this way, we hope to alter habits that can adversely affect teenagers' health before they become ingrained into their lifestyles. There is no better way to fulfill St. Vincent's mission to the community than to offer this type of clinic for students and their families.\" \"We are encouraged about the partnership between St. Vincent Health System, the Partnership for a Healthy Community and the Little Rock School District,\" said Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent of the Little Rock School District. \"This will be very beneficial for our students and the surrounding community as well.\" Services offered at Cloverdale include: a disease management program focused on such diseases as diabetes, asthma and hypertension: education on such topics as osteoporosis, nutrition, obesity and its effects on the body, preventive care, breast self examination, importance of prostate examinations, cancer warning signs, seat belt use, violence prevention, HIV and AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, stress management and other topics. Immunizations, vision and dental screenings, counseling, exercise prescription, and other health-related services will also be provided. This is the second free clinic established in a predominantly under-served area by St. Vincent and the Partnership for a Healthy Community. In july a free clinic opened at Glenview Recreation Center in North Little Rock. \\ V* Gearing Up to Volunteer in Public Schools A new school year has started, and the need for volunteers is as great as ever. If you haven't signed up to volunteer at your child's school, please do so now. Whether you want to read to a child, mentor a child who needs a friend, chaperone a field trip or speak to a class, your child's school will match you up with an appropriate volunteer activity. Please remember to sign in at the off ice on the VIPS form when you arrive at the school to volunteer. 11 is increasingly important to capture our volunteer hours. Many people consider the number of volunteer hours at a school when they are selecting a school for their child. VIPS will sponsor another day of reading thisyear. Please sign up to read to an elementaiy school class on Tuesday, November 17,1998. We want to have even more readers in the schools this yearl Forms are available at your child s school or by calling the VIPS office. The Vital Link program this summer placed SOO sixth graders in one-week internships in local businesses. The students and the business volunteers who worked with them had an exciting OPPORTUNITIES ONGOING Tutoring, mentoring, listening to a child read, reading to a child, providing clerical assistance in an office, working in a health room, providing hands-on assistance to a teacher during Nifty Nutrition class, providing hands-on assistance to Fulbright Elcmentaiy's art program SATURDAYS Providing assistance to the students working in the WoodrutT community/ garden SFASONAL Reading to elementary students during Reading Day (November 17, 1998). assisting with the annual Mentor's Picnic (May), assisting with Field Days (May). opportunity to learn together. Be sureyour sixth grader signs up for the program next summer. Applications will be available in the spring. Don't hesitate to call the VIPS office at 324-2290 if you have any Questions regarding volunteer programs in the district. Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 6 Our Goal - Healthy Kids HEALTH NOTES SERVICES OF YOUR SCHOOL NURSE The professional school nurse provides health services to the school age child by promoting and protecting their optimal health through health assessment, counseling, screening and education. Frequently the nurse is the case manager for students with chronic health problems. She also identifies health risk behaviors such as substance abuse and disabilities. The school nurse encourages you to utilize these services. She can help be an important provider of health care for your child. SCREENING SCHEDULE BY GRADE K - Hearing, vision, height and weight I - Hearing, vision, height and weight 2 - Height and weight 3 - Hearing, vision, height and weight 4 - Blood pressure, height and weight 5 - Hearing, vision, height and weight. Scoliosis-girls only 6 - Scoliosis - all students, height and weight 7 - Hearing - all students. Scoliosis - girls only 8 - Blood pressure - all students. Scoliosis-all students 9- Scoliosis-girls only 10 - Vision, blood pressure and Scoliosis on all students IMMUNIZATIONS Arkansas law requires that eveiy student enrolled in school be adeq.uately immunized against Diptheria, Tetanus, Polio, Measles and Rubella. Students born after November 21,1991 must also be immunized against HIBS if they are under five years of age and immunized against Hepatitis B. Students entering the Little Rock School District must present an immunization record to the school before he/she may attend. In seventh grade a second MR is required by State Law. J ~ LRSD Health Services Office ~ Nutrition Education Benefits the Entire Family By Rosalyn Scruggs, Nutrition Education Coordinator How many times have you asked someone, \"What's for dinner?\" Or wondered what quick dish you could put together that eveiyone would eat? How frustrating! Why not involve the family ___ in planning the groceiy shopping, planning the menus and preparing the food? Children can be a tremendous asset toward helping to plan the groceiy list and the menus. Providing adequate nutrition for the family can be a learning experience. Children learn on various levels about the importance of nutrition and how it affects the body. Teaching children about nutrition can start as early as kindergarten. Nutrition education in public schools helps to build the bridge between the cafeteria and the classroom. The teacher in the planning of meals for the family. Setting aside time to go to your child's school can be beneficial for the parent and the child. Students not only learn about food, but they also learn new words, math facts and experience special science activities that are related to nutrition. Many other aspects of nutrition are relevant to the family. These include food safety and sanitation which mostly revolve around eating out at fast food has the responsibility of challenging students to I learn about various foods f and how these foods provide nutrition for restaurants establishments. and other dining their bodies. The essential proteins. vitamins, fats, and carbohydrates have a vital role in building healthy bodies through a proper balance of nutrition and daily exercise. Parents are encouraged to discuss what they have learned in school about nutrition through actively involving them The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is sponsoring Team Nutrition in all schools across the country. Team Nutrition involves students, teachers, parents, and the community in the role of helping to ensure our students are receiving healthy meals. Families are challenged to eat five servings a day of fresh fruits and vegetables. This challenge is to maintain a healthy body. Take the challenge and make good nutrition and exercise vital parts of your family's well being. Eveyone benefitsiHome \u0026amp; School Connection Page? Schools + Parents, Families \u0026amp; Communities = Success Children succeed when learning is supported by schools working together with parents, families, and linking communities. Parents' participation and community involvement may take place in many ways. Listed are some basic tips from programs that work.  All parents and families want the best for their children and can help them be successful.  Good family involvement programs do not always reQuire new or additional money.  Peop Ie and organ izations wi 11 stretch to meet the needs of the program in creative and innovative ways.  Children do best when parents play four key roles in their children's learning:  teachers (helping children at home)\n supporters (volunteering at school):  advocates (helping children receive fair treatment): and  decision-makers (participating in joint problem-solving at school). (Henderson and Berla. 1994) Arkansas Public Schools Week OCTOBER 4-10, 1998 The fourth annual Arkansas Public Schools Week will be held October 4-iO, i998. The celebration is sponsored by the Arkansas Chapter of the National School Public Relations Association. The purpose of this week-long celebration of Arkansas' public schools is to give the community an opportuni^ to see firsthand the wonderful programs and opportunities available in the schools. School staff and administrators are encouraged to plan activities that will motivate community A major provision of the \"reauthorized\" Elementaiy and Secondaiy Education Act (ESEA). Title I. 1994. is the requirement that each Title I school develops a school-parent compact (learning compact). Schools receiving Title I funds (schoolwide and targeted assistance) must have on file a school-parent learning compact for each student. A compact is a written agreement that clearly states eveiyone's role in helping students meet district and state standards. A compact may include\n(I) how expectations of schools and parents are met\n(2) how clear school goals and rules are practiced\n(3) how teachers and students will work together: and (4) how schools and parents will share information. Schools that have used partnerships experienced an overall improved school atmosphere, parent participation, family support services, student study habits, and communication among teachers, parents and the school. There is no standard way to write a compact. However, a school-parent compact is required to include a school's responsibility to provide high-quality ARKANSAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS THE HEART OF OUR COMMUNITY Cefyrlglu C/gft. Chafltr o/rh, NallMul School Mlle Helallam^itoeolloe. support and further promote strong schoolcommunity collaboration. Parents and volunteers are invited to support their school(s) by lending a helping hand at activities planned by staff. curriculum and instruction\ndescribe ways in which parents will be responsible for supporting their childrens learning, such as monitoring attendance, homework completion and television watching: and address the importance of continuous two-way communication between teachers and parents. Compacts should become active tools in the operation of schools. Thg, may be used to describe expectations, plan training activities, help school personnel clarify efforts, and help teachers, parents and students make choices about how they spend their time. The compact should be reviewed annually for its effectiveness and, where necessarj', changed. Parents are encouraged to participate in the development of the school learning compact. For additional information, please contact the Little Rock School District Office of Federal Programs at 324-2110. 24 Named National Merit Semifinalists Twenty-four Little Rock School District students were recently named National Merit Semifinalists. These students will now compete for scholarships from the National Merit Scholarship Corporation and its sponsors. The students are\nSarah Argue, Lauren Autrey, Laura Beaton, Lauren Carter, |ohn Chamberlin, Thomas Deere, Amanda Dees, Evin Demirel, Ross Glotzbach, Elizabeth Holland, Shannon Keith, Patrick Kennedy, Katherine Laning, Maribeth Mock, Cynthia Nance, Courtney Nosari, Catherine Oswald. Carter Price, Kelli Roark, Elayna Wells and Christopher Wheat from Central High School\nand Mark Burling, )ami Harrison and Mark Thiedeman from Parkview Magnet High School. Home \u0026amp; School CONNECTION Home \u0026amp; School Connection is published by the Little Rock School District to provide busy parents and guardians with practical ideas that promote school success, parent involvement and more effective parenting. Communications Office 810 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (SOI) 324-2020 http://www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Home \u0026amp; School Connection IJ Little Rock School District SIOW. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TO THE PARENTS OF: ANDREW BROWN 1201 WELCH ST UTILE ROCK AR 72202-40(52 LRSD Graduates Receive Scholarships for Judo Shaun Burns, a graduate of Parkview, and B.). Bosah, a Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 1367 Little Rock, AR Page 8 - relationship helps children learn and gives volunteers a fulfilling way to make a difference in the life of a child. \"What an inspiration these children have provided me,\" says one volunteer. \"Their interest in learning as new skills are graduate of |.A, Fair, accepted full judo scholarships at introduced continue to prove our time does make a Southern Illinois University (^4\nU.) beginning Fall liK?8. differeneel\" Burns and Bosah both studied at the Little Rock judo Center Each tutor participates in an initial 11/2 hour orientation (LR|C) over the past s^ral years under the direction of and training. After the initial assessment is made tutors are Gaiy Norton, coach Mann Magnet Junior High, and Eric asked to spend 30 minutes a week with kindergarten students Baker. The S-yea^-qld LR|C Serves as an after school or 45 minutes a week with first and second grade students, program for stud^ts ip Little Rock School District and Those interested in tutorii from Central Arkansas. Burns and Bo^V are both ranked at the lop of their respective weighttM^ries nationally and have trained at program coordina^J^ atJefferson should contact the .! the U.S. Ol^jiipy^hipg Center in Colorado Springs, Studcnt Vtolcn^ Colorado. J j i , All of the nmhlems rt nw 1^0 program thisyear and has expressed relationship with the Little Rock S.I.U. f( interest in t |udo Centei Reading lefferson future athletes. :s Key to Suciress \"This time (ifcdina tutoring) has fed my soul and I am so proud of my stMdU^rogress,\" states Debbie Coates, one of the thirty-fi^rreeaafl flfe tutors who volunteered last 39.^1 in th Nations Schools All of the problems rooted in the home and on the street walk through the schoolhouse doors evegr day. Overall, about one school crime is reported lOO students. Of these, 95 percent are nonviolent fWpercent are serious .violent aimcs such as rape, robbery, battery or involving a weapon - five violent crimes for, every fO,0OQ students. Nearly percent of all students report some type of formal school violence prevention or reduction program. Data Illustrates that there students incur violent,acts at home than at school. In many places, sch^ \u0026gt;v^e the safest place. the most nourlSffig rr^s, tbelhi ist si^ortive environment, year at Jefferson Elemc.^,,^th.,p^o.k,.. Beginning its second ' the most nurturinMlaults ,5^ - esUfcalth care that children year, Jefferson STARS (Stut^^nts Taiget and Successfully) is a structured volunteer reading tutoring a , .   c program targeting at-risk kindergarten through seepfjradeT School Administrators Newsletter students. It is designed to enable student?to iftd^nd j comprehend at grade level by the beginning tai\nnts taiget and Achii As printed in the STARS program volunteers create wonderful partnerships with the children they tutor. The one-on-one Home \u0026amp; School SECOND QUARTER 1 999-2000 CONNECTION PTA Membership Increases 34% Membership in the PTA in Little Rock schools climbed dramatically this fall. The Little Rock PTA Council announced that LRSD schools recruited a total of 16,453 PTA members. This is a 34 percent increase over total PTA membership last year. Sixteen schools reported to the PTA Council that they have achieved 100 percent membership, which means a PTA member for every child enrolled as of Oct. 1 at the school. The schools reporting 100 percent PTA membership are: Bale, Booker, Carver, Dodd, Forest Park, Fulbright, Gibbs, Jefferson, Martin Luther King, McDermott, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Western Hills, Williams, Mann Magnet, and Pulaski Heights Middle School. Three other schools reported to the Arkansas PTA that they had 100 percent membership\nthese schools are Cloverdale Elementary, Garland SEE PTA ON PAGE 3 INSIDE . .  Preventing Illness pg- 2  Enrollment, Open Houses pg. 2 After School Programs  Dropout Prevention Volunteer Update  Graduation Schedule pg- 4 pg- 5 pg- 5 pg- 6 District Receives Arkansas Quality Award The Little Rock School District was one of 53 organizations or companies and the only school district in the state to receive a 1999 Arkansas Quality Award. The district received the Quality Interest Award, the starting point for any organization expressing interest in adopting and applying quality principles as defined by the seven categories of the Arkansas Quality Award Criteria. As well as the recognition, each organization received written feedback citing strengths and areas that need improvement in its quality Schools Present Repair/Renovation Needs at Public Meetings During five nights of public meetings in late November and early December, parents, teachers and principals outlined specific repairs, additions and renovations needed at the districts 50 schools. The list of needs was probably not a surprise to School Board and audience members in attendance since 10 years have passed since the community last voted for a millage increase for the Little Rock School District. Among the most frequently noted problems were school restroom facilities that are outdated. LRSD School Board President Sue Strickland receives the award from Gov. Mike Huckabee. management program. Other award categories are: Quality Commitment Award, designed for organizations that have progressed to a point of demonstrating a serious SEE QUALITY ON PAGE 3 inoperative or beyond repair\nroof leaks\ninadequate heating and cooling systems\nand need for additional classrooms. We are compiling the lists of building needs that the school campus leadership teams developed and will present these funding requirements to the School Board in January, said superintendent Les Carnine. It was important that parents and teachers help us to identify their schools needs since they are the ones using the buildings every day.  Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 2 Prevention, Education - the Best Medicine With medical expenses increasing every year and with chronic diseases on the rise, prevention is key to staying healthy. This applies to both our students and our staff. Parents, school nurses and staff need to be proactive in this area. VARICELLA Of special importance to parents of children in our 4-year- old and preschool programs is the new Health Department requirement for Varicella vaccine by January, 2000 for the prevention of chickenpox. Chickenpox disease can range from very mild to very severe and can even result in death from complications. This is a highly contagious viral disease which many times may result in scars, seven to ten days out of school and other medical complications. Besides being a new requirement, the vaccine is recommended for children and adults who do not have a history of the disease. We encourage you to check with your physician or local health department to receive this vaccine. SCOLIOSIS Did you know that it is a state law (House Bill 1031) that school students be screened for the condition of scoliosis? If found early, scoliosis is easier to treat, and treatment is more likely to be successful. The name scoliosis means crooked, and this condition affects the spine. Starting with fifth grade girls, boys and girls are screened at significant points in their development. Students are referred to a physician for further evaluation if they have a scoliometer reading greater than 5 degrees. This screening is 95% completed in the LRSD for the year 1999-2000. HEPATITIS B VACCINE Hepatitis B is a virus that causes an infection in the liver. The disease is a widespread major health problem across the United States and can be life-threatening. Hepatitis B is significantly more infectious than the HIV virus that causes AIDS. Starting in 1991, hepatitis B vaccination was recommended for all newborns. Now, the Centers for Disease Control has recommended catchup immunizations for all adolescents. Since adolescents average less than one medical visit each year and are approaching the time in their lives when they are at greater risk, school-based vaccination programs are an ideal way to protect this vulnerable segment of the population. The Pulaski County Health Department and LRSD school Student Registration Office Announces 2000'2001 Schedule The LRSD Student Registration Office has announced its schedule for the 2000-2001 registration process. If you have any questions about the registration process, please call 324-2272. Jan. 8 Jan.10 Jan.18 Jan. 18 - 19 Jan. 20 Jan. 24 - Feb. 4 Magnet School Fair - Park Plaza Mall Elementary Open House Middle School Open House Check Us Out School Tours High School Open House March 1 March 6 March 6 - 17 April 5 June 2 - July 28 Registration (Open Enrollment Period for Kindergarten, Transfer, Magnet School, 4-year-old and New Students) Assignment letters mailed Registration reopens at Attendance Zone Schools and the Student Registration Office Special Circumstances Transfer application period 4-year-old Program assignment letters to be mailed Summer registration in Student Registration Office nurses are making available the hepatitis B series to our fifth grade students. FLU VACCINE What have you heard about the flu this year? It is going to be the worst. M U- It is starting early. It is Starting late. The things we do know for certain are that people of any age can get influenza and that influenza can make one slightly ill, severely ill or even result in death. Flu vaccine is recommended for any person who wishes to reduce the likelihood of becoming ill with influenza and has no contraindications to the vaccine. All persons 65 years of age and over, health care workers, household members of high-risk persons and people with medical conditions such as heart, lung or kidney disease, asthma, or metabolic diseases such as diabetes, anemia, and other blood disorders should get the vaccine. I i 10 a.m. - 4 p.m. 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. 9 a.m. -1 p.m. 6:30 - 8:30 p.m. fHome \u0026amp; School Connection Page 3 Parents Support Millage for School Improvements A majority of Little Rock School District parents polled in September would support a millage increase for specific building and technology improvements. Staff members conducted the survey in every school on parent conference day. More than 2,000 parents responded to the questions which addressed technology\nschool and classroom security\nrenovations, repairs and additions\nand alternative classrooms. Parents considered technology the highest priority for a bond issue with more than 92% who rated it a 4 or 5 on a five-point scale. Repairs, renovations and building additions came in second with more than 87% of parents agreeing or strongly agreeing this is a priority for a bond issue. Security needs received more than 83% support, while alternative education facilities received about 80% support. Parents were specifically asked whether or not they would be willing to pay additional taxes to support the project areas included Construction crews prepare the site for the new Stephens Elementary School and Community Center at 3700 West ISth Street. The district plans to move into the building in January, 2001. in the survey. Almost 80% said they would be willing to pay more taxes to support school improvements. The district has not asked voters for a millage increase since 1990. Currently, the average age of LRSD buildings is 44 years, and more than half were built prior to 1960. PTA CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1__________ and Pulaski Heights Elementary. To put this in perspective, last year only 7 schools in the LRSD achieved 100 percent membership. This year, at least one-third of our schools will be 100 percent PTA membership units. Among those schools that did not quite reach 100 percent membership there were some significant gains, even with the loss of one grade level in the elementary schools: Mitchell increased 46 percent over last year\nOtter Creek, 106 percent\nRomine, 19 percent\nWashington, 9 percent\nWilson, 158 percent\nand Woodruff, 8 percent. Among middle schools, Dunbar showed a 33 percent increase\nForest Heights, 129 percent\nand Henderson, 27 percent. At the high school level Central showed a 128 percent increase. Fair a 125 percent increase. Hall a 34 percent increase, and Parkview a 21 percent increase. f Quality CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 commitment to the use of total quality principles. Quality Achievement Award, received by organizations that have demonstrated sound and notable processes through their commitment and practice of quality principles.  Governors Quality Award, the highest level of recognition presented to organizations that have demonstrated through their practices and achievements the highest category of quality excellence. The Arkansas Quality Award program was created through a special partnership between the State of Arkansas and the private business community. The programs goal has been to encourage as many Arkansas organizations as possible to engage in continuous quality improvement and to provide significant recognition at its awards celebration for /Arkansas organizations that have demonstrated achievements in the implementation of quality principles and practices. Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 4 Rootin ^'Tootin Reading Fun for AU Western Hills Elementary kicked off the 1999-2000 uRootin-Tootin-Reading incentive program with a special day for all students. The entire staff dressed in western wear, while everyone enjoyed cowboy games such as the Lariat Jump. A real cowpoke, Steve Jones of UALR, came to show students his horse. The Sunny Brook Farms Petting Zoo was also a hit as students enjoyed touching the cuddly critters. A chuckwagon sponsored by Sonic, Hometown Foods and the Western Hills PTA served chili, cowboy brew and moon pies. The group effort between Western Hills, neighborhood sponsors and guests kicked off the beginning of a Rootin-Tootin time of reading for all students. 21^ Century After'school Programs Making a Difference in Community BY MARION BALDWIN In June 1998, the Little Rock School District became the first district in Arkansas to receive a 21 Century grant\nthe award was slightly over $1 million. The money is being used to provide programs at McClellan Community High School, Cloverdale Middle Level Academy and Cloverdale Elementary. President Bill Clintons 21 Century Community Learning Centers program has made possible the expansion of after-school programs throughout the country. At the national level. Congress has provided $200 million dollars to fund after-school, weekend and summertime programs for youth. The Little Rock LEADERS (Literacy Education, Academic Development, Educational Resources Services) project provides youth and adults with educational and social services. LEADERS programming and other district initiatives are aligned with the districts Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan to maximize academic support for students who are not performing at grade level. LEADERS programs include: after-school tutoring for children in grades K-12\nacademic enrichment\nrecreation\n2 Cool 4 School Summer Day Camp\nemployment preparation training\nand community service projects. Medical and mental health services also are provided to students and their families. A total of 587 youth between the ages of 5 and 18 participated in the first year of LEADERS programming. More than 80 families received medical services during Saturday clinics and 100 students participated in mental health programs. Currently, there are approximately 360 youth enrolled in after-school tutoring. For more information about these and other available programs, contact McClellan Community Education at 570-4149. I Student Named Wendy's Heisman State Winner Scott Schilb, a senior at Parkview Magnet High School, was selected as a State Winner in the 1999 Wendys High School Heisman Award program. This award is based on excellent achievement in academics, athletics and community service. The State Winners will receive a silver medal presented by Wendys International. Of the State Winners, 12 students (6 male and 6 female) will be selected National Finalists. They will travel to New York City for recognition ceremonies. This year, 12,000 nominations were submitted for the award program. The competition is also sponsored by the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Home \u0026amp; School Connection Pages ( Dropout Prevention Nobody wants to see a student drop out of school, but each year many students make this unfortunate decision. There are many reasons students drop out, and as parents and educators we must learn how to recognize students with the potential for leaving school before graduation. This year the Little Rock School District started a program that places a Dropout Prevention Coordinator in each middle school and high school. The primary responsibility of this staff member is to identify potential dropouts and to provide them with assistance that will prevent them from dropping out of school. The school district has many programs in place that are designed to help students who are not successful in their present school environment. The schoolbased Dropout Prevention Coordinators can work with these students and their parents to get students back on the track to academic success. To learn more about this program, or to seek help with a dropout problem, contact your schools Dropout Prevention Coordinator. ViPS Reading Day was a great success! 793 volunteers read to LRSD elementary students on November 16! ViPS H sss PU^lC SCHOOLS Whats happening next? Mark your calendar now, MARCH 1 - Be counted! Volunteer hours for the 1999-2000 school year are due. Send your volunteer hours to your schools ViPS chairperson or fax to the ViPS office at 324-2044. Any volunteer activity contributed on behalf of the school should be counted, including preparation and drive time to volunteer activities. Make sure your school receives credit for your hard work and support! MARCH 21 - ViPS Award nominations are due. You can nominate LRSD volunteers. Partners in Education and certified and non-certified staff for their support of volunteerism in your school. To request a ViPS Award nomination form, call the ViPS office at 324-2290. MARCH 24 - Vital Link student applications are due. Vital Link is a one-week student internship program held during the summer for any LRSD student entering seventh grade. All interested students must apply to participate. See your school counselor or contact the ViPS office for an application. ATTENTION LRSD-TV VIEWERS APRIL 25 - All LRSD volunteers and employees are invited to attend An Evening for the Stars Vit Ricks Armory from 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. ViPS Award winners will be announced after the close of our wonderful silent auction. Call for reservations, 324-2290. If you are experiencing problems with the reception and quality of LRSD-TV Cable Channel 4, please call Comcast Cable at 375-5755. After 5:00 p.m. call 375-0104. Want to volunteer? Volunteers in Public Schools has an ongoing need for volunteers throughout the district. For a list of opportunities, call the ViPS office at 324-2290 or tune in to the districts educational access channel 4 on Comcast.Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 6 Students Say ALC Beneficial to Their Success Imagine a classroom where lessons are tailored to each students particular needs, and computers line the walls of the room. The Alternative Learning Center (ALC) provides such a setting as a nontraditional, structured school that serves students in grades 6-12. Students who have experienced discipline sanctions in their assigned schools may attend the ALC where small class sizes, computer-aided instruction and behavior modification classes help many students succeed. I came to the ALC for skipping school, said 11* grade student Jessie Vernon. The teachers helped me, encouraging me, telling me I can do it. They helped me be a role model for other students. I have self-discipline, self-control. I can make good grades. Here, they help you and tell you to wipe the slate clean and start fresh, Vernon added. t .4 ALC stwcients use computers for much of their instruction. Computers allow students to work at their own pace. Other students who have studied at the ALC agree that the alternative program has given them new perspective. My attitude has changed by a participating in group session, according to 9* grade student Tomi Phillips who spent a semester at the ALC. Tomi said controlling her temper is an area she has been working on, and the ALC staff taught her to think positively about herself. ALC principal Lloyd Sain and his staff enjoy the challenge of working with students who have experienced problems in their regular schools. He believes that the academic focus and conflict resolution discussions help students who may have not had much success in their regular schools. The ALC also serves as a transition back into the Little Rock School District for students who may have been in juvenile detention facilities. Monkietron Walls was one of those students. I came from Alexander training school. I did six months down there. It (ALC) helped me a lot, Walls advised. The teachers spend as much time as they can explaining, Walls continued. You work at your own pace. Working on the computer, you go through each lesson. Im in Geometry, Biology, History and English.  Walls said the ALC program also helps students with social skills, such as introductions, how to dress and how to act. He said the staff also talk with students about how to deal with feelings which helps them improve their attitudes. I used to have a bad attitude when I got here. Ive seen they can help me in I S' certain areas. Tenth grade student Andrew Ellis has been to the ALC on three occasions. He said that he has a better attitude now and thinks he will absorb the lessons better this time. He hopes that in his regular school he will find someone I can talk with, and I have to be ALC students binefitfrom group discussions with staff members about conflict resolution and behavior management. Many students feel the discussions help them \"adjust their attitudes when they return to their regularly assigned schools. more mature and be able to handle it myself. The ALC provides for more than the academic needs of its students, and its obvious that many of these students believe the ALC has given them another chance to succeed when they leave. Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page? Parent Tips With the information you have received from your childs school and the district about the new reading, math and science programs, you may wonder how you can continue important learning activities at home. College Board Recognizes Students for Exceptional Performance on AP Exams Of the 534 Advanced Placement (AP) exams taken by 295 LRSD students, a total of 276 exams earned a score of three or better. These marks brought $ 13,800 in incentive funds to the district based on Act 929 of 1997. The Arkansas Department of Education awards a district $50 for each exam that earns a score of three or better. The exams are Do you: - Sit with your child or children every night and let them read aloud to you? - Show your child how math and science are used in household chores, such as preparing recipes? - Take your child to the library and help her or him select books? - Ask your child questions about classroom activities in order to better understand what your child does each day? - Visit your childs school as often as possible to show your child that you are interested in his or her education? scored from one to five, with five being the highest score. The exams were taken in May of 1999. The funds must be spent on the schools Advanced Placement Programs. The funds allow schools to expand programming by purchasing instructional equipment/materials and providing professional development opportunities, student fee assistance and public relations activities. The two schools with the highest number of student scoring a three or above on the exams are Central High School with 191 exams and Parkview Magnet High School with 76 exams. More than 95,000 high school students received awards from the College Board for exceptional mastery of college-level material, as indicated by the grades they received on three or more Advanced Placement (AP) Examinations. This year's top College Board award. National AP Scholar, went to 1,031 students who had accumulated high grades on eight or more AP Exams - a level that qualifies students for two or more years of credit at virtually every college and university in the nation. Another 20,698 students were named AP Scholars with Distinction for having accumulated five or more AP grades averaging 3.5 or higher ~ a level that qualifies students for at least one year of college credit. The two other award categories went to 21,736 AP Scholars with Honors for grades of 3.25 or above on at least four AP Exams and 51,937 AP Scholars who had an average grade of 3 on at least three AP Exams. - Talk with your childs teachers to find out how you can help support what the teachers are doing at school? - Understand how important YOU are in your childs school success? On behalf of the administrators of the Little Rock School District, we would like to issue a special thank you to our outstanding faculty, principals and support staff. These wonderful professionals have given so much of their personal time this year to ensure our middle school transition, grade restructuring and new programs have gotten off to a successful beginning. Whfn you see a teacher, say thanks.\"Home \u0026amp; School CONNECTION Home \u0026amp; Scliao! 'CJo^Tieftion 15 published by the Liljle Kock School District to provide lAisi^arents and guardians with practicjfl idea'sJWat ptbrnote school success, parent involve^nt and more effective par^^Ul . Com  v  arkliam ' /w,. . . LittleRock,72201 (soirsifeoio http://www.lrsd.kl2,ar.us Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ************* TO THE PARENTS OF: BROWN, ANDREW 707 N SPRUCE ST ***ECRLOT**C-002 little EOCK AR 72205.375 ] Non^rofit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Pennit No. 1367 LitUe Rock, AR Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 6 Important Dates EXAM SCHEDULE: First Semester: January 10, 11, 12 and 13 Second Semester: May 28, 30, 31 and June 1 Senior Exams: May 17, 18, 19 and 22 GRADUATION SCHEDULE: Baccalaureate: May 30: May 31: June 1: May 28 (all schools - times may vary) Parkview - 6 p.m. McClellan - 8:30 p.m. Fair - 6 p.m. Hall - 8:30 p.m. Central - 7 p.m. ft Have Happy and Safe Holidays! What do you think... Please take a minute to let us know how to better meet your needs as parents. As we look forward to the millennium school year, we know times change and so do the needs of our parents. The Communications Department is requesting your input on the content and title of this newsletter.  Does the newsletter keep you informed about our schools? yes sometimes no  If yes, what do you like most about the newsletter?  If sometimes or no, what kind of information would better meet your needs as a parent? ______________________________________________  Do you have a suggestion for a new name for this publication? Please send your comments or suggestions to: Suellen Vann, Communications Director, 810 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201 OR sevann@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.usD Homi A PUBLIOATIONOF THE * LITTLE ROCK SCWOL DH -2_______ - BACK-TO-SCHOOL EDITION SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2001 I-\"T Improvement Projects Are Underway in LRSD Schools LRSDs schools honestly can be called works in progress, thanks to the voters of Little Rock who approved a 5-mill increase last year to benefit our schools and our children. The maze of ductwork in the hallways of Bale Elementary is a result of the new heating/air conditioning system that was installed at the school over the summer. Many building improvements have already been completed, some are currently in the works and even more are in various stages of planning. The construction plans, said Doug Eaton, LRSD Director of Facility Services, will benefit virtually every school in the Little Rock School District, be it a small improvement to the electrical system or a major rebuilding project. Some of the upcoming projects include: Central High School will see some major renovations beginning this fall. The first phase includes replacing the buildings roof and doing extensive work on its facade. First and foremost in Centrals plan is moisture mitiga-tion, said Bill Goodman, LRSDs Engineer. A lot of damage has been done over the years from water seeping into the building from the roof, the windows and other places around the buildings (continited on p. 2) LRSD Welcomes New Staff The Little Rock School District Board of Directors has approved the appointment of the following people to administrative positions: Major Changes in Store for Mann The news came from out of the blue, but youd be hard pressed to find a student who upset about it! Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet Middle School was students discovered on May 29 that their summer vacation would begin two days early. The reason for the early dismissal was a surprising engineering report that declared several buildings on the Mann campus were deteriorating more rapidly than previously known. Students were sent home that day with a letter from Mann principal Jim Fullerton explaining how school and district administrators had come to make this decision. The report states that two On the first day of the 2001-2002 school year, Manns stuJencs test out their new portable classroom buildings. A deserted hallway, lined with hastily emptied lockers, awaited the u/recking bail at Mann in June. of the buildings at Mann are structurally unsound, he said, and others also have serious problems. While there would have to be some triggering event to cause an immediate safety issue, there is some potential risk. While the school was already planning for major demolition and rebuilding under the districts improvement plan, the original construction schedule for Mann had to be moved up eight months. Teachers and staff at Mann spent the remainder of that week (continued on p. 2)  Johnny Johnson joins the LRSD as Athletic Director. He was Assistant Athletic Director and Mens Basketball Coach at the University of the Ozarks.  Debbie Price, former Principal at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, was appointed to the newly created position of Magnet Schools Assistance Program Director (see related story on magnet schools on page 2).  John Bacon, former Assistant Principal at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, has been named Principal at that school.  Angela Munns, former Assistant Principal at Central High School, is the new Principal at Cloverdale Magnet Middle Level Academy.  Karen Carter, former Assistant Principal at Franklin Elementary, was promoted to become Principal at Meadowcliff Elementary. 'elcome back to school! As we begin the new school year, you will notice a change in our newsletters. We  Message from the Superintendent  2001 Convocation: A Real Circus!  Volunteering Your Time can Help a Child  Substance Abuse Program Rewards Students  Improve Your Childs Test-taking Skills  Good News from around the District pg- 3 pg- 3 pg- 4 pg-pg- 6 pg- 7 have expanded Home \u0026amp; School Connection to include news of importance to parents of children in Little Rocks schools, to LRSD staff members and to the community at large. This change eliminates the need for News \u0026amp; Views, our former staff newsletter. Home \u0026amp; School Connection will be published bimonthly. Parents will continue to receive copies in the mail, and teachers and administrators will receive their copies via interoffice mail. What do you think? If you have questions, comments or ideas, please call 324-2020, fax to 324-2023 or email to jmdavis@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us. We would love to hear from you! w. Page 2 Little Rock School District Federal Education Grant Is Approved\nFour Little Rock Schools Get Magnetized Imagine that you are in the 6th grade and you have a great interest in building things. You take an introductory class in Engineering at your school, and youre hooked. Then imagine that you spend the rest of your middle school years concentrating your study in the area of engineering and go on to high school with the same subject focus. You graduate from high school with a background in engineering, and youre well prepared to go on to college and begin your career. Years ago, this scenario would have seemed impossible. In todays world, however, it is entirely within reach. Magnet schools make it possible. Thanks to an important grant the LRSD has received from the Projects, from page 1 exterior. We will take care of this before any other work is done. The second phase will encompass some major renovations, including a new air conditioning system. This phase is expected to begin this winter. A new athletic center is in the works for Hall University Studies High School. This addition to the school will also include expansion of the cafeteria and some new classrooms. Halls construction is planned to begin this winter. Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, which has just received grant money to develop magnet programs in Environmental Science, Information \u0026amp; Communications Technology and Medical Investigations (see story above), also will undergo major renovations this winter. Additions to the cafeteria and administrative area Thomas Elected Governor at Boys' State Byron Thomas, a student at Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet High School, was elected Governor at Arkansas Boys State during the summer. The Governor has a lot to do. It has really taught me a lot about how state government works, and I think maybe someday this could be something that I would like to do, Thomas stated. Thomas is the vice president of the Parkview Student Council. School Board Elects Officers At the September 28, 2001, school board meeting, the Little Rock Board of Education elected new officers for the 2001-02 school year. Baker Kurrus, Zone 4 representative, was elected president of the Board. Judy Magness, Zone 3, was elected vice president, while Tony Rose, Zone 6, was chosen to serve as Board secretary. Outgoing Board president Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Zone 1, expressed her appreciation for the high level of cooperation among Board members during the past year and acknowledged that one of the Boards major accomplishments was selecting Dr. Ken James as the new superintendent. U. S. Department of Education, more students than ever have the opportunity to specialize in a particular field of study while in middle school and high school. The three-year Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant, with a total value in excess of $7 million, will provide over $2.3 million this school year alone to establish a range of magnet programs at four secondary schools in the district. Debbie Price, former principal at Dunbar Magnet Middle School, has been appointed Director of Magnet Schools /Assistance Program and will coordinate the development and oversee implementation of the new magnet programs. Part of the grant money has been earmarked for the addition of a Central Highs facade will get a much-needed overhaul this year. will be built, as well as classroom additions designed to support the schools new magnet programs. Progress on all millage projects is updated monthly\nyou can log on to the Little Rock School District website at www.LRSD.org and click on Construction Projects to check out your school. curriculum coordinator and two lead teachers at each of the schools, supplies, equipment to set up labs, teacher training and consultants for staff development. The schools that will benefit from this magnet grant are: Cloverdale Magnet Middle Level Academy will add magnet programs in the fields of Economics, Multimedia, Engineering and an International Baccalaureate program. McClellan International Baccalaureate Magnet Academy will begin corresponding programs in Business \u0026amp; Finance, Multimedia \u0026amp; Graphic Design, Engineering and its own International Baccalaureate program. Mabelvale Magnet Middle School will incorporate magnet course strands in Environmental Science, Information \u0026amp; Communications Technology and, in partnership with Southwest Hospital, Medical Investigations. J. A. Fair Science \u0026amp; Technology Systems Magnet High Schoors magnet programs will encompass Environmental Science, Systems Engineering \u0026amp; Information Sciences and Medical Studies. Incoming 6th grade students at the two middle schools will Mann, from page 1 packing up offices and classrooms in preparation for the upcoming demolition. Until the new classrooms are built, students will attend most of their classes in portable buildings. All of this relocation and temporary housing will result in a brand-new building designed to enhance Manns specialty programs, said Fullerton. All of us students, teachers, parents and administratorshave a lot to look forward to as Mann gets spend their first year sampling introductory courses from the various programs to try to find a subject area, or strand, of interest. The 7 th and Sth grade years will be spent working in the academic strand of choice. When the student progresses to high school, he or she may choose to continue in the same academic strand or to review the other available options. The introductory courses are already in place for incoming 6th graders at the middle school level and 9th graders at the high school level\ncourses for the remainder of the grades will be ready in 2002-2003. We are hoping that students will choose to continue on the same career path from middle school to high school and beyond, said Price. For instance, a student who chooses to study engineering at Cloverdale will hopefully go on to McClellan and continue the same course of study. Our goal is to encourage students to think about possible career paths and prepare for college and the world of work. these much-awaited building improvements. Architects are working with district administration, Manns Campus Leadership Team and others to devise a plan for the new building that will best accommodate the classrooms needed for the schools magnet programs and core subject areas, ccording to Bill Goodman, LRSDs District Engineer. Construction will begin soon after the design is approved and is expected to take about a year and a half. Watch your mailbox! Every six months the LRSD will mail to every Little Rock household an update on the status of building projects in the district. When voters approved the millage increase in 2000, the LRSD committed to monthly updates to the school board and semi-annual mailed reports to the community. Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 3 From the Superintendent by T. Kenneth James We begin this new school year with many, many thanks to all who have contributed to an exceptional opening of the 2001-2002 academic year. We stood together as staff, school board members, parents, community members and students to ensure that opening day was a wonderful experience for all. We are moving forward to repair our schools and provide the safe, secure environment that is so crucial to the well-being and education of our children. As we enter the 2001-2002 academic year, we enter a time of excitement and renewed focus. The Little Rock School District, An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge, is on the move. We hope that you, as a parent or guardian, understand that this vision is our road map to success. Our Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge guides us along our journey and keeps our focus clear. Just as the long-distance runner focuses on the finish line, and just as civil rights songwriter Alice Wine told people to keep their eyes on the prize, we are keeping our eyes on our prize and Little Rocks future our children. We cannot fail our children, for if we do, we will rob them of their opportunities to become our future leaders. If we fail, we steal their chances to become our doctors, nurses and healthcare providers. If we fail, we take away their abilities to write new software and design more powerful computers. If we fail, we deny their rights to build new cities, explore space, expand the world of science and create new art. If we fail our children, we do away with their opportunities to compete, to flourish, to prosper, to improve our world and to live as we want them to livestrong, successful, happy and free. As we embark on our journey together, we must focus on five key design tasks that are essential to our success. These design tasks will guide us to small successes now and ultimate success in the future. Our focal points will be: standards and assessments, learning environments, high-performance management, public engagement and community services and supports. How will we know that we have been successful? We invite you to look for:  Improved scores on the Statewide ACTAAP examination  Improved achievement on the SAT-9 examination Improved achievement on district-level examinations Higher graduation rates Staff and administration engaged in meaningful professional development opportunities linked to increased student achievement An aggressive teacher recruitment process from a wider variety of colleges and universities More teachers and principals actively seeking employment within the Little Rock School District  An aggressive approach to increasing LRSDs student enrollment Were serious about developing the minds of all the children within the Little Rock School District. We must celebrate our diversity, maintain our commitment to the Covenant, and collaboratively build the premier school district in the state. It is our goal and our mindset to become the flagship school district in the state of Arkansas. As parents/guardians, you are tremendously important to your childs success. We invite you to become involved and engaged in our pursuit of academic excellence for the students that we are all here to serve. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools F LRSD Employees Meet under the Big Top\nConvocations Theme Is Serving Those Who Serve Our Children Popcorn, cotton candy, clowns and balloonsall the ingredients necessary for a successful meeting. Or are they? In this case, the meeting definitely was a success as all employees of the school districtteachers, administrators, bus drivers, child nutrition specialists and all othersgathered together for the districts fourth annual Employee Convocation. The circus theme, which lent itself well to the setting of Barton Coliseum, seemed to put everyone in a festive spirit. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, commented that some people didnt see the relationship between the circus theme Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs got into the spirit of the occasion and handed out peanuts and Cracker Jacks to the assembled crowd. and education. It seems to me that educators know something about trapeze work, about getting shot out of a cannon, about how to walk the high wire, we perform magic tricks, we know something about clown acts and we are experts at taming lions, she explained. So Barnum and Bailey just think that they are the greatest show on earth. What you do every day in the classroom, on the bus, in the halls and on the playground is really the greatest show on earth. Winthrop Rockefeller, Arkansas Lieutenant Governor, spoke of the importance of quality public education. He thanked the assembled crowd for their willingness to shape and mold tomorrows leaders. We all appreciate learning as a lifetime activity, he said. Only you as teachers and parents can pass that message on. Our future depends on that. We believe in the inherent ability of children to learn, said LRSDs new Superintendent Ken James. It is our job to nurture youngsters to help them realize their full potential. The names of 11 lucky employees, who had perfect attendance from April 2 to May 31, were drawn to receive awards. They vre: Natasch Acker, Rose Bowman, Carolyn Cole, Margaret Dawson, Eddie Mae Finley, Deborah Jones, Barbara Mays, Marjorie Rutherford, Jeffrey Walters, Irish Williams and John Word. Door prize winners were Chicot Elementarys Lisa Poteet, who won a computer, and Vera Weller of Southwest Middle School, who won two round-trip tickets on Southwest Airlines. Companies that furnished door prizes, provided financial consideration and/or exhibited at Convocation were: Aerospace Education Center/lMAX\nBank of America Mortgage\nCingular Wireless\nCricket Communications\nDell Computers\nFriday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark\nKATV Channel 7\nLittle Rock Teachers Federal Credit Union\nPulaski Technical College\nSouthwest Airlines\nStaples\nStephens Inc.\nUALR\nand VALIC. Dr. James concluded his remarks with a f What circus would be complete without a few clowns! parable. Come to the cliff, he said. TTzey said they were afraid. Come to the cliff, he said again. They came. He pushed them. And they flew. I want to challenge you today to not forget to fly, said Dr. James. Spread your wings. The most important thing we can do is support, nurture and encourage the kids we are here to serve. It * * School Board President Dr. Katherine Mitchell welcomes everyone to Convocation with renewed eneigj arui great expectations. Page 4 Little Rock School District Volunteering: More than Just Giving Your Time Do you enjoy working with people? Do you have a genuine interest in helping children succeed in school? If so, you can become a ViPS! Volunteers in Public Schools, or ViPS, is an organization that serves as a link between the LRSD and the community. During the 2000-01 school year alone, over 310,CXX) hours of volunteer service, with an estimated worth of $4,584,000, were contributed to the LRSD. If I become a ViPS, what kinds of things can I do to help? Volunteer services cover a very broad range and depend on the needs of the school and the interests and abilities of the volunteer. Activities include tutoring students, mentoring, chaperoning field trips, becoming a classroom speaker and participating in special education for gifted students or students with learning disabilities. You can volunteer as much or as little time as your schedule permits. Charlie Hamon of the Young Lawyers Association spends time tutoring a student at Mitchell Academy. Volunteers are always welcome for tutoring, mentoring and other activities in the districts schools. NEA Issues Challenge to White House about Early Childhood Education The nations teachers challenged President George W. Bush in July to fill the gaps in early child care. This challenge came just before the White House Conference on Early Childhood. Our members see firsthand which children have received the nourishment and social building blocks required to start school and which children have not, said National Education Association (NEA) President Bob Chase. A safe and healthy passage into kindergarten requires a seamless support network. These gaps in child health and social navigation Volunteers in Public Schools What kinds of special activities does ViPS sponsor? Aside from individual volunteers, ViPS works with local businesses and community organizations in the Partners in Education (PIE) program. Businesses may develop enrichment programs for students, provide student achievement incentives or grant release time to employees to visit schools, and the schools may in turn recognize their partners with decorative art, musical presentations or other special projects. State Farm Insurance is a Parmer in Education with Woodruff Elementary. Launey Jason, Senior Agency Field Specialist at State Farm, believes that the benefits of partnering with a school are mutually beneficial. As an active partner with Woodruff, we feel it is our duty to be good mentors and role models, provide educational aids for teachers and expose students to corporate America, because these things play an intricate part in creating an atmosphere conducive to a higher quality of learning. I personally take great pride in knowing that Woodruff really appreciates our efforts. ViPS will co-sponsor the first districtwide Parent Institute.this year on Saturday, October 27, at J. A. Fair Magnet High School. Speakers and workshops will be offered that are geared towards parents and other members of the persist into adulthood and exact a costly toll on children, their families and the economic health of our nation. Chase praised President Bushs focus on literacy, but warned that ...research and common sense tell us that education cannot be successful if we dont do right by the youngest children. If a child is hungry, sick and not cared for in ways that spark proper emotional and intellectual development, he or she will have more trouble with reading and in school. Research shows that children receiving better quality care have stronger language, pre-mathematics community. For more information, contact Kaye Rainey, Parent Involvement Coordinator, at 660-6610. ViPS also sponsors an annual Reading Day, which will take place this fall on Tuesday, November 13. Scheduled specifically to coincide with American Education Week and National Childrens Book Week, ViPS Reading Day provides an opportunity for members of businesses, churches, civic organizations and others to take a small amount of time out of their schedules to read to a class of elementary students. You can select a particular class, grade or school to visit Call ViPS at 324-2290 to obtain a Reading Day Commitment Card or register online at www.LRSD.org by clicking on Volunteers. Readers will receive confirmation by mail. How are my volunteer hours credited? When you perform volunteer work at a school, you should sign in and out in the school office. Off- campus volunteering (such as game concessions, PTA phone calling from home, etc.) can be reported directly to your schools ViPS Chairperson or to the ViPS office (324-2290). You can also e-mail the information through the LRSD website. It is very important that you report all of your volunteer service time, no matter how much or little. ViPS volunteers are always welcome! A small investment of your time can reap big rewards in a childs educational success. Please call Debbie Milam, ViPS Director, at 324-2290 for an application or for more information about volunteering, or log on to www.LRSD.org and click on Volunteers. and social skills than those with low-quality care. Chase called for a more comprehensive approach to early care and education:  federal funding of early care and education, including Early Head Start and Head Start\n expansion of the Child Care and Development Block Grant\n continued use of welfare funds to provide childcare for parents working toward self-sufficiency\n more research into effective child development strategies\n more training and education for early childhood professionals\n quality standards for early education settings. Looking for a Good Book for Your Child? With so many books available in libraries and bookstores in such a wide array of topics, how can you be sure that the books your children choose to read are appropriate? If you are unsure about which books to recommend to your children, take a look below at some suggested books for young scholars, broken down by age category, which have been suggested by Suzi Davis, Director of LRSDs English and Foreign Languages Department, and Judy Teeter, Early Childhood/Elemen- tary Literacy Specialist. Elementary School (in order of difficulty) Miss Bindergarten Gets Ready for Kindergarten (Slate) Over in the Meadow (Keats) The Random House Book of Poetry for Children (Prelutsky) The Doorbell Rang (Hutchins) Swimmy (Lionni) Chicken Soup with Rice (Sendak) Cam Jansen Mysteries (Adler) Ramona Quimby, Age 8 (Cleary) Charlottes Web (White) Jumanji (van Allsburg) Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Dahl) Middle School Bud, Not Buddy (Curtis) The Contender (Lipsyte) The Egypt Game (Snyder) Gathering Blue (Lowry) Hatchet (Paulsen) Holes (Sachar) Huckleberry Finn (Twain) 1 Am the Cheese (Cormier) Jump Ship to Freedom (Collier) Let the Circle Be Unbroken (Taylor) Night (Weisel) The Outsiders (Hinton) Phoenix Rising (Hess) Ransom (Duncan) Tom Sawyer (Twain) Watsons Go to Birmingham (Curtis) i High School The Enders Game (Card) Hiroshima (Hersey) The Hobbit (Tolkien) I Always Wanted to Be Somebody (Gibson) I Heard the Owl Call My Name (Craven) I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (Angelou) Jane Eyre (Bronte) The Learning Tree (Parks) A Midsummer Nights Dream (Shakespeare) Out of the Dust (Hess) When Legends Die (Borland) Wed love to know about your favorite books! You may even see them on future reading lists.Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 5 Ji Parent Involvement Office Helps All The LRSDs parent involvement efforts have been reorganized to unite and share common resources with parents for the benefit of keeping our children first, which in turn contributes to a higher level of educational success and a growing community. The ViPS Parent Involvement Office will work with district schools to make parents aware of services provided by the district that can help their children achieve educational success. One of the services is the Title I Parent Advisory Council, which is now being reorganized. The council is a working committee that will go through parent education training to help themselves, other parents within their school and the district to become more knowledgeable of opportunities within the district. The Parent Involvement Office is making plans to share the \"Active Parenting Today\" program, both in English and Spanish, with some Title I schools and also to activate a lending library of materials with academic and social topics that parents can use to help their children. For more information, contact Kaye Rainey, Parent Involvement Coordinator, at 660-6610, and Stella T. Loya, ESL Parent Liaison, at 660-6609. Students May Declare TRUCE LRSD students may earn rewards from local merchants by participating in TRUCE. The name TRUCE stands for Teens Resisting Unhealthy Choices Everyday. It is a voluntary program which reward students for being drug and alcohol free, and it encourages those using drugs to reject substance abuse. Positive peer pressure encourages students who choose to remain drug-free. With parent or guardian permission, students in TRUCE are voluntarily tested to prove that they are not using drugs or alcohol. Those who test drug- and alcohol-free receive an official TRUCE card which entitles the student to rewards such as discounts from local businesses and activities such as pizza parties, retreats and other planned events. TRUCE information was sent home to parents of secondary students the week of October 8\nif you would like for your child to participate, please sign the consent form and return it to school. LRSD School Directory Se han reorganizado los esfuerzos de \"ViPS Parent Involvement\" del distrito para unit y de compartir recursos comunes con los padres para la ventaja de mantener a nuestros nihos primero, que alternadamente contribuye a un nivel mas alto del exito educative y de una comunidad cada vez mayor. La oficina de \"ViPS Parent Involvement\" trabajara con las escuelas del distrito para informar a los padres de los servicios proporcionados por el distrito que puede ayudar a sus nihos a alcanzar exito educative. Uno de los servicios que se reorganize es el comite de \"Title IParent Advisory Council.\" Este comite pasara por un entrenamiento de la educacion de los padres y se podran ayudar ellos mismos y a la misma ves ayudar a otros padres del distrito escolar. Los padres conoceran oportunidades que el distrito les ofrece. La oficina de \"ViPS Parent Involvement\" esta haciendo planes para compartir el programa \"Active Parenting Today\" en ambos idiomas (espahol e ingles) con las escuelas de \"Title I\" (Titulo I) y tambien activar una biblioteca de prestamos de recursos materiales que los padres pueden utilizar para ayudar a sus nihos con asuntos academicos y sociales. Para mas informacion, llame a Kaye Rainey, Coordinadora de Los Padres Envueltos del Distrito Escolar de Little Rock, 660-6610\ny Stella T. Loya, Coordinadora entre Los Ladres y el Distrito Escolar de Little Rock, 660-6609. School Central High J. A. Fair Magnet High Hall University Studies High McClellan Magnet High Parkview Magnet High Metro Career-Technical Center Cloverdale Magnet Middle Dunbar Magnet Middle Forest Heights Middle Henderson Magnet Middle Mabelvale Magnet Middle Mann Magnet Middle Pulaski Heights Middle Southwest Middle Principal Rudolph Howard Cassandra Norman Vernon Smith Jodie Carter Dr. Linda Brown Michael Peterson Angela Munns John Bacon Elouise Hudson Larry Buck Ann Blaylock Jim Fullerton Nancy Rousseau Jim Mosby Phone 324-2300 228-3100 671-6200 5704100 228-3000 565-8465 570-4085 324-2440 671-6390 228-3050 455-7400 324-2450 671-6250 570-4070 Congratulations to Benjamin Franklin Communications Technology Elementary School. It has received one of five 2001 Arkansas Star School awards from the Arkansas Department of Education, Office of Comprehensive School Health. The award was presented to Franklin for its efforts in creating a healthy school environment in eight critical areas, including health education, physical education, school nutrition, health services and family \u0026amp; community involvement. Badgett Elementary Bale Elementary Baseline Elementary Booker Magnet Elementary Brady Elementary Carver Magnet Elementary Chicot Elementary Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Elementary Fair Park Elementary Forest Park Elementary Franklin Elementary Fulbright Elementary Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs Magnet Elementary Jefferson Elementary King Magnet Elementary McDermott Elementary Mabelvale Elementary Meadowcliff Elementary Mitchell Elementary Otter Creek Elementary Pulaski Heights Elementary Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Magnet Elementary Romine Elementary Stephens Elementary Terry Elementary Wakefield Elementary Washington Magnet Elementary Watson Elementary Western Hills Elementary Williams Magnet Elementary Wilson Elementary Woodruff Elementary Mary Golston Barbara Anderson Eleanor Cox Dr. Cheryl Carson Ada Keown Diane Barksdale Jane Harkey Frederick Fields Faith Donovan Dr. Samuel Branch Theresa Ketcher Ethel Dunbar Deborah Mitchell Donna Hall Felicia Hobbs Roberta Mannon Tyrone Harris Virginia Ashley Tab Phillips Karen Carter Darian Smith Janis Tucker Lillie Carter Mary Smith Anne Mangan Lillie Scull Sharon Brooks Nancy Acre Les Taylor Gwen Zeigler Mike Oliver Scott Morgan Mary Menking Beverly Jones Janice Wilson 324-2475 5704050 5704150 324-2482 228-3065 324-2460 5704062 5704055 455-7430 671-6260 671-6267 671-6380 228-3080 5704160 324-2490 671-6281 324-2135 228-3072 455-7420 5704165 324-2415 455-7440 671-6290 324-2430 324-2385 228-3086 671-6275 228-3093 5704190 324-2470 5704195 5704175 671-6363 5704180 671-6270 ACC (Metro) ALC Elementary Charter Evening High School Dr. Alicia Finch Lloyd Sain Krishna Young Carol Green 570-1400 324-2370 324-0590 570-1400 Page 6 Little Rock School District Can Your Child Improve Test-taking Skills? Note to Parents and Students Test. This is one of the most unnerving words in a students vocabulary. Of course, tests are important. A test can measure a basic skill. It can affect a years grade. Or, if it measures the ability to learn, it can affect a childs placement in school. Besides, the ability to do well on tests can help throughout life in such things as getting a drivers license, trying out for sports or getting a job. Without this ability, a person can be severely handicapped out in the real world. Students all across \" the Little Rock School District will take many different types of tests at different times throughout the school year. You can help your child prepare for the test-taking experi- 6 ence and ease some of his or her anxiety. Just have your children try these simple techniques developed through research by the U.S. Department of Educations Office of Educational Research and Improvement:  Eating well and getting plenty of rest and exercise are as important to test taking as they are to all other schoolwork. All three factors contribute to keeping the brain healthy and alert.  Carefully read the test directions, and look over the entire test before beginning. Ask questions if you are unsure.  Answer the easiest questions first, then go back to the harder ones. Parents also can do their part to help their children do well:  Calm down. If you are nervous about your childs test scores. The Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) that had been scheduled between September 24 and October 12, 2001, were canceled by the Board of Directors. LRSD teachers and administrators felt that these tests, administered so close to the Stanford 9 Achievement Tests in September, would not be very beneficial. Instead, students will take the ALTs as scheduled in the spring, and their academic progress will be measured between years. your anxiety can rub off onto your child.  Encourage and praise your child whenever possible. Children who are afraid of failing are more likely to become anxious at test time.  Avoid making judgments based on a single test score. If your child does not perform as well as you expected, encourage him to do better the next time. (adapted from Help Your Child Improve in Test-Taking/ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement\nwww.ed.gov/pubs) National Merit Semifinalists Announced Fifteen LRSD students have been named Semifinalists in the 2002 National Merit Scholarship Program, and two LRSD students were named National Achievement Semifinalists. Approximately 16,000 high school seniors have been named Semifinalists in the program. These academically talented high school seniors are now eligible to advance in the competition for Merit Scholarships. The National Merit Semifinalists are: Elizabeth S. Arnold, Melissa L. Bandy, Jay M. Bauman, Edward D. Fleming, Chris Fox-Lent, James Harrell, Toby H. Huang, Charles W. Lyford, Solvig A. Pittenger, Alex J. Schmidt, Gary S. Slater, James A. Szenher, Maxwell Teitel-Paule and Tracy Tran, all of Central High School, and Anita Budhraja of Parkview Magnet High School. The National Achievement Seminalists are Frederick McKindra and Justin H. Mercer of Central High School. More than 1.2 million students entered the 2002 Merit Program when they were juniors by taking the 2002 Preliminary SAT/National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT), which served as an initial screening of program entrants. Semifinalists in each state are the highest scoring entrants in each state and represent less than one percent of the states seniors. LRSD Receives $900,000 for Electronics Upgrades Schools Are Winners in Malls4Schools Program Six secondary schools came out winners in Park Plazas Malls4Schools program during the spring semester. These schools, with the help of parents and other supporters, received money based on the amount of votes they received during the promotional campaign. The winning schools were: The LRSD recently received notification from the Universal Service Administrative Companys Schools and Libraries Division that the district will receive up to $900,000 in funds for technology projects. Commonly known as E-Rate funds, these funds provide discounts on telecommunications services and will be applied to the cost of the districts new wide area network as well as local, long distance and cellular telephone service. E-Rate is a federal program designed to provide assistance to schools Parkview Magnet High School $1,250 Mann Magnet Middle School $1,000 Forest Heights Middle School $850 [Ullllllt lb'l O'liiniii'ul and libraries for telecommunications, Internet I access and Dunbar Magnet Middle School $500 Southwest Middle School $350 J. A. Fair Magnet High School $200 The MalMSchools program is co-sponsored by KARK-TV Channel 4 and Radio Disney. This fall, elementary schools will once again have their turn participate in the program. LRSD schools planning to go for the gold include: Baseline Elementary, Forest Park Elementary, Geyer Springs Elementary, Rockefeller Magnet Elementary, Romine Interdistrict Elementary and Woodruff Elementary. You can cast your votes for your favorite school at Park Plaza between September 1 and December 31. For more information about this program, check out www.parkplazamall.com or www.malls4schools.com on the Internet. internal connections such as cabling and electronics. LRSD has also applied for funds for cabling, electronics, servers and telephone systems. Notification of funding decisions should continue owr the next few months. -reported by Lucy Neal, LRSD Director of Instructional Technology Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 7 Teachers \u0026amp; Students Good News around the LRSD \u0026lt; ( Katina Ray D I K\u0026gt; X atina Simpson Ray, 1 grade teacher at .JX^ashington Magnet Elementary, has been named 2000-2001 National SECME Teacher of the Year. Additionally, Kristian Henderson received first place honors in the 2000-2001 National SECME Essay Competition. She attended Pulaski Heights Middle School last year and is a freshman at Central High School this year. ionna Murphy, Adaptive P. E. Coach at J. A. Fair High School, has been named Arkansas Special Olympics Coach of the Year. Louise Carpenter, first grade teacher at Carver Magnet Elementary, received the LRSD Service-in-Action Teacher Award by ShareAmerica of Children International and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. c Kristian Henderson lonnie Green was one of 20 teachers in 'the U. S. who were chosen to attend the Brandwein Environmental Institute in Pennsylvania during the summer break. She received training in field studies for the classroom and will incorporate this training in her new position as Environmental and Medical Lead Teacher at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School. Ann Callaway, Nurse at Carver Magnet Elementary, has received the Lorene Blair Award from the Arkansas School Nurse Association. This is a state-level award for outstanding service and contributions to health care for the children of Arkansas. Deirdre Jones, a student at Central High School, attend the National Young Leaders Conference [, was selected to in Washington, DC, in July. Only 350 students from around the nation were chosen to attend this conference, which inspires young people to achieve their full leadership potential. Patrick L. Clark, a student at McClellan High School, recently has been named a United States National Award winner by the United States Achievement Academy. I Mfany JLnigh s Gunn, Valedictorian of McClellan .High Schools Class of 2001, has been named 2001 Gatorade Arkansas High School Girls Track \u0026amp; Field Athlete of the Year. Twt at 'Q LRSD seniors will travel overseas this autumn as part of a special study tour. Amber Mendoza of McClellan High School and Hannah Singer of Central High School have been selected by Heifer Project International (HPI) to participate in this tour abroad, which will take them to Thailand and Laos for Tiffany Gunn two weeks to observe the organization at work and learn about different cultures. Since 1944, HPI has enabled over 4 million hungry families worldwide to become self-reliant for food and income. w\n^oodruff Elementary student Briana Massey was the recipient of a $100 prize for an essay she wrote for the Circle the City contest earlier this year. The citywide event was sponsored by the Centers for Youth and Families. A rAi manda Springs and Derrick Smith, S' hirley Krannichfeld, a L  grade teacher at Wilson .both seniors at McClellan High ST Shirley Krannichfeld (2nd from right) accepts her Teacher of the Year award from Wal-Mart representatives. Wilson Principal Beverly Jones holds the check that was presented to the school. Elementary, was named Teacher of the Year by the Wal-Mart store on Bowman Road in Little Rock. On August 20 store representatives presented Krannichfeld with a plaque, a bouquet of flowers and a blue Wal-Mart vest with 2001 Teacher of the Year emblazoned on the back. Wilson Elementary also received a $500 check from the retailer. School, were elected to serve as state DECA officers. Smith will serve this year as Vice President, and Springs will serve as Southern Region Vice President. Both students W'J ... Tracy Mason, a science teacher at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, served in a summer externship at Pinnacle Mountain State Park. The program was sponsored by Arkansas Career Opportunities. The LRSD Athletic Department recently announced its picks for Coach of the Year honors. George Cirks, basketball coach at H Hall High School, was the winner in the High School/Male Tern category. Bill Spivey, womens soccer coach at Central, was named winner in the High School/Female Team category. Marcus Davis, who coaches volleyball, basketball and track at Cloverdale Middle Level Academy, was named top coach in the Middle School/Male Team category, and Anitra Jackson, the volleyball, basketball and track coach at Southwest Middle School, received top honors in the Middle School/Female Team category. S' hannon L. Watson, a senior at Parkview Arts Sc Science Magnet 'High School, has received a $2,500 scholarship as part of the Discover Card Tribute Award Scholarship program. .kt Derrick Smith and DECA sponsor Nancy Leslie participate in a trnst-building exercise. recently returned from DECAs state officer workshop in nRflfifcCKW? i Amanda Springs at the DECA officer workshop. Springdale. The schools DECA sponsor, Nancy Leslie, accompanied the two to the workshop, which included sessions in teamwork, communication skills, decision making skills and parliamentary procedure. The two students will attend the DECA Southern and North Atlantic Region Leadership Conference in November with the other members of the Arkansas delegation. J ennifer Hale Milligan, a science teacher at Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, was one of only 14 teachers nationwide who were chosen to participate in the Frontiers in Physiology program. Sponsored by the American Physiological Society (APS) , the 2001 Summer Research Fellowships were awarded to middle- and high-school-level science teachers to work in a laboratory setting with an APS member. Milligan studied with Dr. Michael Edward Soulsby, 1 b- Jennifer Hale Milligan Ph.D., who is an APS member and is on the faculty of DAMS.Home \u0026amp; School CONNECTION Home \u0026amp; School Connection is published five times during the school year to provide information about the Little Rock School District and its individual schools to parents, teachers, staff and other members of the Linle Rock community. Please address comments to Julie M. Davis, Communications Specialist. Communications Office 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2020 jinJavis@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us www.LRSD.org Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 received NOV 2 8 20QJ OFFICEOF lESEGREGATIOMMONITOfillllg received ? s 2001 o\u0026amp;bwesaiiou i^ouiToimie TO THE PAREJXTS OF\nGULDiN, WILLIAM 6509 CANTRELL RD LITTLE ROCK 72207-4218 AUTO s-Dicrr 72207 FKG 1 SACK 72 Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 1367 Little Rock, AR Page 8 Home \u0026amp; School Connection Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey recently announced the newly elected members of the Mayors Youth Council for 2001-2002. Serving as Chairperson is Mary Rutherford of Central High School. Other officers include: Co-chair, Jessica Marshall of Central\nRecording Secretary, Morgan Miller of Central\nand Public Relations Chair, Chris Love of Parkview Magnet High School. Calvin Johnson of McClellan High School was named Senior Member-at-Large\nSarah Alexander of Hall High School and Foster Davis of Parkview were named Junior Members-at-Large\nand Bryan Hall of Central and Kenyon Lowe of Parkview were named Sophomore Members-at-Large. Mayor Dailey established the Youth Council to promote youth volunteerism and community service. To date, it has volunteered over 8,700 hours including projects with the Red Cross, the Arts Center, the Hope Center, P.A.R.K., the Greek Food Festival and Easter Seals. The National Education Association (NEA) recently honored Eleanor Coleman, a counselor at Forest Park Elementary. The organizations Committee on Human and Civil Rights has named Coleman the recipient of its H. Council Trenholm Memorial Award for her promotion of the ideals of human achievement, justice and equality. She was nominated by the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association and the Arkansas Education Association, which was presented at the NEA annual meeting in Los Angeles, Calif. Other Arkansans who have received this I Efe Eleanor Coleman distinguished award include Daisy Bates, Dr. Joycelyn Elders and the Central High School Womens Emergency Committee. Original Operas a Big Hit at Gibbs The spring semester at Gibbs Magnet School of International Studies and Foreign Languages was a busy and exciting one\nstudents in the 4th and 5th grades had the opportunity to conceive, write and perform their own original operas! In addition to their regular music curriculum, these students were involved in a program from the Wildwood Park for the Performing Arts called Music, Words and Opera. The program was developed by Opera America and funded in Little Rock by the Arkansas Arts Council. Artists in residence for the program were Helene Fisher Elbein (visual arts) and Judy Trice (theatre arts), who worked with Gibbs Music Specialist Kayren Grayson Baker. The scripts, sets, costumes, choreography and music for the original operas were created by the 4th and 5th grade students (with a little help from Trice, Elbein and Baker). Ms. Susie Robinsons class performed The Saga of Wordsville (an Old West tale with a twist)\nMs. Pat Luzzis class performed a comic Medieval opera called Sauce and Burgers. Sanderella was performed by Ms. Kristy Kidds class. Finally, Ms. Jill Johnsons class performed The Wizard of the Nile (an Egyptian twist on The Wizard of Oz)- Most of the operas had an Egyptian theme because Egypt was the schoolwide nation of focus. The Wizard of the Nile, as performed by Jill Johnsons 4th grade class, was based on The Wizard of Oz, but with an Egyptian twist. CONVOCATION 2001  fl Sanderella was the original opera written and performed by Kristy Kidd's 4th grade students. It was based on a kidnapped Cinderella in Egypt. When LRSD employees get together, Barton Coliseum is just about the only place in town large enough to hold them all!Home, EARLY SPRING EDITION 2002 A PUBLICATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT State Reduces School Funding: PTA Presents Annual Awards Badgett, Charter School to Close Governor Mike Huckabee has substantially cut state spending due to lower-than-expected state revenues in recent months. The reduction in funding for education alone amounted to $140 million and will affect every school district in the state. Since the Little Rock School District is the largest in the state, the repercussions of this cutback will be felt intensely here. Even more cutbacks are possible in the future, and the district also has to provide funds to pay for a contracted teacher pay raise for the 2002-2003 school year. When all is said and done, the total funding reduction for the LRSD is expected to be approximately $5.5 million. The district has been forced to make up this reduction in funding the only way possibleby making budget cuts, and that is exactly what Superintendent Ken James and the Board of Directors are trying to do. The Board held a special meeting on January 15 to make a decision on the first part Fair Park Elementary (above) and David O. Dodd Elementary will remain open. Badgett and the Charter School will close at the end of the school year. of this difficult job: whether or not to close four LRSD elementary schools. Badgett, Dodd, Fair Park and the Residential Elementary Charter schools were considered for closure as one part of the budget reduction plan. Closing all four schools would save the district an estimated $2.5 million. Before making this difficult decision, however, the School Board held public meetings at each of the schools in early January to answer (continued on p. 5) Celebrating Community Involvement was the theme of the PTAs annual Founders Day luncheon. Awards were presented by the PTA Council to outstanding administrators, educators and volunteers. The council named Felicia Hobbs, principal at Gibbs Magnet Elementary, Administrator of the Year. Both Sarah Purtle, Pre-k teacher at M. L. King Magnet Elementary, and Dr. L J. Routen, music teacher at Rockefeller Elementary, received Educator of the Year awards. The PTA Life Membership Award was presented to Lee Ann Matson, Resource/Field Trip Coordinator in the ViPS office. kbfiu____ Smart Money at Work \"V If you see construction in progress at your neighborhood school, you know that your tax dollars are hard at work. Improvement and renovation work continues on LRSDs Scaffolding appears to grow on the exterior walls of Central High School as contractors continue their work to waterproof the building.  Technology Upgrades Throughout the District  2002-2003 Student Calendars  New Extended Year Schools Announced  Changes to L.R. City Curfew Ordinance  Help Available Through EAP  Duke Talent Search Participants Announced schools, thanks to funds from the millage increase that was approved by Little Rock voters in 2000. Bill Goodman, LRSDs Engineer, and Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services, are coordinating the many projects that are on the drawing board or are currendy in progress. Scaffolding climbs the outside walls of Central High School as work progresses (weatherproofing the windows and the buildings exterior as well as work on the roof). Interior renovations, including a new air conditioning system and repair of extensive water damage, are expected to start this summer. PS- 2 PS- 3 PS- 3 PS-4 PS- 6 PS- 8 Architects Tendering o/ the building addition scheduled to be constTwcted nt Hall High School. Not quite as obvious to the passerby is the work in progress at Jefferson Elementary. This school, which was built in 1950, is undergoing a total renovation. Classrooms and hallways are in the process of being completely remodeled, then the entire building will get new windows and a new heating/air conditioning system. Work is currently in progress at Otter Creek and Watson elementary schools as well. Otter Creek will have a new classroom addition when the job is completed, and work at Watson includes an addition as well as renovations to the existing building. Other projects that are expected to start this spring or summer include: Romine Elementary (renovation/addition). Hall High (new gymnasium and (continued on p. 5) Gibbs principal Felicia Hobbs accepts the PTA Council Administrator of the Tear award from superintendent Ken James. National Merit/Achievement Finalists Announced LRSD is proud to announce that all of the students who previously had been named National Merit and National Achievement Semifinalists have now advanced to Finalist status. National Merit Finalists are: Anita Budhraja of Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet High School and Elizabeth S. Arnold, Melissa L. Bandy, Jay M. Bauman, Edward D. Fleming, Chris Fox- Lent, James Harrell, Toby H. Huang, Charles W. Lyford, Solvig A. Pittenger, Alex J. Schmidt, Gary S. Slater, James A. Szenher, Maxwell Teitel-Paule and Tracy Tran, all of Central High School. LRSDs two National Achievement Semifinalists who have been named finalists are Frederick McKindra and Justin H. Mercer, both of Central High. Congratulations to all of our scholars. Page 2 Little Rock School District From the Superintendent by T. Kenneth |ames r Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) We are very excited to announce that two of our elementary schools, Rockefeller and Stephens, have voted to participate in a new and exciting program that is a systemic approach to transforming the teaching profession. The Arkansas State Department of Education and the Milken Family Foundation have selected Rockefeller and Stephens to be part of a pilot program for the Teacher Advancement Program. The Walton Family Foundation will consider funding this initiative later this month. The Teacher Advancement Program builds upon five key principles: 1. Multiple career paths for teachers\n2. Market'driven, performance-based compensation\n3. Performance-based accountability\n4. Ongoing, applied professional growth\nand 5. Expanding the supply of high-quality educators. Though the principles of TAP are unique, they are highly interrelated and dependent upon each other. For example, without a rigorous accountability system and performance-based compensation, the multiple career paths principle would simply be a traditional career ladder program. By the same token, a comprehensive professional growth program is necessary to support the rigorous accountability system. Although some elements of TAP are found in other school reform efforts, TAP 1 Fk-J is unique because it combines these various reforms into a single, comprehensive model. The Teacher Advancement Program provides an opportunity for a systemic, comprehensive paradigm shift, grounded in existing research findings, that we believe will improve the quality of teachers entering and staying in the profession. Stay tuned for more information about the Teacher Advancement Program at Rockefeller and Stephens elementary schools. Thank you for your continued support of the Little Rock School District. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools Technology Upgrades Are Evident Throughout the District by Lucy Neal Great Books for Your Kids! The planning phase for LRSDs technology upgrades is now complete, and the implementation of those upgrades has already begun. Technology projects scheduled for this school year include:      new wide area network technology center equipment room help desk (Techline) telephone in every classroom and voice mail for every employee computer for every classroom technology training Funds for this districtwide technology upgrade are partly from a $900,000 E-Rate federal funding project and partly from the millage increase approved in 2000, which promised voters that every classroom would have a computer and a telephone. All sites will be connected to the new wide area network by the end of April. The new network provides LRSD users with high-speed Internet access, making the use of Web-based resources a reality for teachers and students. Construction of the new technology equipment room at Metropolitan Career-Technical Center is complete, and equipment is currently being installed. This room houses the equipment that is essential to run the districts network, including the new telephone system, the midrange computer system that holds the districts business applications, a server farm and the new help desk (Techline). The LRSD help desk (Techline) is now up and running. Techline will provide a single point of contact for all technology-related issues. Techline staff can I 3 1 V a b 4 School Board members take a guided tour of the newly completed technology equipment room at Metro. resolve many technology calls on the spot and refer others to the appropriate support staff. Every LRSD classroom will have a telephone, and most employees will have voice mail. The new telephone system will enhance communication between faculty, parents and other patrons. While phones will be programmed not to ring during instructional time, they can be used by teachers and students to contact experts and do research. New computers will be installed in all classrooms that do not already have them. Each classroom is being wired with a teacher workstation plate (TWS) where a teachers telephone and computer will be located. In a separate location from student computers, the TWS ensures that a teachers technology tools are all together in one efficient work area. Technology training classes are offered several nights a week, and teachers continue to take advantage of these free classes that offer instruction in a variety of software applications. LRSD has also installed new data integration software that will help track and record changes to student records. The LiveAudit system allows the district to generate student reports that are accurate and up to date. We needed a solution that would enable us to automatically track changes to our student records for accuracy, security and accountability to our students, parents and staff, said John Ruffins, Director of Information Services. This new system will not only help the district meet federal regulations governing E-Records, but also will enable the LRSD to be accountable to the public and to ensure the security and accuracy of its records. It may seem that the technology upgrades are a long time coming, but with the planning phase now complete, things will be happening very quickly. Watch for exciting new developments at your campus! Lucy Neal is the Director of Instructional Technology for the Little Rock School District. Listed below are some age-appropriate reading suggestions for your child that have been provided by Judy Teeter, Early Childhood/Elementary Literacy Specialist, and Suzi Davis, Director of LRSDs English and Foreign Languages Department. Visit your local library or bookstore to find these and many other exciting tales! Elementary School (in order of difficulty) Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle (MacDonald) Stone Soup (Brown) Youre the Boss, Baby Duck (Hest \u0026amp; Barton) Henry and Mudge: The First Book of Their Adventure (Rylant) Night Noises (Fox) Pinky and Rex (Howe) Houdini Box (Selznick) The BFG (Dahl) Holes (Sachar) Middle and High School (multicultural titles) Dragonwings (Yep) Jacobs Rescue: A Holocaust Story (Drucker) Zlatas Diary: A Childs Life in Sarajevo (Filipovic) The Double Life of Pocahontas (Fritz) Parrot in the Oven: Mi Vida (Martinez) The Friends (Yumoto) Journey to JoBurg: A South African Story (Naidoo) Canyons (Paulsen) The Bridge of San Luis Rey (Wilder) A Long Way from Chicago: A Novel in Stories (Peck) El Guero (De Trevino) Home \u0026amp; School Connection Page 3 LRSD Changes Elementary Summer School Policy Two More LRSD Schools Change to Extended Year Format The Little Rock School Districts School Services and Curriculum \u0026amp; Instruction departments have changed the way that academic intervention will be provided for those students in need of extra help. The district staff believes that teachers can be more effective by preventing failure during the school year rather than trying to remediate it during Summer School. In the past, one of the means of providing intervention was the districts Summer School program. After carefully evaluating that program, the district has decided to no longer provide Summer School for elementary students. Instead, each elementary school will be allocated additional funds to provide an intervention plan for students during the school year. This plan will target individual students who need extra helpthose for whom schools have developed Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs). If your child is in need of extra help, that help can be obtained in a variety of ways at your childs school. This change affects elementary schools only. Secondary Summer School will remain the same. You can expect to receive Summer School information soon from your childs middle or high school. If you have questions or concerns on the elementary school level, please call Frances Cawthon Jones, Assistant Superintendent, at 447-1134. The LRSD has recently announced that two more elementary schools will change to the extended year format in the 2002-03 school year, bringing the total number of extended year schools in the district to five. Cloverdale and Mitchell elementary schools will join Mabelvale, Stephens and Woodruff, which have operated under the extended year format since Fall 2000. The extended year calendar starts the school year earlier and ends later than other schools. Research has shown that reducing the long summer break and taking shorter, more frequent breaks throughout the year is beneficial for students. During the breaks, called intersessions, students who need additional help may attend school. I believe that this new format will help our students and will lead to more student achievement, said Darian Smith, principal at Mitchell. Our parents are very positive about the change as well.' f % Little Rock School District 2002-03 Student Calendar New Years Resolutions? Its Not Too Late! by Sue Ward, R.N. Even though the New Year is already well under way, its not too late to resolve to make some changes that will improve your life and enable your body to do its best. Resolution ^1: Get Plenty of Exercise. What does exercise do for you? A lot! It makes your body systems work better. It stretches and strengthens all of your muscles, particularly your heart. It helps control your weight. It makes your body work more efficientlyyour lungs hold more air, your heart is stronger and provides better circulation, your blood vessels expand and let blood flow more easily, cholesterol and blood fats dont build up and your blood pressure can improve. It improves your endurance and flexibility. It also improves your self-esteem. Since a link has been found between our \"couch-potato lifestyle and the increase in the number of young people with chronic conditions like asthma, obesity and diabetes, now is the time to:  Plan an exercise program with your child, and keep to your plans. Try activities like biking, skating, jumping rope, walking, tennis or basketball.  When possible, break that automatic driving impulse: walk instead of drive.  Limit the time your family spends watching television.  Drink plenty of water. The water you lose as perspiration during exercise must be replaced to avoid dehydration. Resolution ^2: Get Plenty of Rest. It matters when your child doesnt get a full nights sleep. It also matters when you dont! More than 100 million Americans of all ages fail to get a good nights sleep each night. Inadequate sleep leads to poor concentration, forgetfulness, crankiness and sluggishness. Lack of sleep makes us vulnerable to infection and other medical problems such as high blood pressure, anxiety, weight gain and stress. Sleep is necessary so that your body has chance to rest. a August 5-6, 2002 August 19,2002 September 2,2002 October 4, 2002 October 18,2002 October 21,2002 November 7-8,2002 November 27, 2002 November 28-29,2002 December 23,2002 January 6, 2003 January 16,2003 January 17,2003 January 20,2003 February 17,2003 March 10, 2003 March 20, 2003 March 21, 2003 March 24-28, 2003 April 18,2003 May 26, 2003 May 28, 2003 A body needs more slumber while its growing: three year olds need about 12 hours each night, elementary \u0026amp; intermediate age students require ten hours of sleep, high school students and young adults up to age 20 need at least nine hours of sleep and adults require eight hours of sleep each night. How can we get the rest we need?  Keep a regular bedtime.  Once you rob your sleep bank, you must refill it, ideally by several days worth of extra sleep.  Regular exercise deepens and extends sleep, but dont exercise just prior to bedtime.  Dont eat a meal or large snack before bedtime.  Avoid caffeine for at least 3 hours before bedtime.  Make sure your bed and pillow are comfortable. Exercise and rest work together to help keep you healthy! July 24-25, 2002 August 13,2002 September 2,2002 October 4, 2002 October 10,2002 October 11,2002 October 14-18,2002 October21-25,2002 November 7-8,2002 November 27, 2002 November 28-29,2002 December 23,2002 January 6, 2003 January 15,2003 January 16, 2003 January 17, 2003 January 20, 2003 February 3-7, 2003 February 10-14, 2003 March 10, 2003 March 24-28,2003 April 16, 2003 April 17,2003 April 18, 2003 May 5-9, 2003 May 26,2003 June 26,2003 Sue Ward is the school nurse at Williams Magnet Elementary. School \"Check-In\" First Day for Students Labor Day Holiday * Parent Conference Day * End of First Quarter Teacher Records Day * AEA/Professional Development * Professional Development Day * Thanksgiving Holiday * Winter Vacation Begins * Classes Resume End of Second Quarter Teacher Records Day * Martin Luther King, ]r. Holiday * Parent Conference Day * Professional Development Day * End of Third Quarter Teacher Records Day * Spring Break * Professional Development Day * Memorial Day Holiday * End of Fourth Quarter/Last Day for Students Extended Year Schools 2002-03 Student Calendar (Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Mitchell, Stephens and Woodruff Elementaries ONLY) School \"Check-In\" First Day for Students Labor Day Holiday * Parent Conference Day * End of First Quarter Teacher Records Day * Intersession * Vacation * AEA/Professional Development * Professional Development Day * Thanksgiving Holiday * Winter Vacation Begins * Classes Resume End of Second Quarter Teacher Records Day * Parent Conference Day * Martin Luther King, ]r. Holiday * Intersession * Vacation * Professional Development Day * Spring Break * End of Third Quarter Teacher Records Day * Professional Development Day * Intersession * Memorial Day Holiday * End of Fourth Quarter/Last Day for Students *  Students do not attend class.Page 4 Little Rock School District Protecting Against Tooth Decay Going to the dentist. Its a thought most of us would like to banish from our minds. But what if you didnt have to go to the dentist? What if the dentist came to you? Students at Franklin Elementary were the first to benefit from a school-based tooth sealant program called Future Smiles, which was launched by UALR Share America, Colgate-Palmolive, DAMS Head Start and a group of dentists and dental health professionals called the Dental Health Action Team. Future Smiles provided free dental sealants (plastic coatings placed on the chewing surfaces of back teeth to seal out food and bacteria) to inner\u0026lt;ity elementary students during the month of February, which is also known as National Childrens Dental Health Month. Children participating in Future Smiles were identified by a dental screening completed last fall by Dr. Lynn Mouden, Director of Oral Health for the Arkansas Department of Health, students and faculty from DAMS School of Dental Hygiene and volunteer dentists from ^4 A I St. Vincents Health System and the Department of Human Services. The study revealed that about 57.5% of children screened were already affected by dental disease, and only 1.7% of children in the third grade and up actually had dental sealants, which have a tremendous potential to prevent tooth decay in children. Unfortunately, many of these children have never even been to a dentist, said Dr. Rosetta Calvin, a volunteer Its really not as bad as it looks: This student doesnt seem too 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_610","title":"Nurses","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","Educational planning","School employees","Educational statistics","Nurses","Medical care"],"dcterms_title":["Nurses"],"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/610"],"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\nOffice 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 (SOI) 371-0100 Date: November 16, 1994 From: Melissa Guldin 1, Ass Isociate Monitor To: Gwen Efrid, Little Rock School District Health Services Coordinator Subject: LRSD Nursing Staff Our office recently received some information from the Little Rock School District regarding possible budget cutting strategies. The list of budget reduction possibilities included the substitution of Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) for the Registered Nurses (RNs) currently working in the schools. I understand that there are important differences in training, experience, and qualifications between LPNs and RNs. Since the issue of RN versus LPN is sure to be debated in the months ahead, I would like some information on the current status of the LRSD nursing staff. This data should help me be better informed regarding the districts nursing program. Please send me a list of all LRSD schools that currently receive nursing services, the number of days (or hours) per week that each site is served by a nurse, whether that nurse is an RN or LPN, and each nurses race and gender. If you have any additional information that you think would be helpful or informative, I would welcome receiving that also. I would like to become more familiar with the scope of the nursing program, before the district makes budgetary decisions. When the monitors visited the incentive schools, we were impressed with the wellness clinics serving the students, staff, and patrons of the incentive schools. The clinics myriad of health services and eligibility for Medicaid reimbursement help ensure that area residents and LRSD staff have increased access to quality health care. In addition to the staffing information requested, would you please send me a list of all the schools with wellness clinics that have been approved for medicaid reimbursement. Thank you for your help in providing this information. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.To: From: Subject: Little Rock School District November 28, 1994 Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor 0 RECr 5.- a V \u0026gt; DEC 61994 Office of Desegregation Monitori. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Gwen Efird, Little Rock School District Health Service Coordinator LRSD Nursing Staff In response to your recent request for information on the nursing program in the Little Rock School District I am inclosing some material. School. 1 . All schools are served by an RN except Metropolitan High We have an LPN assigned there primarily because all of the students attend a home base school and their health care is the primary responsibility of the nurse in the home school. As you can see, enrollment in all cases. the coverage is not determined by the student Incentive schools have full time coverage. Most of the Magnet schools and all of the After those factors are considered, student enrollment. the remaining nurses are assigned on the basis of We do not have enough African American nurses but continue to try to recruit them. American. Last year we hired four nurses: two were African LPNs this year. Because the Administration had requested that we hire we pursued that route but were unable to get qualified LPNs who would work for the salary offered. We were then told that we couldn't hire anyone. That freeze was just lifted two weeks ago and last week we hired one full time nurse and two part time nurses to cover the five schools substitutes during this semester. which have only had All three nurses are African American. Much to my disappointment, the fulltime nurse called me Friday, and stated she had an offer of a job with better salary and would not be working for us. I am also inclosing a document that was written almost four years ago when the issue first came up. illustrations, and will be glad to do We could easily add many other so if it would be of assistance to you\nbut the issues will remain the same. If it would be helpful to have an updated statement on the curriculum offered by the nursing schools. provide it. without the 1994 material. In the interest of time. I will be more than willing to I am sending this to you The Position Statement on pg. 3 succinctly states our thoughts. The remainder of position. the paper provides justification for that Because the paper is long, I have highlighted the areas that may be most helpful. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000We share your appreciation for what is going on in the Incentive Schools. The nurses involvement in these schools with expanded Health Services, EPSDT Screening and the Health Education Component has been my dream for school nursing. We need this kind of a program in all of our schools, and it can only be provided by an RN staff. All of our nurses are billing for Medicaid Reimbursement on hearing and vision Last year, we earned $12,500. through this exams. program. Only the nurses who are trained to provide EPSDT and whose health rooms have been certified, can bill for the physical examinations. Part of the money earned has been spent on equipping more health rooms for EPSDT. EPSDT trained. Currently, eighteen of our nurses are Only RNs can provide this service. We have Wellness Clinics at McClellan, Central and Forest Heights. McClellan is staffed by our full time nurse who has dug hard into the community to obtain additional resources. The Health Dept, is providing two afternoons a month of family planning and Arkansas Childrens Hospital is sending their residents over on a weekly basis. The clinic at Central is a five day a week comprehensive clinic that provides for adolescent health needs\nwith a big emphasis on mental health concerns. Reimbursement from that program goes to the Health Department because they fully fund the five full time people plus additional services that they bring in. their services at Central, students daily. our full time nurse In addition to sees 40 to 50 Forest Heights has a part time Wellness clinic which is also funded by the Health Department. They also fund 40% of our nurses salary. Initially, program came about with special funding from Johnson and Johnson but that grant is no longer available. this Additional schools which are equipped for EPSDT screening and have been bv the Health Department include: Romine certified by Interdistrict, Elem., Cloverdale Elem, King Interdistrict and Washington Magnet. The Cloverdale and Pulaski Pulaski Heights Heights schools are involved because of a New Futures Initiative. If you need for me to provide any additional information or if it would be helpful for me to come by and visit with you, I will be --- ii--_ '  J consider this a very serious issue and feel very strongly that the children in our district need the most willing to do so. services provide. of the best qualified health care staff that we can c.c. Jo Evelyn ElstonLRSD School Checklist Senior High Schools (5) Grades 10-12 RN Davs 01 Central  John Hickman  1500 Park, 72202  324-2300 08 J.A. Fair  Al Niven  5201 David O. Dodd, 72210  228-3100 02 Hall  Dr. Victor Anderson  6700 H', 72205  671 -6200________ 12 McClellan  Jodie Carter  9417 Geyer Springs, 72209  570-4100 05 Parkview  Junious Babbs  2501 Barrow, 72204  228-3000 5 3 31 5 3 White Black White White White LPN Davs Vocational-Technical Center (1) Grades 10-12___________________________________ 04 Metropolitan  Dr. Doyle Dillahunty  7701 Scott Hamilton, 72209  565-8465 Junior High Schools (8) Grades 7-9 15 07 09 13 16 03 10 11 Cloverdale  Gayle Bradford  6300 Hinkson Rd., 72209  570-4085 Dunbar  Nancy Volsen  1100 Wright Ave., 72206  324-2440__________ Forest Heights  Richard Maple  5901 Evergreen, 72205  671 -6390 Henderson  Everett Hawks  401 Barrow Rd., 72205  228-3050_______ Mabelvale  Clell Watts  10811 Mabelvale W., 72103  455-7400 Mann Magnet  Marian Lacey  1000 E. Roosevelt Rd., 72206  324-2450 Pulaski Heights  Ralph Hoffman  401 N. Pine, 72205  671-6250______ Southwest  Charity Smith  3301 S. Bryant, 72204  570-4070 3 3 T i 3 5 3 3 Black White Black White White White White White ^2 day Bla\nk 1 day Elementary Schools [361 Grades K-6______________________________ 19 Badgett  Mary Golston  6900 Pecan Rd., 72206  324-2475 17 22 Bale  Levanna Wilson  6501 W. 32nd, 72204-570-4050 Baseline  William Finn  3623 Baseline Rd., 72209  570-4150 06 Booker Magnet  Dr. Cheryl Simmons  2016 Barber, 72206  324-2482 18 Brady  Mary Menking  7915 W. Markham, 72205  228-3065 21 28 31 32 23 24 25 Carver Magnet  Mary Guinn  2100 E. 6th Street, 72202  324-2460 Chicot Otis Preslar11100 Chicot Rd., 72103-570-4062___________ Cloverdale  Sadie Mitchell  6500 Hinkson Rd., 72209  570-4055 Dodd  Mary Jane Cheatham  6423 Stagecoach Rd., 72204  455-7430 Fair Park  Barbara Means  616 N. Harrison, 72205  671 -6260_______ Forest Park  Virginia Ashley  1600 N. Tyler, 72207  671 -6267_______ Franklin  Franklin Davis  1701 S. Harrison, 72204  671-6380 48 Fulbright  Mac Huffman  300 Pleasant Valley Dr.,  228-3080 26 Garland  Robert Brown  3615 W, 25th, 72204  671 -6275 37 Geyer Springs  Eleanor Cox  5240 Mabelvale Pike, 72209  570-4160 27 49 30 46 20 33 34 50 38 Gibbs Magnet  Donna Davis  1115 W. 16th, 72202  324-2490 Jefferson  Francis Cawthon  2600 N. McKinley, 72207  671-6281_______ Mabelvale  Julie Davenport  9401 Mabelvale Cut-off, 72103  455-7420 McDermott  Michael Oliver 1200 Reservoir Rd., 72207  228-3072______ Meadowcliff  Jerry Worm  25 Sheraton Dr., 72209  570-4165__________ Mitchell  Donita Hudspeth  2410 Battery, 72206  324-2415____________ Otter Creek  Carolyn Teeter  16000 Otter Creek Pkwy., 72209  455-7440 Pulaski Heights  Kay Loss  319 N. Pine, 72205  671 -6290 39 RIghlsell  Bobble Goodwin  911 W. 19th, 72206  324-2430 36 40 Rockefeller  Anne Mangan  700 E. 17th, 72206  324-2385 Romine  Lionel Ward  3400 Romine Rd., 72204  228-3086 41 Stephens  Lonnie Dean  3700 W. 1 Sth, 72204  671 -6350 47 Terry  Ladell Looper  10800 Mara Lynn Dr., 72211  228-3093 51 Wakefield  Lloyd Black  75 Westminister Dr., 72209  570-4190 42 Washington  Karen Buchanan  115 West 27th, 72206  324-2470 52 29 43 44 45 Watson  Dr. Diana Glaze  7000 Valley Dr., 72209  570-4195_______ Western Hills  Margie Puckett  4901 Western Hills, 72204  570-4175 Williams Magnet  Dr. Ed Jackson  7301 Evergreen, 72207  671 -6363 Wilson  Gwen Zeigler  4015 Stannus Rd., 72204  570-4180________ Woodruff  Pat Higginbotham  3010 W. 7th, 72205  671 -6270 Trl-Dlstrlcl Alternative Learning Center  Othello Faison  800 Apperson, 72202  324-2370 1 2_ IL 5 1-L 5 4 2 J_ Ik 2 5_ 3 5 T IT 5 3 2 ? 5 4^ 5 5 3r 2 2. 5. 2 IT 2^ 2 1 Black White Black Black White White Black Black White White White White White White Black White Black Biack White White Black White White White White White White Black White White White White Black White Each Junior High School nurse is taking a month for the ALC. She goes on the 2nd \u0026amp; 4th Wed. afternoon. FORM # 425 The Coordinator goes on the 1st \u0026amp; 3rd Wednesday.RECEIVED DEC 6 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring POSITION PAPER REGISTERED NURSES FOR SCHOOL NURSING IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTQRICT Presented by: Gwendolyn L. Efird, R.N., C.S.N., M.S.Ns. * January 31, 1991laole of Contents Introduction 1 Positive Statement 3 Rationale for This Position 4 Comparison of Nurses Education Program Little Rock School Nurses' Responses Illustration of School Nurse Practice 8 12 14 Summary and Recommendation 17 References 19IJ.TRCDUCT 1G:\nSince the onset of modern nursing in the mid eighteen hundreds, frequently been called on to clarify its status as a profession. the medical profession nursing has \"ei ther nor vhe community at large has found it easy to recoc- nize nursing as an independent profession whose practice whose efforts are committed to the prom.otion, is theory based, and health. maintenance and restoration of Because of economics and the availability of less qualified individ- uals, physicians and hospitals have been tempted to employ people with less preparation than recommended by the nursing profession. It is interesting to note that school nursing has experienced a similar sequence of events. Early in this century, it became apparent to school districts in London, New York and Boston that placing public health nurses in the school setting could have a favorable impact on student attendance and performance. The prevalen.e of communicable disease was so extensive that plans were developed to assess children at the beginning of the day to determine if they had any contagious illnesses. With the early success of this effort, it was recognized that nurses could make positive contributions to other health needs of students. children were cared for and then in the 1920's. Screening .programs were developed, sick nurses became involved in classroom instruction. Contacts with families such as home visits proved very beneficial as the school nurse attempted to improve the health status of students. (Rice, Miller \u0026amp; Rini, 1988). As school districts in many states began to employ school tion again arose concerning qualifications for the nurses. nurses, the ques- Why not hire less qualified people to do the job? The nurse's role was seen as the \"good Mom, someone who could soothe a hurt, put on a band aid, take a' temperature and tl make a phone cal 1. These obvious responsibilities continue to be important in the school setting, but too often the casual observer is unaware of the indepth work that is performed by a competent professional registered nurse. The persistent question asked in our local school district is. can an RN do that an LPN cannot do?\" It is as if the only issue to be \"What addressed is the action itself. will the data obtained be interpreted? What about the reason for the action? How What essential information, though not obvious, yet present, is important to the assessment and diagnosis of the problem? How can this child's health needs best be met? What is going onin other arenas of this cm id's life? Because nence complex health issues that can adversel' the Little Sock School child's life? fessional Di strict should ! students in our sc^ y affect the learn-- registered nurses to continue to employ well ':ools expe- g process, provide school health qu-Uified proservices. ..f a V 2 POSITION STATEMENT The position of this paper is that Registered Nurses are prepared not only to provide the action in school nursing stand the reasons behind the action, desired results and but are well prepared to underto accomplish the goal of optimum health for each student- alternate approaches Practical Nurses, because of a more limited academi Licensed prepared for some of the action. c preparation, are only tion for nurses i Therefore, the minimum level of preparan the school setting should be that of a Registered Nurse.  - 3Because nurses who tance of professional RA I ICRALE FOR THIS POSIT practiced in the school standards and setting recognized the impor- of School Nurses (NASN) criteria for school was established. preparation, the National Association This organization has developed a nursing practice including a definition and description It has also established the minimum level of needed for nurses who will practice in the school setti the NASN statement of definition, description of functi of functions. ti ng. preparation The following is for work. on and preparation Definition: The school nurse strengthens and facilitates the educa- tion.1 process by modifying or remo.ing health-related barriersto learning in individual wellness for students and students and by promoting an optimal level of staff. appropriate assessment, planning. The nurse assumes and/or referral activities\nintervention, evaluati responsibility 'for on, management. serves as the direct link between physi- Clans families, and community agencies to assure access and continuity Of health care for students\nprovides relevant instruction, counseling, guidance to students, parents, staff, and others concerning health- related issues\nupholds professional provides relevant instruction. parents, staff, and others Act, and other state school nursing practi trative guidelines. Description of FunctiI and local standards, the state Nurse Practice statues and regulations applicable to ce\nand adheres to district policies and adminis- ons Based on Standards of Schoo1 1. Nursing Practice: 2. 3. 4. 5. Applies appropriate theory practice. Establishes and as basis for decision-making in nursing maintains a comprehensive School Health Collects information about the health the student in a systematic and continuous manner. Uses data collected about the health student to determine program. and developmental status of a nursing diagnosis. and developmental status of the Develops a nursing care plan with delineating school specific goals and interventions nursing actions unique to students' needs. 46. Intervenes as guided by the nursing care plan to implement nursing actions that promote, maintain, or restore health, prevent illness, and effect rehabilitation. 7. Assesses student responses to nursing actions in order to revise the data base, nursing diagnosis, and nursing care plan and to determine progress made toward goal achievement. 8. Collaborates with other professionals in planning to assure quality of health care provided to students. 9. 10. 11. Assist student, families, and school personnel to achieve optimal levels of wellness through health education. Assumes responsibility for continuing education and professional development and contributes to the professional growth of others. Participates with others in assessing, planning, implementing, and evaluating school health and community services that include primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. 12. Contributes to nursing and school health through innovations in theory and practice and participation in research. Preparation for Work: 1. A baccalaureate degree from an accredited institution of higher learning. 2. Valid state registered nurse license. 3. Current state and/or national school nurse certification. 4. Two years nursing experience in child health. (American School Health Association, 1987) In 1988, school nurses in Ohio addressed a similar questioTi to the one that we are addressing. The issue for Ohio was the recognition that school nurses needed a baccalaureate degree and certification in school nursing.. They recognized that \"unless a child is alert, healthy, well-fed and fit, you cannot teach that child those subjects traditionally called basics (Rice, et al, 1988). The role of the school nurse was not only one of routine inspections and screenings, but the nurse had the expanded role for guidance, consultation and coordination of the school health program in her 5school. An ahequatL' school area of the health nurses' need to be health program ezpa.nes room. It involves the entire cli.- that may have prepared to identify and remedi one the geographical te of the school and is not the absence of a negative impact on the 1 ate these health concerns i11ness earning environment. a state of well being inclusive of phys and physical defects. Optimum health sociological and spiritual components. iological, Optimum health involves psychological, educational. It became important for nurses to re-think their role as one who orders and did not think or question the School nurses decisions \"took   practice nursing in an independent setti of thinking and judgement and suggestions of others. sound theoretical background. required in an ng. able to think and Ohio independent practice, To provide the kind reason through situations recognized that a well one must have a prepared nurse was , . -  more precisely and resulting in better decisions being made for the accurately, student (Rice, et al, 1988). Today's children have a broader behavioral issues, all of which have t range of physical, social. emotional and process. We see an increase in acute and chroni he potential to impede the educational deficit disorders, child abuse and pregnancy, emotional disorders. neglect, drug abuse. c health problems, attention Law 94-142, students with depression and suicide. streamed into the regular school more serious handicapping conditions teen and pre-tee.n Because of Public setting. are now main- nurses be available, not only to do the It is essential that, well educated supervise the aids. procedures. secretaries and other nursing procedures, but to teach and LPN's are not qualified support people who perform these for this teaching role*. School nursing involves the health practice. prevention of illness which is also part of public This may be accomplished tion or early diagnosis and treatment. through practices of health nurses make is to teach and needs. Nurses will frequently encourage children to A major contribution that school promo- care for their own health condition, how to teach a child how to adapt.'to a specific health quences of the illness and how basis. Both the informati practice appropriate behaviors to minimize negative conseT to practice good health habits are best done by on taught and the method of on a regular a nurse with adequate academi conveying the message c preparation (Wold, 1981). Basic to this author's Phi'losophy of Nursi ing is the concept that \"to nurse is 6to teach\" (Ritter, 1951). If our own learning base is mininal, we are less able to convey health knowledge to our children. k 7CCMPARISO.'J OF NURSING EDUCAiION PROGRAMS When comparing the various nursing programs, the striking difference that confronts the observer is the length of time program. a student nurse spends in the A. The College of Nursing at the University of Arkansas Medi requires two full years of undergraduate cal Science Campus sciences and then two full courses in the liberal arts and years of nursing courses that teach Foundations of Professional Nursing. Concepts of Nursing Practice, Nursing Management, Pharmacology, Nutrition, Nursing Leadership, and Nursing Concepts and Practicums in Medicine, Surgery, Pediatrics, Obstetrics, Mental Health- Psychiatry and Community Health. On the successful completion of these eight semesters and passing of the state board examination for registered professional nurses, the nurse, now with a bachelors of (BSN), is prepared to: science in nursing 1. 2. Use.the nursing process to assist the client in attaining, maintaining and restoring maximum wellness potential. Utilize nursing knowledge, skills and attitudes in managing clients who lack the ability, will or knowledge to meet health related needs and accomplish developmental tasks. 3. Collaborate with health care professionals and consumers in identifying and meeting current and emerging health related needs of clients in a 4. variety of settings. Utilize the research process to: a) Evaluate and apply research findings to nursing practice b) Improve nursing practice and client health through the identification and referral of researchable clinical nursing problems. 5. Apply the knowledge and values synthesized from the humanities. physical and behavioral sciences in the practice of professional social, nuring. 6. Participate in the formulation of professional 7. patient care in nursing practice settings. Participate in seeking solutions to selected standards for quality moral, ethical, legal. 8. economic and social issues affecting nursing practice. Utilize leadership and management principals to foster professional 89. C. D. B. nursing practice and inprove care deliver delivery systom. Demonstrate ability to y within the health engage in critical thinki and independent judgement. (University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 1989). care ng, decision making The Baptist Hospital School of Nursing for Registered Nurses utilizes seven semesters which include 18 hours of liberal and 74 hours of courses similar to the (JAMS ing Theory, Practicums, Concepts arts and science courses program. These include Murs- ns,. . . Practice in Medicine, Surgery etrics. Pediatrics, Community Health and Mental completion of this graduate of the diploma program the nurse may take for those subjects offered Baptist School of Nursing. program. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Operationalize the Health-Psychiatry. On She will have earned state boards and is a through Henderson State Teachers academic credits Their stated objectives are as follows: the needs' of individuals. nursing process when College at the providing nursing care to groups and families. meet Promote maximum adaptation of individuals or crisis. Promote wellness through health resources. Demonstrate continuing personal experiencing .illness, stress care teaching and using available professional growth by participating in professional and educational Practice professional activities. nursing as a generalist in health care faciliti or other settings where nursing care is provided.. (Baptist Medical Systems, 1991). The University of Arkansas at Little Rock offers gram with results in an associate degree (AD) in nursing, required to take 31 hours in liberal arts and an intense two year proStudents are es nursing courses. On completion of thi sciences and 39 hours in nursing and is eligible to take the s program thenurse has an AD in professional nurses. state board examination for registered The School of Practical . . . . Nursing at Baptist Hospital requires 12 months of study which at best cduld be on a semester basis. Because the considered 3 semesters although they are not entire course is completed in 12 months 9there is very limited time for the physical and social theory and nursing practice. sciences, nursinq The stated objective for this program is: it is the responsibility of the School to prepare a graduate practical nurse who is qualified to use observational skills while providing nursing care to patients in situations that are relatively free of complexity and to assist the professional nurse and/or physician in caring for patients in complex situations, are expected to: Graduates 1. Participate as a member of the health care team by contributing to the Nursing Process within the established guidelines for LPN practice. 2. Demonstrate respect for the individual by providing nursing care based upon nondiscriminatory practices. 3. Demonstrate professional accountability by practicing within the , defined legal standards and LPN code of Ethics. 4. Demonstrate professional growth through self-directed participa- . 5. tion in educational and professional activities. Demonstrate stewardship in the utilization of resources and facilities. (Baptist Medical System School of Practical Nurses, 1991). The key words here are providing nursing skills to patients in situations that are free of complexity and to assist the professional nurse in caring for patients in complex situations. is It is to be recognized that school nursing ifrequently challenged by complex physical concerns, but one cannot deny that the student population of today is overloaded with complex psycho-social concerns that can be most effectively addressed by well prepared staff. including nurses who are educated to assess and remediate these concerns. The legal definition of practical nursing is set forth in the Nurse Practice  Act of the State of Arkansas, Act. No. 432, Regular Session, 1971, amended. Statute 72-746f.: as The practice of practical nursing means the performance for compensa- tion in the care of the ill, injured or inform under the direction of registered professional nurse or a licensed physician or a licensed a dentist, and not requiring substantial specialized skill, judgement, and knowledge required in professional nursing. II I 101 I I i The employing nurse and/or supervising nurse shall not allow or encourage or authorize the Licensed Practical Nurse to exercise judgement and beyond the scope of practice of the Licensed Practical Nurse. skills When the question gets asked again, What can an RN do that an LPN cannot do?\" one should respond with the question, Which nurse has a sufficient level of knowledge and theoretical base to understand what needs to be done. why it needs to be done and what are the expecXed outcomes? be capable of assimilating her theoretical knowledge and they may be applied to any situation at hand. II The nurse should concepts so that She should use the nursing process to assist in attaining, maintaining and restoring wellness (LIAMS, 1989). IIr LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL NURSES RESPONSES On January 16. 1991. after work hours. their concerns about the the school possibility of using LPN's in the Several insightful thoughts were presented and 1. Two of our Their position the school 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. nurses met to discuss are included here. nurses became RN's after practicing for was that LPN training is not sufficient school setting. some years as LPN's. nurse job. They felt that the knowledge program prepared them to students. meet the challenging health Uvita Scott explained it well when she RN requires you to change his ability to just foil reason for the desired a preparation for gained in the RN care needs of our said. II Becoming an your type of thinking.\" One must replace her/ ov/ orders and become one who thinks through the outcome of the nursing intervention. nurses must demonstrate initiative in the practice of The school nurse is the only medical Professional their profession. person at the school. independent,, ..ere .edica, or nrs,g must have a broad understanding of individual health health needs of the community. She needs as well as the Families increasing,, are depending on the schoo, \"U e to determ,ne what needs to be done for their chi,d. Recognizing that man, of our famiiies have iimited resources and cannot access health care - Frequently parents seek nurse to be the primary needs to be done for their child. our families have limited resources and responsive school as frequently as they may wish, the no cost, well K T .. * * -prepared, nurse can be a candle in the dark for these families. Although many of our daily responsibi1iti es seem routine and even minor. ** I\" conditions of enormous 1 L Foutine activities may end up in the complexities of abuse, trauma, depression. and other significant physical and mental health Because of their knowledge base and academi prepared to participate in health education cl uable assets to the cl involvement i More and sei zures concerns. c preparation, RN's are asses. They are valassroom teacher who frequently requests nurses' n the health education classes. more school personnel procedures for children are beiag called on to perform with handicapping conditions. nursing Nurses provide 12the leadership and direction for those procedures, trained to provide nursing leadership. LPh's are net 7. Several school nurses expressed enable black LPN's to become school concern about lov/ering standards to nurses. RN's have become excellent school They felt that our black nurses and that there is no need to lower the standards. Blacks are just as capable as whites and shouldn't indicate any possibility that they us is to do a better job of recruitment. are not. we The task before 8. It is to be noted that the current trend is to require a Baccaleaureate degree in nursing as minimum preparation for school nurse practice. When our job description was rewritten in 1987, it would have been prudent to put the-BSN requirement in, however, it was recognized that the Little Rock School District needed to hire more black nurses and the probability of raising the requirement to a BSN would have reduced our chances of hiring black nurses. There is a significant number of black nurses, who successfully completed an AD or Diploma program and we do not want to exclude them from eligibility. 13ILLUSTRATIONS OF SCHOOL HORSE PRACTICE To illustrate fully the various opportunities for nursing care that confront our nurses v/ould require a book in itself. The follov/ing stories will demon- strate the needs of some of our students that can be remediated by a well prepared nurse. 1. John had been in a drug rehabilitation program prior to his return to school. His school had established a good support program for kids like John and he was involved in a group let by a teacher and the school nurse. Because the nurse had a sensitivity for John's program, had established good communication and trust with him \"and was perceptive of his needs, she was able to assist John in dealing with his problem. At various times , his behavior could have been interpreted as disruptive, but the nurse was able to see beyond the superficial actions and recognize John's appeal for assistance, sional nurse with RN preparation. This is the work of a profes- 2. In November, the school nurse screened the Community Based Instruction CCBI) students for scoliosis. Some deformity was observable in the chest area on a student named Mike. The curve noted on the examination did not measure to the degree that normally would require referral to a physician, but the student's back did not look normal so the nurse phoned the mother and suggested that an orthopaedic evaluation be arranged. The student was subsequently seen at Children's Hospital where the doctor noted minimal scoliosis. Syndrome, further evaluation was indicated. Because the*student had Downs It was recognized that the child had insufficient strength in the cervical spine and was very vulnerable to cervical injury. Surgery was recommended and provided. 3. Without this nursing service, Mike's unstable cervical spine may have gone undetected until he became seriously injured. On a weekly basis, one nurse meets with the pregnant girls to monitor their weight, blood pressure, energy levels, and to discuss any problems or concerns that they may have. This same nurse meets with a group of students after school to talk about teen issues and any pro- blems that the students may have. The functions of measuring vital signs and weight cap be done by an LPN, but the comprehensive understanding of the many issues that may impinge on these students' health is the responsibility of an RN. 144. One school nurse has a child with diabetes who is new to our school system this year. Because this child s diabetes v/as out of control, she nad not been able to play outdoors with the other children and also had very frequent absences. full time nurse, the Since being in our school, v/here v/e have a nurse has been working with her to get her regulated and into normal childhood activities. Her diabetes is better con- Her diabetes is better trolled and there has been a marked improvement in her self image and feeling of independence. The daily support and teaching from the school nurse has contributed to this student's health and well being. Again, we need people who not only do things, but understand the issues, the disease processes and can assist with any necessary adaptations so that 5. optimum health may be obtained. Pregnancy can complicate any teenager's life and thi situation for Mary. her to live with him and his new wife. Her mother had died and her father s was especially the was not allowing Severe asthma further compli-' Gated the pregnancy because of limitations on the medication she could take, uepression was becoming apparent, so her school nurse arranged to see her very frequently, observing for high risk symptoms. Depression Because parental support was not available, the school nurse assisted in getting . this student on the nutrition suppliment program for expecting mothers. Mary is still in school and scheduled to graduate in June. tant to provide comprehensive health we expect them to remain in school. It is impor- services for students like Mary if 6. High school student. Jim. was being misunderstood by his mother, his teachers and his friends. A persistent twitching and nervous feeling had been with him since junior high and no one tried to find out what was behind it. performance in school. It v/as affecting both how he felt about himself and his His school nurse assessed the symptoms and nized that a possible neurological disorder known recog- 7. may be present. as Tourettes syndrome With much persuasion from the nurse Jim's mother finally agreed to take him to Children's Hospital where the neurologist diagnosed his disorder and placed him on medication. sistent follow-up by the school adequate health care This type of pernurse is necessary if we are to provide  The nurse's ability to utilize her knowledge base and assessment skills paved the way for Jim to get treatment. Roger is being well ijared for at his school. Because he has spina bifida 158. he needs to be catherized at school every day. sterile procedure that can be done by moth The proper technique This is a clc' n non- ers, aids, teachers or nurses. must be taught and Roger's school nurse had not only instructed the aide in this procedure. port and encouragement. Staff and students in this school more about spina bifida because this nurse much teaching. but is following up with supunderstand is involved and provides The last story that will be presented is important because it could have been a repeat of the well publicized story of a small bo, in Little Rock who lost his leg story unfolded. as a result of abuse and neglect. As the following It was apparent to several of us that if our school nurse had not pursued this situation to a point of satisfactory tion, another child complemay have been severely impaired. Joe had an infection on his foot which the nurse had been concerned about. referral, sending home the She had made a written form and following up with a phone call. -She was treating the infection at school with the protoco.l established by our school physician. parents were not cooperating\nThe foot was getting worse and the For several days, the no medical attention had been obtained. nurse continued to encourage the parents. response was to tell Joe that he was not to allow the Their toe any more. Joe came to give the nurse that nurse to see his conversation, the infection odor message and during this made to involve the Department of Human was very apparent. The decision was responded to the concern that day. Services (DHS) and they However, they made contact with the parents who apparently agreed to take Joe in for treatment, but did viot follow through. and further contact by the Two days later, treatment still had not been initiated evidence of follow-up by DHS was apparent. nurse with DHS proved stressful in that no a supervisor in DHS and A phone call was placed to Services took Joe to the hospital where response did occur. The Department of Human eral days. We need nurses who he became an inpatient for sevbeing of our students. will be advocates for 'the health and well 16SUMMARY It is fully recognized within the educational comnunity that adequate academic preparation is essential. Teachers, counselors, psychological examiners and administrators all meet certain criteria prior to employment. The days are gone when a person can be placed in a classroom and told to teach. Ho one would consider that one year of college could prepare a person for teaching. Our children's minds are too valuable to entrust to an underprepared teacher. Standards of education must be upheld and certainly our children have benefited from these standards. Therefore, we should not consider entrusting the health care of the same child to someone with only one year of preparation in nursing. sional registered nurse program is essential. The knowledge base gained in a profesWe talk of world class schools for our children. These children deserve world class nurses who are well prepared to meet their health care needs. RECOMMENDATIONS It has been clearly stated in this paper that the registered nurse level of nursing should be the minimum standard for school nursing, but there is another issue at hand that is important to address. The reason that the question of using licensed practical nurses has surfaced relates to the fact that out of a staff of twenty-nine nurses only five ai'e black. In a district with a majority of black students it is important that we provide good role models for all of our students. It has been the practice and will continue to be the practice, for the coordinator of health services to always recommend for hiring any qualified I i black RN who applies for a nursing position, facilitate hiring more blacks include: Additional,practices that may I 1. 2. active recruitment of graduating nurses from the RN programs\nseeking assistance from leadership in the black community to be aware of our need for black RNs. 3. Encouraging our'minority recruiter to become more involved in helping us recruit black nurses\n174. 5. having our school nurse program presented in nurse recruitment fairs\ndeveloping brochures on school nursing for distribution to schools 6. of nursing\nmaking annual contact with the black nurses association\nand 7. wording the advertisements, \"Minority Recruitment.\" 18references American School Health Association (1987). Practice: II A Guide for Administrators\" Evaluating School Nursing p.34. Baptist Medical System (1991). School of Nursing Catalog P. 2. Baptist Medical System (1991) . School of Practical Nursing Catelog P.5 Rice, G., Miller, L., 4 Rini. N. Nurses 2000 A\nD. (1988) Why Board Hired P- 1. 11. 13, 19. 20. and Beyond Ohio Association of School Certified School Nurses Ritter, B. (1951) Classroom Instruct! Washington, D.C. on Capitol City School of Nursing University of Arkansas sation). at Little Rock College of Nursing (per phone conver- University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (1989) Catelog p. 13. College of Nursing White, D.H., (1985) A Study of Current School pournal of School Hea1 th 5 (2) p. 52. Nurse Practice Activities\nWold, S. (1981). C. V. Mosby Company. School Nursing: A Framework of practi ce. St. Louis 1'9I SENT BY: 1-31-95\n8:14AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 501 371 01 00:# 5/ 6 i I EDS rcornAt ::ORP  P HOM l\u0026gt;34 HOCK AH 72203 iPSOT Coordinator County Social Services Section 1 - Patient Identificailon ORIGINAL EPSDT Provider County Office I I ! I I I I I I I I I I (ifif.NT ^LAS'aTwL 01 I I\nin f-.AS{neiO5 H/t/Jelt,!' TvOJ*4 0^ AcSI0.NC\u0026amp; 71 I MO oToiftiH (91 OAY YEAR IF HXtIENT IS A AtniMHAL ilu ENttA NAME Of BCtCAHINU PM-BICIAN OTH^A health insurance CS^BMACiE (14\u0026gt; pnOtriOFfl KUIUSFR ! I I I I ^uEoicAL ft?coHo \u0026gt;\u0026lt;vMeen ( qi leNTSHNAME OF RiXN ANO ROliCV NUMRER)\nRRlMAR* OiACNOtiK? 0^ NATUAC Of lN*ua* {4 DiAGnO^.S cooe ! I I  iir I SECTION H - Social Worker Identification .i9i Signature Telephone No. Section III  Examination Report Type of Test or Examination THOM iMl A. Basic Screening  1- Growth and NutritiorF 2. Oevolopmcn: Assessment ___3 unclothca Physical a. Neurological Eam________ b Cardiac Status____________ 4. Vision 5 Hearing____________________ g Teeth (Children under 3 yearsi 7. Let) Tests (Appropriate tor age and population group) a. Hematologic 6. Urinalysis _____C, Other (Specify) ____ B. immunization Status___________ C Other (Specify) date Of SCRviCf TO I u  *uAce i I ttRwrW I : V20.2 3 c s a o z A S 2 z o z r Ml'31 j ijEX M'l' I 'mOH\n*TiENTi Mtuc/MC loxo (\u0026amp;i \u0026gt;74feEAdcRi\u0026lt;5 (9) City (W I pnovioen PMONC NUMBER i 324-2161 i^AS CONDITION AClAKO To MS\u0026gt; A. PATlENrS eMPLOvMENT  *3 Q AN ACC106NT  ves  no  no APFOiNTMENTOATEdn MO ,OA\u0026lt; vn time. PM TO: PROVIDER NAMS ANO ADQRSSS (13| Little Rock School District PAY TO PROVIDER NUMBER 121047761 TYPE OF SCREEN (181 INITIAI. 4. PERIODIC X EPSDT Request Date or Certification Date Date SS-694 Sent to Provia er UJ t4. 2 O o u a LU H LU C o e c LM COMMENTS .J1I (A) (9 fC) (D) 7e) (F) (G) (HI (0 (J) (K) (L) (M) (2) T I JL X 4. Lu I + X I I -J- 1 C r'UL.L' Ofc\u0026amp;i.Hfae ^M'OCblkjRCS MfUicAL MiMViULi OR Su*aL.*CS  7V^'SwC0 40R t*CN 04'^1 GIVN ^^duMCooe liCiNTIFv I 0 Z1636 0 Z1637 I (fiFiA/ar (/wvttMi. stv^es 0^ ci^cwstmcisi Periodic vision Screeninq D LAMlNOfilS cooe V20.2 Periodic Hearing Screeninc V20.2 Thia 11 Io CBH'^r '\"( -niofinaitoA pua. acourata aa/] compiefs. I ueoaniane ihai payment and sat stactfon o( tnis ciaim w.l ba hc/e Mbwai Siaia and rhai any taiM ^ima siatntA\u0026lt;a pf bocumantt or concaaii*^Ai ot a matanal lad may oa proiaeiiied unaar appi\u0026gt;cabia Ftdc'A\u0026gt; or 5iaia .'a*a No (?9\u0026gt; TOTAL CHAflGES ' ! doiitonai ePwgo* tot coAionsaD- mty-cm w\u0026gt;ii be mecie jrtyAAe payment wWi oe Aee\u0026gt;otd i D\u0026lt;y\u0026gt;TkeM ' Il ^a II I that tee aauvaa claimAn mr r.awA nar\\ cAfFr^MHii ann inai ina aaaw* M ^ULL. that ire aouve claims lO' (^yownl r\u0026gt;a*e ocn cofrpManao artn in int ab\u0026lt;0T t\u0026lt;en turiMshod n lun cOrtifGance d*scrm-nattOrtl w\u0026gt;th'n mo ptOT%i\u0026gt;nt o( 1\u0026gt;tie 'Ji ot in* Proa'a* Civ\u0026gt;i Rfgrita Ac* ana iect-op Wn .y* Monao..nr. nd qi 19x3 IZMI COVSR6O 9Y INSURANCE !\n?R Silling tzs\nE CHARGES F 0**0 0^ UNIT5 G PROviDCR kduaea 105 NUUBSR 16 la 29 0 00 6. 66 1 1 1 6 4 -i ttl e Rock School District Little Rock School Dis trier 1 TOR qteice use (^iiSENT BY: 1-31-95 : 8:12AM :JA RIGGS LlTTLf ROCK- 5013710100:# 2/ 6 Little Rock School District Health Services January 24, 1995 To: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent I From: Gwen Efir^^ Co dinator of Health Services Through: Jo Evelyn Elsti , Director of Pupil services Re: Medicaid Reimbursement for Health Services Currently, the Little Rock School District is being reimbursed by the Medicaid program for selected services provided by our school nurses. Listed below are the amounts we have received since the onset of this program. Year Applications Filed S Received Medicaid Applications Fiigd S Received Private Insur. ! 91-92 Approximately 200 $1,387.26 None None 92-93 Approx iraately 1000 $11,471.37 Approx imately 1500 $59.00 93-94 Approximately 1100 $12,365.44 Approximately 1600 $29.50 We receive a total of $23.73 for the hearing and vision tests, and $50.50 for the EPSDT screening. If the screening is the child's initial screen, which is unusual because most children have been examined prior to age 4 o 5, the fee goes up to $80.00. Application Process I Applications were filed with the Medicaid office requesting the provider numbers that would allow us to bill Medicaid. Separate numbers are required for the hearing and vision screening and the Early Periodic Screening for Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT). I Nurse and Health Room Certifications Our nurses have been certified by the Arkansas Department of Health to provide hearing and vision screening\nwhich is a requirement to receive a provider number. Eighteen nurses are now certified to do EPSDT, however only 9 health rooms have received the additional certification from the Health Department required for provision of the EPSDT. The additional equipment to meet the requirements costs approximately $500.00 per health room.SEyr .BY: . 1-31-95 : 8:14AM :JA RIGGS LIHLE ROCK- 5013710100:# 4/ 6 Pulaski County School District has used an electronic system which assists them with the billing and assures them of a more accurate ! medicaid number. I I I A staff person, who works half days does their It is uncertain how they handle the private insurance billing. The medicaid office has provided some information on the availability of using the electronic billing. However, it is to be recognized that even the electronic billing will take an individual's time and will only do the medicaid portion, which is the least time consuming. billing. take hiring someone individual was $640.00. to work after hours. we have accomplished both parts with The amount paid this I I I I As has been noted, some medicaid money comes from providing EPSDT physical examinations. Many more physical examinations have been provided than we have been reimbursed for. This relates to the I fact that EPSDT screens are provided according to a periodicity Several of our younger children have had a physical within the limited time frame and payment for the physical given by the school nurse was rejected. schedule. As parents become more aware of I this service, they may rely on the schools to provide it. Nurses, particularly in the Incentive Schools have been encouraging non participants who are eligible to apply for medicaid. also contribute to a greater amount of revenue. School nurses This could ! provided several clinics this past school year to give Kindergarten children their required physical examination. 1 t Increasing the number of certified health rooms will assist us in increasing revenue, year. We intend to increase this niimber by four thisI SENT BY: 1-31-95 : 8:15AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 5013710100:# 6/ 6 HS 36 9-93 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Teacher's Name I I i i I Dear Parent: The Little Rock School District can be reimbursed for certain health services provided by our school nurses. hearing/vision screening and a modified health assessment. These include Medicaid is the main source'of reimbursement, but other insurance plans are also involved. We are asking every parent to complete the information below and return it to school tomorrow. Thank you, School Nurse (PLEASE PRINT) Child's Name Birth Date (Be sure that you use the name known by Medicaid or your insurance provider.) Insured Parent's Name Parent's SSN Is your child on Medicaid: Yes No If your child is on Medicaid, please indicate the number or send a copy of your Medicaid card. Do you have other health insurance? Yes No If yes, please provide the following information: Name of Plan Policy Number Name of Insurance company Address of Insurance Company **AAA***A*A*********************************1lr**W********w*** (TO BE FILLED IN BY SCHOOL NURSE) School Nurse Hearing Screening Date Results Vision Screening EPSDT EvaluationSENT BY: 1-31-95 : 8:13AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 5013710100:# 3/ 6 } i Student Medicaid Numbers Starting in the 1992-93 school year and continuing to the present we have requested medicaid numbers and private insurance numbers from students who were scheduled for hearing and vision screening. This includes Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, first, third, fifth. I i seventh and tenth grades. insurance companies if we bill medicaid. We are required to bill private I Billing Process I When the forms with medicaid numbers are returned to the nurse, she uses the information to complete the HICFA form. A.) (see attachment This information is sent to the Health Services office where 4 copies are made and then sent to the Medicaid office. Forms that I indicate the child is on private insurance are completed with the results of the hearing and vision tests placed in the appropriate spaces, (see attachment B) . The bill is then sent to the insurance company. Concerns One would hope that the Medicaid reimbursement money could provide more financial benefit to the district. that it would fund positions. Initially, we had hoped Because of budget cuts in recent I years, the reimbursement money has provided funds to replace the budget reductions. The money has been used to pay part of the school physicians salary, purchase health room supplies, provide money to purchase more equipment for the health rooms and the cost of the person who does the billing. It should also be noted that 25% of the money received is to be returned to the state. Because of the time involved in the billing process, especially the private insurance, we have paid someone to work after hours to do the billing. This year, we hopefully will equip four additional health rooms so they can be certified for EPSDT. For consideration: Although we do not know exactly how many Little Rock School District students are medicaid eligible. it should be more that the 1000 that we are billing. It has been estimated that 10 to 15 % of our children may be medicaid eligible. We screen approximately 12,000 students which would result in 1800 being eligible. If we could get accurate medicaid numbers from more students and in some cases assist children who are eligible to get on the program, reimbursement. we could receive a greater amount of Sending requests home to parents for medicaid numbers has had limited response. Consideration should be given to obtaining this information when the child registers. The parent at that time could fill out the form providing the medicaid and insurance information, or a copy of the medicaid card could be made.Ooci IFTA Comcnl D 2 4 1995 r February 20, 1995 :0 Dear Dr. Williams and Little Rock School District Board of Directors: The Little Rock PTA Council is gravely concerned about the administrations proposed budget cuts pertaining to the school nurses. The decision to eliminate 19 registered nurses is quite shocking in view of the 1994-95 Little Rock School Board Priorities compiled just last September, 1994, in which Quality Nursing Services ranked third highest in priority. The PTA Council feels that the level and quality of nursing health care and services received by all students would be greatly diminished under this proposal and in the area schools would be virtually non-existent. Although it appears that most magnet and incentive schools would retain their school nurse positions, in reality these nurses probably would frequently be pulled to work at other schools that have no nurses. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that, ultimately, all our schools are at risk of losing the professional health care and services currently rendered to our children by the school registered nurses. The PTA Council is also extremely concerned about possible future plans to consider replacing the RNs (registered nurses) with LPNs (licensed practical nurses) and/or health aides. The knowledge and skills base of a registered nurse is significantly more appropriate in the school based setting in comparison to a licensed practical nurse. Neither an LPN nor a health aide possesses the specialized skills, judgment or knowledge necessary in providing the types of nursing care and services needed in our schools for our children. No parent wants his child to suffer the consequences or risks of mismanaged care given by inadequately trained personnel. During the process of identifying student health needs and intervening however necessary to meet those needs, school nurses provide innumerable types of professional services. In many cases, registered nurses are the only persons legally authorized under state public health regulations to complete the myriad of referral and evaluation forms for students needing special services. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that replacing RNs with LPNs and/or health aides would be comparable, theoretically, to replacing our classroom teachers with instructional aides. Many parents are greatly concerned about the continued assurance of basic nursing services received daily by their children such as administering medications and making pertinent observations, giving specific medical treatments, providing mental health observation and intervention, and providing observation and care for acute and chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, and head or other traumatic injuries. Every student has the right to a physically safe and emotionally secure environment in our schools, but will this right be severely compromised or, at worst, denied under this proposal? It must be noted that children in the lower socio-economic strata of our student population will undoubtedly stand to suffer greatly under this plan, because the school nurse is their only source of medical care for their health needs. The number of children in this category ranges from 100 to 150 ger d^. Currently, there are 1260 students in the LRSD served each day for acute illnesses and injuries, and over 1200 individual doses of medication are given daily. School nurses serve an extremely important function as health educators and advocates. As positive role models in developing permanent healthy lifestyles, they promote good health habits and illness prevention, carry out many health education programs, and work closely with students, parents and teachers regarding special health needs. Oftentimes the school nurse is the first and foremost person in whom a student will confide concerning personal problems and needs. Therefore, the nurses play a key role in providing support and intervention and handling the daily crises that arise. Therefore, the PTA Council strongly holds that in order for students to function at their highest learning ability and to have a successful educational experience, they must have access to the health services and education necessary to promote optimal levels of wellness. The PTA Council firmly takes the stand for maintaining health services as they are presently delivered and preserving the school nurse positions that we currently have. Thirty schools are covered daily with nurses while twenty schools are not covered\ntherefore, it would appear that the LRSD should consider adding school nurse positions rather than eliminating them. We also feel strongly that budget cuts should be made further away from the children, because school nurses directly serve 100% of the students in our district. At the last PTA Council meeting the members voted to make known to the LRSD Administration and the School Board of Directors our position on the proposed budget cuts affecting school nurses. Attached is a list of those members in attendance and the schools they represent. These individuals represent more than 13,000 PTA members in the LRSD. At a time when we are striving for safe schools, this situation certainly acquires a chilling perspective if we are to lose our school nurses and, as parents, suddenly feel that our children are truly in an unsafe environment. The Little Rock PTA Council sincerely hopes that you will give strong consideration to our viewpoints regarding this issue and will not make any changes in the current school nurse program in the proposed budget cuts. Sincerely, 'T  Ata UJ Deobie Glas^w, President Barbara Mills and Debbie Velez, Council Representatives Little Rock PTA Council cc: Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Ann Brown, ODM LRSD Administrators Gwen Efird and School Nurses PTA PresidentsName T, ^\u0026amp;'AfwS Little Rock PTA Council School/PTA Office J lx ^\u0026lt;1^3 TV Xi (.j./U Home Address/Phone 013Z..O 6n , '^^Sggvj-fV?\u0026gt;M.vo  \u0026amp;a}n L.rZ V\\a2) 7/aJii VJ\u0026lt;A L (so/^S-. d OJlCPiM. Ci-yS'- vi, 6^' ^\u0026gt;'1, CL^r^ I Q ' Oe c\u0026lt; f^\nk .. -^, - t \u0026lt; '4-- u h.-t .\u0026lt; / a I a-. 1 Name 9ro-K L Little Rock PTA Council DATE: School/PTA Office /-^C\\r lUy Ph Home Address/Phone [^39 '\"^teckirMr/ 177.2 ? C R i^f 1311 ?. ksTi rl A-f} I ./ / / 7L/1U/ n 6^ Q'Tu^ax^ . \u0026lt;E levtubv' t^e Bl' s. 7U\u0026lt;oor^ i r\\ (A ?'t \u0026gt; KjAdd/K^-. C^bCn'a'i} I CA -'t' V, a 1 - t L^l{4Ay 1- 'i^lr.-:. ^16 '^^X: /i'-'i I I / O I :k t cb Id -^' ' - \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt; 1-^' di:  4'' K003 005 :rf  41  '\u0026gt;11'1 a 1'04 OG.- '? 1' \u0026gt; I J m i . 1 A t f T\nJ nc J i' : - ur -c V.o:\ni Cl ? _ J .  Vli  )05 -  :.e t 1 . r J-,' rl' Ph' P i .J- ! h\nk M'-p tk'' r\n,[r!- f ^5 * Ktrfij? T^v bt*/hr K'ct'. a . 'vaKv Pl!, a \u0026lt;,-fv pter i  -paii'' !1P\nt , .pr, 'tl'P-'P 'r* ). -.'-(ri'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 (SOI) 371-0100 July 25, 1995 Ms. Gwen Efird 207 Barton Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Gwen: Congratulations on being named Arkansas School Nurse of the Year! Its an honor you so richly merit. Those of us who are privileged to work with you and be inspired by you know what a deserving recipient you are. Im just glad that so many people outside Pulaski County know it too. You make a very important difference for the children and parents of this community and state, Gwen. Tlianks for your brave leadership, your caring stewardship, and your steadfast, loving service. You have my abundant respect and gratitude, not only as a monitor, but as a very grateful Mom. Lots of love,  ?\\nn S. Brownp \u0026lt;30 py c-ta Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 To: Franklin Parent Involvement Team From\n^Frances Cawthon, Assistant Superintendent Date\nOctober 13. 1999 OCT i 3 I3S9 O?RCOF CSESOnCKMONlTORlfiQ Thank you for the concern you expressed regarding the nursing services at Franklin Academy. I, like you, would like to see a full time registered nurse in all of our schools. However, the way Franklins budget is currently allocated will not allow for that service. The Campus Leadership Team may consider shifting resources to allow for a full-time nurse. This would be a campus-based decision including all members of the Campus Leadership Team. Many of our elementary schools that do not receive the extra benefits of double funding also have high percentages of students in the categories that you enumerated in your letter. While your students at Franklin do not receive as many services as we would like to provide, there is certainly no discriminatory treatment in the budget allocation. Although Franklin is still a double-funded school, they are currently over their double funding by approximately 580,000. I'm sorry I couldn't give you a more satisfying answer. I do appreciate the interest, energy, and concern that the staff and parents have given expressing their ideas and making the inquiry. Please continue working through the Franklin Campus Leadership Team. Your combined efforts can assure the school's priorities are best met within the budgets capabilities. co: Ann Brown John Walker Junious Babbs Ethel DunbarOctober 6, 1999 r Am -s' .ij i d isa Mrs. Frances Cawthon Assistant Superitendent OCT I 3 1933 RE: Nurse Rollins - Reduction of days at Franklin Elementary CFiCEOF OESESREGAnONMOarrORiNG Dear Mrs. Cawthon: We the parents and staff of Franklin Elementary wish to express our concerns relative to the reduction of our schools nursing service. During the Incentive School inception, it was decided at the time (by the Courts) that each Incentive School would have additional staff that the area elementaries did not have. Those persons were identified as being a full-time nurse, social service worker, art specialist, music specialist, counselor, physical education, and a theme specialist. Double funding was c-------- support this extra staff and to aid with the desegregation efforts of identified schools. established to Over the past few years, from 1989 to the present, our students have had access to said persons to assist with their many educational, physical, social, and emotional needs. With the re-writing and Court approval of the new Desegregation Plan, changes have been made that has and continues to negatively impact Incentive Schools. First, class sizes increased, second, programs were eliminated, and now services are being denied. were Our children at Franklin School, for the most part, are in a high risk category. Many of these students come from homes where drugs are used, siblings are gang members, parents are incarcerated, education is not valued, little or no medical care is provided, and domestic violence is a way of life. The school nurse along with the counselor and social service worker functions as a team in securing and/or providing services for our students. According to recent research from At Risk to Excellence, Three decades of research on school reform has led to the identification of four basic elements that students need from their schools\nrelevant schoolwork, a nurturing and supportive environment, opportunities for academic success, and help with personal problems. Unfortunately, studies of schooling for students at risk of academic failure demonstrate that schools often fail to address the special circumstances including economic, family, community, ethnic, and racial statusthat characterize students placed at risk (Natriello, McDill, \u0026amp; Pallas 1990). We cannot afford to fail our students. Removing Nurse Rollins from our building two days per week is taking away, to a strong degree, the basic / element to provide assistance with personal problems. To reduce the day services of the school nurse at Franklin Elementary School means taking away a service that our students, parents, and staff need so desperately. Please know that Franklin is the largest Incentive School with the greatest need and should be given priority consideration when it comes to meeting the needs of the students and proposedOffice 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 To: Frances Jones From: Melissa Guldin /A Subject: Franklin Nurse Date: October 28, 1999 As we discussed this morning, I have been reviewing the correspondence regarding the reduction of the Franklin nurse from a full-time position to one that is .6 FTE. I have copies of the petition signed by Franklin parents and staff and your memo responding to their concerns. Elements of your memo have raised questions about the budget that neither I nor Skip Marshall could find answers to in the September 1, 1999 LRSD Budget. In the second paragraph of your memo, you note that Franklin (or possibly the incentive schools as a whole') are 'over their double funding by approximately 580,000. No matter how we compared budget projections and actual budgets or expenditures, we never arrived at any difference of 580,000. Could you please send further explanation for how that figure was determined? I would also appreciate receiving a copy of the formula that the district used to allocate the nursing staff among the elementary schools. When we talked, you mentioned state requirements for nursing services, but I do not have a copy of that allocation formula. Thank you for taking time to look into this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. CC: Ethel Dunbar01/10/2000 16:39 501-324-0543 LR SCH DIST PUPIL SV PAGE 01 Little Rock School District Health Services To\nMargie Powell Deseg Monitoring Dept. From: Margo Swanson, RN Coordinator of Health Services Jan. 10, 2000 Re: Number of School Nurses in LRSD LRSD currently employees 33 school Each school has nurses for their 49 schools one nurse assigned to it. FTE, soon to be 1.4 FTE ---- Tu:\n.: ThuJ^.o^iy 1 Central High has 1,2 Call me if 2161. you need more information. pager 569-0244, office 324-TUESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1995  ** t ! O/\u0026gt;1/ Nau\u0026lt;n*n*r Martha Rossi Engelberger Students remember nurses compassion BY SANDRA COX Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer dren, her husband said. Working as a school nurse would Wherever Martha Rossi En- make that possible. gelberger went, whether it was When she got a job with the a fast-food restaurant or the Little Rock School District, mall, she would likely hear a former student call out, Hey, Nurse Rossi. she fell in love with her role. She worked for several years at different schools, in- Engelberger. a nurse with eluding Pulaski Heights Junior the Little Rock School District High. Pulaski Heights Elemen- for 26 years, often saw as many tary and Forest Park Elemen- as 75 children a day. Her tary schools, said Gwen Efird, motherly compassion helped coordinator of health services heal the numerous broken for the Little Rock School Dis- arms. legs, upset stomachs and other ailments the districts pupils experienced. trict. I would get requests during the summer to make sure she All of the kids just loved would be reassigned to those her and admired her, said her schools, Efird said, There husband. Bob Engelberger. Before retiring in 1991. she earned numerous achieve- ments for her nursing, including the 1986 School Nurse of the Year award and the 1981 and 1986 Superintendents Citation for Outstanding Service. Martha Engelberger are probably a lot of grown-ups in this town who remember her as their school nurse. Bob Engelberger said that was often the case. We hardly ever went anywhere, whether it be the mall or out to lunch, she didnt run North Little Rock died Sunday from cancer. She was 66. Her choice of nursing as a of into one of her kids some- where, he said. Though she remarried, she was still called Nurse Rossi profession made sense. Her by many students. grandfather. Dr. W.M. Bums, wasnt only a well-known Not only was she a caring nurse, she also was quite North Little Rock physician skilled. For example, she had but also was the citys mayor the knack of correctly diag- and the man for whom the citys largest park was named. Her view of her grandfather likely played a role in her decision to be a nurse, her husband said. She also had experience nosing ailments, her husband said. Several doctors said. Well, you dont need us,  he recalled. Shortly after her first husband died, she was reunited with children. As a girl, she with her high school flame. helped watch over her younger While the relationship hadnt siblings and did chores from worked out when they were in cooking to washing. their teens, sparks flew in A graduate of North Little adulthood, Bob Engelberger Rock High School, where she was a cheerleader, she resaid. In 1977, the two married. In her spare time, Martha ceived nursing training in a Engelberger gardened, visited school at St. Vincent Infir- with her grandchildren and mary. read novels, including best- .About the same time, she sellers by John Grisham and also married Bill Rossi. They Danielle Steele. were married for 30 years. He died in 1975, Bob Engelberger the children. And her thoughts were with said. As a young woman, she Anything she could do for the kids, she would do, her worked for local doctors and at husband said. She was devot- Arkansas Children's Hospital. ed to that. She was a really But when she became the compassionate person. She mother of two. she wanted a worried about everybody else job that would allow her to spend summers with her chil- and never worried about herselfAugust 1 2. 2 0 0 2 School nurses tout noble profession Promote successes of keeping students healthy, workers advised BY CHRIS BRANAM ARKANSAS democrat-gazette SPRINGDALE  The little girl was always sick. A Springdale school nurse looked mside the childs mouth and found rotten teeth. She missed so much time. One disease after another, recalls Barbara Ludwig, who coordinates nursing lor die Spring- dale School District. The girl had been absent so many days during her kindergarten year she had to repeat the grade. Over the summer, Ludwig coordinated with the family  who had dental in- surarice  to get the girl to a dentist to have her teeth cleaned. The next year she was like a new child, Ludwig said. Smiling and happy. She did exi tremely well. Nurses serve a function in schools that is often overlooked by administrators, principals and parents, said Darlene Cheatham, a former school School nurses salaries  The National Association of School Nurses mailed a school nurse survey to 4,000 randomly selected school nurses throughout the United States in the spring of 2001. The association said 2,700 nurses responded to several questions, including how much they made. Only 67 percent reported they were on the same district pay scale as a teacher. $60,000 or more: 11.9% $12,999 or less: 2.7% $40,000 to $59,999: - 34.4% SOURCE: National Association of School Nurses nurse in Lincoln. They keep children healthy, she said. We need to promote ourselves, Cheatham said. We need to communicate our successes. $13,000 to $27,999: 17.8% r 1,000 to 1,999: ?^33.2% Artensas Democrat-Gazetta/GREG MOODY School nurses from Northwest Arkansas gathered at the Jones Center for Families in Springdale last week to do just that. The second School Nurse Summer Institute, last held in 2000, was sponsored by area hospitals and organized by nursing professors at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. The conference was two days after UA announced the results of a survey that revealed aspects of statewide school nursing, including low salaries and administrative headaches. We dont have a really good nurse-friendly environment in this state for school nurses, said Marianne Neighbors, interim director of UAs Eleanor Mann School of Nursing. Schools ask nurses to maintain records, manage immunizations, administer first aid and perform health screenings for students and staff, according to the survey. These tasks could be delegated to support persoimel, UA nursing professors said. Most of the school nurses spend a lot of time hi data management, Neighbors said. They See NURSING, Page SBNursing  Continued from Page 1B spend so much time doing reports. The school nurses do get tied down with minutiae. Neighbors and her colleagues determined that nurses should be spending more time on policy de- velopment, health education, school health fairs and professional development. Karen Kerr, nursing coordinator for Gravette schools and past president of the Northwest Arkansas School Nurses Association, said the public sees her job as simply treating head lice and attaching Band-Aids. We are so trying to let [parents] know what we are doing, Kerr said. Theres so many people who dont realize what we do. We want to be recognized professionally because we have a college education. Cheatham spent 21 years in Lincoln before moving on to the UA Health Center in 2001. Our role as a nurse is a social worker, a teacher and a nurse, Cheatham said. IMMEDIATE NEEDS The person hired to be an advocate for the states school nurses in February said most school districts are meeting the bare minimum in providing nursing services. State health and education regulations only mandate school nurses to be licensed. The guidelines recommend a 1-nurse-per- 1,000 students ratio, which isn't enforced. The National Association of School Nurses, the nations largest nurses group, recommends a ratio of one nurse to 750 students. We have some immediate needs that need to be addressed, said Susanne Tullos, the state school nurse consultant for the state departments of education and health. Tullos was hired with funds from the voter-approved Coalition for a Healthy Arkansas Today, commonly known as CHART, a plan that organized the spending of Arkansas share of the master settlement with major tobacco companies. The Tobacco Settlement Proceed.s Act provides $60 million to the state each year. Tullos said she wants to be a voice in government for school nurses. My vision is to position Arkansas as the national leader in the delivery of school health services, Tullos told the group at the nurses institute. Arkansas is one of only 13 states to mandate school nursing services, according to the national nurses association. Most of Arkansas school nurses are licensed nurse practitioners, Tullos said. These types of nurses, who cant perform the same tasks as registered nurses, make less tlian their counterparts. According to Occupational Employment Statistics in 2000, a report of the U.S. Department of Labor, Arkansas 17,610 registered nurses earned an average of $38,770 a year. The states 11,850 licensed practical nurses averaged $24,340 annually. Tullos improvement plan starts with raising salaries, she said. Kerr, who has directed Gravettes school nursing services for 18 years, figures the average school nurses salary in Northwest Arkansas is $25,000 a year. The school nurse profession is under the jurisdiction of the Arkansas State Medical Board. The state Board of Education doesnt require certification for school nurses, only licensure, so districts pay their nurses like the rest of their noncertified employees. Noncertified jobs include custodians, bus drivers and maintenance workers. Kerr, a registered nurse, said her pay used to be the same as a beginning custodian. She successfully lobbied for a better salary. I want to see [children] get good health care, Kerr said. If it means making less... until we can get the school boards to recognize that certification. Ludwig is paid as a noncertified employee in Springdale even though she earned her National Board for Certification of School Nurses. Tullos said shes seen a salary as low as $8,000 a year, but she doesnt know if that was for a part- time or full-time position. 1 could never live on what 1 make as a school nurse, said Lydia Bush, who is the only school nurse for the Eureka Springs School District. \"Its not that [school officials] are mean, Bush said. Theres only so much money. So often you run up against that brick wall of money. PAPERWORK, PAPERWORK Still, more registered nurses are joining the school ranks, according to the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses, conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 2000, 3,8 percent of registered nurses in the country worked in schools. The percentage was 2.7 percent in 1W2. New school nurses are finding they are responsible for an array of school health needs, especially in Arkansas. Arkansas Childrens Hospital in Little Rock has seen an 800 percent increase in child cases of obesity-related type 2 diabetes, known as adult-onset diabetes, accordr ing to the state Department of Health. On July 18, an associate professor at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock told a legislative panel that 1999 data showed 10.9 percent of students in Arkansas were obese, compared with a national average of 9.9 percent. The kids, sometimes, are not getting health knowledge at home, Neighbors said. Thats why school nurses need to step up their efibrts in teaching children proper nutrition and basic hygiene. Neighbors said. School nurses dont have the time to deal with overall health education because they are bogged down in paperwork, according to the UA survey. School nurse Linda Wilkins, who oversees 950 students at Shiloh Christian School in Springdale, said working with people is at the heart of nursiilg, not administrative vvdfR. Wilkins referred to a woman who rose to fame during her work during the Crimean War in Europe in the 1850s. Florence Nightingale is the mother of nursing, Wilkins said. I guarantee you she didnt go into that battlefield with a notepad. The Education of All Handicapped Children Act, passed in 1975 and later known as the Individuals with Disabilities Act, has meant a broader role for school nurses in dealing with children who have medical problems, Tullos said. School nurses usually are the ones who fill out the numerous forms for these children, she said. They are almost always the only qualified person to give constant attention to medically fragile students. Even with their responsibilities. some nurses attending the conference in Springdale said they dont have much equipment. Teresa Ben, who started at Bentonvilles Lincoln Junior High last year, said she was surprised when she found she didnt have a wheelchair or even crutches for students. Our goal is to keep [students] in school, Kerr said. Healthy children learn.\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_888","title":"Personnel Directory, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"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","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","School administrators","School board members","School employees","School management and organization","School principals","School superintendents","Teachers"],"dcterms_title":["Personnel Directory, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/888"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nPERSONNEL DIRECTORY North Litde Rock School District NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent 1994 - 1995 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 Poplar Street Marty Moore, President (September, 1995) Larry Shadid, Vice President (September, 1996) Progressive Tire Distributor Teresa Burl, Secretary (September, 1997) Twin City Bank Pat Blackstone, Member (September, 1996) New Futures for LR Youth Lynn Hamilton, Member (September, 1997) Arkansas Democrat Gazette Mable Mitchell, Member (September, 1995) Luella Thomas, Member (September, 1997) North Little Rock, Arkansas BOARD OF EDUCATION 4417 Central 72118 8217 Windsor Valley Drive 72116 822 N. Cedar 72114 3409 Bunker Hill 72116 4103 Arlington 72116 5006 Glenview Blvd. 72117 1810 W. Short 17th 72114 758-3181 835-7386 375-5372 753-5128 758-2209 945-2431 374-4143 TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS IN DISTRICT Secondary: Senior High 1 Middle Schools 3 Elementary 15 Handicapped Center 1 Alternative Schools 2 TOTAL 22 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND SCHOOLS (Addressesffelephone Numbers) Superintendent's Office ------ 2700 Poplar Street ----------------------- 771-8000 Smith, James ---------------------------------------------------------- 771-8006 Superintendent of Schoo~ Braz ear, Shara ---------------------------------------------------------- 771-8013 Communication Specialist Wooldridge, Avis --------------------------------------------------- 771-8006 Secretary/Board Matters Anderson, Donna ---------------------------------------------------------- 771-8000 ReceptionisUSubstitute Teachers Office of Desegregation/Personnel----2700 Poplar Street -------------------- 771-8050 Acklin, Bobby --------------------------------------------------------- 771-8016 Ass't Superintendent for Desegregation/Personnel Harris, Caro I --------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 O 5 O Secretary Morris, Jim --------------------------------------------------------- 771-8066 Director of Personnel Collins, Sandra --------------------------------------------------------- 771-801 a Secretary Richbourg, Mary --------------------------------------------------------- 771-8017 Secretary Student Affairs----------------------------2700 Poplar Street---------------------- 771-801 O Jackson, Fran -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 009 Director of Student Affairs Juckett, Sandra -------------------------------------------------------- 771-801 O Secretary Haynie, John -------------------------------------------------------- 3 7 5-0 048 Supervisor-Transportation Du Priest, Johnnie ------------------------------------------------------- 37 5-0048 Secretary Office of Instructional Services -----2700 Poplar Street-------- 771-8020 New, Bob by ------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 0 2 0 Ass't Superintendent for Instructional Services Smith, Virginia -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8020 Secretary Crawford, Esther ------------------------------------------------ 771-8021  Director of Elementary School Administration Platt, Yolanda ------------------------------------------------------- 771-8022 Secretary Chadwick, Dana ------------------------------------------------------- 771-8023 Director of Secondary School Administration Instructional Services continued: Wasson, Daya lene ------------------------------------------------------- Secretary Dyer, Jim ------------------------------------------------------- Director of Federal Programs Barnett, Mich e I le ------------------------------------------------------- Secretary Pharo, Jann ------------------------------------------------------- Coordinator of Preschool Program Allen, Greta ------------------------------------------------------- Secretary Kin c I, Ann ------------------------------------------------------- Coordinator of Gifted Education Craven, Nora --------------------------------------------------- Secretary Martin, Letitia ------------------------------------------------------- Coordinator of Evaluation and Research Staggs, Nova ------------------------------------------------------- Coordinator of Curriculum Design Sandra Lewis ------------------------------------------------------- Secretary Wi 1i1a ms, Sharon ------------------------------------------------------- Coordinator of Staff Development Wise, Eugene ------------------------------------------------------- Coordinator of Technical Programs McCauley, Gloria ------------------------------------------------------- Secretary Atkins, Annette ------------------------------------------------------- Career Evaluator Naylor, Janet ------------------------------------------------------- Paraprofessional Special Services--(Administrative Annex) Reed, Danny ------------------------------------------------------- Director of Student Services Stokes, Ph yl I is ------------------------------------------------------- Secretary Smith, Gloria ------------------------------------------------------- Coordinator of Elementary Special Education Di 1i1n ger, Re 1i1a ------------------------------------------------------ Coordinator of Secondary Special Education Hudson, Ne 11 ------------------------------------------------------- Secretary Wise, Linda ------------------------------------------------------- Secretary Moore, Nancy ------------------------------------------------------- Coordinator of Psychological Services 771-8024 771-8048 771-8049 771-8161 771-8053 771-8054 771-8056 771-8045 771-8046 771-8047 771-8037 771-8051 771-8047 771-8052 771-8052 771-8032 771-8033 771-8038 771-8034 771-8036 771-8035 771-8043 Special Services continued: Camp, Drew ------------------------------------------------------ 771-8040 Psychological Examiner Cannon, Melissa ------------------------------------------------------ 771-8 04 0 Psychological Examiner Chapple, Marcia ---------------------------------------- 771-8041 Psychological Examiner Wood a rd, Jam es ------------------------------------------------------ 771-8 041 Psychological Examiner Davis, LeAnn ------------------------------------------- 771-8042 Vision Impaired McMillen, Martha ------------------------------------------------------ 771-8068 Homebound Teacher Harris, Kathy ------------------------------------------------------ 771-8059 Homebound Teacher Bray, Pandora ------------------------------------------------------ 771-8 0 3 9 Secretary Hickman, Christine ------------------------------------------------------ 771-8072 Parent Coordinator Cam p be 11R, ub y ----------------------------------------------------- 771-816 8 Homeless Coordinator Scott, Pa u I ----------------------------------------------------- 771-8168 Chapter I Parent Coordinator Jasper, Thelma ------------------------------------------- 771-8090 Early Childhood Coordinator (Tri-District) Crosland, Debbie ------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 0 9 3 Secretary Instructional Materials Center at Administrative Annex 22nd and Pop I a r ---------------------------------------------- 771-8 0 7 0 Wa II ace, Ging er ------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 0 71 Coordinator of School Improvement Boardman, Petrevia ------------------------------------------------------- 771-8070 Secretary Bryant, Ron ------------------------------------------------------- 771-8290 Band/Choral Coordinator Duva 11B, illy ------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 07 3 Head Electronics Technician Shuffield, Robert ------------------------------------------------------- 771-8073 Electronics Technician Business Office---------------2700 Poplar Street-------------------------------- 771-8011 Watkins, Don a Id -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 0 11 Ass't Superintendent for Business Services Mushinski, JoAnn -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8011 Secretary Business Office continued: Danie Is, Greg ---------------------------------------------- 771-8 0 2 5 Director-Com put er Services Holloway, Jim -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8026 Computer Programmer Morris, Nancy ---------------------------------------------- 771-8027 Secretary Mitch ell, Ru by -------------------------------------------------------- 771-80 28 Supervisor Cochran, Theresa -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8029 Head Bookkeeper Black, Mikki -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 0 31 Bookkeeper Campbell, M urielene ------------------------------------------------- 771-8067 Bookkeeper Wi rg es, Liz -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 0 30 Bookkeeper Ward, Doyne -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8014 Director-Purchasing Ness, Margaret -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8015 Secretary Wi II iam s, Ton ya -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 044 Production Clerk Athletic Department ------------------------- Stadium----------------- 771-8154 Goss, Gary -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8153 Director-Athletics Coble, Ruby -------------------------------------------------------- 771-8154 Secretary Maintenance Department --------------------2600 Poplar Street --------------- 771-8075 Massey, Jerry --------------------------------------------------------- 771-8076 Director-School Plant Services Crownover, Alan --------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 077 Supervisor-School Plant Services Stone, Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- 771-8075 Secretary Mc Munn, Kim . --------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 0 7 8 Safety Coordinator Carr, Ken --------------------------------------------------------- 771-8079 Operations Monitor Phelps, Larry --------------------------------------------------------- 771-8080 Energy Specialist Harris, Chuck --------------------------------------------------------- 771-8 044 Delivery/Warehouse School Food Services -----------------------2400 Poplar Street ---------------- Pearson, James --- ,_ ________________________ ___ Director-School Food Services Satterfield, Marsha --------------------------------------------------------- Coo rd inator-N utrition Glover, Pam --------------------------------------------------------- Secretary Elliott, Barbara --------------------------------------------------------- Office Clerk Moody, S herelene --------------------------------------------------------- Office Clerk 771-8060 771-8061 771-8062 771-8060 771-8088 771-8063 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Secondary NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL, 11th/12 West Campus 101 West Twenty-Second Thompson, Gregg, Principal 1412 Cornflower NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL, 9th/10th East Campus 2400 Lakeview Rd. Kirspel, Ken, Principal 5904 North Hills Blvd. LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL 2300 Lakeview Road Wiseman, Ginny, Principal 121100 Silver Creek RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 4601 Ridge Road Jones, Charles, Principal 6217 N. Allen ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 5500 Lynch Drive Cook, Kathy, Principal Elementary AMBOY Elementary Ford, Jane, Principal BELWOOD Elementary Martin, Brenda, Principal BOONE PARK Elementary Wilson, Mavis, Principal CENTRAL Elementary Siegel, Pat, Principal CRESTWOOD Elementary Wilson, Linda, Principal GLENVIEW Elementary Allen, Harold, Principal INDIAN HILLS Elementary Jackson, Susie, Principal LAKEWOOD Elementary Lowe, Kaye, Principal LYNCH DRIVE Elementary Kelso, Beverly, Principal MEADOW PARK Elementary Warren, Shedrick, Principal NORTH HEIGHTS Elementary Snowden, Dana, Principal PARK HILL Elementary Melton, Cynthia, Principal PIKE VIEW Elementary Crites, Diane, Principal REDWOOD Elementary Chancellor, Linda, Principal 2400 West 58th 26 Coronado Circle 3902 Virginia Lane 26 Wright Cr.,Jacksonville 1400 Crutcher 16114 Otter Creek Pkway 2300 Poplar St. 1712 War Eagle 1901 Crestwood Dr. 5708 Dublin St. 4841 Edmond 412 W. Twenty-Second 6800 Indian Hills Dr. 6407 Sherry Dr. L.R. 1800 Fairway Ave. 6605 Allwood 5800 Alpha St. 4120 Royal Oak Dr. 2300 Eureka Gardens 417 W. 24th 4901 N. Allen 2500 Vancouver, L.R. 3801 JFK Blvd. 5 Foxboro Ct. 441 McCain Blvd. 1217 Cache River Rd. 401 Redwood 1801 Reservior Rd., L.R. 771-8100 834-4829 771-8200 835-3369 771-8250 834-0929 771-8155 758-2856 945-1946 945-1946 771-8185 835-5591 771-8195 982-2991 374-9630 455-2900 771-8275 834-2982 771-8190 771-1951 945-3467 758-6512 835-5622 664-1729 771-8270 753-0439 945-3549 758-8082 945-7612 758-8221 771-8180 228-7036 771-8175 758-0176 771-8170 758-8738 945-2185 227-5026 Elementary - SEVENTH ST. Elementary Paul, Marsha, Principal Special Schools: BARING CROSS CENTER Bull, Charlotte, Principal ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL (Sec.) Tucker, Arthur, Principal ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL (Elem.) Tweedle, Katherine, Principal 1200 East Seventh 59 Kings Park, L.R. 901 Parker 15 Thrush River Cr. 1301 Main 18 Mine Hill Dr. 100 Earle Street 1811 Chitwood, Benton 372-4660 227-4055 374-1286 835-6677 374-6943 753-0571 945-1962 778-6932 NORTH Ll'ITLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1994-1995 Alphahetieal Listinl! of Personnel IName Telephone Address City Zip Locat,on Assignment ABRAHAM, FRED L. JR. 225-1027 7820 W CAPITOL, #606 Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72207 Warehouse MAINTENANCE HELPER ACEBEDO, PAMELA N 771-1985 1103 W SCENIC North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72118 Elem Alt SAC AIDE ACKLIN, ANETTE 8J4.a\n14 9 GREENVIEW CIRCLE Sherwood 72116 Boone Park CHAPTER I AIDE ACKLIN, BOBBY J. 329-9838 211 HIGHWAY365 Conway 72032 Adm,n Offoce ASST. SUPT.-DESEGREGATION ACLIN, CAROL ANN 758-4802 1717 BERESFORD North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72116 Central SIXTH YEAR ADAIR, LAVERNE 377-1492 700 POPLAR #1158 Jacksonville 72076 Glenv- SELF CONTAINED MR ADAMS, DEAN W 941-2206 122 COOPER LANE Austin 72007 Lakewood Elem CUSTODIAN ADAMS, DON A. 771~90 3108 N CYPRESS North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72116 Wlnlhouse PAINTER ADAMS, HEE RT2 BOX 177 Austin 72007 Lakewood Middle CUSTODIAN ALEXANDER, CATHERINE L. 7~260 21 VALERIE CT. North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72118 Park Hill SECOND YEAR ALEXANDER, RICHARD C 835-8207 6005 GLENHAVEN PL North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72116 NLRH~/10 A.SST 88,0FF SE/STADIUM, ASST SOCCER (12) ALEXANDER, VALERIE L. 370-5071 1411 FRANKLIN ST North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72114 Adm,n Annex HIPPY PARA.PROFESSIONAL ALFORD, LEO 758-0044 6122 ESS LANE North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72118 Park Hill CROSSING GUARD ALLEN, CAROLYN H 835-6154 117 WHITEWOOD Sherwood 72116 Amboy THIRD YEAR ALLEN, DINAH M 835-1968 7709 FLINTROCK North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72116 Indian Hills SIXTH YEAR ALLEN, EVA M 2-400 MCCAIN #1004-1 North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72116 Redwood H.O.T.S. TEACHER 49138 ALLEN, GRETAL 666-3159 412 W 22ND STREET North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72114 Adm., Off,co SECRETARY-COORDINATOR OF TECHNICAL \u0026amp; PRE-SCHOOL ALLEN, HAROLD BLAKELY 758-6512 412W22ND North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72114 Glenvoew PRINCIPAL-ELEMENTARY ALLEN, SYLVIA JD 758-6512 412 W22ND ST North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72114 NLRHS-11I12 ENGLISH Ill ALLGEYER, DAVID C 758-6173 5901 J.F.K. BLVD APT 3221 North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 FOUN. A.RT, DESIGN I, II ALSUP, BARBARA I\u0026lt;. 758-1971 120 E. 23RD STREET North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72114 NLRHS-11112 FOOD SERVICE MANAGER AMAOEN, CHRISTY L 676-6012 24 PONDEROSA DR Lonol\u0026lt;e 72086 Lakewood Elem FIFTH YEAR AMICK. KA.REN Y 847-2795 1917 CEDAR RD Benton 72015 Crestwood COMP ED AIDE AMICK. KA.RENY 847-2795 1917 CEDAR DR Bonton 72015 Crestwood LUNCH PERIOD AIDE AMIS, GLEN P 843-a858 4324 LEWISBURG RD Austin 72007 NLRHS-11/12 PHYSICS, PRINCIPLES OF TECH AMIS, PAUL F. 982-2271 821 MCHENRY ST Jacksonville 72076 NLRHS-11112 ELECTRONICS ANDERSON,ANNETTEA 945-7822 107 MEADOW PARK North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72117 Indian Hills CUSTODIAN ANDERSON, DONNA S 758-0235 3116 N MAGNOLIA North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72116 Adm., Off,co RECEPTIONIST/SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS ANDERSON, GLORY A. 868-4805 14 09 SHEPARD DR Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72212 Lynch Dnve KINDERGARTEN ANDERSON, NENA L 771-'1861 2523 FRANKLIN ST North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72114 Boone Park CROSSING GUARD ANDERSON NENA L 771-4861 2523 FRANKLIN North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72114 Cafelona Off,co FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT-SUBSTITUTE ANDERSON, SHARON A. 834-1552 1609 SARATOGA North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72116 Crestwood FIFTH/SIXTH YEARS ANDERSON,W ANORANETTE 562-3983 5 WEMBERL Y OR Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72209 NLRHS-11112 CHEMISTRY, AP CHEMISTRY ANHALT, WENDY A 791-3791 5901 JFK BLVD APT 621 North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72116 Glonvoew FIRST YEAR ARENDT, CONNIE M 753-1934 5825 NO CEDAR North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72116 Indian HMls SECRETARY 4814 ARMAN, MARY I\u0026lt;. 95-0530 412 MEADOW PARK North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72117 Meadow Park MEDIA CLERK 0t45 ARNOLD, MICHAEL 843-7500 17 TALBERT DR Cabot 72023 Warehouse LEAD ELECTRICIAN ARNOLD, SHEILA 455-3655 8807 MANA.SSAS CIRCLE Mabotvale 72103 NLRHS-11I12 GENERAL OFFICE CLERK ASHLEY, KATHY M 771-4994 #4 CANYON CT North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72116 Lakawood Elem SPECIAL ED K-6 ASHMORE, REGINALD L 371-0564 803WALNUT North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72114 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER ASHMORE, TIMOTHY D 371-0564 803WALNUT North Little Roel\u0026lt; 72114 NLRHS-11112 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT ASHMORE, TONI L 945-3-460 608WATER ST North Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72117 NLRHS-11I12 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT ASKEW, NATHANIEL L 371-0851 1615 WEST 22ND Lrttle Roel\u0026lt; 72202 Elem Alt SELF CONTAINED SP ED Page 1 ATHERTON, RITA M. 11801 WILLOWLANE $a,tt 72142 Central SECOND YEAR ATKINS, ANNETTE H. TT1-1898 5504 NO VINE North Little Rock 72116 Admr, Office VOCATIONAL EVALUATOR ATKINS, JAMIE L 101 N LONGFIELD North Little Rock 72116 Central PRE-SCHOOL AIDE BABB, DENNIS D. 982-4179 1408 TAMARA PARK Jadtsonville 72076 Tnmsportat,on HEAD MECHANIC BABB, JULIE D. 982-4179 1408 TAMARA PARK Jadtsonville 72076 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER BACCUS, GLORIA BELL 945-9483 1000 F STREET North Little Rock 72114 Seventh Street FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BADGETT, SUSAN R 227-5683 8101 CANTRELL#1904 Little Rock 72207 Saventh Street SECOND YEAR BAHIL, ELIZABETH ANN 758-2485 17 EMERALD CR North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS-09/10 MEDIA SPECIALIST BAILEY, PAULETTE 758-9246 2108 MIDDLETON DR North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 CT:INTRODUCTION. WORD PROCESS, ENG. 11 BAILEY, REBECCA S. 758-3620 1604 NORTHLINE DRIVE North Little Rock 72116 Belwood SECOND YEAR BAILEY, ROBBIE M. 7B08 WOODHAVEN Little Rock 72209 Elem Alt FOOD SERVICE MANAGER BAKALEKOS, RAYMA J 753-1707 5511 SONORA DR. North Little Rock 72118 Amboy LUNCH PERIOD AIDE BAKER. KATHERINE A. 945-1049 708 EAST BETHANY North Little Rock 72117 Admin Annex ~IPP'\u0026lt;' PARAPROFESSIONAL BAKER, LORIE A. 224-4457 #16 FONTENAY Little Rock 72211 Admr, Annex SPEECH THERAPIST EARLY CHILDHOOD BAKER, SHARON D. 753-6873 3902 SUSAN CIRCLE North Little Rock 72118 Pike V,ew EARLY MORNING AIDE BAKER, SHARON D. 753-6873 3902 SUSAN CIRCLE North Little Rock 72118 PikeV,ew SPECIAL ASSISTANCE AIDE BAKER, SHEILA M 661-a897 PO BOX4122 North Little Rock 72190 Sec Alt SCHOOL TO WORK PROJECT BALLARD-JACKSON, SUSIE 664-1729 6407 SHERRY DR Little Rock 72204 Indian Hills PRINCIPAL-ELEMENTARY BALLARD, FREIDA C 753-3397 2605 S HILL CT North Little Rock 72116 Pike VteW SECOND YEAR BALOGH, LISA F 9200 W MARKHAM Little Rock 72205 Meadow Park THIRD YEAR BANKS, AUGUSTA C. 218 S LAUREL North Little Rock 72114 Crestwood LUNCH PERIOD AIDE BARNES, LEILA A. 4614 BOYER ST North Little Rock 72117 Lynch Dnve FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BARNES, REGINALD E 753-3920 2401 LAKEVIEW RD. APT P North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 HEAD FB, OFF-SE/ASST BB HEAD TRACK (9), HLT (12 BARNES, REGINALD E 753-3920 2401 LAKEVlEW RD, APT P North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 EARLY MORNING AIDE BARNES, SCARLETT A 226-7385 #1 MEADOWBROOK DR Little Rock 72205 Belwood SIXTH YEAR BARNETT, JUDY K. 753-5869 804 SILVER HILL RD North Little Rock 72118 Amboy SECRETARY BARNETT, MICHELLE S 758-4101 5316 N CEDAR North Lrttle Rock 72116 Admw, Office SECRETARY-DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS BARRETT-SMITH, GINA L 771-0870 5101 STRATFORD RD North Little Rock 72116 Lakewood Elem SIXTH YEAR BARRINGTON, KAREN L 663-8230 708 ROSE ST #2 Little Rock 72206 Lynch Dnve SPECIAL EDUCATION BARTON, STEPHEN D 1504 CRUTCHER North Little Rock 72114 Boone Park LUNCH PERIOD AIDE BATES, ANITA M 758-4616 3720 1/2 NO SYCAMORE North Little Rock 72118 Amboy CUSTODIAN BATES, MONICA L 247-4515 131 SHAOUILLE LANE Pine Bluff 71602 Seventh Street SECOND YEAR BATTE, DONNA E 753-7057 5615 GREEN VALLEY North Little Rock 72118 Rodgeroad SPECIAL EDUCATION BATTLES, AUTREANA M 945-4230 913 BRANTLEY AVE North Little Rock 72117 Boone Park KINDERGARTEN BATTLES, REVA T 329-5573 1028 DAVIS Conway 72032 North Heights ELEM COUNSELOR BATTON. CARLA A 228-5421 11800 PLESANT RDGE RD Little Rock 72212 Boone Park FIRST YEAR BAUMAN, SHANNON P 374-7658 1221 DIVISION North Little Rock 72114 Central SAC AIDE BAZIL, BRENDA A. 758-2302 400 GREEN OAK DR North Little Rock 72118 Rodgeroad MR/LD BEACH. SUE M 753-7792 4822 ARLINGTON North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 ENGLISH Ill BEARDEN, KARYL S 227-9367 7 QUEENS COURT Lrttle Rock 72211 Lynch Drive KINDERGARTEN BEARD, WILLIAM C 751h'!637 3600 CORNWALLIS North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 SPANISH I, II BEAVERS, ESTHER L 835-2667 6004 WOODVIEW SOUTH Sherwood 72116 Lakewood Middle SPECIAL EDUCATION BEESON, D GAYLE 835-3342 116 WILD OAK DR Sherwood 72120 Indian Hills KINDERGARTEN BELEW, REBECCA J 985-2941 102 FOX DELL CR. Jacksonville 72076 NLRHS-09/10 SPECIAL EDUCATION BELL, ANGELIA M 758-7746 1723W 19TH North Little Rock 72114 Boone Park FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BELL, ANITA J 490-1860 42 PLANTATION DR Little Rock 72206 NLRHS-09/10 COUNSELOR BELL, KHARON E 280-0701 1121 S HUGHES ST Little Rock 72204 Lynch Dnve MR/LD RESOURCE BELL, PATRICIA A. 758-3327 1207 W SCENIC APT T-14 North Little Rock 72114 NLRHS-11/12 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT Page2 BENEDICT, TAMMY P. 776-3427 1908 ROBINWOOD CT Benton 72015 Boone Pa-I\u0026lt; KINDER GARDEN BENIGHT, P. DENISE 335-7160 1701NW12 Damascus 72039 Banng Cross SPECIAL EDUCATION BENNETT, LINDA S. 834-1212 21 B ALANBROOK AVE Sherwood 72116 PikeV- GIFTED/TALENTED RESOURCE 44145 BENNETT, SUE 758-5270 4104 BUNKER HILL North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 GUDIANCE COUNSELOR. DEPT CHAIR., 10TH CHEER BENSON, GENE A. 791-2358 400 LINDENHURST North Little Rock 72118 Transportahon BUS DRIVER BENSON, PRISCILLA L. 834-ll589 8209 TALL OAKS Sherwood 72116 NLRHS-11/12 THEATRE TECH 1,11.11S1R, . CABINET BERRY, ROSANNE 851-3799 31 SOUTHLAND COURT MaumeUe 72113 NLRHS-09/10 SPANISH, CHEERLEADER SPONSOR BEVILL, EDDIE C. 835-2371 6708 PONTIAC North Lrttle Rock 72116 Indian Hills FOURTH YEAR BIBLES, DANNA I. 95-3167 908 GREENDALE North Little Rock 72117 Glenview FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BIGGERS, TANDI J. 945-3640 5500ALPHA North Little Rock 72117 Glenview FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BILLINGS, JAMES M PO BOX276 Alkins 72823 NLRHS-11/12 T.V. PRODUCTION, I, 11 BILLINGS, LEE ANN 641-7393 PO BOX276 Atkins 72823 Boone Park COUNSELOR-ELEMENTARY BIRTS, MARILYN R 1507 GUM ST North Little Rock 72114 Central CROSSING GUARD BISHOP, ROY G 372-3770 2216 W LONG 17TH North Little Rock 72114 NLRHS-11/12 AM. HISTORY, AP EUROPEAN HISTORY BLACKWELL, MARY N. 835-0458 1227 COOLHURST Sherwood 72116 Seventh Street FIFTH YEAR BLACK. HAZEL L. 791-2510 2034 FENDLEY OR. North Lrttle Rock 72114 Seventh Street COMPUTER LAB AIDE - CHAPTER I .SO/DISTRICT 50 BLACK. MARILYN D 664--0702 206 S PINE APT A Little Rock 72205 Boone Park MR/LO RESOURCE BLACK. MICHEELA J 753-5542 221 TEXAS AVE. North Little Rock 72118 Cafetona Off,c:e BOOKKEEPER BLANKENSHIP, WILLIAM 758-3279 431 MCCAIN BLVD VR APT North Lrttle Rock 72116 Crestwood LEAD CUSTODIAN BLANKERS, KENDRA G. 224-6248 11704 SHADY CREEK DR Little Rock 72211 Redwood KINDERGARTEN BLUEFER-PATTERSON, GLORI 664-1861 4200W15TH Little Rock 7220 Lynch Dnvo SELF CONTAINED MR BOARDMAN, PETREVIA A. 758-5196 4518 CRESTLINE DR North Lrttle Rock 72116 AdmnAMex SECRETARY-SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT BOHANAN, CHANDRA M 945-1524 4004 CAMP ROBINSON RD North Lrttle Rock 72118 Cafetana Off,c:e FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT-SUBSTITUTE BOLLS, SUSAN J. 9403 DORSEY RD Jad\u0026lt;sonville 72076 Seventh Street SPEECH THERAPIST 35/32 BONA, S. RENEE 758-0376 3519 N. CYPRESS North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Redwood KINDERGARTEN BONNER, ELAINE M 565-2494 #1 BROOKVIEW CIRCLE Little Rod\u0026lt; 72209 Indian Hills FIRST YEAR BOOKER, BARBARA J 771-0837 421 W24TH ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 7211  Lynch Dnve FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BORDERS, MYRTLE L 945- 216 6505 FARMSTEAD North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Lynch Dove CROSSING GUARD BORDERS, MYRTLE L 945- 216 6505 FARMSTEAD North Little Rock 72117 Lynch Dove LUNCH PERIOD AIDE BORTON, LAURA A. 758-4482 210W18TH North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Cenlrll EARLY MORNING AIDE BOUlWELL, STEVE R 868-7822 6700 CONNIE LANE Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72212 Roae City LIFE SCIENCE, EARTH SCIENCE BOWERS, BILLY A. 6813 FAIRFIELD DR. Little Rod\u0026lt; 72209 Lakewood Middle AOIIUNISTRATIVE ASSISTANT BOWERS, DANNY W 945-3767 2722 E2ND North Little Rod\u0026lt; 7211  Boone Park CUSTODIAN BOWERS, SHIRLEY I 565-67 1 6813 FAIRFIELD OR Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72209 RJdgeroad SPECIAL EDUCATION, DEPT CHAIR BOYD, MICHAEL L 945-5467 106 PARK PLACE North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Glenv- LEAD CUSTODIAN BRADFORD, BRIAN 0 945-1450 3908 ROGERS North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Ridgeroad CUSTODIAN BRADFORD, PATRICIA R 753-5286 4205 OUNKELD North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Cenlrll READING RECOVERY BRADING, AUNGELIQUE R 226-0717 1601 N SHACKLEFORD #1 Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72211 Boone Pork FOURTH YEAR BRADLEY, DORAL 221-2955 13316 ~ITE FIR LANE Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72212 Lakewood Moddle SOCIAL STUDIES BRADLEY, JERRY JR 1321 S PIERCE Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72204 Admn Offoca SATURDAY DETENTION SUPERVISOR BRADLEY, MARIE 835-3181 6305 NAVAJO TRAIL North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 s.v.nthStreet NURSE BRADLEY, PAULA S 327-5680 160 SO DONAGHEY Conway 72032 Meadow Park KINDERGARTEN BRADSHAW. DONNA G 8-1 5103 RHOADS LANE North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72120 NLRHS-11/12 TEACHER AIDE-SPECIAL ED BRA.NAM. JOAN M 6500ALLWOOD North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72118 PikeV- LUNCH PERIOD AIDE BRA.NCH, BOBBY J 835-3614 73 SPRING GROVE DR North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 HEAD VB, OFF-SE/ASST BB, HEAD TRACK.PSCl.13/12 BRA.NCH, GLENN D 835-3614 73 SPRING GROVE DR North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 SPECIAL EDUCATION, DEPT CHAIR BRA.NCH, SUSAN I PO BOX 191221 Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72219 Crastwood GIFTED/TALENTED 4210 BRANT, PAULETTE 75~9190 3525 LAKEVIEW RD North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 SPANISH I ANO II, Ill Page 3 BRAY,CHERYLPANDORA 945-943,4 13 SANDLEFOOT COVE North Little Rock 72117 Admin AMex SECRETARY-SPECIAL EDUCATION BRAZEAR, SHARA B. 758-7534 3300 MAGNOLIA ST North Little Rock 72116 Admin Offoce COORDINATOR-INFORMATION SERVICES BREEDING. ALEXANDRA H ~11 2601 NORTH FILLMORE Little Rock 72207 Crestwood SECOND/THIRD YEARS BRENTS, HELEN A. 75~261 5016 PARKER North LJttle Rock 72118 Transportat1011 BUS DRIVER BRETT, FRANCES A. 83-4-5415 120 RICKY RACCOON ROA Jacksonville 72076 Lakewood Middle FRENCH. CHEERLEADER/DRILL TEAM \"25113 BREWER. BARBARA 945-593,4 #5 KNIGHT DRIVE North Little Rock 72117 Rose City FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BREWER. BARBARA A. 758-0690 5615 APPLEWOOD OR North Little Rock 72118 Ridgeroad FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BRIGGS, ANGELA MARIE 791-3713 5705A SORENSON North Little Rock 72118 Lakewood Elem THIRD/FOURTH YEARS BRIGGS, MAE KATHERINE 851-2115 #6 VALLEY VIEW CT MaumeHe 72202 Glenview . SPEECH THERAPIST \"46/40 BRIGHT, WANDA L. 753-1716 916W51ST North Little Rock 72118 Seventh Street CHAPTER I AIDE BRINDLEY, MELANIE K 228-6766 2219 HICKORYNUT CT Little Rock 72211 Boone Park SECOND YEAR BROOKS, DONNA S. 835-8646 16 SALLISAW CT North Little Rock 72116 lnd1811H ills EARLY MORNING AIDE BROOKS, DONNA S 835-8646 16 SALLISAW CT North Little Rock 72116 Indian Hills MULTIPLE~OICAPPED AIDE BROOKS, EDDIE L. 758-6218 1924 MOSS-APT B North Little Rock 72114 Central CUSTODIAN BROOKS, GWENOOL YN B. 835-0460 75 CREEKWOOD Jacksonville 72076 NLRHS-11/12 DRAMA I, TECH THEATRE, COS./MAKEUP, MASS COMM BROUGHTON, JUDY A. 758-7198 6601 COUNTRYSIDE North Little Rock 72116 Glenview SIXTH YEAR BROWN, ANGELIA M 929 ROSECLAIR North Little Rock 72117 NLRHS--09/10 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BROWN, BARBARA E L 753-0708 4209 NO CYPRESS North Little Rock 72116 Rose City C.O., HO. EC. BROWN, CANDY R 945-1370 #7 QUILLEN AVE. North Little Rock 72117 Glenv- EARLY MORNING AIDE BROWN, CHRISTINE 771-0154 2206 COORS LANE North Little Rock 72118 Amboy LUNCH PERIOD AIDE BROWN, CHRISTINE 771-0154 2206 COORS LANE North Little Rock 72118 Amboy COMP. ED AIDE/LUNCH PERIOD AIDE BROWN, ELLEN J. 771-1202 3505 DUNKELD North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 GIRLS P.E .. HEAL TH BROWN. JEFFREY D 834-5694 1212 KOEHLER ShefWOOd 72116 Lakewood Middle HEAD FB, OFF-SE/ASST BB. HEAD TRACK, SCIENCE BROWN, JOHN P 945-J.417 5214 S WOODLAND North Little Rock 72117 warehouse MAINTENANCE TEMPORARY BROWN, KIMBERLY T 771-2535 701 W 18TH ST APT 20 North Llttle Rock 72114 NLRHS-11/12 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BROWN, KRISHANA A. 374-5738 708 FOLSON Little Rock 72202 Boone Park FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BROWN, PAUL W. 83-4-2311 117 ALMOND cove North Little Rock 72116 Transportat1011 BUS DRIVER BROWN, PAUL W 843-9737 19 SUN VALLEY DRIVE Cabot 72023 NLRHS-09/10 ASST FB, OFF-SE/GYM ATTENDANT, ASST. TRACK (12) BROWN, PAUL W 843-9737 19 SUN VALLEY DR Cabot 72023 NLRHS--09/10 EARLY MORNING AIDE BROWN, RONNIE D 189 HWY36 Vilorua 72173 NLRHS-11/12 SPECIAL EDUCATION, DEPT. CHAIR BROWN, SHARI L 834-5694 1212 KOEHLER Sherwood 72116 Lakewood Middle SPECIAL EDUCATION BRUMMETT. NETTIE S 758-4635 5805WALNUT North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 TURNING POINT COORDINATOR BRYANT, J. RONALD 753-6028 4201 HAZELWOOD North Little Rock 72116 AdmnAMex BAND DIRECTOR. CHORAL BRYANT, RUTH M 676-3403 #5 APACHE CIRCLE Lonol\u0026lt;e 72086 Crestwood THIRD YEAR BRYANT, RUTH M 676-3403 #5 APACHE CIRCLE Lonol\u0026lt;e 72086 Crestwood EARLY MORNING AIDE BUCKELEW. CYNTHIA L 945-1911 125 MARVIN ST North Little Rock 72117 Lakewood Elem FIRST YEAR BUCK, LEE ANNETTE 835-8266 107 RED RIVER ShefWOOd 72116 Amboy MEDIA SPECIALIST BUIE. DANA D 945-4367 108 COMPTON North Llttle Rock 72117 Admn Qff,ce DRIVER BULLARD. ROBERT D 224-6780 1801 RESERVOIR RO #313 Llttle Rock 72207 Roso City SOCIAL STUDIES BULLOCKS, WILLIE B 4608 PUCKETT ST North Little Rock 72117 Contnll CUSTODIAN BULLOCKS, YOLANDA R. 945-5325 4608 PUCKETT North Lrttle Rock 72117 Pike View FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BULL, CHARLOTTE S 835-6677 15 THRUSH RIVER CR North Llttle Rock 72116 Banng Cross PRINCIPAL BUNN, GARYO 664-6076 2420 RIVERFRONT, #94 Lrttle Rock 72202 NLRHS-11/12 MATH. STUDENT COUNCIL ADV BURKE. FAITH C 753-8672 4100 ROYAL OAK North Llttle Rock 72116 Lakewood Middle SPECIAL EDUCATION, DEPT CHAIR BURLESON. KARI L 868-3402 14502 TAYLOR LOOP ROA Lrttle Rock 72212 Glenv- THIRD/FOURTH YEARS BURL. GREGORY E 1505 W 55TH STREET North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS-11/12 ASST FB. OFF-SE/GYM ATTEND. ASST TRACK, SR CAB BURL. GREGORY E 758-4674 1505 W 55TH ST North Little Rock 72118 Transportation BUS DRIVER BURNETT, JUDY C 791-2558 3800 FOX HILL RD North Little Rock 72116 Crestwood FIFTH YEAR Page4 BURNETT, R. LANE 221-3821 7810W29THST LittleRodt 72204 Seventh Street EARLY MORNING AIOE BURNETT, R. LANE ~3 1700 SOUTH TAYLOR Little Rod\u0026lt; 72204 Seventh Street FOURTH YEAR BURRALL. SHARON S 753-3485 4916 PIKE AVENUE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Ridgemad CHORAL MUSIC BURRIS. KATHY A 753--7296 5901 JFK BLVD. APT. 4003 North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-O.l/10 PHYSICAL SCIENCE, BIOLOGY BURROW, SHIRLEY ANN 753-9136 5215 GLENMERE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 RoseCoty SECRETARY BURTON, BETTY JEAN 945-5006 919'1' STREET North Lillie Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Meadow Park FOOD SERVICE MANAGER BURTON, CORNELIUS L. 945-2599 905'1' ST North Lillie Rod\u0026lt; 72114 warehouse GENERAL LABOR-STADIUM ATTND BURTON. M. LYNN B35-1336 109 ILUNOIS BA YOU Sherwood 72116 Amboy THIRD YEAR BUSH, NEDRA A 376-2527 1318 N POPLAR North Lillie Rod\u0026lt; 72114 NLRHS-11/12 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT BUTLER, BRENDA SUE 568-5254 10529 DIAMOND DR Little Rod\u0026lt; 72209 NLRHS-11/12 MR/LD RESOURCE BUTLER, DEBRA L 834-3863 127 SPRINGOAK DR Sherwood 72120 Sec All COUNSELOR BUTTS, CAROL A 988--1595 3009 CAROLYN DR Cabot 72023 Lynch Drive FIRST YEAR BYNUM, DEEDRA L 945-7530 220 EAST 47TH North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 North Heights MR/LD RESOURCE BYNUM, MABLE W. 945-7530 220 E. 47TH North Lillie Rod\u0026lt; 72117 NLRHS-09/10 COUNSELOR BYRD, DEBBIE K. 835-9540 119LAORUE Sherwood 72116 Lakewood Elem MEDIA CLERK #32142 BYRD, ROXIE LEE 945-4418 419 GLYNN LANE North Lillie Rod\u0026lt; 72117 North Heights LEAD CUSTODIAN CALDWELL, DEBRA M 753-3549 600 WEST 35TH ST. North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Pik V- FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT CALDWELL, DIANA K. 834-2511 8608 NORTHGATE DR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72120 Central FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT CALDWELL, VALERIE D. 225-5434 12410TIMBER BEND DR Little Rod\u0026lt; 72211 NLRHS-11/12 SPECIAL EDUCATION CAL VER, GAYLE A 227-4593 12824 MORRISON RD. Little Rod\u0026lt; 72212 NLRHS-11/12 SPECIAL EDUCATION CALVIN, JONATHAN D 371-0092 613WALNUT North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Rose City OFF.SE/FB, HEAD BB. ASST. TRACK CAMERON, ANITA K. 753--5466 134 SHERIDAN North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-11/12 ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL CAMMACK, LOUISE W 753--3965 P.O. BOX 4456 North Lillie Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-11/12 AMERICAN HISTORY. AMERICAN GOVT/ECON CAMMACK, STACI A 851-8567 100 EDGEWOOD #2224 M-.melle 72113 Belwood FOURTH YEAR CAMPBELL. MURIELENE 753-2618 3501 FLORA North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Admr, Olfoce BOOKKEEPER CAMPBELL, RUBY A 753-1623 2416 PARKER North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Transporutbon BUS AIDE CAMPBELL, RUBY A. 771-7793 1908 MAGNOLIA North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Admin Annex HOMELESS COORDINATOR CAMPBELL. SANDRA K. 753.7705 3600 ROY AL OAK DR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-11/12 NURSE CAMP, DREWC 663-4706 710N. PALM Little Rod\u0026lt; 72205 Adnlri Amax PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINER CAMP, VIVIAN D 791-3746 1840C BROKEN ARROW North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Rose Coty RESOURCE CANNON, MELISSA H 753--1765 3508 DUNKELD North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 AdmnAmex PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINER CAREY, BERNADETTE 501 W20TH ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 lndi8n Hills LUNCH PERIOD AIDE CAREY. BERNADETTE 501 W20TH ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Indian H1Hs PARAPROFESSIONAL FOR HANDICAPPED CARMICAL, PHYLLIS A 753-4220 #51 OAKVIEW North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 lnd1n Hills LUNCH PERIOD AIDE CARROLL, JOAN D 843,8913 10 SEVEN POINT LANE Cabot 72023 NLRHS-09/10 HOME EC. I, FAMILY DYNAMICS CARROLL. VICKI L 945-1807 321 CHERYL ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Meadow Park FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT CARR, KENNETH N 557-2830 23050 GRAVEL RIDGE RD MABELVALE AR 72103 Wonhouse OPERATIONS MONITOR CARTER, KAREN M 945-9108 PO BOX9354 North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72119 Transportation BUS DRIVER CARTER. PAMELA R 753-0395 2102 MAPLE #A North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Central FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT CARTER. PEARLIE M 945-8004 1704 E 46TH ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Meadow Perk FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT CARTHRON, SHANNON L 1718 CHANDLER North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Boone Park LUNCH PERIOD AIDE CASEY, JACK W 753--3056 1013 W 48TH, APT B North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Rose Coty OFF-SE/ASST FB, HEAD BB, ASST TRACK, PE 26124 CASEY, RITA K. 753-1761 5621 WESTVIEW North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Banng Cross SPECIAL EDUCATION CASTEEL, HELEN M 450-7991 1815 JEFFERSON AVE Conway 72032 NLRHS-11/12 APP MATH CHADWICK, DANA G 753-0723 3801 LAKESHORE DR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Adn,r, Olf,ce DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION CHAMBERS, ROBBI S 758-9616 4207 LOCHRIDGE RD North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Lynch Dove SECOND YEAR CHANCELLOR, LINDA J 227-5026 1806 MISSISSIPPI AVE Little Rod\u0026lt; 72207 Redwood PRINCIPAL-ELEMENTARY CHANDLER. BEULAH 375-4502 1611 CRUTCHER ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Boone Perk LUNCH PERIOD AIDE Page 5 CHANDLER. RUTH L 375-5654 1009 MARTIN LUTHER KIN little Rock 72202 Seventh Streel READING RECOVERY CHAPMAN, NORA L. 211 W47TH ST North little Rock 72118 Lakewood Elem FOOD SERVICE MANAGER CHAPMAN. NORA L. 211 W47TH ST North little Rock 72118 Cafetena Office OFFICE SECRETARY-FOOD SERVICES CHAPPLE. MARCIA R. 940--0765 1313 ELM ST#11 Conway 72032 Admin Annex PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINER CHATMAN. SHARON 791--0372 2400 MCCAIN APT 1081 B1 North little Rock 72116 Redwood PRE-SCHOOL AIDE CHENAULT. SHEILA S 888-5704 4916 CANDLEWICK North little Rock 72116 Boone Park PER-SCHOOL CENTER AIDE CHUDY, TRACI L 758-9827 10 MINE Hill North Little Rock 72118 Redwood KINDERGARTEN CLARK. ANGELIA C. 758-2483 15 THERESA DRIVE NO. LITTLE ROCK. 72118 Crestwood FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT CLARK. DELOIS J. 375-7218 P.O. BOX 5872 North Little Rock 72119 NLRHS--09/10 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT CLARK. EDITH M 758-3544 2605W. 58TH North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS--09/10 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT CLARK, KARA L. 1101 WMYRTLE#1B Cabot 72023 Lakewood Elem SECOND YEAR CLARK. LYNNE E 3674 \"H\", MCCAIN PARK 0 North Little Rock 72116 Meadow Park FIFTH YEAR CLARY. GEORGIA R. 945-0105 307 \"B\"PLAIN North little Rock  72117 Admin Annex R1PPY PJI\\RAPROFESSIONAL CLAUSEN. JULIA A 3698G MCCAIN PARK OR North Little Rock 72116 Park Hill FIFTH/SIXTH YEARS CLEMANS, KATHRYN A. 835-5244 1813 OSCEOLA North Little Rock 72116 Seventh Street FIFTH YEAR CLEMONS. ELIZABETH J. 372-3718 208VERNON little Rock 72205 Lakewood Middle ART CLEMONS. PEGGY J 753-5206 #77 KINGS RIVER RO North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 GEOM, INT. ALG. CLEVENGER. JAMES R 888-l!285 21502 ARCH ST HENSLEY AR 72065 Lakewood Middle GENERAL SCIENCE COBLE. RUBY J 834-7663 1213 KOEHLER Sherwood 72116 ATHLETIC OFFI SECRETARY COCHRAN, THERESA L. 758-7920 5706 DEL PRADO ST North little Rock 72118 /\\dnm Offoce BOOKKEEPER CODY. R PAUL 758-0142 1618 GARLAND North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 MATH COHEN, PERRY I 666-0113 2519 NO PIERCE little Rock 72207 Rose City EARLY MORNING AIDE COHEN. PERRY I 666-0113 2519 NORTH PIERCE little Rock 72207 Rose City CO. EITE, DEPT CHAIRPERSON COLEMAN. BETTY J 758-4219 622 E 19TH APT 56 North little Rock 72114 Boone Park FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT COLEMAN, ROSIE A. 758-3005 5901 JFK BLVD #723 North Little Rock 72116 Lynch Onve ADMINISTRATIVE ASST. COLEMAN, YVONNE 94S-6001 4807 LYNCH OR North Little Rock 72117 Rose City HEAD CUSTODIAN COLE. ROBIN L 329-3210 2907 CHARLES CR Conway 72032 NLRHS--09/10 BIOLOGY COLLIAS, BRENDA K. 375-3943 319 PARKER North little Rock 72114 Boone Park CUSTODIAN COLLIER. JONNIE 227-5795 2903 DORSET little Rock 72204 NLRHS-11/12 CCE COORDINATOR I, RESOURCE ENGLISH COLLIE. JACKIE L 988-2303 7218 WEST REPUBLICAN Jacksonv,lle 72076 Warehouse MAINTENANCE CARPENTER COLLIE. MICHAEL 0 834-9910 8825THOMAS Sherwood 72120 Warehouse GENERAL LABOR FOREMAN COLLIE. SUSAN R 83!H\n448 7800 NO HILLS BLVD #201 North Little Rock 72116 Crestwood COMPLITER LAB AIDE - CHAPTER I .SO/DISTRICT .50 COLLINS, SANORA K. 758-5564 1205 LA.KESHORE Pl North Little Rock 72116 Admn Offoce SECRETARY. ASST SUPT OESEG/PERSONNEL CONDRAY. GEORGE H 753-5370 6204 EASTRIDGE OR North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS-09/10 ALG I, APPL MATH CONDRAY. GLYNNA 753-5370 6204 EASTRIDGE North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS-09/10 KEY BOARDING. CMCS CONKLIN EUNICE J 834-7603 1611 MANOR OR Sherwood 72116 Lakewood Elem FOOD SERVICE MANAGER CONLEY. KATRINA L 608 W 35TH ST APT B North Little Rock 72118 Amboy FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT COOKSEY. RUBY J 945-7773 PROTHO MANOR APT #24 North Little Rock 72117 Redwood LUNCH PERIOD AIDE COOKSEY. TAMMIE R 612 N WALNUT ST North little Rock 72114 Central PRE-SCHOOL AIDE COOK. KATHY L 945-1446 5500 LYNCH OR North little Rock 72117 Rose City PRINCIPAL-SECONDARY COPELAND. EL TON 835-0069 RT 3 #2 FAULKNER GAP R North little Rock 72120 NLRHS-11/12 CUSTODIAN COPELAND, JAIRUS L 10 CARDINAL VALLEY OR North Little Rock 72120 NLRHS--09/10 ASST FB, OFF-SE/GYM ATTEND. HEAD SOCCER.PE(12) COPELAND. JOE B 753-a012 5021 0AJ\u0026lt;LAV',1'j North Little Rock 72116 Wonlhouse MAINTENANCE HELPER COPELAND. KATHY S 753-l!976 5706 SORENSON RO APT North little Rock 72118 Cafetena Office OFFICE SECRETARY-FOOD SERVICES CORNWELL. DEBRA 224-1272 500 NAPA VALLEY OR APT little Rock 72211 Central SPEECH THERAPIST CORROTHERS, VALENCIA K. 228-0017 1911 WAGON WHEEL OR little Rock 72211 Indian Hills FIFTH/SIXTH YEARS COSLIN. REGINA 0 758-0690 5613 APPLE'MOOO OR North little Rock 72118 Cafetena Office FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT-SUBSTITLITE COTHERN. LYNN M 8-43-1036 48B PHEASANT RUN Cabot 72023 Lakewood Elem SPECIAL EDUCATION Page 6 COTTRELL, MELISSA L. 225-1969 7802 EVERGREEN Little Rod\u0026lt; 7'Z207 Boone Park KINOERGARTEN COULTER. S. PAIGE 664-6604 326 CHARLES STREET 'LittleRod\u0026lt; 72205 Meadow Park FIRST YEAR COUSINS, ELIZABETH H 223-8040 1819 FOREMAN OR. Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72207 Central GIT \"38/32 COWART, ANN MARIE 59 KINGS RIVER RO North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-11/12 AMERICAN HISTORY COX, PATRICIA A 225-8967 1221 RESERVOIR #311 Little Rod\u0026lt; 72227 Belwood FIFTH YEAR COX, SHARON L. 758-5708 1312 NANNETTE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Central CROSSING GUARD COX, SHEILA D. 372-9252 602 E 14TH ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Central CROSSING GUARD COX, TAMMYL. 372-5586 1210 1/2 E 2ND North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Boone Park CROSSING GUARD COY, EARLINE E. 945-4343 139 SAUNDERS DR. North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Transportallon BUS DRIVER CRANE, MAXINE 771--0794 2301 PARKER North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 NLRHS--09110 FOOD SERVICE MANAGER CRAVEN, NORA L. 791--0303 1711 MCCAIN North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Admn Office OFFICE SECRETARY CRAWFORD, ESTHER C 758-2090 5901 J.F.K. North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Admin Offoc:e DIRECTOR. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION CRESSWELL, RAYMOND D 776-1075 1722 NO KW'( 229 TRASKWOOD AR 72167 Transportation MECHANIC CREWS, VERNELLE 835-9636 1411 SILVER CREEK DR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Glenview SECOND YEAR CRINER, CRYSTAL P. 375-1840  1868 DENNISON ST Little Rod\u0026lt; 72202 Admin Annex EARLY CHILDHOOD SPECIAL EDUCATION CRITES, DIANE 771-2072 1217 CACHE RIVER North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Pike View PRINCIPAL-ELEMENTARY CRITSELOUS, PAULA K. 22~39 1411 CHERRY BROOK DR LittleRod\u0026lt; 72211 Baring Cross SPEECH THERAPY CROSLAND, DEBBIE A 851-4658 10613 ANGELA North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 AdminAnnex SECRETARY EARLY CHILDHOOD CROSS, BARBARA J 376-1230 1409 PINE North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Admin Annex EVEN START PARAPROFESSIONAL CROSS, LYNDA JEAN 982-8819 110 PINEHURST COVE Jad\u0026lt;oonville 72076 PikeV- THIRD YEAR CROSS, SHARON A. 771-2949 816 W 24TH ST. North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 NLRHS-11I12 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT CROSS, SHEILA ANN 758-3167 5105 WALNUT, APT. E North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Bamg Cross FOOD SERVICE MANAGER CROWDER. BILLIE K. 490--0764 6606 DOVE LN Little Rod\u0026lt; 72206 Roso City FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT CROWDER, ELLEN F 834-2732 8905 OAKHAVEN Sherwood 72120 Amboy LUNCH PERIOD AIDE CROWNOVER, ALAN D 961-2920 P.O. BOX 17172 North LIilie Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Admn Off,ce SUPERVISOR OF PLANT SERVICES CROWNOVER, JEAN P 961-2920 P.O. BOX 17172 North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Seventh Street SECRETARY CRUMBY, JEAN A 758-2968 21 SOMERSET DR North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72118 NLRHS-09/10 FRENCH I, II, Ill CRUMPLER, CLAIR J 329-0943 #5 OVERLOOK TRAIL Conway 72032 Lynch Dnve COUNSELOR CRYMES, MARILYN H 835-3887 7009 FLINTROCK RO North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 ENGLISH II CULBERSON, ALICE L 758-9139 4418 LYNN LANE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Transportat10n BUS DRIVER CULBERTSON, ANNIE M 7~908 PO BOX 1564 North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72115 Cafotena Off,ce FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT-SUBSTITUTE CULPEPPER, BARBARA I 834-1617 100 MARKHAVEN Sherwood 72120 lnd,on Hills KJNDERGARTEN CUMMINGS, L CHARLENE 835-6357 8117 TOLTEC North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 lnd18n Hijls SPECIAL ASSISTANCE AIDE CURRY, JERRY R. 843-7811 4120 SUMMIT DR Cabot 72023 warehouse MAINTENANCE PLUMBER DACE, JUDY F 327-1011 600ACE PL. Conway 72032 Ridgeroad ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL DAILEY, WILLIAM 372-3690 PO BOX2004 LIilie Rod\u0026lt; 72203 TransportatJon BUS DRIVER DALE, JOANN 758--0842 824W51ST North LIilie Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Elem Alt SELF CONTAINED DAL TON, LEWIS 0 329-3045 PO BOX 1621 North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72115 Belwood LEAD CUSTODIAN DANAHER, KEVIN H 771--0335 901 E 53RD PL North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS--09/10 ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL-SEC DANCY, ERICA 504 POLLOCK North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Transportation BUS DRIVER DANIELL, JANICE R 221--0661 416 TRUMPL.ER Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72211 North Heights THIRD YEAR DANIELS, GREGORY N 227-6018 1400 ELIZABETH COURT Little Rod\u0026lt; 72212 Admn Offoc:e DIRECTOR COMPUTER SERVICES DANIELS. PEGGY 7~143 819W42NO North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 NLRHS-11/12 SECRETARY DARBY, RANDA E 834-3118 40 TENNYSON CT North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS--09/10 COUNSELOR DARLING, MARY B 835-2217 6520 CORSICA North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Roso City MATH 8, PRE-ALGEBRA SCHOOL NEWSPAPER DAVIDSON, JERRY D 945-3376 118 BLENDEN DR North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72117 NLRHS--09/10 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT DAVIS, BETTIE L. 75~592 508 WISTERIA DR North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Meadow Park FIRST YEAR DAVIS, BRENDA J 375-7662 1509 SYCAMORE North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Boone Park FOOD SERVICE MANIAGER Page 7 DAVIS, DANNA 224--0549 #5 DEL RAY little Rod\u0026lt; 72227 Ridgeroad CCVE 7, CCVE 8 DAVIS, DEBRA J. 771--0864 6605 RUSTIC LN North little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 PikeV- LUNCH PERIOD AIDE DAVIS, GARY LEE 834-3369 7505 TOL TEC DR North Llltle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-11/12 OFF-SE/STADIUM, OFF-SE/GYM ATTEND HD BASEBALL DAVIS, GARY LEE 834-3369 3514 HOLLMORE #5 She\u0026lt;wood 72120 Transportatoon BUS DRIVER DAVIS, I. JAN 375-1321 1310 N FRANK ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Adm., Office DRIVER DAVIS. JUDY F 5400 N. WALNUT North little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 lynch Dnve FOURTH YEAR DAVIS, J. MICHELLE 327-9936 117 OAKLAWN Conway 72032 Glenview FIFTH YEAR DAVIS, LEANN 227-9998 7601 LEAWOOD BLVD Little Rod\u0026lt; 72205 Admin Annex SP ED - VISUALLY IMPAIRED DAVIS, MONICA 0. 835-2904 130WHITEWOOD North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72120 NLRHS-11/12 EARTH SCIENCE, BIOLOGY DAVIS, ONEADER 945-2612 2509 LANSBROOK North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Transportatoon BUS DRIVER DAVIS, ROY L. 841-2507 PO BOX 474 Cabot 72023 lndl8n Hills CUSTODIAN DAVIS, SHARON L. 834-3369 7505 TOL TEC DRIVE N Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Rose City GUIDANCE COUNSELOR DAVIS. VONDA K 945-4904 2203 E WASHINGTON AVE North little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Transportation 'BUS DRIVER DAWSON, CORNELIUS W. 534-7234 2709 CLAREMONT PINE BLUFF AR 71601 R!dgeroad MATH 8, MATH 7 DAY, PATRICIA A. 568--0698 PO BOX 1527 North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72115 Belwood FOOD SERVICE MANAGER DEAL, DIANNA J 771-4565 3901 LAKEWOOD VALLEY North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Park Hill FOURTH/FIFTH YEARS DEATON, SARILEA 851-7908 #10 TA.RA COVE Maumelle 72113 Admin Annex EARLY CHILDHOOD - SPECIAL EDUCATION DENNIS. JAMESETTA 664-9386 7111 INOIANA F3 little Rod\u0026lt; 72207 Boone Park COMPUTER LAB AIDE - CHAPTER I/DISTRICT DENT, BETTY ANN 851-2620 20 PINE FOREST DRIVE Maumelle 72113 NLRHS-09/10 KEY BOARDING, ACCT DERDEN, ROBERT C 835-5821 12 SALLISAW CIRCLE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 BAND DIRECTOR \"12125 DESHLER. NONA L. 22~99 13500 CHENAL PKWY. #35 Little Rod\u0026lt; 72211 Amboy FIFTH YEAR DETTOR, OLIVETTE C 666-9077 1824 N HUGHES #9 little Rod\u0026lt; 72207 NLRHS-09/10 SPECIAL EDUCATION DEVORE, RHONDA L 7~33 1000 REGAL North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 PikeV- KINDERGARTEN DICKERSON, TINA R 372-4930 800 N BEECH BLOG 4 APT North Little Rock 72114 Transportation BUS DRIVER DICKSON, FLORENCE JANE 851-4109 5 SUGARLOAF LOOP Maumelle 72113 Lakewood Middle LIFE SCIENCE OIFFY, DEBRA K 758-4814 5206 PIKE AVE North Little Rock 72118 Central THIRD YEAR DILLARD, SHERMON 758-5901 5901 JFK APT 3021 North Little Rock 72116 Cafetena Office WAREHOUSE ASSISTANT, FOOD SERVICE DILLINGER, RELLIA A. 225-6147 13121 MORRISON RO. Llltle Rock 72212 Adm,n Annex COORDINATOR-SECONDARY SPECIAL EDUCATION DILLON. DARLENE 753-5212 201 SHAMROCK North Little Rock 72118 Indian Hills COMPUTER LAB AIDE - CHAPTER I 50/0ISTRICT .50 DIPIETRO, LOUISE M 758-3884 5815 GREENHURST North LIilie Rock 72116 Lynch Onve FIRST YEAR DIRDEN, ROSE LEE 375-1329 216 BARTON LrTTlE ROCK AR 72205 Belwood MR/1.0 RESOURCE DISHMON, GLORIA M 455-2796 4710 TIMBERLAND OR LIilie Rock 72204 Sec Alt ELECTIVES DISON, MANUEL SR 945-3220 2301 E 2ND ST North LIilie Rock 72114 Seventh Street CROSSING GUARD DIXON, ANNIE P 945-5234 6414 HOLMAN LANE North LIilie Rock 72117 Redwood FOOD SERVICE MANAGER DIXON, GENEVA M 945-4046 6413 HOLMAN LANE North Li111eR od\u0026lt; 72117 Lynch Onve COMPUTER LAB AIDE CHAPTER I/DISTRICT DOCKERY, FLYNN P 120 VALLEY VIEW North LIilie Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Transportatoon BUS DRIVER DODSON, ROBYN G 1622 CHERRY ST APT A-2 Conway 72032 lnd181H1 ills FIRST YEAR DOKES, VERONICA L 372-5580 PO BOX 5404 North LIilie Rock 72119 North Heights EARLY MORNING AIDE DOKES, VERONICA L 372-5580 PO 801(5404 North LIilie Rock 72119 North Heights CHAPTER I AIDE DOMBROSKI, TERRI R 758-4372 2504 S BERKLEY North Lrttle Rock 72118 Indian Hills THIRD YEAR DONAHUE, ANITA 753-4943 10016 NATURAL TRAIL North Li111eR od\u0026lt; 72113 Ridgeroad FOOD SERVICE ASSIST ANT DOREY, WILLIAM L 834-1586 2521 MCCALLUM OR North lil11e Rod\u0026lt; 72116 W8rehouse LEAD HEATING \u0026amp; AC DOSS, LISA 8 988-1996 7617 BATESVILLE PIKE Jad\u0026lt;so\u0026lt;Mlle 72076 NLRHS-11/12 SAMO ASST 11/12 \"12/24 DOSS, LORETTA 376-8854 1525 W LONG 17TH North LJttle Rock 7211  North Heights FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT DOTSON, JIMMIE S 568-a119 6921 CAMELOT DR LIilie Rock 72209 Ridgeroad SPECIAL EDUCATION DOTSON, ROSE M 945-2691 5107 GLENVIEW BLVD North Li111eR ock 72117 RoseCrty CUSTODIAN DOUGLASS, MAURI T 834-2043 1721 OKMULGEE North LIilie Rock 72116 Boone Perl\u0026lt; GIFTED/TALENTED RESOURCE \"33/37 DOWNING, EULIN C 982-2266 881 AR HWY 294 Jad\u0026lt;sonv11te 72076 NLRHS-11/12 AUTO SHOP 1,11 Page 8 DREHER, BILLIE ANN ~7 6012 ELK RIVER RD North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 ART, DRILL TEAM SPONSOR DUDLEY, BARBARA L. 835-6757 100 OVERCUP Shenllood 72120 L.ak- Middle MATH 7, PRE-ALGEBRA, DEPT. CHAIR DUFFIE, BRYAN K. 227-7874 9300 TREASURE HILL #106 Little Rock 72227 NLRHS-09/10 APPL MATH. GEOMETRY DUGAS, MARTHA L 835-0126 9004 PATRICIA LYNN LAN Shenllood 72120 Part\u0026lt;Hill MR/1.D RESOURCE DUKE, STEPHEN 329-7231 10 SYLVIA RD Conway 72032 Lak- Middle SPECIAL EDUCATION DUMAS, SHARON D 758-6157 4925 LONGVIEW DRIVE Nonh Little Rock 72118 Nonh Heights LUNCH PERIOD AIDE DUNBAR. SHERMAN 945-3915 4612 BOYER ST Nonh Little Rock 72117 Crestwood CROSSING GUARD DUNCAN, SANDRA K. 835-5469 2201 OZARK Nonh Little Rock 72116 Boone Park KINDERGARTEN DUNN, KIMBERLY A 771-4517 206 GOSHEN Nonh Little Rock 72116 L.ak- Elem FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT DUNN, SHERRY M. 758-2693 6404 ALLWOOD NonhLittleRock 72118 Central MEDIA SPECIALIST DUPRIEST, JOHNNIE A. 834-4906 1304 WKIEHL Sherwood 72120 Transportatoon BUS DRIVER DUPRIEST, JOHNNIE A. 834-4906 1304WKIEHL Shenllood 72120 Transportatoon SECRETARY DURNAL, CYNTHIA A 397-7143 PO BOX311 HENSLEY AR 72065 Transporta11on BUS DRIVER DWALL, BILLY C 758-a621 145AUBURN Nonh Little Rock 72118 Admin Annex ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN LEAD DYER, A. LORENE 329-5310 2700 NUTTER CHAPEL RD CONWAY AR 72032 Rose City READING DYER, JIM 666-7934 4816 CRESTWOOD DR Little Rock 72207 Admn Office DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS EARL, CHRISTY A. 791-3791 5901 JFK BLVD APT 621 Nonh Little Rock 72116 Park Hill SIXTH YEAR EARNHART, BETTY N 753-1838 901 W50TH Nonh Little Rock 72118 Central CHAPTER I AIDE EAST, MARY CAROLYN 224-1589 89 KINGSPARK ROA.D Little Rock 72207 Seven1h Street GIFTED/TALENTED RESOURCE '35137 EATON, WADED. 1304 DIVISION ST Nonh Little Rock 72114 :_rranspor1ation BUS DRIVER ECK.LES, PAULA D 374-4907 1609 E SECOND Nonh Little Rock 72114 Lynct, Drive CHAPTER I ASSISTANT EDMONDS, JUNE M 227-0830 2914 CHARTER OAK Little Rock 72207 PikeV- THIRD YEAR EDMONDS, WILLARD J. 982-1959 428 NO OAK Jad\u0026lt;sonville 72076 L.ak- Middle HEAD CUSTODIAN EDOGUN, PATRICIA G P. 0. BOX 5964 Nonh Little Rock 72119 Redwood LUNCH PERIOD AIDE EDOGUN, PATRICIA S P.O. BOX 5964 Nonh Little Rock 72119 Redwood CROSSING GUARD EDRINGTON, JODY L 227~11 #10 BURNTTREE CT Little Rock 72212 Central PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAM ELDRED, SHARON L 221-1641 #6SAMSCOVE Little Rock 72212 Boone Park SPEECH THERAPY ELLIOTT, BARBARA J 771-1502 1012 TALIHANA Nonh Little Rock 72116 Cafetena Olf,ce OFFICE SECRETARY-FOOD SERVICES ELLIOTT, LINDA KAY 835-6925 704 GROSVENOR Shenllood 72116 Lakewood Elem FIFTH/SIXTH YEARS ERVIN, MARGARET A. 753-6302 17 FOX DEN CT. Nonh Little Rock 72118 Seven1hS treet KINDERGARTEN ERWIN, VICKI D 835-1671 21 DOVE CREEK Nonh Lrt11eR ock 72116 Lynct, Drive FIFTH YEAR ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY 375-0078 124 NO HA2EL Nonh Little Rock 72114 Belwood COMP ED AIDE/LUNCH PERIOD AIDE ESKRIDGE, ROSEMARY 375-0078 124 NO HA2EL Nonh Little Rock 72114 Belwood LUNCH PERIOD AIDE ESSEX TOMMY D 833-0380 117WLEEAVE Shenllood 72116 Pike View LUNCH PERIOD AIDE EVANS, BARBARA 771-4551 2400 MCCAIN BLVD #1154 Nonh Lrt11eR ock 72116 Lynct, Dnve CHAPTER I AIDE EVANS, BARBARA 771-4551 2400 MCCAIN BLVD #1154 North Little Rock 72116 Lynct, Drrve EARLY MORNING AIDE EVANS. DEBORAH R 834-3337 32 DONNELL Nonh Lrt11eR ock 72120 Seven1hS treet SIXTH YEAR EVANS. EDWINA A. 945-3991 210MOSLEY Nonh Lrt11eR ock 72117 Amboy LUNCH PERIOD AIDE EVANS. MARY B 224-1042 8516 LA BETTE DR Lrt11eR ock 72204 Lynct, Dnve SIXTH YEAR EVANS, RODNEY D 5707 SONORA DRIVE #C Nonh Lrt11eR ock 72118 NLRHS-11/12 BA AIDE EWART, KAYT 753-0846 37 OAK TREE CIRCLE North Lrt11eR ock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 ALG II, A.DV MATH, SR CABINET CHAIR. FAIRCHILD, EVA J 224-2265 9516 CERELLE DR Lrt11eR ock 72205 lndoanH ,ns SECOND YEAR FALLIS, CHERYLL 758-4162 501 LINDENHURST Nonh Lrt11eR ock 72118 NLRHS-11/12 GEOMETRY, A.DV. ALGITRIG FARRAR, MELISSA G 834-7870 2008 COVINGTON DR Nonh Little Rock 72116 AdmnAmox EARLY CHILDHOOD-SPECIAL EDUCATION FARZLEY, FRANCES A. 758-7011 4516 AUSTIN DRIVE Nonh Lrt11Re ock 72116 LokewoodM iddle ENGLISH 8 FAULKNER, CAROLINE 5923 LIBERTY COVE Lrt11Reo ck 72209 RosoC ity PE/COACH FAULK. MARTHA J 771-0494 4008 MT VERNON North Little Rock 72116 Lakewood Middle B.A. AIDE FELTON, TERI L 834-1080 1720 OSCEOLA Nonh Little Rock 72116 Indian Hills FIRST YEAR Page 9 FENDLEY, SUSAN C. 758-1452 4525 SOMERS AVENUE North Little Rock 72116 Lakewood Middle GIFTED-ENG. 7/8, DEPT CHAIR., STUDENT COUNCIL FERGUSON, MARY LOU 666-5769 3700 CANTRELL RD #406 Little Rock 72202 North Heights GIFTED/TALENTED \"41146 FERGUSON. PAMALA ANN 11224 KANIS Little Rock 72211 Lakewood Middle SPECIAL EDUCATION. CHEERLEADING PEP CLUB FERGUSON, STEVE R 834-5348 49ALOHACR North Little Rock 72120 W.19house MAINTENANCE HELPER FEWELL. MARTHA J 771-1275 1913 MILL CREEK North Little Rock 72116 Amboy NURSE FINN, BRENDA V Ridgeroad KEY BOARDING, DEPT CHAIR FISHER. GLORIA LOVE 11 CAMPDEN HILL RD ShefwoOd 72116 Adm,n Annex EVEN START PARAPROFESSIONAL FLEMING, ALICE A 758-1912 2209 MIDDLETON North Little Rock 72116 Lakewood Middle AMERICAN HISTORY. DEPT CHAIR FLORES, HESTER M 945-o098 509 CLARA North Little Rock 72117 Transportation BUS DRIVER FOLEY, CHRISTOPHER 22~119 701 GREEN MTN DR #1403 Little Rock 72211 NLRHS-09I10 BAND FOOTS, THELMA 945-5148 801 'E' ST DIXIE ADON North Little Rock 72114 Redwood LEAD CUSTODIAN FORD, ARLEAN 834-1807 401 AUTUMNBROOK CR ShefwoOd 72120 NLRHS-09/10 SP ED, ORIENT TO TEACHING FORD, MARTHA J 835-5591 26CORONADO North Little Rock 72116 Amboy  PRINOIPAL-LEMENT ARY FORD. MIRIAM SMITH 375-0544 2422 GAINES Lrttle Rock 72206 Meadow Park FOURTH YEAR FORREST, MARJORIE KIRBY 753-7089 4007 HILLSIDE DR North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS-11112 FOODS/CONS ED, FAM DYNAMICS.PER RES MGT CH. DEV FORSTER.NANCY 666-1168 5326 SHERWOOD RD Little Rock 72207 Sec Alt DRUG ED COUNSELOR FORTNER, LYNN L 835-9622 402 FORK RIVER North Little Rock 72116 Indian Hills CHAPTER I LAB/KINDERGARTEN AIDE FORTNER. SUE 753-6926 6612 GREENBANK North Little Rock 72118 Glenv,ew COMPUTER LAB AIDE \"44132 FOSSUM, KIM K 225-7191 68 SUMMIT RIDGE CT. Little Rock 72211 Amboy FOURTH YEAR FOSTER. JANET L 224-6902 11800 PLEASANT RIDGE# Little Rock 72212 Admili Annex EARLY CHILDHOOD-SPECIAL EDUCATION FOWLER. MATTHEW 0 778-0305 3203 S BEGGS RD Benton 72015 Wareho\u0026lt;Jsa GENERAL LABOR LEADER FOWLER. SHIRLEY A 791-3034 1401 W 19TH ST North Little Rock 72114 Park Hill LUNCH PERIOD AIDE FOWLER. SHIRLEY A 791-3034 1401 W 19TH ST North Lrttle Rock 72114 Park Hill EARLY MORNING AIDE FOWLKES. ELIZABETH A. 758-0703 4001 ORANGE ST North Little Rock 72118 ParkHill READING RECOVERY FOX, RADONNA K 791-3206 5813 N ALLEN North Lrttle Rock 72118 North Heights SECOND YEAR FRANCIS. MELISSA R 666-7749 2607 N GRANT Little Rock 72207 Redwood FIFTH YEAR FRAZIER. BRENDA J 945-0295 133MARVIN North Little Rock 72117 Glenview CUSTODIAN FRICIONI, DAVID R 1400 OLD FORGE DR #250 Little Rock 72227 Rldgaroad MATH FROST, PATRICIA A. 945-3686 6616 FARMSTEAD RD North Lrttle Rock 72117 Redwood FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT FUDGE. GREGORY L 703W36TH ST North Lrttle Rock 72118 GlenYMIW BA AIDE FULLER. LINDA S 753-4639 4004 GLENMERE North Lrttle Rock 72116 NLRHS-11112 GUIDANCE COUNSELOR. DEPT CHAIRPERSON FULMER. KENNETH R 945-2815 729 HEALY North Lrttle Rock 72117 NLRHS-09/10 MAINTENANCE CUSTODIAN FULMER, LILA A. 758-4321 31 KINGS RIVER RD North Little Rock 72116 Crestwood FOURTH YEAR FULMER. MARY M 758-6891 809W 25TH North Lrttle Rock 72114 Park Hill FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT FULTON. ELIZABETH H 663-9380 2705 NORTH FILLMORE Lrttle Rock 72207 NLRHS-11I12 ZOOLOGY, AP BIOLOGY, ANATOMY, DEPT. CHAIR FURLOUGH. LORETTA J 455-6251 9920 GODWIN DR Lrttle Rock 72204 Boone Park SIXTH YEAR FUSELIER. ANITA K 835-8722 110MARKHAVEN ShefwoOd 72120 Crestwood SECOND YEAR GAGE. CAROL ANN 556-4214 501 HWY5 ROSE BUD AR 72137 Lynch Dnve SELF-CONTAINED GAINES. HOLLY A 833-0229 2416 OZARK DR North Lrttle Rock 72116 Crestwood SIXTH YEAR GAINES. REGINA B 945-4452 4608ATKINS North Lrttle Rock 72117 Admn Annex HIPPY HOME VISTOR GAIRHAN JAMIE C 225-4693 #8 ROSIER CT Lrttle Rock 72211 Boone Park FIFTH YEAR GALLOT-KNIGHTEN, DAPHINE 1409 S LOUISIANA #3 Lrttle Rock 72202 Rldgeroad SCIENCE GAMBLE. NORA JEAN 376-2847 3123ARCH Lrttle Rock 72206 Indian Hills READING \"-48138 GARDNER. REBECCA W 758-2996 6313 ROLLING HILLS North Lrttle Rock 72118 Boone Park ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL GARRETT.CAROLYN FAE 329-2329 1301 COLLIER DR Conway 72032 Rose Crty SPECIAL EDUCATION GARRETT, GERALDINE 375-3959 1801 VANCE Lrttle Rock 72206 NLRHS-11/12 CLOTHING, HOUSING, SCIENCE. HO EC I GARRISON, JANET 221-1874 4 REGAL CT Lrttle Rock 72211 NLRHS-11/12 BEHAVIOR ADJUSTMENT GARRISON, REBECCA V 758-6028 605 WESTFIELD North Lrttle Rock 72118 Lakewood Middle GUIDANCE CLERK Page 10 GARVIN, WILLIAM E. 982-2661 P.O. BOX 1135 North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72115 NLRHS-11/12 ENGLISH rv GARY, RAYMOND 945-2850 2506 E. 2ND North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Transpcrtaticn MECHANIC HELPER GATES. CARROLL L. 945-3924 506 WATER APT C North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Amboy LEAD CUSTODIAN GATES. JUDIE A. 8301 WOODVlEWWEST She\u0026lt;wood 72116 NLRHS-09/10 SECRETARY GATES, JUDY F. 835-1682 7618 TOMAHAWK DR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Amboy READING RECOVERY GATEWOOD, ADA LEE 37- 2501 BATTERY Little Rod\u0026lt; 72206 Redwood EARLY MORNING AIDE GATEWOOD, ADA LEE 37- 2501 BATTERY Little Rod\u0026lt; 72206 Redwood FOURTH YEAR GIBBS, BETTY A. 945-5844 6316 HOLMAN LANE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Meadow Par1\u0026lt; COMPUTER LAB AIDE, CHAPTER VDISTRICT GIBSON, CECIL R. 375-8964 1109 PARK DR. North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Mleadow Par1\u0026lt; LUNCH PERIOD AIDE GIBSON, CECIL R. 1109 PARK DR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Meadow Park COMPENSATORY AIDE GILBERT, ANNETTE L. 791-0491 4801 AUGUSTA APT D North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Amboy CROSSING GUARD GILBERT, RHONDA F. 7~1 5016 VELVET RIDGE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 12116 c-.1 CHAPTER I AIDE GILLIAM, JIM F 268-1257 1DBC OAK FOREST ROAD SEARCY AR 72143 Lakewood Middle CAREER ORIENTATION GILLIAM, JIM F. 268-1257 2320 HWY 16 #19 SEARCY AR 72143 Lakewood Middle EARLY MORNING AIDE GILLISON, SARAF. 224-3219 51 LEFEVER Little Rod\u0026lt; 72207 Pari\u0026lt;Hill COUNSELOR 43132 GILMORE, FREDERICK D. 753-5222 5707 SONORA DR APT D North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 SecAII TEACHER AIDE GILMORE, LA.NISSA Y. 758-6925 5707 SONORA DR APT D North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 NLRHS-09I10 INSTURCTIONAL AIDE GIMBLET, ELAINE M. 753-0840 4800 N CYPRESS North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 CMCS GIRONE, DANIEL L 663-4442 300 NO CEDAR APT B Little Rod\u0026lt; 72205 NLRHS-11112 MATH GIUSTI, THOMAS M. 767-5602 125 HAGGARD LOOP HOT SPRINGS AR 71913 SecAII SCIENCE GLADWIN, MARLA JO 771-0315 224 DOOLEY North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 PikV- ELEMENTARY COUNSELOR GLASS, CRYSTAL E. 771-0359 5618 SHAMROCK North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Amboy FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT GLASS, THELMA J 771-0359 5618 SHAMROCK North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 North Heights FOOD SERVICE MANAGER GLOVER, PAMELA D 791-0310 #170AKVIEW North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Cafetena Otf,ce SECRETARY-FOOD SERVICES GLOVER, WILLIAM R 834-a273 P.O. BOX 1644 North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72115 Warehouse MAINTENANCE ENERGY MGMT GOLDSBY, OPAL J 753-6022 412W21ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Central THIRD YEAR GOLDSBY, W DEAN JR 753-6022 412 WEST 21ST PLACE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 NLRHS-09/10 MULTIPLE HANDICAPPED AIDE GOSS, FRANCENE S 753-4173 3101 OLIVE North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 FOUND IN ART, VR \u0026amp; 10TH DRILL TEAM GOSS, GARY F 753-4173 3101 OLIVE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 ATHLETIC OFFI DIRECTOR OF ATHLETICS GRAHAM, REBECCA J 758-2151 2401 LAKEVIEW DR L-5 North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Lakewood Elem THIRD YEAR GRANDERSON, JANET L 941-7217 #14 WWOODHAVEN COVE Cabot 72023 Lakewood Middle BAND DIRECTOR GRAVETTE, RICK S 676-2281 216WPINE Lonoke 72086 NLRHS-11112 DES. I, 11l,- 0 SCU, SFA FOUN IN ART GRAY, JIMMIE D 835-1364 1200 DYSON DR. She\u0026lt;wood 72116 NLRHS-09/10 PSYCHOLOGY, STUDENT COUNCIL CHAIR GREENWAY, PATRINA NLRHS-11112 FRENCH 111, 11A, M HISTORY GREEN.KAY 835-0210 7300 COMANCHE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Central COMPUTER LAB AIDE, CHAPTER VDISTRICT GREEN, LUTHER 945-0402 1509 BEN STREET North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72117 lnd,an Hills LEAD CUSTODIAN GREEN NANCY C 834-3952 8211 TALL OAKS COVE North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Redwood SPEECH THERAPIST 0 49142 GREEN, RENITA A 819 CEDAR North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72204 Transportat10\u0026lt;1 BUS DRIVER GRIFFIN, JERRY T 758-6725 5707 ALLEN North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Transportat10\u0026lt;1 BUS DRIVER GRIFFO. LARRY L 1868 IZARD Lillie Rod\u0026lt; 72206 Sec All WORK SKILLS, CO, KEYBOARDING GRIMES, SUSAN A. 5606ALPHA North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Redwood LUNCH PERIOD AIDE GRISSOM, KIMBERLY D 758-2779 5900 GREEN VALLEY North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 North Heights FIRST YEAR GUNDAKER. LINDA A 843-9143 141 HOLLY LANE AUSTIN.AR 72007 G- SIXTH YEAR GUNN, MARYH 372-7767 302 E.13TH North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72114 lnd,an Hills FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT HALL, CHERYL L 834-7589 6013 ELK RIVER RD North lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Admr, Annex EARLY CHILDHOOD-SPEECH/lANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST HALL, DONNA K. 791-0795 1526 KENT RD North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 TECH. THEATER 1,11 HALL, LAURA C 1605 OSAGE North lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 JOURN., CR. WRITING, N P AVD.11.IT MAG ADV HAMIL TON, ANNIE W 372-2769 823PINE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 NLRHS-11112 BUS. LAW.KEYBOARDING Page 11 HAMILTON, SABRINA H. 835--3496 7700 NO HILLS BLVD #716 North Little Rock 72116 North Heights KINDERGARTEN HAMIL TON, SHANNON E. 225-0466 911 N SHACKLEFORD RD Little Rock 72211 Lakewood Middle GUIDANCE COUNSELOR HAMLIN. SHERI L. 834-4469 108 BRIGHTON Sherwood 72116 Amboy THIRD YEAR HAMMOND, LISA E. 664-1849 5501 \"A\", APT A Lrttle Rock 72205 Lakewood Elem KINDERGARTEN HAMPTON, CYNTHIA 664-5366 1305 SOUTH CLEVELAND Little Rock 72204 NLRHS-11/12 WORD PROCESS.WK.PL. READINESS. J.E T HAMPTON, JACQUELINE A. 376-2253 3123 GAINES STREET Little Rock 72206 Glenview MEDIA SPECIALIST \"46140 HANKINS, RAYMOND L 329-5113 #14 CADDO DRIVE Conway 72032 Rose C~y BAND DIRECTOR HANNAH, WANDA L 4~220 4001 CAMP ROBINSON RD North Little Rock 72118 Pike View CROSSING GUARD HARDCASTLE, MARGARET L. 758-2718 209 LA TONA LANE North Little Rock 72118 North Heights ADMINISTRATIVE ASST. HARDER, MARILYN J 758-5987 5140 LOCHRIDGE North Little Rock 72116 Cafetena Office OFFICE SECRETARY-FOOD SERVICES HARDIN, JUDY A. 753--0258 615W22ND North Little Rock 72114 Seventh Street LUNCH PERIOD AIDE HARDISON, DEBORAH J. 834--0813 33CORONADO North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 RESOURCE HARDY, REGINA R. 834-3915  6705-PONTIAC North Little Rock 72116 lndoan Hills ELEMENTARY COUNSELOR \"48/50 HARMON, CYNTHIA A 835-9318 1732 OSCEOLA DR North Lrttle Rock 72116 Adnm Annex EARLY CHILDHOOD - SPEECH HARPER, BARBARA G 14824 GORGEOUS VIEW Little Rock 72210 Lakewood Middle ENGLISH, SOCIAL STUDIES HARPER, JIMMY N 758-0224 3300 LAKEVIEW North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 READING, WORLD PROBLEMS HARPER, KIMBERLY A. 758-9928 2501 FAIRWAY North Little Rock 72116 Central SECOND YEAR HARPER. LINDA B 835-7197 511 FAIRWAY Sherwood 72116 NLRHS-11/12 GUIDANCE SECRETARY HARPER, YVETTE C 376-7978 1008 E 16TH North Lrttle Rock 72114 Lekewood Elem LUNCH PERIOD AIDE HARRELL, CHARLES W., JR 834-1489 2316 BATESVILLE PIKE North Lrttle Rock 72120 _NLRHS-11/12 CUSTODIAN HARRINGTON, DOROTHY J 663-5992 2107 S. TAYLOR Little Rock 72204 Boone Park FIFTH YEAR HARRIS. ANTHONY Q 945-2560 4911 SCHOOL ST North Little Rock 72117 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER HARRIS, ARTHUR, JR 945-4655 5215 CHIQUITO North Little Rock 72117 Redwood CROSSING GUARD HARRIS CAROL E 835-0830 22ALOHACR North Little Rock 72120 Admw, Off,ce SECRETARY-DESEGREGATION HARRIS, CHARLES JR 835-4801 300 BEVERLY Sherwood 72116 warehouse WAREHOUSE MAN/DELIVERY HARRIS. JANICE M 753--0218 2018 CRUTCHER North Little Rock 72114 Pike View CROSSING GUARD HARRIS, KATHY L 945-4062 709 BLOSSOM North Little Rock 72117 Lynch Dnve COMP EDAIDE HARRIS, KATHY L 945-4062 709 BLOSSOM North Lrttle Rock 72117 Lynch Dnve LUNCH PERIOD AIDE HARRIS, LIL TON C 945-1109 724 PARKDALE North Lrttle Rock 72117 Transportatl0!'1 BUS DRIVER HARRIS, LINDA K. 52 OAKVIEW DR North Little Rock 72118 Rose c~ MATH HARRIS, MARY L 945-4655 5215 CHIQUITO North Lrttle Rock 72117 Glenview CROSSING GUARD HARRIS, MARYL 945-4655 5215 CHIQUTO RD North Lrttle Rock 72117 Redwood LUNCH PERIOD AIDE HARRIS, NINA C 753-2923 4536 SOMERS AVE North Lrttle Rock 72116 Adm11 Annex HOMEBOUND TEACHER HARRIS, PATRICIA W 664-4593 5121 W 23RD Little Rock 72204 Ridgeroad ENGLISH 7 HARRIS, ROTUNDA R 945-0857 5605ALPHA North Little Rock 72117 Lynch Dnve LUNCH PERIOD AIDE HARTL. ELSA MARIE 758-9528 5001 RANDOLPH RD North Little Rock 72116 Crestwood MEDIA SPECIALIST \"42/32 HARTWICK. BARBARA J 771-0451 1611 GROVE HILL North Lrttle Rock 72116 Belwood THIRD YEAR HA!lVELL. LINDA M 771-0953 3801 FOX HILL North Little Rock 72116 PokeV.,., FIFTH YEAR HASSELL, LORETT AM 758-8213 4508 AUSTIN DR North Little Rock 72116 Central THIRD YEAR HASSETT, TAMMI R 945-2698 105 SAUNDERS North Little Rock 72117 Cafetena Offoce FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT-SUBSTITUTE HAVER. GARY L 753-4187 19 OAK TREE CR North Lrttle Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 CCVE, FOOTBALL COACH AT LAKEWOOD MIDDLE HAYNES, GAYLE D 568-6041 5519 PECAN LAKE ROAD Lrttle Rock 72204 Ridgeroad LIFE SCIENCE HAYNIE, JOHN C 868-4337 8012 GUENTHER RD Roland 72135 Transportat,oo SUPERVISOR OF TRANSPORTATION HAYNIE. VICKIE L 2695 HWY 286-W #0-7 Conway 72032 Crestwood SECRETARY HAYS, MARK A 568-4499 4301 VINSON RD Lrttle Rock 72206 NLRHS-09/10 HEAD FB, OFF-SE/ASST BB, HEAD TRACK.PE HEAL TH HEATHCOCK, REBECCA SUE 851-2154 7YUKONCOVE Maumelle 72113 Lynch Dnve SPEECH THERAPIST HEATH, HONNYE L 666-8113 5116 \"C\" ST Little Rock 72205 NLRHS-11/12 SPECIAL EDUCATION HENDERSON-PRICE, PATRICIA Perk Htll CHAPTER I/KINDERGARTEN AIDE Page 12 HENDERSON, ANNE 374-1832 406 E 7TH ST APT 4 Little Rock 72202 Boone Parl\u0026lt; EARLY MORNING AIDE HENDERSON, ANNE 664-4051 6605 HAWTHORNE Little Rock 72207 Boone Parl\u0026lt; FIRST YEAR HENRY, JIM 0. 753-7604 5313 N. LOCUST North Lrttle Rock 72116 TransportalJOn MECHANIC HENSLEY, PAMELA J. 327-0299 36 FRANCES DR Conway 72032 Rose C,ty ART 7/8, CHEERLEADING, DEPT CHAIR., ACT DIR HENSLEY, SUSAN M 791-0943 #4NUGGETCT North Lrttle Rock 72118 Amboy FIRST YEAR HENSON, GUYANA L. 758-2309 5600 AL TA VISTA North Little Rock 72118 Lakewood Elem COMPUTER LAB AIDE, CHAPTER I /DISTRICT HENSON, SANORA K 851--4632 5 TREVINO DR. Maumelle 72113 Rose C,ty ENGLISH 718 HENSON, VICKI J 791-0564 1112W37THST North Lrttle Rock 72118 North Heights LUNCH PERIOD AIDE HERRICK, CAROLYN A. 843-2407 16 HUNTLN. Cabot 72203 Elem All SELF CONTAINED SP ED HERRING, JOHN C 83~79 #16BAUER DR North Little Rock 72116 Transportation BUS DRIVER HESS, CARMA L. 758-5701 1700 GROVE HILL Northlrttle Rock 72116 North Heights SECRETARY HIBBARD, JANICE SUE 753-1080 5901 JFK #4102 North Little Rock 72116 Admin Annex MUSIC PROGRAM TEACHER HIBBLEN, DORIS S. 835-5976 2609 OZARK DR North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 CIVICS, DEPT. CHAIR. HICKMAN, CATRICIA 0. 945-2709 5013 N WOODLAND North Little Rock 72117 Lakewood Elem FOURTH YEAR HICKMAN, CHANDLER 0. 945-2709 5013 NO WOODLAND North Little Rock 72117 Central SAC AIDE HICKMAN, CHRISTINE 945-2709 5013 N WOODLAND North Little Rock 72117 Admin Annex HIPPY PROGRAM ASSISTANT HICKMAN, DOROTHY F 753-4220 5704 ALTA VISTA North Little Rock 72118 Indian Hills LUNCH PERIOD AIDE HICKS, MARY E 753-3946 1613 CIRCLEDALE North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 GIT FACILITATOR, ENGLISH 11D, EPT. CHAIR HIGGINBOTHAM. STACY M 666-4938 5901 JFK #5122 North Lrttle Rock 72116 Indian Hills FIFTH YEAR HIGGINS, ELFRIEDE A. 204 BLUEBEU DR. North Little Rock 72118 !\\fflboy FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT HILL, KIMBERLY P 758-4060 5705 CHANDLER ST North Little Rock 72118 North Heights FIRST YEAR HINES, DEMETRA Y 374-2547 108NWALNUT North Little Rock 72114 Transportat10n BUS DRIVER HOBBS, THURMAN A 851-8779 400 VALENCIA DR #1323 Maumelle 72113 NLRHS-09/10 SPECIAL EDUCATION HODGE, LORETTA 374-7915 2004 EAST 2ND STREET North Lrttle Rock 72114 Redwood FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT HOGAN, AMYO 223-8489 2420 RIVERFRONT DR #17 Lrttle Rock 72202 Boone Parl\u0026lt; FOURTH YEAR HOGAN.AMYD 664-6499 2420 RIVERFRONT DR #17 Lrttle Rock 72202 Boone Parl\u0026lt; EARLY MORNING AIDE HOGAN, KATHLEEN 661-1302 4401 LEE AVE Little Rock 72205 Amboy KINDERGARTEN HOGG, CHERYL A. 888-0726 19608 CHICOT RO Mabolvale 72103 Perl\u0026lt;H ill FOOD SERVICE MANAGER HOKE, CHARLOTTE R 758-4131 3900 MCCAIN PK DR ~15 North Lrttle Rock 72116 Indian Hills MULTIPLE HANDICAPPED HOLDERFIELD, CATHY L 758-1177 324 COLLEGE PARK DR North Lrttle Rock 72114 Admn Annex EVEN START PARAPROFESSIONAL HOLLAND, ANITA Z. 791-0398 31 OAKTREE CR North Lrttle Rock 72116 Crestwood KINDERGARTEN HOLLAND, PAMELA E 791-0158 4416 LYNN LN #60 North Lrttle Rock 72114 Cafetona Qff,ce FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT-SUBSTITUTE HOLLAND, PATRICIA A. 5200 SUMMERTREE CT SB North Lrttle Rock 72116 Lakewood Middle COMPUTER LAB MANAGER \"25124 HOLLEMAN-RALSTON, LAURA 753-9943 4116 LAKEVIEWRO North Lrttle Rock 72116 Lynell Onve FOURTH YEAR HOLLEY, KELLI J 70 SOMERSET North Lrttle Rock 72118 North Heights LUNCH PERIOD AIDE HOLLISTER. MARTHA 374-8740 1817W16TH North Lrttle Rock 72114 Boone Parl\u0026lt; LUNCH PERIOD AIDE HOLLISTER.MARTHA 374-8740 1817W16TH North Little Rock 72114 Boone Perit CROSSING GUARD HOLLISTER, MARY J 374-8740 1817 W16 North Lrttle Rock 72114 Transportat10n BUS AIDE HOLLISTER. RAY 280-0063 5919 W 19TH ST APT K Lrttle Rock 72209 Transportat,on MECHANIC'S HELPER HOLLOWAY, CHARLES E 21 MAX HOWELL PLACE Jacksonville 72076 Transportat10n BUS DRIVER HOLLOWAY, JIMMY R 835-02  5 24 WATERFRONT North Lrttle Rock 72120 Admn Office COMPUTER PROGRAMMER-OPERATOR HOLLOWAY, MARILYN A. 791-0215 4932 LONGVIEW North Lrttle Rock 72118 Admn Annex HIPPY HOME VISTOR HOLLOWAY, MARION 753-6006 1420 W 36TH ST North Lrttle Rock 72118 Lakewood Elem SECRETARY HOLMES. DARLENE V 758-4463 1017 NICOLE DR North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Boone Parl\u0026lt; OFFICE SECRETARY HOLMES, DENECE 2411 MOSS North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Amboy CROSSING GUARD/I.UNCH PERIOD AIDE HOLMES, DENECE 2411 MOSS North Lrttle Rock 7211  Amboy LUNCH PERIOD AIDE HOLMES, JOYCE B 812 N OLIVE ST North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 7211  Cafetona Office FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT-SUBSTITUTE HOLT, BRENDA S 679-3299 BOX 61 #16A S BOLDEN HI Guy 72061 Bamg Cross SECRETARY Page 13 HOLT, FRANKIE Y. 834-0197 #5 CUSTER PLACE North Little Rock 72120 Seventh Street MEDIA SPECIALIST HOMAN, ROSETTA M 835-4256 8904 WILHITE LANE Sherwood 72120 Central FIRST/SECOND YEARS HONEYCUTT, SHANNON L 834-5957 703 COULTER Sherwood 72116 North Heights KINDERGARTEN/FIRST YEARS HONORABLE, CONSTANCE L 945-9482 122 MORNING GLORY North Little Rock 72117 Ridgeroad CUSTODIAN HOOKS, S. EMILY 66~765 1700 NO HUGHES #20 Little Rock 72207 Lynch Onve THIRD YEAR HOPER. GINA R 835--0176 1905 NO HILLS CT North Little Rock 72116 Amboy FOURTH YEAR HOPKINS, MYRNA GAIL 758--0526 1020 MCCAIN North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 JOURNALISM. ENGLISH Ill.YEAR BOOK SPONSOR HOPPER, JACQUELINE M 7~234 5618ALTAVISTAOR North Little Rock 72118 Seventh Street COUNSELOR '35133 HORNE, JAMES 223 TIE PLANT LN North Little Rock 72117 Lynch Drive CROSSING GUARD HORTON, DARLA K 834-0039 101 WILLOW GROVE CT Sherwood 72120 Indian Hills FIFTH YEAR HORTON, DEBORAH J. 835-1439 23 WINDSTONE DRIVE North Little Rock 72120 Rldgeroad COUNSELOR-SECONDARY HOUSTON, CURTIS A. 771--0457 206 WISTERIA AVE North Little Rock 72118 Lak-ood Elem LEAD CUSTODIAN HOUSTON, LINDA L. 851-3257 HEMLOCK CTS .. #33 North Little Rock 72114 NLRHS--09/10 'FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT HOWARD, BELVA Z 1207 JR DEPUTY RD Little Rock 72205 Transportation BUS DRIVER HOWARD, HARVEY B. -9 1301 EAST\"G\" Russellville 72801 NLRHS--09/10 OFF SE/AST VB, HEAD BB, ASST TRACK HOWARD, HARVEY B 835-7183 1205 KOEHLER Sherwood 72116 NLRHS--09/10 EARLY MORNING AIDE HOWARD, LENORA SUE -9 1301 EAST\"G\" Russellville 72801 Redwood THIRD YEAR HOWELL, LOU ANN 676-6003 305 E 3RD Lonoke 72086 Rose City HEAL TH, SPECIAL ED HUBBARD, LAURA E. 835-6301 #16 HOLLIE RIDGE Jacksonville 72116 Cafetena Olfoce FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT-SUBSTITUTE HUDDLESTON, JEFFREY R 758-6281 2410 NORTH BERKLEY North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS--09/10 ENGLISH I HUDDLESTON, JEFFREY R 758-6281 2410 NO BERKLEY North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS--09/10 EARLY MORNING AIDE HUDSON, BETTY 753-4865 5901 JFK BLVD .. APT 121 North Little Rock 72116 SecAJt SECRETARY HUDSON, NELL C 835-1949 7208 PONTIAC DR North Little Rock 72116 Admin Annex SECRETARY-SPECIAL EDUCATION HUDSON, TOMMY W 778-9316 2-LEECR Benton 72015 NLRHS--09/10 TECH ED HUDSPETH, HOLLY B 228-7184 13500 CHENAL PKWY #800 Lillie Rock 72211 Redwood PRE-SCHOOL HUFF, J TODD 450-7039 2695 H\\/,f( 286 WEST APT Conway 72032 Rose Crty SPECILA EDUCATION HUGHES, LOUISE E 753-5135 5609 TARIL LANE North Lillie Rock 72118 Ridgeroad FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT HUGHES, MARTHA L 228-9792 67 SUMMIT RIDGE CT Lillie Rock 72211 Control FIRST YEAR HUMPHREY. JAMES 0 945-9363 #40 CALM LANE North Lillie Rock 72117 Rldgeroad OFF-SE/ASST VB, HEAD BB, HEAD TRACK, HLTH, DC HUNTER, CAROL F 771--0882 5901 JFK BLVD, #1602 North Little Rock 72116 Glenv,ew KINDERGARTEN HUNTER. CAROLYN 945-3920 724 GRAHAM ST North Lillie Rock 72117 Lynch Dnve LUNCH PERIOD AIDE HUNTER. CHRISTIE A. 753-8656 349 GOSHEN North Lillie Rock 72116 Amboy SPEECH THERAPIST '31/45 HUTCHINSON, CONNIE T. 835-5483 307 N DEVON Sherwood 72116 North Hle,ghts COMPUTER LAB AIDE/DISTRICT HYDE, BETTYE L. 227-7054 1922 RAINWOOD COVED Lillie Rock 72212 Meadow Par1\u0026lt; CHAPTER Vl\u0026lt;INOERGARTEN AIDE INGALLS, ASHLEY A. 753-3993 25 SUGAR CREEK North Lottie Rock 72116 Elem Alt SELF CONTAINED SP ED INGRAM, ARKADELLA R 791-2581 1505MARION North Lottie Rock 72114 Ridgeroad FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT INGRAM. RONALD 6511 STERLING DR Lottie Rock 72204 NLRHS-11/12 HEAD BB.OFF-SE/STADIUM.OFF-SE/TRACK, SOC STUD. IRVING WANDA NELL 945-1655 308 CHERYL North Lottie Rock 72114 Ridgeroad FOOD SERVICE MANAGER ISGRIG, KIMBER L 888-6021 10814 DREHER RO Lillie Rock 72206 Rose Crty ENGLISH, GT FACILITATOR. COMMUNICATIONS ISGRIG, MICHAEL 888-6021 10816 DREHER ROAD Lillie Rock 72206 Sec Alt PARAPROFESSIONAL ISGRIG, MICHAEL A. 888-6021 10820 DREHER RO Lillie Rock 72206 Transportation BUS DRIVER IVORY, LORINE 565-2535 49 S WAKEFIELD OR Lottie Rock 72209 Par1\u0026lt;Hill THIRD YEAR JACKSON, BETH L 834--0008 507 OAKDALE ROAD North Lottie Rock 72120 Boone Par1\u0026lt; MR/LO RESOURCE JACKSON, ELEANOR R 753-1292 2712 JOHN ASHLEY OR North Lottie Rock 72114 NLRHS--09/10 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT JACKSON, FRANCICAL 374-7979 721 N HICKORY North Lottie Rock 72114 Admon Olfoce DIRECTOR OF STUDENT AFFAIRS JACKSON, GLORIA J 374-9175 608 HICKORY ST North Lottie Rock 72114 Transportation BUS DRIVER JACKSON, HOSEA JR 374-7978 1008 E 16TH North Lillie Rock 72114 Transporta1oon BUS DRIVER JACKSON, HOSEA JR 376-7978 1008 E 16TH North Lillie Rock 72114 Lak- Elem LUNCH PERIOD AIDE Page 14 JACKSON, JANE B. 7~307 36 DESOTO CIRCLE North Little Rock 72116 Ridgeroad EARTH SCIENCE, DEPT. CHAIR JACKSON, KATHRYN L. 758-0453 4408 ARLINGTON North Little Rock 72116 Indian Hills FOURTH YEAR JACKSON. REGINALD E. 945--0435 113 MIMOSA North Little Rock 72117 Lakewood Elem LUNCH PERIOD AIDE JACKSON, SEARCY J 1718 CHANDLER North Little Rock 72114 Boone Park FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT JACOBS. CYNTHIA M 835-6500 2005 BLACK RIVER North Little Rock 72116 lnd\\8'1 Hills HANDICAP AIDE JACOBS. DOROTHY J. 372-6501 2704 BATTERY Little Rock 72206 Par!\u0026lt; Hill FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT JACOBS. SONYA J. 664-7798 1218 WASHINGTON ST Little Rock 72204 Lakewood Elem COMPED AIDE JACOBS. SONYA Y 664-7798 3423WTTH Little Rock 72205 Lakewood Elem LUNCH PERIOD AIDE JACOBS, SONYA Y 664-7798 3423W7TH ST Little Rock 72205 Lakewood Elem EARLY MORNING AIDE JAMES, JACQUELYN R. 771-4720 605 WEST SCENIC, #L23 North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS-09/10 MEDIA AIDE JAMES, MELVIN 1503 GUM ST North Little Rock 72114 PikeV- CUSTODIAN JAMES, RONALD J. 372-1206 1616 OLIVE ST North Little Rock 72114 NLRHS-09/10 INSTRUCTIONAL AIDE JASPER, THELMA 224-6076 1400 OLD FORGE RO Little Rock 72207 AdminAnnex COORDINATOR EARLY CHILDHOOD JEFFERSON, KATHY R 945-7058 1911 W20TH North Llltle Rock 72114 Indian Hills FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT JEFFREY, RICHARD L. 888-6537 2909 STEPHANIE OR. Little Rock 72206 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER JENKINS, GLADYS M 758--0353 4309 LYNN LANE North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS-09/10 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT JENKINS, L YNOA G. 945-1634 #5 RHODES AVE. North Little Rock 72117 Transportation BUS DRIVER JOHNSON, APRIL L. 5901 JFK BLVD APT 1802 North Little Rock 72116 Glenv- FOURTH YEAR JOHNSON, !DELIA 945-3049 204 S PALM ST North Llltle Rock 72114 fnd,an Hills FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT JOHNSON, JANNIE V 945-4219 2112 HUNTER RO. North Llltle Rock 72117 _North Heights FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT JOHNSON, JOYCE M. 375-2244 1305 VINE STREET North Little Rock 72114 Indian Hills FOOD SERVICE MANAGER JOHNSON. KARLA A 664-5746 3700 CANTRELL, #1008 Little Rock 72202 Glenview ELEMENTARY COUNSELOR 46142 JOHNSON, NADINE 945-2783 5113 N WOODLAND North Little Rock 72117 Glenv.w LUNCH PERIOD AIDE JOHNSON, OZETTA 758-6872 #8 GREY CT. COVE North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS-09/10 ENGLISH I JOHNSON.ROBERT LEE 945-2783 5113 NO WOODLAND North Llltle Rock 72117 Amboy CUSTODIAN JOHNSON, VAKEISA Y 758-6527 2004 CRlJTCHER North Little Rock 72114 Cafetena Olf,ce FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT-SUBSTITUTE JOHNSTON, CARL B 886-6059 1301 W DIXON RO LOT 4 Little Rock 72206 Lynch Dove CUSTODIAN JOHNSTON, CATHY L 753-3855 4800 GREENWAY OR. North Little Rock 72116 PikeView KINDERGARTEN JONES, BARBAR.A SUE 791-0758 4418 LYNN LNAPT#71 North Llltle Rock 72118 PikeV- FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT JONES, CHARLES L 758-2856 6217 NORTH ALLEN North Llltle Rock 72118 Ridgeroad PRINCIPAL - MIDDLE SCHOOL JONES, DENISE 945-4403 315 PARKDALE North Little Rock 72117 Lakewood Elem FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT JONES, EARNESTINE 791-3483 1301 WEST 48TH ST APT B North Little Rock 72118 Transportat10n BUS DRIVER JONES, ELLEN M 835-2935 6713 PONOEROSA North Little Rock 72116 Lakewood Middle COMMUNICATIONS 7/8 JONES, FAITH R 758-2856 6217 N. ALLEN North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS-11/12 READING TEACHER JONES, HENRY E 945-5573 200 E 44TH North Little Rock 72117 NLRHS-09/10 CUSTODIAN JONES, MARGUERITE 753-a046 1704 HAZEL North Llltle Rock 72114 Central FOOD SERVICE MANAGER JONES, RICKEY E 834-7204 126 KING PINE RO Sherwood 72120 Rose City ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT JONES, SANOR.A A 753-6555 6009 BUCKLES OR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Pon\u0026lt; Hill KINDERGARTEN JONES, SANOR.A K. 835-7022 8409 EASY ST North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 SECRETARY JONES, SHELLY R 758-6573 5312 LOCUST North Little Rock 72116 PikV- COMPENSATORY AIDE JONES, TAMMY L 821-5919 123 CALAIS COVE Little Rock 72211 Boone Park KINDERGARTEN JORDAN, JOSEPH 374-5964 814 NO CEDAR North Llltle Rock 72114 Seventh Street EARLY MORNING AIDE JORDAN, JOSEPH 374-5964 814 NO CEDAR North Llltle Rock 72114 Seventh Street COMP EOAJOE JORDAN, KATHRYNE A 945-5858 4604 E PUCKETT North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Elem Alt PARAPROFESSIONAL JORDAN, MARCUS 0 375-4127 803 VENTUR.A Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72202 Boone Park PRE-SCHOOL AIDE JORDAN, MARCUS 0 375-4127 803 VENTUR.A Llltle Rock 72202 Boone Park EARLY MORNING AIDE JORGENSON, LIZBETH A 758-5290 821 SILVER HILL RO North Little Rock 72118 North Heights READING RECOVERY JOYCE, SANOR.AM ~202 2109 BLACK RIVER RD North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 MEDIA CLERK Page 15 JUCKETT, SANDRA K. 835-6965 1801 E. LEE ShenNood 72116 Admin Office SECRETARY-STUDENT AFFAIRS KAISER, PATRICIA A. 835-6701 #6 CUSTER PLACE ShenNood 72120 NLRHS-09/10 SPECIAL EDUCATION, PEER ASST KALLHOFF, STEVEN D 791-3349 3705 N FRANCIS North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Transportat,or, BUS DRIVER KAUFMAN, DAVID L. 75:ul784 4521 NORTH CYPRESS North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-11112 AMERICAN HISTORY KELLEY, DARLENE W 9 5-5178 #12 GOODWIN CR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Amboy SECOND YEAR KELLEY, NANCY L. 771-4471 3808 LAKEWOOD VALLEY North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 PikeV- FIRST YEAR KELLY, ARTHUR D. 9 5- 1\"6 1516W1 TH Little Rod\u0026lt; 7220 Warehouse MAINTENANCE HELPER KELLY, SHIRLEY K. 982-2089 24 PRESTON CT Jacksonv1He 72076 Par1\u0026lt;H ill SECOND YEAR KELSO, BEYERL YA. 7-2 4120 ROYAL OAK DRIVE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Lynch Dnve PRINCIPAL-ELEMENTARY KENNEDY, DINAH L 753-25\"8 6304 ALLWOOD North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 NLRHS-11112 ALG 11C, ALCULUS KEYSER, DONNA M 982-1121 PO BOX 17318 North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Meadow Par1\u0026lt; SIXTH YEAR KIEKLAK, RONALD J 758-6092 \u0026lt;4613 DAWSON DRIVE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 PSYCHOLOGY, WORLD HISTORY KIMBRELL, SHARRON J. 753- 911 5521 CRESCENT North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 NrnHS-09/10 GEOMETRY, INT. ALG. KIMMER. JAMES P. 661-4636 5205 KAVANAUGH Little Rod\u0026lt; 72207 Ridgeroad ENGLISH Y, GEOG KINCL, ANN B. 7~ 3108 CLEBURNE PLACE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Adm\"1 Office COORDINATOR OF GIFTED/TALENTED -03/25 KINCL, CAROLYN L 835-6001 917 COULTER ShenNood 72116 NLRHS-09/10 GENERAL OFFICE CLERK KING, JOE D. 327-2689 P.O. BOX 10287 Conway 72032 Ridgeroad EITE, C.O. KIRBY, CYNTHIA D 851-158 6223 PARTRIDGE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 NLRHS-09/10 BIOLOGY, DEPT. CHAIR. KIRSPEL, KENNETH A. 835-3369 590 NORTH HILLS BLVD. North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 PRINCIPAL-SECONDARY KITE, KATHI J. 568-4776 8118 MELLWOOD RD Little Rod\u0026lt; 7220 NLRHS-09/10 PHYSICAL SCIENCE KLEITSCH, PAMELA A. 758-8849 3911 LOCHRIDGE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Lynch Drive SECOND YEAR KNIGHT, RENA 835-8553 512 RICKY RACCOON DR Jacksonville 72076 NLRHS-11/12 WORLD HISTORY, DEPT CHAIR KOETTEL, PATTI A. 834-2475 11 PATTY LANE ShenNood 72120 Seventh Street KINDERGARTEN KOONE, BARBARA 753-7413 723WEST'A' North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Lynch Dnve THIRD YEAR KYZER. MARSHA K. 753-2341 1314 STARFIELD North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER LAIRRY, KENNETH R 9 5-9680 1  12 BEN ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Glenvoew LUNCH PERIOD AIDE LAIRY, VERDA J 9 5-7998 1521 BEN ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Rose City FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT LAMAR, DIANNA G 753-9356 2024 ORANGE North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 T,.,sportabon BUS DRIVER LAMB, BETTY L 753-7401 422W53RD North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Crestwood FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT LANES, OUILLA M B35-0509 1620 SARATOGA DR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-11/12 COUNSELOR LANGFORD, SALLIE F B34-28B8 6905 FLINTROCK North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-11/12 SPEECH, DEBATE, SR CAB., BUS COMM., MASS COMM LANGRELL, GWENNETH K. 835-5521 7824 POWELL ShenNood 72116 Amboy CHAPTER I AIDE LAREY, JILL A. 6'101 GREENBANK North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 lnchan Hills MEDIA SPECIALIST LARSON, PAT A. 835-0889 7409 EAGLE PT DR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 North Heights FIFTH/SIXTH YEARS LASTER, GREGORY L 227-5\u0026lt;467 7821 W CAPITOL APT 10 Little Rod\u0026lt; Cafetena Office WAREHOUSE ASSISTANT, FOOD SERVICE LAWHON, JILL M 45~16 12021 BLACK WALNUT CR Little Rod\u0026lt; 72209 Amboy SECOND YEAR LEE, CHRISTINE 375-498 1123 EAST 15TH ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Boone Par1\u0026lt; THIRD/FOURTH YEARS LEE, GLORIA 753-3275 2208W38TH North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Belwood LUNCH PERIOD AIDE LEE, GLORIA 753-3275 2208W38TH North Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Belwood EARLY MORNING AIDE LEE, HELENE 835-6229 1206 KOEHLER ShenNood 72116 Pike View EARLY MORNING AIDE LEE, HELENE 835-6229 1206 KOEHLER ShenNood 72116 Pike View CHAPTER I LAB/KINDERGARTEN AIDE LEFEAR, BILL 22:u\u0026gt;626 13919 SAINT MICHAEL Lrttle Rod\u0026lt; 72211 Ridgeroad ASST FB, OFF-SE/GYM ATTEND, ASST TRACK. PE LEFEAR, BILL 22:u\u0026gt;626 3009 DORSET DR Little Rod\u0026lt; 7220 Transportation SUS DRIVER LEGER, GWEN 18 DEL TARA DRIVE Jacksonville 72076 NLRHS-11112 SPEECH, ACTIVITY DIRECTOR LEMOINE, BURTON A. 753-2058 5004 STRATFORD RD North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Transportation BUS DRIVER LEWIS, CAROL P 834-3680 113 BRIGHTON CT ShenNood 72116 North Heights FIFTH GRADE LEWIS, FRANCIS 835-7287 6308 CHIPPEWA North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Lakewood Middle HEAD VB, OFF-SE/ASST BB, HEAD TRACK. PE LEWIS, IVORY L 214 W 14TH ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 SecAJt CROSSING GUARD Page 16 LEWIS, NAVEDA D. 1=16 704 EAST MILITARY DR No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Lakewood Elem CHAPTER I LAB/KINDERGARTEN LEWIS, STELLA M. 7~766 4615 ORANGE ST. No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Amboy FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT LILES, CAROLE G 758-7724 4421 GREENWAY DR No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 No'1h Heights THIRD YEAR LILLY, CAROLYN SUE 758-7132 718 SHAMROCK No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Lynch Dove FOURTH YEAR LINDSEY, PATRICK A. 6412 PONTIAC No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Elem Alt PARAPROFESSIONAL LIPSMEYER. L. LOUENE 664-2244 312 NO. WOODROW ST. Little Rod\u0026lt; 722D5 Central SIXTH YEAR LITTLETON, ZUNDRA G. 917 CAMPUS ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Central EARLY MORNING AIDE LITTLE, DARLENE C. 568-9420 5702 TRENTON Little Rod\u0026lt; 72209 Admin Office TOT ACADEMY LITTLE, F. ANTOINETTE 758-6780 408 WEST 23RD No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72115 SecAlt SACAJOE LIVELY, BOBBYE 758-3716 5724 AL TA VISTA No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 LakewoodM iddle SECRETARY LOFTON, ARTIS T. 758-9743 63 KINGS RIVER RD No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-11/12 SENIOR ARMY INSTRUCTOR-JROTC LOFTON, CLARA A. 565-6265 7100 GUINEVERE DR Little Rod\u0026lt; 72209 Ridgeroad ENGLISH, DEPT CHAIRPERSON LOFTON, DWIGHT A. 758-6955 5901 J.F.K. APT. 4126 No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 OFF-SE/ASST FB, HEA.O BB, ASST. TRACK. CIVICS LONDON, CYNTHIA C. 834-3171 3611 IOLEWILD No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Rose City SPEECH THERAPIST \"26124 LONG, DANNY J. 888-5963 5408 BLUEBERRY OR LittleRod\u0026lt; 72206 Sec Alt MATH LONG, GAYEL 833--0337 1724 OSCEOLA DR No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 No'1h Heights SPEECH THERAPIST 41/43 LONG, MARY P 945-0674 2313 LANSBROOK No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 NLRHS.00/10 CCVE LOOMIS, NANCY L 834-3270 502 AUTUMNBROOK CR. No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72120 Park Hill COMPUTER LAB AIDE CHAPTER I/DISTRICT LOONEY, LYNNE W 771-4123 705 KIERRE OR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Indian Hills SIXTH YEAR LOPEZ, CHARLENE L. 758-3497 5513 GRANBY RD No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Redwood MR/LO RESOURCE LOVENSTEIN, RITA C 110 CHARTER CT Sherwood 72116 Ridgeroad GUIDANCE CLERK LOVE, CAROLYN 758-0500 4401 SCHAER ST No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Amboy FOOD SERVICE MA.NAGER LOWE, BETTY A. 758-0665 2010 CRUTCHER No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Amboy LUNCH PERIOD AIDE LOWE, CATHERINE T 663-1498 2921 YOUNGWOOD Little Rod\u0026lt; 72207 Ridgeroad FRENCH, CHEERLEADERS \"24126 LOWE, KAYE 753-0439 6605 ALLWOOD No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Lekewood Elem PRINCIPAL-ELEMENTARY LUCAS, REVA 94\u0026gt;2018 2603 E. WASHINGTON No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Redwood LUNCH PERIOD AIDE LUCAS, REVA 94\u0026gt;3427 2603 E WASHINGTON No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Redwood PRE-SCHOOL BUS DUTY AIDE LUTHY, FRED A. 753--0104 4008 MELLENE No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 NLRHS-09/10 LEA.O CUSTODIAN LYBARGER, CINDY L 753-4124 5416 BELLE POINT No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Boone Park CHAPTER I KINDERGARTEN AIDE LYONS, FREDERICK D 753-9598 804 i ST DIXIE ADON No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 No'1h Heights CROSSING GUARD LYONS, FREDERICK 0 804 \"I\" ST DIXIE ADD No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 No'1h Heights CUSTODIAN LYONS, PAMELA R. 758-7068 817W53RD No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Ridgeroad CUSTODIAN MACKLIN, DIANA LYNN 843-4317 17 LINDULAKE DRIVE Cabot 72023 PikeV- FIFTH YEAR MAGNESS, SHIRLEY V 94\u0026gt;1950 2WRIGHTCR No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Lynch Dove SECRETARY MAHER, JIMMY D 470-0376 #29 CIRCLE OR Mayflower 72106 Wwehouse MAINTENANCE HELPER MAJORS, MARSHA J 29 KING RIVER RD No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Ridgeroad NURSE MALONE. FRANCES N 224.al75 3306 BOYD Little Rod\u0026lt; 72204 Redwood SELF CONTAINED MR MALONE, FRANCES N 224.al75 3306 BOYD Little Rod\u0026lt; 72204 Redwood EARLY MORNING AIDE MANNING, PEARL L 771-0154 2206 COORS LN No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Amboy EARLY MORNING AIDE MANNING, SHEILA K. 771-2250 1816 MAGNOLIA No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Central FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT MANN, PAMELA ROSE 758-3442 210W 51ST ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Tranoportat,on BUS DRIVER MARSHALL, LEONARD E 771-1438 1809 W 44TH ST APT C No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 lndllfl Htlls LUNCH PERIOD AIDE MARSHALL, LEONARD E 771-1438 1809 W 44TH ST APT C No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Tranoportat,on BUS DRIVER MARSHALL, NANCY L 851-4837 3 CRYSTAL MTN LANE Maumelle 72113 5-lth Street MR/LO RESOURCE MARSHALL, SHIRLEY A. 37\u0026gt;4064 PO BOX4652 Little Rod\u0026lt; 72204 Rosa City SPECIAL EDUCATION MARSHALL, TWANA D 791-0857 3615 PIKE AVE No'1h Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Pari\u0026lt;Hil LUNCH PERIOD AIDE MARTIN, BETTY F 753-1467 1108 NELBROOK North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Ukewood Elem BAAJDE MARTIN, BRENDA K. 982-2991 26 WRIGHT CIRCLE Jacklonvtlle 72076 Belwood PRINCIPAUMEDIA Page 17 MARTIN, CALVIN J. 834-1580 340 KELSO RD Jacksonville 72076 Elem Alt LEAD CUSTODIAN MARTIN, CARVIN 835-9078 607 HEMPHILL ShetWood 72120 warehouse OPERATIONS MONITOR MARTIN. DEBORAH 945-1312 5223 SO WOODLAND North Lrttle Rock 72117 NLRHS-09/10 LEAD CUSTODIAN MARTIN. HELEN J. 228-9465 81 KINGSPARK RD Little Rock 72207 Ridgeroad READING RECOVERY ( 66 DIST -.34 CHAPTER I) MARTIN. JAMES JR 945-1312 5223 SO WOODLAND North Lrttle Rock 72117 Glenv- CUSTODIAN MARTIN. LETITIA R 834-1469 7907 PINTO TRAIL Sherwood 72116 Admn Office COORDINATOR OF EVALUATION AND RESEARCH MARTIN, MICHELLE V. 945--0092 1101 W. 22ND North Little Rock 72114 Seventh Street FOOD SERVICE MANAGER MARTIN, NANCY A. 771-4983 3420 FIESTA North Little Rock 72116 Par1\u0026lt;H1II COMP ED AIDE MARTIN, TERI L. 834-2800 2500 SEMINOLE TRAIL North Little Rock 72116 North Heights FOURTH YEAR MASCUILLI, KATHY L. 221-1262 15 RED MAPLE COURT Little Rock 72211 Lynch Onve FIRST YEAR MASCUILLI. SAM JOSEPH 221-1262 15 RED MAPLE CT Little Rock 72211 MeadowPar1\u0026lt; GUDIANCE COUNSELOR-ELEMENTARY MASSEY, CHARLOTTE A. 753-1686 5013 FAIRWAY North Little Rock 72116 Lakewood Middle KEYBOARDING MASSEY, JERRY D \"753-1686 5013 FAIRWAY AVE  North Little Rock 72116 Admn Office DIRECTOR, SCHOOL PLANT SERVICES MASTERSON, OSCAR E 843-2212 #12 LINDULAKE RD Cabol 72023 Warehouse HEATING \u0026amp; A/C MAINTENANCE MATTHEWS, BETTIANNE H 851-2567 14708 LONE PINE RD North Little Rock 72118 Cantrel SIXTH YEAR MATTHEWS, MARY D 679-4555 PO BOX264 Greenbner 72058 Rose City SPECIAL EDUCATION MATTHEWS, NETTIE L 834-7118 6304 NAVAJO TR North Little Rock 72116 Par1\u0026lt;Hill FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT MATTOCKS, JUANITA 985-0139 1315 SOLITHEASTERN AV Jacksonville 72076 Seventh Street LEAD CUSTODIAN MATTOX. MARGIE 771-0358 4716 BUNKER HILL DR North Lrttle Rock 72116 Seventh Street FIRST YEAR MAXWELL, JIMMY L. 834-3463 6328 HOPI North Lrttle Rock 72116 Boone Par1\u0026lt; MEDIA MAXWELL. SARAC 834-3463 6328 HOPI North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 SPECIAL EDUCATION MAYERHOFF,CAROLL 851.a760 #1 HOGAN DR. Maumelle 72113 Amboy SECOND YEAR MAYWEATHER, GRACE H 945-0408 1005,sT North Little Rock 72114 Par1\u0026lt;H ill LUNCH PERIOD AIDE MAY, HOLLY ANN 225-1603 1502 GREEN MT DR #118E Little Rock 72211 Glenv19W FIRST/SECOND YEARS MCADAMS. CAROL ANN 664-7419 2006 CANAL POINTE LrttleRock 72202 NLRHS-11/12 DRAMA 111, 11I,V , PR SP/DRAMA DEPT. CHAIR SC MCAFEE, MARJORIE E 225-7491 47 KINGSBRIDGE WAY LrttleRock 72212 NLRHS-09/10 ALG. I, APPL MATH MCALPINE, MARVA L 223-2486 13419 POMPANO DR Little Rock 72211 Lakewood Elem SECOND YEAR MCCAMMON, LAURA K. 791-3556 504 LINDENHURST North Lrltle Rock 72118 Amboy KINDERGARTEN MCCAULEY, GLORIA L 753-3737 4904 NVINE North Lrltle Rock 72116 Adm,i Office SECRETARY MCCLAIN, VIVIAN D 568-4999 9500 SO HEIGHTS, #139 Little Rock 72209 North Heights FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT MCCLINTON, JANE P 835-1586 7905 BEECHFIELD North Lrltle Rock 72116 Pike View THIRD YEAR MCCOLLUM, DIANA K 2107 BROADVIEW AVE Conway 72032 Lekewood Middle HOME EC. MCCONNELL, AVA 945-2735 509 ELLEN DR North Lrttle Rock 72117 RosaCity FOOD SERVICE MANAGER MCCOWN. SHAUNA R 791-0272 5300 SUMMERTREE DR #1 North Little Rock 72116 Lekewood Middle MATH MCCOY, DARRELL G 834.a187 101 SPRINGOAK DR ShetWood 72120 NLRHS-11/12 DRAFTING I, II MCCULLOUGH. MARY 945-7728 210 RHODES North Lrttle Rock 72117 Glenv19W LUNCH PERIOD AIDE MCDONALD. PATRICIA S 753-4263 3004 MARTINEAU North Lrttle Rock 72116 Lakewood Middle MEDIA SPECIALIST MCDOWELL, LAURA L 758-1785 4201 BUNKER HILL North Lrttle Rock 72116 Lakewood Middle HEAL TH, DEPT CHAIR MCDOWELL. ROYS 374-4602 722 SHERMAN LittleR ock 72202 NLRHS-09/10 COMP SPEECH, DRAMA I, 11D, EPT CHAIR MCGEE, SHIRLEY R 753-2241 5124 CHANDLER North Lrltle Rock 72118 PikeView COMPUTER LAB AIDE - CHAPTER I .SO/DISTRICT .50 MCGINLEY, DONNA$ K 851-3978 10216 CLEMATIS North Lrttle Rock 72118 NLRHS-11/12 OHE, INT. REUPARENT, HO EC I MCGINNIS, CAROLYN SUE 843-0151 16 SUNSET LANE Cabot 72023 Cenlnll FIFTH YEAR MCGLOTHIN, DENA 758-0795 3724 LOCHRIDGE North Lrltle Rock 72116 Rosa City SOCIAL STUDIES MCGUIRE, LUVENIA 945-7080 4009 ROUND TOP OR North Lrttle Rock 72117 Centnll LUNCH PERIOD AIDE MCKAIG. ANN C 753-6371 2517 FRANKLIN North Lrttle Rock 72114 Elem Alt PARAPROFESSIONAL MCKINLEY, DAVID 562-5321 8222 SPANISH RD Lrttle Rock 72209 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER MCKINNEY, ELOIS 945-8033 5017 E 46TH ST North Lrttle Rock 72117 RosaCrty FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT MCKNIGHT, KENNETH W 945-1752 5704 ALPHA ST North Lrttle Rock 72117 Lynch Dr,ve CUSTODIAN Page 18 MCMILLEN, MARTHA B. 67- 46 ROBINSON RD. - 72058 Adminlwtex HOMEBOUND TEACHER MCMILLION, KATHRYN L. 75H972 100 ARIZONA AVE. North Little Rock 72118 Redwood CHAPTER I AIDE MCMUNN. KIMBERLY D. 49A SAGEWOOD CT North Lrttle Rock 72118 Warehouse SAFETY COORDINATOR MCMURRY, JAMES A. JR 835-7624 132 VERONA CIRCLE Sherwood 72116 NLRHS-11112 MARKETING EDUCATION, TENNIS COACH MCMURRY, NANCY R 835-7624 132 VERONA CIRCLE Sherwood 72116 NLRHS-11112 MEDIA SPECIALIST MCPHERSON, DAVID M. 327-2302 1905 BERRY PLACE Conway 72032 Bamg Cross CCE COORDINATOR MCPHERSON, JO ELLEN 327-2302 1905 BERRY PLACE Conway 72032 lnc:han Hills MR/LO RESOURCE MEABON, LEVERTA 945-51 P.O. BOX 17003 North Little Rock 72117 Glenv- COMPUTER LAB AIDE  CHAPTER I SO/DISTRICT 50 MEDLEY, JAMES H. 1003 \"D\" ST DIXIE ADON North Little Rock 72114 Saventh Street CROSSING GUARD MEEKS, JANA K. 945-7396 40 HEALY North Little Rock 72117 Ridgeroad FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT MELTON, CYNTHIA S 758--0176 5 FOXBORO CT North Little Rock 72118 Parle Hill PRINCIPAL-ELEMENTARY MENARD, THELMA 758-7948 602W22ND North Little Rock 72114 NLRHS-11112 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT MEYERS, YVETTE 982-0639 1800 OAKWOOD APT 191 Jad\u0026lt;sonville 72076 Redwood Ct!APTER I LAB AIDE/DISTRICT MILLER, MARY C. 753-7429 6501 RUSTIC LN North Little Rock 72118 PikeV- LUNCH PERIOD AIDE MILLER, SUSAN M. 663-1116 2815 N. PIERCE Little Rock 72207 NLRHS-09/10 SPECIAL EDUCATION (.57) MILLSAPPS, CHRISTINE B 83 -1685 2311 FOX GLEN COVE Sherwood 72120 Amboy FIFTH YEAR MISEE, TOMMY H 327-0747 272 MILLPOND DR Conway 72032 Warehouse LEAD PLUMBER MITCHELL, BOYCE, SR. 945-3393 120 NO CLOVER North Lillie Rock 72114 NLRHS-11112 CUSTODIAN MITCHELL, DEBORAH A. 83,4-8159 101 N LONGFIELD Sherwood 72116 Boone Park CHAPTER I AIDE MITCHELL, RUBY F. 753-4863 6109 GREEN BANK RD North Little Rock 72118 Admn Office SUPERVISOR OF BOOKKEEPING MITCHELL, TERESA 0. 663-9372 2400 RIVERFRONT #123 Lrttle Rock 72202 Redwood COUNSELOR 49145 MOMPHREY, BETTY J 945-8172 2910 E. 2ND ST. North Little Rock 72114 Central FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT MONCRIEF, GWENITT V. 9820 COBBY DR Little Rock 72206 Admn lwtex SECRETARY-EARLY CHILDHOOD MONK, E CAROL 771-0165 5431 PIKE AVE. North Little Rock 72118 Lynch Orne ELEM SECRETARY MONTGOMERY, NANCY A. 75~ 4505 DAWSON DR North Lillie Rock 72116 Redwood FIRST YEAR MOODY, SHARI R 771-0368 6208 EAST RIDGE North Lillie Rock 72118 Cenlrlll FOURTH YEAR MOODY, SHERLENE 961-1728 908 WHITEHEAD North Lillie Rock 72117 Catotena Off,ce WAREHOUSE MANAGER MOORE, KAYA 758--0474 6509 ALL WOOD North Lrttle Rock 72118 BooneParx H.O.T.S. TEACHER MOORE, MARGARET L 851-1217 #7 PAR DR. Maumelle 72113 Lakewood Middle EARTH SCIENCE, PAWS, DEPT. CHAIR. MOORE, NANCY H 224-9730 17 WALNUT VALLEY DR Lrttle Rock 72211 Admn Amex COORDINATOR OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES MOORE, SHIRLEY D 3107 LINCOLN AVE North Little Rock 72114 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER MORGAN, ANNIE M 661-1761 66 FLAG RO Little Rock 72205 Lynch Dnve READING RECOVERY MORGAN, ANNIE M 661-1761 66 FLAG RO Lrttle Rock 72205 Lynch Orne EARLY MORNING AIDE MORRISON, CHARLES W 835-5214 108 CALLAWAY Sherwood 72120 Warehouse LEAD CARPENTER MORRISON, PATRICIA D 3508 CHANDLER North Lrttle Rock 72118 Par1\u0026lt;H 1U EARLY MORNING AIDE MORRIS, JAMES C 758-7667 1809 MILLCREEK North Lrttle Rock 72116 Admn Off,ce DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL MORRIS. JOHNNY LEE 771-4670 4901 VAUGHN North Lrttle Rock 72118 Transportat,on BUS MECHANIC MORRIS, NANCY E 888-2789 74 INDIAN SPRINGS DRIVE Alexander 72002 Admn Off,ca SECRETARY, COMPUTER SERVICES MORRIS PATSY S 83 -7761 7017 FLINTROCK North Lrttle Rock 72116 LakewoodM iddle PRE-ALGEBRA I. ALGEBRA 8, GEOM MORROW, NORMA J 753-4546 2221 CRESTWOOD RD North Lrttle Rock 72116 Amboy SIXTH YEAR MURRAY, BEVERLY A. 945-7133 922 E 19TH ST#150 North Lillie Rock 72114 NLRHS-11112 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT MUSE, JANICE M 835-4535 7924 CLAREMONT Sherwood 72116 North Heights SECRETARY MUSHINSKI, JO ANN 834-2328 #1 PUTTER COVE Sherwood 72116 Admn Off,ce SECRETARY, ASST. SUPT.-BUSINESS SERVICES MYERS, DOROTHY I 982-9259 15 FOXFIRE COVE Jad\u0026lt;sonvllle 72076 NLRHS-09/10 SPECIAL EDUCATION NAGEL, HAMIYET 988-5461 4506 MADDOX RD #6 Jacksonville 72076 NLRHS-09/10 BIOLOGY NARKINSKY, JOHN C 835-1122 500 BURNTWOOO Sherwood 72116 NLRHS-11/12 HEAD FB, OFF SE/GYM ATTEND, OFF SE/TRACK. ALG I NAYLOR, JANET S. 835-1883 6401 PAWNEE North Lrttle Rock 72116 Admn Off,ce VOCATIONAL PARA-PROFESSIONAL NEELY, VERNON S 374-0197 701 CEDAR North Lrttle Rock 72114 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER Page 19 NELSON, NORMAL. 868-5494 8302 HIDDEN VALLEY ROA Little Rock 72212 Lynch Drive SIXTH YEAR NESBITT, TOMMIE W. 375-1943 219 E 19TH ST North Little Rock 72114 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER NESS, MARGARET A. 835-6291 5716 WOODRIDGE LN Sherwood 72120 Adm., ()ff,co SECRETARY NEUMEIER, SHA.NON KAY 851-1861 32VICTORIA Maumelle 72113 Seventh Stroot SIXTH YEAR NEW, BOBBY C. 225-5608 403 CAMBRIDGE PL Little Rock 72227 Adm,n Office ASST. SUPERINTENDENT FOR SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION NICHOALDS, DELLA M 758-9072 P.O. BOX 1328 Little Rock 72203 Roso Crty SAC MANAGER NICHOLS, JOYCE J 224-7485 11405 MARA LYNN #14 Little Rock 72211 Rodgeroad MR/LO RESOURCE NIVENS, CORA A. 565-7770 5901 MAUREEN DRIVE Little Rock 72209 Meadow Pall\u0026lt; SECOND YEAR NOAH, JUDY G. 753-8807 3405 N OLIVE North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 SPECIAL EDUCATION NOBLETT, BARBARA J 961-9469 615 DORTCH LOOP North Little Rock 72117 TransportatlOO BUS DRIVER NOBLETT, BARBARA J. 961-9469 615 DORTCH LOOP North Little Rock 72117 Bamg Cross SPECIAL EDUCATION AIDE NOEL, TERRY P 758-4468 3703 K MCCAIN PARK DR North Little Rock 72116 Indian Hills CROSSING GUARD NOLAND, JOHN M 758-1737 2118 N. MAIN  North Little Rock 72114 NLRHS-09/10 COMMUNICATION SUR .. DRAMA I NORMAN, VIRGINIA L 835-1355 2604 SEMINOLE TR North Little Rock 72116 Central KINDERGARTEN NORWOOD, CAROL R. 758-4094 '216 PLAINVIEW CIRCLE North Little Rock 72116 Boone Pall\u0026lt; THIRD YEAR NUNERLEY, VA.LENA M 753-9075 4928 AUGUSTA CR A.PT #B North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS-11/12 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT NUNLEY, THERON S 601 CENTER STREET Conway 72032 North Heights SIXTH YEAR OBERLE, SANDRA J 835-0561 30 JACKSON OAKS North Lrt11eR ock 72120 PikoV- FIRST YEAR O'DELL, CONNIE J 676-2911 120 RABBIT ROAD Lonoke 72086 North Heights FOURTH YEAR O'DELL, DAVID W. 676-2911 120 RABBIT RD Lonoke 72086 Wacehouse MAINTENANCE HELPER OGDEN, CLARENCE LEE JR. 834-8295 114 HEMLOCK Sherwood 72120 Warehouse MAINTENANCE HELPER OGDEN, JOY FAYE 843-4917 712 BRIARWOOD Cabot 72023 Central LEAD CUSTODIAN OLIGER, BEVERLY C 842-2233 310 SOUTHEAST FOURTH England 72046 Lekowood Middle ENGLISH 7 OLIGER, JANELLE 753-8898 5709 MA.RION North Little Rock 72118 Boone Pall\u0026lt; SECRETARY ORR, ROBERT C 11112 YOSEMITE VALLEY Little Rock 72212 NLRHS-09/10 A.PPL MATH, A.LG ( 57) OSUALLA. JOYCE A. 372-6943 406W4TH ST North Lrt11eR ock 72114 Amboy FOOD SERVICE ASSIST A.NT OTWELL, D SHARON 221-1718 #4 CREEKSIDE COURT Little Rock 72211 Roso City CCVE PACE, SHERRY L. 1403 STA.RFIELD North Lrt11eR ock 72116 Crestwood KINDERGARTEN/FIRST YEAR PAPINEAU, DEBORAH A. 851-7124 #1 OAK FOREST LA.NE Maumelle 72113 Boone Pall\u0026lt; MR/LO \"33/38 PARKER, BRENDA SUE 835-9655 #48 TENNYSON CT North Lrt11eR ock 72116 Indian Hills PHYSICAL THERAPIST 48!30 PARKER, BRODERICK J 1609 BEN ST North Lrt11eR ock 72117 NLRHS-11/12 BA.AIDE PARKER, MARY ANN 888-3684 19506 CHICOT RD Mabelvale 72103 Crestwood FOOD SERVICE MA.NAGER PARKER, 0 FAYE 945-2747 1609 BEN North Lrt11eR ock 72117 NLRHS-11/12 OFFICE SECRETARY PARKER, RENITA G 860-7911 516WCROSS Benton 72015 Pike V- SIXTH YEAR PARSLEY, CARRIE A 758-7819 200 LEE ST North Lrt11eR ock 72118 MeadowP all\u0026lt; MR/LO PATTERSON, SUZZETTE R 34150LIVE North Lrt11eR ock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 COMM A.RT, SR CAB PAUL, MARSHA Y 227-4055 8002 EVERGREEN Lrt11eR ock 72207 Seventh Street PRINCIPAL-ELEMENTARY PEARSON, JAMES E 835-4711 7608 TOMAHAWK DR North Lrt11eR ock 72116 CafetenaO !f,ce DIRECTOR, SCHOOL FOOD SERVICES PEARSON, PATSY 835-4711 7608 TOMAHAWK DR North Lrttle Rock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 COE I, II, WORD PROCESS , DEPT CHAIR, DTP PECK, CASSANDRA M 945-1852 6211 SYDNEY ROAD North Lrt11eR ock 72117 Lynch Dnvo FIFTH YEAR PEDERSON, SHIRLEY 374-8554 320W 14TH North Lrt11eR ock 72114 Central CROSSING GUARD PEDERSON, SHIRLEY 374-8554 320 WEST 14TH North Lrt11eR ock 72114 Central LUNCH PERIOD AIDE PERDUE, STEVEN E 778-8985 511 DOBBS DR Benton 72015 Ridgeroad AMERICAN HISTORY 8, DEPT CHAIR PERKINS, MARLA C 513 GLYNN LA.NE North Lrt11eR ock 72117 Bamg Cross SELF CONTAINED MR PERKINS, MARLA C 513 GLYNN LA.NE North Lrt11eR ock 72117 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER PERSON, SHIRLEY A. 753-5362 706 SHAMROCK North Lrt11eR ock 72118 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER PETROSS, JULIE A. 753-2892 44190RANGE North Lrt11eR ock 72118 Bamg Cross SPECIAL EDUCATION AIDE PETTIT, JEAN 842-3762 PO BOX831 North Lrt11eR ock 72115 NLRHS-11/12 GUIDANCE SECRETARY-REGISTRAR Page 20 PETTIT, SHERRI 945-8860 6612 STONEHEDGE North Little Rock 72117 Redwood SECRETARY PHARO, M. JANN TT1-4116 3674V, MCCAIN PARK OR North Little Rock 72116 Admin Office COORDINATOR OF PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS PHAUP. VALERIE B. 753-1517 6 OESOTO CR North Little Rock 72116 Plkav- MEDIA SPECIALIST PHELPS. LARRY G. 565-9595 5011 GREENFIELD DR Little Rock 72209 Warehouse ENERGY SPECIALIST PHILLIPS, DENNIS L 753-5222 1901 W20TH North Little Rock 72114 Sec All SAC AIDE PHILLIPS, TAMMY M 758-6366 100 COCHISE North Little Rock 72118 Amboy ELEMENTARY SECRETARY (\"31/35) PHILMON, BARBARA L. 565-2692 701 W 18TH ST #51 North Little Rock 72114 PikeV- FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT PICKENS, CAROL A 835-6352 8313 EDMAR North Little Rock 72117 Adm,n Annex HIPPY PARAPROFESSIONAL PICKETT, JAMES R. 758-5335 5109 RANDLOPH RD North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS--09/10 HEAD FB, OFF-SE/ASST BB, HEAD TRACK. SOC STUD PIERCE. CHARLENE E. 562-1975 5521 WESTER HILLS AVE Little Rock 72204 Boone Park THIRD YEAR PINKERTON, CHAD L 753-7548 108 LINDENHURST North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS--09/10 CUSTODIAN PINKERTON, K. MARK 376-2238 1409 NANNETTE North Little Rock 72114 Rose City HEAD FB, OFF-SE/ASST. BB, HEAD TRACK. PE PLATT, RALPH L. 812 HEALY North Little Rock 72117 RoseCity CUSTODIAN PLATT, YOLANDA A. 835-9346 6 NORTHAVEN PL Stierwood 72120 Admn Office SECRETARY-DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PLOSZAY, JANE 753-0338 725 W. \"A\" North Little Rock 72116 Seventh Street THIRD YEAR POGUE-DUFFIE, JEANNE M. 227-7874 9300 TREASURE HILL #106 Little Rock 72227 Ridgeroed SPECIAL EDUCATION PONDER, ANNE S. 753-4982 #5 MCKEE North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS--09/10 ALG I, 11G, EOM. POOL, HARRIETT S. 834-7253 6205 PAWNEE DR. North Little Rock 72116 Indian Hills READING RECOVERY POPE, ANITA M 376-3204 800 N MAGNOLIA North Little Rock 72114 Pike View CUSTODIAN POPE, CHARLES E .. JR. 758-7085 100 SKYLINE DR North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS--09/10 ARMY INSTRUCTOR-JROTC PORTER, NANCY JO 851-4501 10411 POMEGRANATE AV North Little Rock 72118 Amboy COMPUTER LAB AIDE, CHAPTER VDISTRICT PORTER. NATALIE 807 WEST SCENIC North Little Rock 72118 Lakewood Middle ENGLISH 7, ENGLISH 8 POWELL, HOLLY H 227-9981 215 BROOKSIDE OR Little Rock 72205 Amboy MR/LO RESOURCE POWELL, KAREN L 834-1779 8309TOLTEC North Little Rock 72116 Admin Annex EARLY CHILDHOOD - SPEECH POWELL, MISTY L 834-5586 24000ZARK North Little Rock 72116 Admm Annex EARLY CHILDHOOD - SPEECH POWERS, JOHN W. 200MILLS ST North Little Rock 72117 TransportatlOll BUS DRIVER POWER. MARY M 834-9518 303 E MARYLAND Stierwood 72120 NLRHS-11/12 COMP. ACCOUNTING, KEY BOARD.WORD PROCESS. PRATER, SUSAN M. 835-2713 104 BEARSKIN DR North Little Rock 72120 Rldgeroad CAREER ORIENTATION PRATT, SANDRA M. 945-7170 216 CHERYL ST. North Little Rock 72114 NLRHS--09/10 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT PRICE, JUANITA 945-7291 2409 AMBERLY North Little Rock 72117 TransportatlOll BUS DRIVER PRICE, MICHELLE 200 N BO'IVMAN #463 Little Rock 72211 Lynch Dnve THIRD YEAR PROFIT, CYNTHIA D 753-7084 800 BEECH ST APT 107/8- North Little Rock 72114 Central CROSSING GUARD PROFIT, CYNTHIA D 753-7084 P.0 BOX 1562 North Little Rock 72114 Belwood FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT PRUETT, KIM A 1638 GRENWOOO CIRCLE Conway 72032 Ridgeroed SPECIAL EDUCATION PRYOR, SANDRA 0. 450-7618 867 FENDLEY OR J-12 Conway 72032 Sec All SPECIAL EDUCATION PURIFOY, FONDA L 851-6960 5724 NIGHTHAWK RD North Little Rock 72118 Belwood CHAPTER I AIDE CHAPTER VDISTRICT PURTLE, DAMARIS K. 758-9910 5704 RANDOLPH North Little Rock 72116 Ridge,oad MEDIA SPECIALIST OUARRY, CINDY A 1923 RAINWOOO COVE Little Rock 72212 Lakewood Middle COUNSELOR \"25124 OUATTLEBAUM, JUDITH ANN 225-2474 26 KINGSBRIDGE WAY Little Rock 72212 NLRHS--09/10 ENGLISH I, II RAMEY, ANNETTE D 834-7612 46 SHEILA DR North Little Rock 72026 Cafetona Olfa FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT-SUBSTITUTE RAMEY, KATHRYN R 753-7974 2704 DONAGHEY DR North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS--09/10 ALG I, GEOM .. ADV ALG/TRIG. DEPT. CHAIR. RASUL-LLAH, BETTY 945-2073 5106 S. WOODLAND North Little Rock 72117 TransportatlOll DISPATCHER RATLIFF, KRISTIE A 851-4137 89 OAK FOREST LOOP Maoo,elle 72113 Belwood FIRST YEAR RATLIFF, SHERRY ANN 835-0383 103 CORONADO PLACE North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 PSYCHOLOGY REAVES, BIRLEATHER 374-3977 422W32NO Little Rock 72206 North Heights FOURTH YEAR REBSAMEN, PATRICIA A 753-6208 5008 RANDOLPH North Little Rock 72116 Glenv- SECRETARY REBSAMEN, RICHARD L 771-1657 4101 HILLSIDE DRIVE North Little Rock 72118 S.C All SAC AIDE REDDEN, CLARA L. 664-5630 2005 S HARRISON Little Rock 72204 Lakewood Elem READING RECOVERY Page 21 REEDER, LESLIE R. 771-4066 4913 ARROWHEAD PL #A North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER REED, DANNY F. 329-5035 1312 HILLCREST Conway 72032 Admin Annex DIRECTOR OF STUDENT SERVICES REED, JAMES A. 224-7412 1727 MARLYN DR Little Rod\u0026lt; 72205 NLRHS-11/12 ARMY INSTRUCTOR-JROTC REED, MARY ANN 834-2013 109 CORKWOOD DR Jad\u0026lt;sonville 72076 Lynch Dnve SECOND YEAR REED, REBECCA A. 771-4731 2401 LAKEVIEW, P6 North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 North Heights SIXTH YEAR REED, URSULA N 377-6689 P.O. BOX 164644 Little Rod\u0026lt; 72216 Adm,i Annex EVEN START PARAPROFESSIONAL REEVES, J. KIMBERLY 758-8508 5904 VALERIE DR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Meadow Pall\u0026lt; THIRD YEAR REEVES. MELISSA M 834-1297 104 ROBINGLEN Sherwood 72120 Amboy FOURTH YEAR REYNOLDS, A. JOHNETTE 450-0069 2170 KRYSTAL KREEK Conway 72032 Rose City ENGLISH/SOCIAL STUDIES RHOADES, PATSY A 758--0878 4806 SCHAER North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Bamg Cross SPECIAL EDUCATION AIDE RHOADES, PATSY A 758--0878 4806 SCHAER North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Transportat10n BUS AIDE RHODES, BETTY M 945-3327 4921 CORAL ST North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Lynch Dnve LUNCH PERIOD AIDE RICE, JOHNW 961-9122 14102 OLD RIVER RD Scott 72142 Ridgeroad OFF-SE/STADIUM, ASST BB, ASST. TRACK, SOC STUD. RICHBOURG, MARY SUE 835-3956 118VERONACR Sherwood 72116 Adm,i Offa SECRETARY-OIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL RICHEY, TRACY MARIE 758-6149 2402 WILSHIRE DR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Belwood KINDERGARTEN RICH, LARRY G 2022 ROMINE RD Little Rod\u0026lt; 72205 Admw, 011-,ce SATURDAY DETENTION SUPERVISOR RICH, LARRY G 2022 ROMINE RD Little Rod\u0026lt; 72205 NLRHS-11/12 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT RIGGAN, M CANDY 5806 MCMURTREY North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Lakewood Middle SPECIAL EDUCATION RIGGINS, BOBBIE J 945-5198 5003 GLENVIEW North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72117 SecA/1 SOCIAL WORKER RIGOR, BARBARA A 834-8196 2204 OZARK DR North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Elem Alt BA AIDE RIGSBY, A. WILENE 753-4073 4306 IDLEWILD North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Ridgeroad EARTH SCIENCE RILLER, CARLA D 945-1052 400 N PALM #78 North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Redwood CROSSING GUARD RITCHIE. SUZANNE E 758-5408 3420 N OLIVE North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72116 NLRHS-09/10 ENGLISH I, II ROBBINS, DON JAMES 834-8349 103 SHADY GROVE Sherwood 72120 NLRHS-11/12 AM HIST, WORLD GEOG ROBBINS, JON 791-0444 3806 POPE North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; A 72116 NLRHS-11/12 CHEMISTRY ROBERSON, TAMARA A. 661-1356 1700 N HUGHES APT 10 Little Rod\u0026lt; 72207 Adm., Offa TEACHER.PFEIFER CAMP ROBERTSON, EMMA M 851-1935 14404 MCHENRY CR North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72118 R\"idgeroad ENGLISH ROBERTSON, MICHAEL C 375-2698 803 E 13TH ST North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Elem Alt PARAPROFESSIONAL ROBERTSON, NATHANIEL R JR 375-2698 803 EAST 13TH STREET North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72114 NLRHS-11/12 ALCAIDE ROBERTSON, VICKY W 835-4899 6708 FLINTROCK North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Seventh Street CHAPTER I LAB AIDE \"35/33 ROBERTS, PATTRICE M 758-5795 PO BOX 1612 North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72115 Central EARLY MORNING AIDE ROBERTS, PATTRICE M 758-5795 PO BOX 1612 North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72115 Adm,i Annex EVEN START PARAPROFESSIONAL ROBINSON, ANTOINETTE Y 4204 ALMA North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Central PRE-SCHOOL AIDE ROBINSON, ARTHUR LEE JR 375-6837 609 HICKORY North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Redwood SIXTH YEAR ROBINSON, DIEDRA E 337-9248 RT 8 BOX 51 Matvem 72104 Rose City EARTH SCIENCE, DEPT CHAIR ROBINSON, IDA J 945-3417 5214 SO WOODLAND North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Transportat,on BUS AIDE ROBINSON JOYCE L 758-4763 19 THERESA DR North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Meadow Pall\u0026lt; CHAPTER I AIDE \"40/49 ROBINSON, WILMA J 800 BEECH BLDG 4 #36 North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Central CROSSING GUARD ROBINSON WILMA J 800 BEECH BLDG 4 #36 North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Central LUNCH PERIOD AIDE RODGERS, ANNETTE 753-4856 908 E 57TH PL North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72116 Central MR/LO RESOURCE RODGERS, JANET L 2102 EDMOND North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Glenv,ew COMPED AIDE RODGERS, LUTHER B 758-3974 1201 W22ND North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER RODS, MILDRED J 945-5201 5106 GLENVIEW BLVD North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Lakewood Middle CUSTODIAN ROGERS, JANET L 2102 EDMOND North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72117 Admw, Annex HIPPY PARAPROFESSIONAL ROGERS, MALA J 834-4814 #1 TRENT JONES COVE Sherwood 72116 NLRHS-09/10 ENGLISH 11A, CT DIRECTOR ROLA.ND, ANGELA D 432-5266 RT 1, BOX 141 Parry,,1lle 72126 North He,gh1s KINDERGARTEN ROMES, JERRY 945-0319 404 PARKDALE ST North Lottie Rod\u0026lt; 72117 ElemA/1 CROSSING GUARD ROSEBERRY, LINDA L 568-9732 #7 WOODCREST CT Little Rod\u0026lt; 72209 Adm,i Offa LEAD CUSTODIAN Page 22 ROSE, CAROL ANN 834-16-45 7216 FLINTROCK North Little Rock 72116 LakewoodM iddle CCVE 7/8 ROSS, TRACY L. 945-0539 4406ATKINS North Lillie Rock 72117 AdminAmox ELEM. MUSIC (.50) ROWE, JENNIFER T. 753-4774 2011 AZTEC #74 North Little Rock 72116 North Ho,glrts SECOND YEAR RUDKIN. BERT 771--0326 110 PARKVIEW DR. North Little Rock 12118 c-..1 CROSSING GUARD RUDKIN, BERT 771--0326 110 PARKVIEWDR North Lillie Rock 72118 c-..1 LUNCH PERIOD AIDE RUGGLES, CAROL L. 758--0215 3518 LOCH LANE North Little Rock 72116 Lokewood Middle READING RUSCH, CINDY LYNN 329--0879 #3 HONEYSUCKLE Conway 72032 Glonv- THIRD YEAR RYAN, JACKIE 834--0421 7700 NO HILLS, #13()7 North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 ENGLISH rli, CHEERLEADER, SR CABINET RYNDERS, MICHAEL E. 961-1619 1212 DORTCH LOOP North Lillie Rock 72117 Lakewood Middle SOCIAL STUDIES, STUDENT COUNCIL SA8BS, JAMES L. 982-2062 4881 GRAHAM Jacksonville 72076 NLRHS--09/10 CUSTODIAN SAIN, JOYCE DENISE 663-3816 1912 S MAIN APT 2 Little Rock 72206 Boone Park PRE-SCHOOL CENTER AIDE SALLIS, ROSEANNE 835--0476 200AKBROOK Sherwood 72120 NLRHS-11/12 HEAD VB, ASST BB, OFF-SE/ASST TRACK, REC ED I SALTMARSH, JEANIE M. 834--0598 1f7 LAGRUE Sherwood 72116 Crn1wood FIRST YEAR SANDEFUR, RANDY H 835--0208 2320 FOXGLENN COVE Sherwood 72120 Ridgo\u0026lt;Oad ASST FT, OFF SE/GYM ATTEND. ASST BASEBALL SANDRIDGE, KENDAL W. 1503 W 11TH ST North Little Rock 72114 Admin Offico LEAD CUSTODIAN SARTIN, LOU ANN 945-1575 13QUILLEN North Little Rock 72117 Roso City GUIDANCE SECRETARY SARTIN, MALYNDA C. 945-9315 9 SANDLEFOOT COVE North Little Rock 72117 Moodow Park SECRETARY SATTERFIELD, MARSHAL. 834-8626 1507 COOLHURST North Little Rock 72116 Cafeteria Offoce NUTRITION COORDINATOR SCALES, MICHAEL L 490-1056 PO BOX238 Sweet Home 72206 Admr, Annex CUSTODIAN SCHIL8, CYNTHIA B. 834-7450 2221 E MARYLAND Sherwood 72116 !'\"'1\u0026lt;Hill FIRST YEAR SCHNARR, LORETTA K. 771-1680 7018 EQUITY LANE North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS--09/10 SPECIAL EDUCATION (RESOURCE) SCHOLL, JAN G 835-9771 7005 INCAS North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 SPANISH 11,1 11D, EPT. CHAIR. SCOGINS, ELLEN S. 961-9335 P.O. BOX 11 Scott 72142 Meadow Park FIFTH/SIXTH YEARS SCOTT, CURTIS EDWARD 661-9483 P. 0. BOX931 Little Rock 72203 Roso City MATH 7, DEPT CHAIR, PRE-ALG SCOTT, JERALINE 835-5200 7016 JACKSONVILLE HWY North Little Rock 72117 Lynch Dnve LUNCH PERIOD AIDE SCOTT, MARCIA T 791-2102 5030 VELVET RIDGE #12 North Little Rock 72116 Amboy SIXTH YEAR SCOTT, MARILYN M 2215 BLACKV,/000 Little Rock 72207 NLRHS--09/10 ENGLISH I SCOTT, PAUL D 791-2102 5030 VELVET RIDGE #12 North Little Rock 72116 Admon Office CHAPTER I PARENT COORDINATOR SCROGGINS, EULA 372-4131 1503 N ALLEN North Little Rock 72114 Boone Park LEAD CUSTODIAN SEALES, BARBARA 371--0033 2220WLONG 17TH North Little Rock 72114 Boone Park PRE-SCHOOL BUS DUTY AIDE SEALES, BARBARA 371--0033 2220WLONG 17TH North Little Rock 72114 Boone Par1\u0026lt; LUNCH PERIOD AIDE SEIDL, CATHERINE 821-2238 1011 WHISPERING PINER Little Rock 72210 Indian Hills KINDERGARTEN SELF, LINDAA 834--0266 #7 ARBOR OAKS DR North Little Rock 72120 North Heights FIFTH YEAR SERBOUSEK, MARY 753-5031 374 GOSHEN North Little Rock 72116 Bamg Cross SPECIAL EDUCATION SERBOUSEK, MARY C 753-5031 374 GOSHEN North Little Rock 72116 Transportat,on BUS AIDE SETTLES, DORIS M 771-1476 605 WEST 55TH ST North Little Rock 72118 North Heights COMP ED AIDE SETZLER, NANCY J 753-5656 25 SILVERWOOD COURT North Little Rock 72116 Central FOURTH YEAR SHADDOX, JILL S 941-1218 #15ALLISON Cabot 72023 North Heights SECOND YEAR SHADLE, ANNE P 83~ 409 N _DEVON AVE Sherwood 72116 Redwood MEDIA SPECIALIST 49143 SHAUNFIELD, SUSAN A 835-5477 1605WEWOKA North Little Rock 72116 Amboy GIFTED/TALENTED RESOURCE \"31/49 SHEEHAN, NANCY 374-6129 108 THAYER Lillle Rock 72205 NLRHS-11/12 ENGLISH Ill, rli SHEFFIELD, KELLIE L 758-4092 221 DOOLEY RD North Little Rock 72116 Ridgoroad EARLY MORNING AIDE SHEFFIELD, KELLIE L 791-3337 4801 B RIDGE ROAD North little Rock 72116 Ridgoroad HEAD VB, OFF-SE/ASST BB, ASST TRACK, MATH, DC SHELBY, TARA C 562-2173 12 RENEE COVE Liltle Rock 72209 Moodow Park RESOURCE SHEPPARD, KATHYE 758-2559 4400 PIKE AVENUE North little Rock 7211 B lndoan Hills LUNCH PERIOD AIDE SHEPPARD, KATHYE 758-2339 4400 PIKE AVENUE North little Rod\u0026lt; 72118 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER SHESTAK, CHRISTINE M 753--0891 #6 MINNEQUA PLACE Sherwood 72120 NLRHS--09/10 FOOD SERVICE ASSSISTANT SHIELDS, MADIE LEE 375-3360 BLDG 6 APT 43 SHT GRON North Little Rod\u0026lt; 72114 Admri Offa CUSTODIAN Page 23 SHIELDS, MADIE LEE 375-3360 BLDG 6, APT 43 SHT GDNS North Little Rock 72114 Transportabon BUS AIDE SHOEMAKER, MARKE. 868-4221 1819 PICKERING Little Rock 72211 Wsrahouse GENERAL LABOR SHOEMAKER, PATRICIA A. 868-4221 #53 MAYWOOD MANOR Little Rock 72212 Pike v- SPEECH THERAPIST/MR/LO RESOURCE SHORT, ANNA F. 945-7617 APT 88 PROTHO MANOR North Little Rock 72117 NLRHS-09/10 CUSTODIAN SHUFFIELD, MARYE 758-4797 2405 N. BERKLEY North Little Rock 72118 Belwood MEDIA CLERK (45143 SHUFFIELD, ROBERT D 771-0149 4402 WESTRIDGE DR North Little Rock 72118 Admin Annex ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN SICKS, LARRY A. 27~9147 28 SHERWOOD LOOP Searcy 72143 Ridgeroad PRE ALG 7, MATH 7 SICKS, LARRY A. 27~9147 28 SHERWOOD LOOP Searcy 72143 Transportabon BUS DRIVER SIEGEL. PATRICIAN 834-2982 1712WAR EAGLE North Little Rock 72116 Central PRINCIPAL-ELEMENTARY SIEMS, LINN L. 945-1637 P.O. BOX 17091 North Little Rock 72117 Admin Annex HIPPY PARAPROFESSIONAL SIFFORD, DEBORAH K. 771-4124 5901 JFK #3201 North Little Rock 72116 Lakewood Elem KINDERGARTEN SIMON, THELMA L. 791-3808 622 E 19TH ST #74 North Little Rock 72114 NLRHS-11/12 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT SIMPSON, ANNE 771-1241 804 VALERIE DR North Little Rock 72118 Seventh Street LUNCH PERIOD AIDE SIMPSON, DAWN T 13111 WMARKHAM#198 Little Rock 72211 NLRHS-09/10 SPANISH SIMS, REATHAM. 374-3097 1208 E. 17TH North Little Rock 72114 Central LUNCH PERIOD AIDE SINGLETON, DEBORAH A. 3 CREST LANE North Little Rock 72120 Park Hill FOURTH YEAR SISCO. CAROL G. 834-7543 108 FORK RIVER RD North Little Rock 72116 Seventh Street FOURTH YEAR SISSON. DEBRA L. 834-8751 19 LUCY LANE Sherwood 72120 Lakewood Middle MATH 8, PRE ALG I, SOFTBALL COACH SLATON, PHYLLIS R 565-4014 #4 GLENMERE DR Little Rock 72204 Pike v- MR/LD RESOURCE SLATTERY, LESLIE D 834-5641 58 DOVE CREEK CR North Little Rock 72116 -Crestwood MR/LD RESOURCE SLATTON, THOMAS W 835-1912 3107 SEMINOLE TR North Little Rock 72116 Transportatoon BUS DRIVER SLATTON, THOMAS W 835-1912 3107 SEMINOLE TRAIL North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 BIOLOGY SMART, ANNE 945-5024 519 MIDDLE ST North Little Rock 72117 Glenv- FOOD SERVICE MANAGER SMITHEY, TIMOTHY L 843-9785 14 CLINTON COURT Cabot 72023 Ridgeroad SOCIAL STIJDIES SMITH, ALICIA D 771-0516 804 W23RD ST North Little Rock 72114 SecAn FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT SMITH, ANGELUS K. 705 ROSE LN North Little Rock 72117 Transportatoon BUS DRIVER SMITH, ANITA J 666-1042 7513APACHE Little Rock 72205 Central KINDERGARTEN SMITH, ANNE D 402 INDIAN BAY DR Sherwood 72120 Meadow Park THIRD YEAR SMITH, BILLY RAY 376-7469 1616 MAGNOLIA ST North Little Rock 72114 Transportatoon BUS DRIVER SMITH, CAROLYN M 753-7439 P 0. BOX4022 North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 KEYBOARDING SMITH, DEBRA K. 835-6963 5009 RIXEY RD. North Little Rock 72117 Transportatoon BUS DRIVER SMITH, DIANA LYNN 376-3558 701 W 18TH ST APT 109 North Little Rock 72114 Glenv,ew FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT SMITH, E GRANT #1 OAK HIU LANE Russellville 72B01 NLRHS-09/10 ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL-SEC SMITH, FRANK J 94S-3037 B01 GREENLEA North Little Rock 72117 Meadow Park LEAD CUSTODIAN SMITH, GLORIA A. 753-4940 B01 VAL.ERIE North Little Rock 72118 Admin Annex COORDINATOR OF ELEMENTARY SPECIAL EDUCATION SMITH. JAMES H 704 ELLEN DR North Little Rock 72117 Meadow Park CUSTODIAN SMITH. JAMES R 835-3036 8328 WINDSOR VALLEY D North Little Rock 72116 Admw, Office SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS SMITH, KATHY H 227-4346 6 COACHLIGHT DRIVE Little Rock 72227 NLRHS-11/12 ENG IV, JV CHEERLEADERS SMITH. LEIGH S 753-2258 3908 NORTH CYPRESS North Little Rock 72116 Lakewood Moddle MATH 8, AMERICAN HISTORY SMITH, MARY ANN 374- 108 E 14TH North Little Rock 72114 Ridgen)ad FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT SMITH, NANNETTE LEE 470-0339 #13 VALLEY H LANE Mayflower 72106 NLRHS-09/10 ENGLISH I, II SMITH. PATRICIA A 835-3429 2905 SALLISAW DR North Little Rock 72116 PikeV18W SECOND YEAR SMITH, PEGGY A. 835-3036 8328 WINDSOR VALLEY D North Little Rock 72116 Pike V18W FOURTH YEAR SMITH, RAYMOND L 945-4668 623WAYNE North Little Rock 72117 NLRHS-09/10 CLASSROOM AIDE SMITH, RAYMOND L 945-4668 623WAYNE North Little Rock 72117 NLRHS-09/10 EARLY MORNING AIDE SMITH. ROBERT P 771-4046 101 GILBERT Little Rock 72205 Transportatoon BUS DRIVER SMITH, SAMMYE L 843-1089 1307 EAST MAIN Cabot 72023 Par1\u0026lt;H1N FIRST YEAR SMITH, SHARLA A. 505 MINNESOTA Beebe 72012 Seventh Streel LUNCH PERIOD AIDE Page 24 SMITH, SHEILA A. 834-1127 1004 CHEPSTOW LANE Sherwood 72116 NLRHS-11/12 HEAD GTRACK, DEPT CHAIR., ASST VB. OFF SE/GYM A SMITH, SHERRY B. 771-1940 4420 GREENWAY North Little Rock 72116 Ridgeroad SCHOOL NEWSPAPER, COMM$. STUD. SKILLS SMITH, SHERYLL D. 851-4896 8005 MARCHE LATERAL R North Little Rock 72118 Central ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL-ELEMENTARY SMITH. TAMMY JO 791-3791 5901 JFK #621 North Little Rock 72116 Park Hill FIFTH YEAR SMITH, TIFFA.NY L. 372-4669 718 MILLS ST North Little Rock 72117 LakewoodE lem CROSSING GUARD SMITH, VIRGINIA L. 753-2439 203 SHAMROCK North Little Rock 72118 Admr, Offoc:e SECRETARY-ASST. SUPT INSTRUCTION SMITH, WANDA J 945-2957 900 \"C\"ST North Little Rock 72114 Boone Park FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT SNIDER, MARGIE A. 835-7507 40 JACKSON OAKS North Little Rock 72120 NLRHS.00/10 PHYSICAL SCIENCE, PRIN TECH., CHEMISTRY SNOv.tOEN, DANA K 228-7036 2500 VANCOUVER DRIVE Little Rock 72204 North Heights PRINCIPAL-ELEMENTARY SOTO, DONNA G 753-3157 2000 PARKWAY DR #203 North Little Rock 72118 Amboy LUNCH PERIOD AIDE SOTO, DONNA G 753-3157 2000 PARKWAY OR #203 North Little Rock 72118 Amboy LUNCH PERIOD AIDE SOUTHARD, COURTNAY A. . 778-2539 322 5TH STREET Benton 72015 Central FIRST YEAR SOUTHERLAND. DORIS J 945-7318 4126 BAUCUM North Little Rock 72117 ParkHill LEAD CUSTODIA.N SOWLE, GLORIA J. 753-7709 5211 MARION North Little Rock 72118 North Heights EARLY MORNING AIDE SPEARMA.N, VENITA M 372-0823 800 BEECH BLDG 6 APT 47 North Little Rock 72114 Boone Parl\u0026lt; FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT SPIVEY, JEANNE S 835-7147 7704 FLINTROCK North Little Rock 72116 Sec All ENGLISH 7-12 SPRADLIN, ROY H 227-7500 17 NOB HILL COVE Little Rock 72205 NLRHS-11/12 COMP. SCI., COMP PROG II, DEPT CHAIR, ALG II STACEY, QUINZELLA 374-1377 1811 MARTIN LUTHER KIN Little Rock 72202 Redwood PRE-SCHOOL AIDE STAFFORD, KIMBERLY S. 771-2854 917 NICOLE North Little Rock 72118 Seventh Street FIRST YEAR STAGGS, NOVA N 835-9191 7817 OAKRIDGE Sherwood 72116 Admri Offoc:e COORDINATOR OF CURRICULUM DESIGN STANBERY, DANA L. 753-8964 2400 MCCAIN, #1018-3 North Little Rock 72116 NLRHS-09/10 FOOD SERVICE ASSISTA.NT STANDLEY, MILDRED M 851-2549 6321 SUNSET TRAIL North Little Rock 72118 NLRHS-11/12 ENGLISH 111E, NGLISH IV STANFIELD. JOYCE L 3900 MCCAIN PRK DR #9-2 North Little Rock 72116 PlkeV- SIXTH YEAR STARK, GARY E 796-3265 17 DARRELL ST Vilorua 72173 NLRHS-09/10 SPECIAL EDUCATION STARK, HAROLD D 327-4807 232 OLIVER Conway 72032 NLRHS-11/12 COORDINATED CAREER EDUCATION, ART/CRAFT STARK, LISA B 796-3265 17 DARRELL ST Vilorua 72173 Lakewood Elem FIRST YEAR STATEN, LYNN 225-1825 12 CHIMNEY SWEEP Little Rock 72212 Admn Annex SPEECH THERAPIST (.50) STEADMAN, VICKI L 758-5774 1517 CRESTWOOD North Little Rock 72116 North Heights THIRD YEAR STEVENS, COLLEEN 941-7721 8932 AR HWY 319 W Austin 72007 Rose Crty SPECIAL EDUCATION STEWART, LINDA P 794-1004 7558 CARRIE DR Benton 72015 Admri Annex EARLY CHILDHOOD  SPEECH THERAPIST STEWART, NANCY L 758-2429 4524 FRANK STREET North LIiiie Rock 7211B Admr1Amex EARLY CHILDHOOD-SPECIAL EDUCATION STEWART, SCOTTY PO BOX 17315 North LIiiie Rock 72117 Transportatoon BUS DRIVER STEWART, SCOTTY P.0 BOX 17315 North LIiiie Rock 72117 Rose Crty BA AIDE STEWART, TAMMY R 376--1177 1612 MAGNOLIA North LIiiie Rock 72114 NLRHS-11/12 CUSTODIAN STINSON, MARGARET E 376-2573 1316 NANNETTE North LIiiie Rock 72114 Centnll SECRETARY STOCKTON, MICHAELS 851-0149 52 MASTERS PLACE DR Maumelle 72113 NLRHS-09/10 INSTRUCTIONAL AIDE STOCKTON, PHILIP R 851-0149 52 MASTERS PLACE DR Maumelle 72113 NLRHS-11/12 INSTRUCTIONAL AIDE STOKES, CHU MAE 753-1449 #5 HAY CRT North LIiiie Rock 72118 Ridgeroad FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT STOKES, LORETTA P 4813 ATKINS North LIiiie Rock 72117 Meadow Parl\u0026lt; FOOD SERVICE ASSISTA.NT STOKES. PHYLLIS B 758-9630 5704 SORENSON, APT. C North LIiiie Rock 72118 AdmnAnnex SECRETARY-STUDENT SERVICES STOLL, SANDRA S 771-0577 3404 BUNKER HILL North Little Rock 72116 lnchan Hills SECOND YEAR STONE, GEORGIA ANN 835-5277 2201 SEMINOLE TRAIL North Little Rock 72116 Admr, Office SECRETARY STORY ARCLISTA J 666-1059 6218 BRENTWOOD Little Rock 72207 Lynd\u0026gt; Onve SIXTH YEAR STOUGH, ELIZABETH T 758-3341 5004 RANDOLPH North LIiiie Rock 72116 Redwood READING RECOVERY STRAWN, JEAN M 945-3687 100 GARNER RD North LIiiie Rock 72117 Rose Crty MEDIA CLERK STROUD, S MAYNETTE 327-8793 2GWEN LANE Conway 72032 Ridgeroad HOME EC/CO STIJLL, KELLI C 228-7105 1515 MESQUITE LIiiie Rock 72211 PnH,11 THIRD/FOURTH YEARS STURCH, RONDA J 758-2626 917 WEST 47TH STREET North LIiiie Rock 72118 Admr1Annex HIPPY PARAPROFESSIONAL Page 25 ST. CLAIR, OPAL MARGARET 753-9822 719W. 3-4TH North Little Rock 72118 Rose City FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT SULLIVAN, LINDA L 376-0675 924 E WASHINGTON North Little Rock 72114 Transportatoon BUS AIDE SUMLER, JACQUELINE W 796-8503 #7 YOUNG LANE Vilonia 72173 Bamg Cross OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST \"30/48 SUMMONS, LEVADER 753-6383 1920SCHAER North Little Rock 72114 Central FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT SUTTERFIELD. LAGA THA 835-5971 3 CARDINAL VALLEY North Lrttle Rock 72120 Ridgeroad SPECIAL EDUCATION TACKETT, DANA L 758-5392 709 SKYLINE DR North Little Rock 72116 Lakawood Middle OFF-SE/ASST VB, HEAD BB, ASST TRACK, SCI, AD TALLEY, ALLAM. 375-7121 1523W15TH North Little Rock 72114 Sec Alt FOOD SERVICE MANAGER TALLEY, JOHNNY JR 664-6173 5 HUGHES CT Little Rock 72204 Sec Alt CC TRACK/STADIUM, OFF-SE/GYM ATTEND. HD TRACK TANNER, JEFFREY N 1701 N BRYANT #28 Little Rock 72207 Rldgeroad ORTHOPEDIC AIDE TATE, JOHN P. 758-9751 21090RANGE North Little Rock 72114 NLRHS--09/10 PHYSICAL SCIENCE TAYLOR, CHESTER 945-0425 110EMILYST North Little Rock 72117 Transportation BUS AIDE TAYLOR, DOROTHY A. 758-8381 609 PAULA DR North Little Rock 72118 North Heights LUNCH PERIOD AIDE TAYLOR, ELLA L 945-9266 4609BOYER North Little Rock '72117 Lynch Dnve FOOD SERVICE MANAGER TAYLOR, GWENDOLYN F 758--0672 2502 S. BERKLEY DR. North Little Rock 72118 Transportat,on BUS DRIVER TAYLOR, KEISHA N -400 N PALM #28 North Little Rock 72114 Elem Alt FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT TAYLOR, MARY C 758-2335 4524 PURNELL DR. North Lrttle Rock 72116 NLRHS-11/12 GUIDANCE COUNSELOR TAYLOR, PAUL D 12703 TIMBER BEND DR Little Rock 72211 NLRHS-11/12 BAND DIRECTOR THIBAULT, BETTY JO 753-8317 400 LA TONA LANE North Little Rock 72118 Pike View SECRETARY THOMAS, BRYAN K. 945-1650 4501 HAYWOOD North Lrttle Rock 72117 Ridgeroad BAND DIRECTOR THOMAS, EARNESTINE G. 336 LOUISE ST North Lrttle Rock 72116 Indian Hills FOOD SERVICE ASSISTANT THOMAS, KIMBERLEE FOY 66EHl794 516 N PINE Little Rock 72205 Seventh StrNt KINDERGARTEN THOMAS, LORETTA C 835-8965 1437 CORNFLOWER Sher\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_582","title":"Principal changes","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","School management and organization","School principals"],"dcterms_title":["Principal changes"],"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/582"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 JUNE 23, 1994 TO: ( Board of Directors FROM: D rat:, 't.Rictiard L. 1 irley, Director of Human Resources THROUGH: Dr. Henry lams. Superintends SUBJECT: Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following new staff at the indicated positions, salaries, and classifications. NAME POSITION SCHOOL EFFECT DATE SALARY CLASS* William Broadnax Principal J.A. Fair H.S. 7-1-94 ADM12 06-09 EDUOl C.A. 52,865 2,000 900 Cassandra Norman-Mason Principal Cloverdale Jr.High 7-1-94 ADM12 05-09 EDUOl C.A. 48,645 1,500 900 Johnny Neely Principal Southwest Jr. High 7-1-94 ADM12 05-14 EDUOl C.A. 54,469 1,500 900NAME POSITION SCHOOL EFFECT DATE SALARY CLASS* Duane Benage Principal 7-1-94 Forest Hgts. Jr. High ADM12 05-17 EDUOl C.A. 57,962 1,500 900 Sharon Brooks Principal Rightsell Elem. 7-1-94 ADMCER 05-14 EDUOl C.A. 50,669 1,500 900 Faith Donovan Principal Mitchell Elem. 7-1-94 ADMCER 05-09 EDUOl C.A. 45,251 1,500 900 * DOES NOT INCLUDE A STEP-INCREASE FOR 1994-95.RESUME William E. Broadnax EDUCATION 1982 University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff BS 1986 Arkansas State University MSE, Secondary Educational Adminstration EXPERIENCE 1994 - Present Interim Principal Henderson Magnet Junior School 1987 - 1993 Assistant Principal Little Rock School District 1986 - 1987 Teacher Indiana School District 1985 - 1986 Graduate Assistant Arkansas State University 1982 - 1985 Teacher Watson Chapel School DistrictRESUME Cassandra Norman - Mason EDUCATION 1978 Philander Smith College BA 1980 University of Arkansas at Fayetteville MSE 1990 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Specialist Degree Educational Administration EXPERIENCE 1992 - Present Assistant Principal Southwest Junior High 1989 - 1992 Assistant Principal Henderson Junior High 1987 - 1989 CCE Coordinator McClellan High School 1982 - 1987 Sp. Ed./ CCE Coordinator North Pulaski High School 1978 - 1981 Teacher Baker Elementaiy SchoolRESUME Johnny M. Neely EDUCATION 1970 Southern Baptist College 1972 Arkansas State University BSE 1977 Arkansas State University MSE 1984 Arkansas State University Ed.S./Superintendency EXPERIENCE 1991 - Present Principal Townsend Park Elementary - DoUarway School Dist. 1989 - 1990 Principal T.A. Futrall Jr. High School - Lee County Dist. 1987 - 1989 Principal Earle Elementary 1981 - 1985 Principal Bay High School - Bay School District 1978 - 1981 Principal Wilson School - South Mississsippi County Rivercrest So. JHS - South Mississippi County 1977 - 1978 Graduate Assistant Arkansas State University 1976 - 1977 Teacher Parkin School District 1973 - 1976 Teacher Forrest City School DistrictRESUME Duane Lee Benage EDUCATION 1969 Western Illinois University BA 1972 Purdue University MS EXPERIENCE 1985 - Present Principal Oxbow High School - Bradford, VT 1983 - 1985 Principal San Pierre High School - North Judson, IN 1979 - 1983 Principal North Judson High School - North Judson, IN . 1977.1979 Assistant Principal North Judson Jr. High School - North Judson, IN 1970 - 1977 Teacher Hobart Junior High - Hobert, IN 1969 - 1970 Teacher Wirt High School - Gary, INEDUCATION 1973 1979 1987 EXPERIENCE 1993 - Present 1992 - 1993 1988 - 1992 RESUME Sharon Brooks Wichita State University - Wichita Kansas University of Arkansas at Little Rock BSE University of Arkansas at Little Rock MSE Assistant Principal Rockefeller Elementary Assistant Principal Washington Magnet Elementary Evaluation \u0026amp; Testing Specialist PRE - Little Rock School District 1987 - 1988 Teacher Rockefeller 1986 - 1987 Reading Specialist Reading Dept. - Little Rock School District 1985 - 1986 Teacher Western Hills Elementary 1982 - 1985 Teacher Williams Magnet Elementary 1979 - 1982 Teacher Woodruff Elementary1 RESUME' Faith R. Donovan EDOCRTION 1960 Auburn Community College , State University of New York Associate Arts 1973 University of Arkansas at Little Rock BSA 1976 University of Arkansas MSE EXPERIENCE 1990 - Present Curriculum Coordinator Dunbar Magnet Junior High 1987 - 1990 International Studies Specialist Gibbs Elementary Magnet 1985 - 1987 Teacher Henderson Junior High 1982 - 1985 Teacher Williams Magnet School, K-6 1975 - 1982 Teacher Romine Elementary School 1973 - 1975 Teacher Holy Souls ElementaryLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 JUNE 23, 1994 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Dr. Ri' Dii:ector of Human Resources THROUGH: Dr. Henry ndent SUBJECT: Administrative Transfers The following reassignments of individuals have been completed and are presented for your information. NAME FROM TO Sharon Davis Rightsell Elem. Romine Elem. Lionel Ward Romine Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Julie Davenport Mabelvale Elem. Franklin Elem. Franklin Davis Franklin Elem. Wilson Elem. Gwen Ziegler Wilson Elem. Washington Elem. Karen Buchanan Washington Elem. Henderson Jr. High Dr. Samuel Branch Mitchell Elem. Fair Park Elem. Barbara Means Fair Park Elem. Baseline Elem. Mary Menking Brady Elem. Williams Elem. Ed Jackson Williams Elem. Gibbs Elem. Gayle Bradford Cloverdale Jr. High Mabelvale Jr. High Walter Marshalak Mabelvale Jr. High Alter. Learning CenterNAME FROM TO Linda Watson Student Hearing Officer J.A. Fair Asst. Principal Othello Faison Alter. Learning Center Coordinator Fed. Program/Grants Leon Adams Fed. Programs/Grants Arts, Music \u0026amp; Technology Mary Jane Cheatham Baseline Elem. Transportation I^vanna Wilson Bale Elem. Hippy /Early ChildhoodV Agenda LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 21, 1994 To: Board of Directors From: Through: Richard E. Hurley, Director, Human Resources Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools Subject: Personnel Changes I new recommend the approval of the following indicated positions, salaries, and classifications. staff at the NAME POSIITON SCHOOL EFFECTIVE DATE SALARY CLASS ANNUAL SALARY ! Anderson, Barbara Principal Bale TBA ADMCER 5-09 $43,195 CA 564 Banks, Barbara Asst/Prin Rockefeller TBA ADMCER 2-05 $33,064 CA 231 Briggs, Mona Principal Pul Hgts Jr TBA * ADMCER 5-12 $52,139 Ed Stip 2,000 CA 800 Dean, Lonnie Principal Baseline TBA ADMCER 5-19 $57,169 Ed Stip 2,000 CA 626 Mitchell, Elayne A/Supt Elementary TBA ADMUNC $61,000 CA 1,200 A CT/A)Resume' Barbara Anderson EDUCATION 1976 - Associate Garland County Community College Hot Springs, AR 1977 B.S.E. Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR 1987 M.S.E. University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 1988 - Additional Hours Henderson State University ArkadeIphia, AR EXPERIENCE 1992 Present Assistant Principal Romine Elementary 1990 1991 Elementary Principal Clinton Public Schools Clinton, AR 5 1989 1990 Program Administrator, Chapter II, ESEA Arkansas Department of Education 1985 1989 Elementary Teacher Lake Hamilton Public Schools 1978 1985 Elementary Teacher Paron Public Schools Paron, ARResume' Barbara Banks EDUCATION 1986 B.A. Northwestern State University Natchitoches, LA 1993 M.S.E. University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR EXPERIENCE Summer 1994 Instructor (University of Central Arkansas) Conway, AR Present Reading Specialist Little Rock School District 1988 1993 Elementary Teacher Little Rock School District 1987 1988 Elementary Teacher Dallas Independent School District Dallas, TX 1987 Elementary Teacher DeSota Parish School System Mansfield, LAEDUCATION 1970 B.S.E 1979 M.S.E. 1985 1986 EXPERIENCE 1993 Present 1985 1987 1983 1987 1980 1985 1979 1980 1974- 1975 1970 1973 Resume' Mona R. Briggs Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR Arkansas State University Jonesboro, AR Arkansas State University Jonesboro, AR Principal Tresure Mountain Middle School Park City, Utah English Teacher Miller Junior High West Helena, AR Reading Instructor Phillips Community College Helena, AR Central High School West Helena, AR English Teacher Central High School West Helena, AR DeWitt High School Dewitt, AR English Teacher Bossier Parish School Plain Dealing, Louisiana eResume Elayne R, Mitchell EDUCATION 1968 B.S. Morgan University Baltimore, Maryland 1972 M.S.E. Towson University Towson, Maryland 1978 Ph.D University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 1986 Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Indiana EXPERIENCE 1992 Present Vice President Educational Training TMG Consulting Assoc. Columbia, Maryland 1987 1992 Executive Director Education Funded Programs Josten Learning Corp Phoenix, Arizona 1984 1987 Superintendent for Elementary Education Indianapolis Public Schools Indianapolis, Indiana 1984 1987 Adjunct Professor Administration, Management Secondary Education Indiana University 1979 1984 Chief, E.C.E./Elementary/Family Maryland State Department of Education 1976 -1979 Instructional Supervisor Pre K-12 Baltimore City Public SchoolsLittle Rock School District 2 a August 16, 1995 TO: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Cfiics of Dess ji 4UG 2 J 1995 // y? icn Aicni'cnny FROM: Dr. Rid i irector-Human Resources SUBJECT: Ms. Ann Browns Request for Information (dated 8-9-95) I have, at your request, put together the information as requested, by item number. Item #1: Current Listing of Principals/Assist Principals by name, race, gender, and length of time in current position. Response - Provided as Attachment I Item #2: Interview and Selection Process Response - Provided as Attachment 11 Item #3: Involvement of StafBng Committees and Magnet Review Committee, Response - The Incentive School Staffing Committees were not utilized, per se. There may/may not have been members of the Committee on the team as appointed per Item #2. The Magnet Review Committee was involved to the extend that the Executive Director was apprised of each interview schedule and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, who participated on several of the teams, is a member of the Committee. Item #4: Days committee met, recommendations, and person selected. Response - Provided as Attachment HI If you require additional information, please dont hesitate to let me know. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000ADMIN3.EXC SCHOOL CENTRAL TITLE PRINCIPAL I NAME R. HOWARD I RACE Ibl GENDER I YRS IN POSITION M HALL HIGH METROPOLITAN JAFAIR PARKVIEW McClellan ALT. LEARN CTR HENDERSON CLOVERDALE JR MABELVALE JR. DUNBAR MAGNET MANN MAGNET FOREST HEIGHTS PULASKI HEIGHTS ASST. PRINC. B. JAMES ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. [asst. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. IaSST. PRINC I DIRECTOR IVOV. TECH IVOC. ADMIN. IPRINCIPAL IASST. PRINC. IASST. PRINC. VACANT N. ROUSSEAU yv. MORRIS G. BRADFORD M. BREWSTER J. POWELL L. WATSON C. GREEN C. SPRINGER M. PETERSON W. BROADNAX A. FINCH B. BURR iASST. PRINC.iv. SMITH. JR, 'principal |j. BABBS iASST. PRINC.Id. BOOTH lASST. PRINC.!A HANSEN IASST. PRINC.lM. WOODS |j. CARTER IPRINCIPAL iASST. PRINC. B. GRAHAM iASST. PRINC. E. HAWKS iASST. PRINC.!C. WALKER IPRINCIPAL IPRINCIPAL IaSST. PRINC? IASST. PRINC. IaSST. PRINC. i PRINCIPAL IaSST. PRINC. IaSST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL W.MARSHALAK J. WASHINGTON J. MOSBY V. LINDBERG G. PITTS C. MASON D. DUERR D. PATTERSON J. FULLERTON M. GREEN R. WILLIAMS L.BROWN ASST. PRINC. E. HUDSON ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL D. JAMES M. LACEY ASST. PRINC. I VACANT ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST, PRINC, PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. ASST. PRINC. J. MATTHIS W. WOODS D. BENAGE P. MCMURRAY D. WHITEHORN M. BRIGGS R. KNIGHTEN D. BERRY BL F I TWO I TWO I I' CAU BL CAU CAU Ibl Ibl 'bl I T BL BL BL !CAU CAU BL BL BL CAU BL BL BL I T T T T * iCA ICA CA CA BL CA ICA BL CA IBL iCA BL CA CA BL BL BL BL BL CA BL CA CA BL CA F M  F M F F M M M F F M M M F F M If M F M M M F F F F M M F M F F M F M M M F M F M F Page 1 I FOUR |NEW I NEW I SEVEN I FIVE INEW I TWO I TWO Inew I ONE IONE Inew I THREE !ten I THREE I SIX ! THIRTEEN I FIVE IONE I THREE iFIVE Ione Inew Inew Ione I SIX IONE I FOUR I EIGHT i ACTING I EIGHT I EIGHT Inew I FOUR I THREE I SEVEN I I FIFTEEN I EIGHT Ione [THREE iSEVEN IONE jNEW InewSOUTHWEST !PRINC1PAL tJ. NEELEY lASST. PRINC.IA. MUNNS ADMIN3.EXC CA BL M F IONE BADGETT BALE BASELINE ASST. PRINC. iPRINCIPAL IPRINCIPAL IPRINCIPAL D. SMITH BL M BOOKER MAGNET I PRINCIPAL BRADY IaSST. PRINC? IPRINCIPAL CARVER MAGNET I PRINCIPAL CHICOT CLOVERDALE EL. DODD FAIR PARK FOREST PARK FRANKLIN lASST. PRINC. IPRINCIPAL lASST. PRINC. iPRINCIPAL (PRINCIPAL iPRINCIPAL M. GOLSTON B. ANDERSON E. COX C. SIMMONS D. HALL KEOWN M. BARKSDALE Y. SCOTT O. PRESLAR E. CLEVELAND F. FIELDS F. DONOVAN S. BRANCH BL CA BL CA FULBRIGHT IPRINCIPAL IV. ASHLEY 'PRINCIPAL IE. DUNBAR ASST. PRINC. (VACANT IPRINCIPAL IM. HUFFMAN ASST. PRINC.IB. JONES BL BL CA BL CA BL BL CA (BL I BL Tb? I  F F F F_ F F F_ M F M F M F F ONE NEW EIGHT ONE NEW FOUR NEW NEW NEW Ione EIGHT TWO I TWO (new (two EIGHT NEW GARLAND GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS MAGNET JEFFERSON iPRINCIPAL iPRINCIPAL i PRINCIPAL (ASST. PRINC. iPRINCIPAL II. WARD J. DAVENPORT B. RAPER F. HOBBS F. CAWTHON ICA IbT IbT (CA |CA I BL ICA M F M M.L.KING ASST. PRINC.Ia. JOINER-TATUM |BL IPRINCIPAL |h. HARRIS [617 ASST. PRINC.!J. HARKEY T MABELVALE ELEM MCDERMOTT 'PRINCIPAL (VACANT 'ASST. PRINC.IN. WILLIAMS (principal IM. OLIVER ASST. PRINC.Ia. smith [THIRTEEN I SEVEN F F F F F M F NEW NEW NEW Inew I SIX Ione Inew Ione MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK P. HEIGHTS EL RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER IPRINCIPAL IPRINCIPAL J. WORM M.BASSA (BL jcA I BL ICA F M F M NEW SEVEN ROMINE TERRY WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON I PRINCIPAL jc. TEETER I PRINCIPAL II. CARTER BL CA BL IPRINCIPAL Is. BROOKS IPRINCIPAL lA. MANGAN lASST. PRINC.! iPRINCIPAL lASST. PRINC. iPRINCIPAL lASST. PRINC. iPRINCIPAL IPRINCIPAL B. BANKS S. DAVIS K. GREENLEE G. ZEIGLER T. PHILLIPS L. WILSON K. BUCHANAN ' ASST. PRINC.IS. BEARD iPRINCIPAL T. COURTNEY\nASST. PRINC. V. ROBINSON BL CA I BL I BL CA BL CA BL BL CA 1817 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Page 2 Ione (EIGHT I NEW FIVE TWO ONE EIGHT ONE ONE ONE NEW NEW NEW NEW ONE TWO ONEADMIN3.EXC WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL ASST. PRINC. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL S. MORGAN M. MENKING D. MITCHELL F. DAVIS P. HIGGINBOTHAM CA CA BL BL CA M F F M F FIVE ONE EIGHT ONE SEVEN Page 3/ oc. xNbtKitu IN AGENDA FOR august 25, 1994 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCDA - Regulation SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. principal shall tile are acceptable foras will then be ^ovidtrf i,? ^strict ap^jlication ecplcyed with Little RccK ScJcSl D1S2?,\" District.) 2. ^i'^^ict administration for acceptability. certification, and references. Officials will Taken --- into experience, education, j screen the applicants consideration performance reviews, are 3. The sS\neri?St(s^=i=taht Which may include interview questions. 4. Affirmative Action, J^ericans with Disability Act?Uc.) 5. An interview committee will be follows: selected/appointed, as Three Two Three (3) Paroats/Patroas (2) Teachers (3) Admiaistratioa Represeatatives Note:l Note:2 Kote:3 1. The Parent/Patrons representatives a process: 2. 3. . - ---------will be selected by of the president of the ot une affected school. The teacher(s) representatives affected school and The Deputy Superintendent i appropriate staff - Assistant Supervisors, and Principals) s Administration representatives. *NOTE: ~ shall be from the PP Administration. (in consultation with consultation Superintendents, may designate the ^e committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible bv rare ' ! race and gender. P.EC^ ? SEP 19E34I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 EPS CODE: GCDA Regulation 6. committee shall meet to interview recommend candidates.  xuveirview be provided folders and 7. 8. 9. 10. 1) 2) 3) 4) The interview committee will containing the following: An interview schedule The approved interview questions An approved candidate rating form The applicant's application materials complete the ratings sheet. interview the epplicente end wiH aSee Von aT committee, through consensus, submit a recommendation of the ton three 3) candidates to the Superintendent. ratings are  reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) The Superintendent shall Interview Committee and select the for Board approval. review the recommendations of the committee reconvene to determine and require that the new recommendations. Once the Superintendent has selected he/she will submit that individual' Directors for approval. an acceptable applicant, s name to the Board of If the applicant is currently serving _______ \u0026gt; _ r superintendent i^aV reasslS Se PrZnSJal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. approved, the candidate shall receive a contract which ?\nt=!tion. pertinentAiiRcrtMevT H? xam p te. tf-rrEk May 18, 1995 Little Rock School District To: Carver Magnet Interview team members (listed below) From: Dr. Director - Human Resources Subject: Interview process First, I wish to express my sincere personal thanks to you for agreeing to participate as a member of the interview team for Principalship of Carver Magnet elementary school. As you might imagine, this team is charged with the extremely important responsibility of interviewing the applicants and, as a team, to recommend three top candidates to the Superintendent, who will then make a recommendation to the School Board. To assist you in the interview process, you will be provided the following items: 1. An interview schedule 2. A list of interview questions 3. A candidate rating form 4. The applicant's application materials (Ie: application, letter, etc.) These items will be provided to you on the day of the interviews. I will attempt to schedule the interviews on a one-hour-per-applicant schedule. This will allow for the interview time as well as follow-up discussion among the team to reach consensus about the candidate. If you have any questions about this very important process, please don't hesitate to contact me at 324-2088. I will advise you as quickly as possible the date and times of the interviews. cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Donna Creer, Executive Director - Magnet Review Committee Team Members: Vai Henry, Parent/Patron representative Dewey Fitzhugh, Parent/Patron representative Roz Newton, Parent/Patron representative Joy Thomas, Teacher representative Kim Washington, Teacher representative Patty Kohler, Administration representative Leon Modeste, Administration representative Dick Hurley, Administration representative 810 West .Markham Street  tittle Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Sheetl Tn~~ DATE OF INTERVIEW SCHOOL ^RECOMMENDED CANDIDATES CANDIDATE SELECTED MAY/22/1995 CARVER MAY/25/1995 HENDERSON JR. MAY/26/1995 M. L. KING JUNE/29/1995 IGIBBS MAGNET I JUNE/30/1995 iDIANE BARKSDALE iJERRY WORM I GWEN ZEIGLER jJAMES WASHINGTON JAMES FULLERTON IRON AUSTIN________ ITYRONE HARRIS I GWEN ZEIGLER ! ETHEL DUNBAR I KAREN GREENLEE I ADA KEOWN BETTY RAPER DIANE BARKSDALE JAMES WASHINGTON TYRONE HARRIS BETTY RAPER iTERRY ELEMENTARY\nETHEL DUNBAR I T GWEN ZEIGLER JULY/19/1995 IGEYER SPRINGS I I T !DEBORAH MITCHELL I GWEN ZEIGLER JULIE DAVENPORT ADA KEOWN ETHEL DUNBAR I DEBORAH MITCHELL J.J.LACEY JULIE DAVENPORT JULY/25/1995 AUGUST/3/1995 AUGUST/4/1995 AUGUST/7/1995 BRADY ELEMENTARY : KAREN GREENLEE ____________________! BEVERLY JONES ____________________iADA KEOWN________ HALL HIGH SCHOOL I GAYLE BRADFORD ____________________I LINDA BROWN______ ____________________JIM MOSBY_________ FRANKLIN INCENTIVE i KAREN GREENLEE ____________________I ETHEL DUNBAR ____________________JEFF CARR_________ DUNBAR JR. MAGNET!LINDA BROWN______ ____________________DANIEL WHITEHORN PATRICIA McMurray ADA KEOWN GAYLE BRADFORD ETHEL DUNBAR LINDA BROWN Page 101 SSs I?\n\u0026gt;v [  ?./? aSy**  ' * I. ' ) ^'^iwj^'irr. t- Ir ( r-Vf: i 'SU. I. i ' i- ^-J' hl u I .4-  \n\"S\u0026gt;'  V^^\u0026gt;iSur, \"t: I. -4 7 !  iJC'.hr:''\n7 \\\u0026lt; \u0026gt; A08/13/1998 14:21 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 02 School Senior High Schools Central J. A. Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Vocational-Technical Center Metropolitan Junior High Schools Cloverdale Academy Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Southwest Elementary Schools Badgett Bole Baseline Booker Magnet Brady Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Magnet Jefferson King Magnet Interdistrict Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Interdistrict Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson Woodruff Alternative Learning Center Little Rock School District 1998-99 (501) 324-2000 Principal Address Phone Projected Enrollment Rudolph Howard William Broadnax Gayle Bradford Jodie Carter Dr. Linda Brown Michael Peterson Cassandra Norman Deborah Berry Vernon Smith James Washington James Fullerton Dr. Brenda James Nancy Rousseau Jim Mosby Mary Golston Barbara Anderson Eleanor Cox Dr. Cheryl Carson Ada Keown Diane Barksdale Jane Harkey Frederick Fields Faith Donovan Dr, Samuel Branch Theressa Courtney Ethel Dunbar Deborah Mitchell Lionel Ward Donna Hall Felicia Hobbs Susan Beard Tyrone Harris Tabitha Phillips Virginia Ashley Jerry Worm Lillie Scull Janice Tucker Lillie Carter Sharon Brooks Anne Mangan Sharon Davis Nancy Acre Maty Jane Cheatham Gwen Zeigler Michael Oliver Scott Morgan Mary Menking Beverly Jones Pat Higginbotham Johnny Neeley 1500 Park, 02 13420 Dodd, 10 6700 H Street, 05 9417 Geyer Springs, 09 2501 Barrow, 04 7701 Scott Hamilton, 09 6300 Hinkson Rd., 09 1100 Wright Ave., 06 5901 Evergreen, 05 401 Barrow, 05 10811 Mabelvale W., 72103 1000 E. Roosevelt Rd., 06 401 N. Pine, 05 3301 S. Bryant, 04 6900 Pecan Road, 06 6501 W. 32nd, 04 3623 Baseline Rd., 09 2016 Barber, 06 7915 West Markham, 05 2100 East Sixth, 02 11100 Chicot Rd., 72103 6500 Hinkson Rd., 09 6423 Stagecoach Rd., 04 616 N. Harrison, 05 1600 N. Tyler. 07 1701 S. Harrison, 04 300 Pleasant Valley Dr., 12 3615 W. 25th, 04 5240 Mabelvale Pike, 09 1115 W. 16th, 02 2600 N. McKinley, 07 905 Martin L. King, Jr., Dr., 02 9401 Mvale Cut-off, 72103 1200 Reservoir Rd., 07 25 Sheraton Dr., 09 2410 Battery, 06 16000 Otter Creek Pky., 09 319 N. Pine, 05 911 W. 19th, 06 700 E. 17th, 06 3400 Romine Rd,. 04 10800 Mara Lynn Dr., 11 75 Westminister, 09 115 W. 27th. 06 7000 Valley Dr., 09 4901 Western Hills, 04 7301 Evergreen, 07 4015 Stannus Rd., 04 3010 W. 7th, 05 800 Apperson, 02 324-2300 228-3100 671-6200 570-4100 228-3000 565-8465 570-4085 324-2440 671-6390 228-3050 455-7400 324-2450 671-6250 570-4070 324-2475 570-4050 570-4150 324-2482 228-3065 324-2460 570-4062 570-4055 455-7430 671-6260 671-6267 671-6380 228-3080 671-6275 570-4160 324-2490 671-6281 324-2135 455-7420 228-3072 570-4165 324-2415 455-7440 671-6290 324-2430 324-2385 228-3086 228-3093 570-4190 324-2470 570-4195 570-4175 671-6363 570-4180 671-6270 324-2370 1983 940 773 821 931 618 817 757 612 498 872 783 478 198 366 320 598 387 562 560 483 227 236 452 505 539 278 347 311 510 738 393 476 315 243 342 452 271 487 346 516 682 461 300 472 371 280 I I k I i indicates continued Drincipal service School Elementary Schools Badgett Bale Baseline Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson King Mabefvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Res. Elem. Charter Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Data from LRSD Personnel Directories 1988-69 1989-90 6. Cannon. Supt (W) Mary Golston (B) Lavanna Wilson (B) Robert Brown (B) William Finn (B) Karen Buchanan (B) Bobbie Goodwin (B) Olis Preslar (W) Jacqueline Dedman (B) Mary Cheatham (W) Catherine Gill (B) Virginia Ashley (B) Connie Aston (W) Mac Huffman (W) Cheryl Simmons (W) Mary Guinn (B) PRINCIPAL CHANGES WITHIN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1988-89 through 2004-06 I 1990-91 1991-92 Ruth Steele. Superintendent (W) William Finn (B) Robert Brown (B) Mary Menking (W) Sadie Mitchell (B) Franklin Davis (B) Xindicates first vear school in operation Data from LRSD School Profiles (B) indicates black 1992-93 Mac Bernd. Supt (W) 1993-94 I 1994-96 I 1996-96 1996-97 1997-98 Cheryl Simmons (W) Barbara Means (W) Robert Brown (B) Patricia McNeil (W) Hank Williams. Superintendent (B) Don Roberts, Supt. (W) I I Data from LRSD Communications Dept 1998-99 I 1999-00 Les Gamine. Supt. (W) I Mary Cheatham (W) Frederick Fields (B) (W1 indicates white 2000-01 2001-02 I 2002-03 Ken James. Supt (W) Closed Barbara Anderson (W) Lonnie Dean (B) Betty Raper (W) Diane Barksdale (W) Samuel Branch (B) Julie Davenport (B) Robert Brown (B) Lavanna Wilson (6) Karen Buchanan (B) Eleanor Cox (B) Ada Keown (6) Jane Harkey (W) Faith Donovan (W) Ethel Dunbar (B) Lionel Ward (B)  (Cheryl Carson) (W) (Faith McLaughlin) (W) Theresa Courtney (W) (Theresa Ketcher) (W) Deborah Mitchell (B) Closed 2063-04 Don Stewart, interim Supt (V/) Morris Holmes. Interim Supt (6) Eleanor Cox (B) Donna Davis (W) Lonnie Dean (B) Margaret Gremlllion (W) bllie Carter (B) Dorothy Faulkner (W) Mike Oliver (W) Jeny Worm (W) Donita Hudspeth (W) Pal Price (W) Eddie McCoy (8) Francis Cawthon (W) Closed Julie Davenport (W) Carolyn Teeter (V^ Kay Loss (W) Stan Strauss (W) Closed X Sadie Mitchell (B) Samuel Branch (B) Lillie Carter (8) Maijorle Bassa (B) Julie Davenport (W) Betty Raper (W) Susan Beard (W) Feiecia Hobbs (B) Donna Hall (8) Tyrone Hartls (B) Ed Jackson (W) Faith Donovan (W) Tabitha Phillips (W) Marjorie Bassa (8) (Henry Hams) (B) Susan Beard (W) Virginia Ashley (B) Lillie Skull (8) Janis Tucker (V^ Darlan SmiUi (B) Roberta Mannon (W) Karoo Carter (W) Kay Loss (W) Anne Mangan (W) Lionel Ward (B) Stan Strauss (W) Nancy Volsen (W) Lloyd Black (B) Bobbie Goodwin (B) Sharon Davis (B) Sharon Brooks (B) X Krishna Young (B) Mary Smith (B) Closed Eunice Thrasher (B) Alice Stovall (W) Lonnie Dean (B) LaOell Looper (W) Sharon Davis (B) Closed Lillie Scull (Bl Willie Morris (B) X Bobbie Goodwin (B) Karen Buchanan (B) Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Junior High Schools ALC*____________ Diana Glaze (W) Margie Puckett (W) Ed Jackson (W) Reine Price (W) Pat Higginbotham (W) Theresa Courtney (W) Gwen Ziegler (8) Gwen Ziegler (B) Levanna Wilson (8) Karen Buchanan (8) X Sharon Brooks (B) Gwen Zeigler (B) X Othello Faison (B) Scott Morgan (W) Mary Menking (W) Franklin Davis (B) Mary J. Cheatham (W) Nancy Acre (W) Gwen Ziegler (B) Michael Oliver (W) Les Taylor (W) Beverly Jones (B) Janice Wilson (6) Ctoverdaie Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Dexter Booth (B) James Haley (W) James Wise (B) Brady Gadberry (W) Gayle Bradford (W) Robert Robertson (B) Richard Maple \u0026lt;W) Nancy Volsen (W) Richard Maple Everett Hawks (W) !/ (Nancy Acre) (W) Cieli Watts (W) Walter Marshaleck (W) Cassandra Mason (B) Johnny Neeley (W) {Cassandra Norman) (B) Lloyd Sain (8) Jodie Carter (8) David Patterson (B) Mabeivaie Puieski Heights Southwest High Schoofs ACC Ctetl Watts (W) Martan Lacey (B) Ralph Hoffman \u0026lt;W) Gall McLaughlin (W) Charity Smith (B) W. Marshaleck (W) Duane Benage (W) Karen Buchanan (8) Jamas Washington (B) Gayle Bradford (Vtf) Mons Briggs (W) Johnny Neeley (W) Linda Brown (W) Deborah Berry (W) Angela Munns (B) John Bacon (iW) James Washington (8) James Fullerton (W) Vernon Smith (B) Eloulse Hudson (B) Larry Buck (W) Marvin Burton (B) Walter Marshaleck (W) Brenda James (B) Nancy Rousseau (W) Jim Mosby (W) X Carol Green (B) Alicia Finch (W) Central Fair Hall___________ McClellan Metropolitan_____ Parkview TOTAL changes' PERCENT______ Everett Hawks (W) Sam Stueart (W\u0026gt; Bill Bamhouse (W) Rudolph Howard (B) Doyle Dillahunty (W) Junious Babbs (6) Al Niven (W) 8 16% John Hickman (8) Vic Anderson (W) Jodie Carter (B) Carol Green (B) Rudolph Howard (B) Doyle DillahuntyfW) William Broadnax (8) Gayle Bradford (W) Betty Burr (W) Michael Peterson (B) 17 33% 6 12% ' The LRSD calls the person In charge of the ALC a director Instead of a principal. 6 12% 9 18% 27 64% 16 32% 6 10% Note: Names inside () signify a change in name only. 6% Linda Brown (W) 16 30% Prepared by ODM based on data from LRSD Ann Blaylock (W) Jim Fullerton (W) Daniel Whitehorn (W) David Smith (6) Nancy Rousseau (W) Carol Green (6) Cassandra Norman (B) Vernon Smith (B) Larry Buck (W) 9 17% 10% 3 6% 6 12% 2 4%June 7, 2 0 0 2 I LR School Board OKs principal assignments ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board on Thursday approved the reassignment of two district employees to principal positions for the 2002-03 school year. Larry Buck, who has been princip^ at Henderson Middle School since 1999, was named principal for McClellan High School. Buck, who previously worked as an assistant principal at Cloverdale Middle School and as an English teacher at J. A. Fair High School, replaces Jodie Carter at McClellan. Carter will be reassigned to another district position. Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell said Thursday, but that assignment has not yet been finalized. Daniel Whitehorn, assistant principal at Central High School since 1995, will take the helm at Pulaski Heights Middle School. A former assistant principal at what was then Forest Heights Junior High, Whitehorn replaces Nancy Rousseau, who is leaving Pulaski Heights to be the new principal at Central High. Mitchell said applicants are being considered for principal vacancies at Henderson Middle School and Southwest Middle School, and recommendations will likely be made to the School Board for approval later this month. Joe Mosby, who has been principal at Southwest, is being reassigned to another district position, Mitchell said.Arkansas Democrat Igr (gazette I LR schools name three principals ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Three principals were chosen for schools across the Little Rock School District on Thursday evening. The districts board of directors approved their appointments at a regularly scheduled meeting. John Bacon, principal at Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Education Magnet Middle School for the past four years, is to be the new principal of HaU High School in the Little Rock School District. Bacon will replace Vernon Smith at Hall. Smith is retiring from the district after being out on sick leave during much of the 2004-05 school year. An employee of the district since 1995, Bacon started work for the system as a substitute teacher before becoming a business education teacher at Pulaski Heights Junior High in August 1996. He was a vocational business teacher at McClellan Magnet High School for a few months in 1998 before he became an assistant principal, first at Cloverdale Junior High and then in 1999 at Dunbar. Bacon is a 1992 graduate of the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville with a bachelors degree in public administration. He has a masters degree in business administration from Louisiana State University and another masters degree in secondary education from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. He is currently pursuing a doctorate in educational leadership, also from UALR. On Thursday the board voted to replace Bacon with Eunice Thrasher, principal at Rightsell Elementary since 2002. Thrasher was assistant principal at the districts Williams Magnet Elementary School from 1998-2002. She has also been a speech therapist at several of the districts campuses. Thrasher is a 1975 graduate of Ouachita Baptist University, where she earned her bachelors in speech pathology. She received her masters degree in educational leadership from the University of Central Arkansas in 1995. The board also appointed Randy Rutherford, assistant principal and athletic administrator at Central High, to the principal position at JA. Fair High School. Rutherford will follow Cassandra Norman in the job. He was the head football coach, as well as a business and physical education teacher at J.A. Fair from 1999 to 2002. He graduated from UCA in Conway in 1985 with a bachelors degree in physical education. In 1998 he earned his masters of science in education from Henderson State University in Arkadelphia.July 15, 2 0 0 5 LR principal takes middle school post ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Frederick Fields, principal at Little Rocks Cloverdale Elementary School, is moving next door to become principal at Cloverdale Middle School for the 2005- 06 school year. The Little Rock School Board approved Fields appointment TTiursday as part of an ongoing series of personnel changes for the coming year. Fields is replacing Angela Munns. Betty Mosley, an assistant principi at Forest Heights Middle School, will take over as principal for Cloverdale Elementary, which is going to be housed in the old Badgett School this year because of structural problems with the Cloverdale building. Nancy Swaty will be the new principal at McDermott Elementary School when classes start for students on Aug. 19. Swaty, who has been McDermotts media speciaUst/librarian, is filling the vacancy created by the retirement of Virginia Ashley. 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 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_563","title":"Principal selection process, Magnet Review Committee's role","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","School management and organization","School principals","Educational law and legislation","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Principal selection process, Magnet Review Committee's role"],"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/563"],"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\nsr\nMAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE'S ROLE IN PRINCIPAL SELECTION PROCESSMagnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Greer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 received July 21, 1994 JUL 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Thank you for requesting information needed to address questions that have arisen regarding the Magnet Review Committee's role in the process Little Rock School District used to fill interdistrict magnet school principal positions We have responded to each for the 1994-95 school year. The necessary point to the best of our ability, documentation is attached and enumerated for easy reference. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachments1. The date{s) the MRC reviewed the procedures the LRSD used in recommending staffing assignments for magnet school principal vacancies. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The Magnet Review Committee held a special-called meeting on Thursday, May 12, 1994, for the purpose of discussing Little Rock School District's procedures used to recommend staff assignments for magnet school principal vacancies. 2. A list of the MRC members who participated in each review session. All MRC members were present at the May 12, 1994 meeting: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Dana Chadwick, NLRSD, was absent from the June 27, 1994 meeting\nMarcia Harding, ADE, and Oliver Dillingham, ADE, were unavailable for the July 18, 1994 meeting. 3. The minutes of all review sessions. The minutes of the meetings which addressed items mentioned in number 1. above are attached as a part of this information packet. These meetings took place on May 12, 1994, June 27, 1994 and July 18, 1994. 4. A copy of the procedures which were \"previously presented to the MRC with reference to original magnet school principal positions\n\" indicate the date the MRC received these procedures\nindicate the date they were disseminated to each Committee member. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The procedures were discussed as a part of the May 12, 1994 and June 27, 1994 meetings. The written copy of these procedures was disseminated at MRC's July 18, 1994 meeting and are attached as a part of this information packet.5. The date(s) and names of MRC members who participated in identifying the \"appropriate action\" the MRC has determined it will take to ensure that the LRSD administration fulfills its obligation to follow the Court's Order for future staffing changes in the original magnet schools. Provide minutes of that meeting. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The MRC held a special-called meeting on July 18, 1994 to discuss and formulate language which will guide the Little Rock School District and the Magnet Review Committee discussions regarding consultations on original magnet school vacancies. Members present at the July 18, 1 994 meeting were: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD 6. The minutes from all other MRC meetings in which the principal selection process was considered in any way. Indicate those who were present at those meetings. The minutes are included as a part of this packet. The list of members present is a part of the minutes. 7. The datefs) and copies of correspondence through which the MRC learned of each impending principal vacancy in a magnet school for the 1994-95 school year. The Little Rock School District customarily informs the Magnet Review Committee of magnet vacancies via job announcements placed in the MRC school mailbox at LRSD's Central Office. Copies of the job descriptions are attached. 8. For each of the following, a copy of the written information, the date that information was committed to writing, and the date it was disseminated to all Committee members: a. The written procedures that guide the MRC in relation to selection of principals of the magnet schools. copy attached - Interim Order Enforcing Mandate of Court of Appeals Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: March 4, 1987 March 4, 1987b. The written MRC policy or guidelines about using interview committees in selecting magnet school principals. copy attached - Interview Protocol and Selection of Applicants, School Principals Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: June, 1 994 July 18, 1994 c. The written annual timeline the MRC follows in relation to principal selections. No specific written timeline is followed\nhowever, notification of staff vacancies is noted at the annual review sessions for the interdistrict magnet schools budgets, which begin in March before each school year. d. Any written guidelines, suggestions, or criteria the MRC may have established regarding principal qualifications, characteristics, experience, or other criteria, especially as it relates to the individual theme, programmatic emphasis, or other unique aspects of the individual magnet school community at each of the magnet schools. copy attached - Court Order \"Stipulation for Proposed Order Concerning Magnet Review Committee\" Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: September 3, 1986 September, 1986 copy attached - Court Order Regarding the Role of the Magnet Review Committee Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: July 2, 1987 July, 1987 copy attached - Court Order Regarding MRC's Request to Court on Staffing Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: November 5, 1992 November, 1992 9. Copies of any patron or staff letters the MRC has received regarding the most recent principal selection process. Patron/staff letters received by the MRC are attached and separated by school.MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 12, 1994 3 f the Magnet Review Committee was 1920 North Main special-called meeting o . held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, Street, North little Rock, Arkansas on Thursday, May 12, 1994 . A Arkansas on Members Present: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Joshua Intervenors Evelyn Jackson, Estelle Matthis, LRSD m. by thanking all opened the meeting at 8:40 a.   to this special-called meeting. Dr. Altom MRC members for coming then provided a basis for requesting this meeting. He Dr. Altom reminded the Committee that when it became public that LRSD was principalship, he began to -- makina a change in principaisnip, nc making a the Court would Court Order because he was afraid the the staffing changes. 1992, Dr. Altom's In looking review the -- admonish the MRC regarding 5, ^^992, Dr. Altom s through the Court O^der expanded role from understanding was that th Altom polled each of the years past. Because of that. DrAltom p MRC members to see if they thought tn , expanded and the consensus was yes, they ai then contacted Dr. Dr. Altom --- , . this information with him. Williams They had a very unofficially to share cordial meeting. Dr. Altom noted that about two years ago , with regard to of became concerned about the themes budget cuts, ^,3 admonished the MRC for not the magnets. taking a more It now the MRC would come about the items in active role. together to make an the Court Order, page seemed appropriate that official statement 12. It s hould be pointed out that the following terms should be reviewed: 1) 2) 3) consult staff (who staffing changes it includes) (what does this mean)to the Court saying that The MRC will need to write a letter hnHv. this is what we believe and if this is not so. as a body, this is please tell us if you see it differently. H STAFFING Does it mean to give language says the Court decides, appropriate action The the MRC the authority to overturn? MRC merely states what the should be. STAFF When staffing changes administrators, or 3 are inade, does it mean teachers, support staff as well? This needs to be to determine who the critical MRC needs clarified because with regard to the theme. another magnet consist or a people are principal being assigned to staffing change? Does a magnet Estelle Matthis then asked for^an address the personnel issue. M\" executive session to Ms. Matthis said the Superintendent has Order and the MRC. every intention of working by the Court Dr. Williams wants to assure you that the district will advertise positions. etc. and will follow the procedure interview, make as in the past - to the MRC, the Board approves. recommendation __ abide by the Court Order. etc. He does plan to Ms to . Harding noted that in defining terms. should be clarified. surprise to this body. the term II prior Things should not come as a of some time f the Court filings ns. naiuxuy  13X1?'c Since then, this has ago f with regar have a come into play, and ^p^is was not tied to tiedomy to th. Ms. Harding said that some o budgeting process. related to that issues are Matthis said LRSD understands budgS Their Program Budget Guide governs daily Ms. Their Program activities. Dr Altom said he called Dr.  - - -- strongly about it. Williams' attention to RIF He told him the 5Sc SraTt^rCourt^for'a speUy resolution. Ms . understands the Matthis said that Judge Wright Mattnus __that unless the the assignment agreement. re-assignment The Sth Circuit says has an impact on desegregation. will go on. -2-reminded the Committee that Donna Grady Creer, Dr. Altom reminded the committee tnai uuuua v, , a Harding and Oliver Dillingham will be meeting with Wilhoit on May 23, 1994 with regard to the State s role Marcia Gene in monitoring. CONSULT said the critical item will be the timing in SL.rSnS.rS co:sJiC\"S\n=\nTSso-==e to the MBC first, and when? We have to get the timing down on this. Does LRSD come We have to Dr. Altom noted the definition of \"consult\" is \"to ask the This does not say you have are considered. advice or opinion of. II IS decision-making authority, but your thoughts _flofinition would be, \"consider by asking the combined definition would be, II c advice or opinion of.\" STAFF Ms. Harding noted that, in Judge Woods' court personnel. from earlier on, when staff came up it encompassed all certificated , . ---, these sked to make recommendations The MRC reviewed information that LRSD used MRC made personnel. -- , . that time for hiring purposes. prior to recommendations and changes with regard to thematic parts. Ms. Matthis s aid LRSD is basically of the same feeling. She also noted that LRSD says staffing is certificated positions. STAFFING CHANGE 1) The hiring of a person either a teacher, administrator, to come into a building and be support individual. or 2) The other has to do with the poss ibility of transfers. would mean that the II This ----- defined for both of these. prior to II II needs to be prior to II regard to posting a position, what does \"prior to mean. with regard to a mean with transfer, Ms 7 condition, the MRC should be thinking of . Harding said that under^any^^ individual. notified as soon as poss reassigning or making a representation the regularly-s transfer of an staffing changes. should report any cheduled meeting of the MRC. The LRSD etc. at -3-PROCEDURE Ms. Matthis said that she does problem to report at the MRC meeting every LRSD representation could give a not believe it would be a two weeks. The a status report when something is happening. Ms . a Creer noted that, just as a copy could be given vacancy is posted, immediately. normal procedure, when a to the MRC needed about looking at . Harding said clarification is non-certificated people also with regard to the budget. Ms would screen job postings T +- LJArr adeed that the MRC Office - ---- - - . the agenda for every MRC meeting and place these postings on with regard to staffing in magnet schools. hiring ys. TRANSFER ither hiring or transferring. Anv staffing change means either niring or QuLtion: MRC has always been comfortable with the Section process of hiring. That is acceptable. LRSD will consult with MRC before making change. What does It consult with II mean? Ms. Matthis said the procedure is: Post the position publicly\nApplicants apply to Human Resources\nhrmlications are checked by Assistant The applications are Superintendents\nSelection Committee reviews\nSrSrZ: clnStoSs'^o to superintendent for * consideration/possible interview\ncnncrintendent makes recommendation to the Board o P refl?s it back to the Selection Committee and the job is re-advertised. With regard to a same etc. ? situation. the MRC will be looking at the meet the qualifications, will be'held in Session. The transfer, Does this person MRC should Discussions then report to the Court. Executive Ms. Harding has a concern - for change s to transfers. Williams says change as this relates ake would not be made. Dr. concerned, when they are Where transfers are -  .,uopr\u0026gt;ed to that information needs to be presented to if it has disruptive effects). -4- us involuntary, (particularlyThe Conunittee took a five-minute break. After the break, Estelle Matthis made a motion for the MRC to go into Executive Session to discuss peronnel changes at the original magnet schools, motion, and the motion carried unanimously. Marcia Harding seconded the After Executive Session, Estelle Matthis made a motion to return to Open Session, and Marcia Harding seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Altom reported that no action was affirmed in Open Session. taken that needs to be letter will go to the Office of Desegregation\nreached consensus on In summary, a letter win go tu uie vxx Monitoring, indicating that the MRC has order the sentence on Page 12, of the Court uraer the language in dated November 5, 1992. A copy will be sent to all MRC members. The MRC does approve for the selection of principals. the LRSD selection process In order to be more pro-active in MRC will have on its regular agendaan item on the future, the staffing of magnet schools to address these issues in a more timely manner. brought to the table, Evelyn Estelle When no more business was , Jackson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Matthis seconded the motion, and the The meeting was adjourned at 10. JU a.m. unanimously. MRC meeting will be on Tuesday, May 17, The next will encompass discussion 1994 and f the interdistrict magnet schools budget. o -5-MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 27, 1994 Qf the Magnet Review Committee was 1920 North Main A special-called meeting _ the Magnet Review Committee Office, held in Street, North Little Rock, 1994 . Arkansas on Monday, June 27, Members Present: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Absent: Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Guests: Margaret Gremillion, Horace Smith, Associate Monitor Assistant Superintendent - LRSD ODM The meeting .s called to order at 1:05 p  by Chairperson called to He explained the meeting was  a.he nrncess used in the recent selection of magnet examine th p , , ------- agreed in its letter to the Court telling Dr. Bobby Altom. school principals and because May 12, 1994 meeting to send a _ rnnrt of MRC's opinion regarding its rol chool principals the Court of MRC's opinion selection in magnet schools. staff Dr. Altom noted that two items will be discussed: Dr 1) 2) The unapproved minutes MRC meeting\nof the May 12, 1994 the Court outlining  1994 The May 18 , 1994 letter to ... _  had delineated in its May 12, what the MRC had delineateo in xuo what the iterpretation  the meeting in used in Judge Wright s Order describing MRC's input in November 5, 1992 Court original magnet staffings. of the May 12, T T A reading of the minutes . Altom called f ^nd a few corrections, MX L.CX _____________ TmniTbPA 1994 meeting. Oliver Dillingham made a motion to approve the minutes andEstelle Matthis seconded the motion, unanimously. The motion carried . Matthis opened the discussion by outlining the process  - . She noted that LKbU Ms. -------- , . T.RSD uses in selection of principals. LKbu uses in three parents to serve asks PTA presidents for the names on the principal' s\n------  1. j with regard to race and gender. selected for the committee, one black and one white, and Central Office administrators are These people submissions are one interview team, and LRSD looks at these Two teachers curriculum person. ... Assistant Superintendents, for elementary schools. represented by two the selection committee make up Secondary schools follow the same procedure as but incentive schools have staffing committees. noted above, including a representative of the Joshua Intervenors. Once all the people for the selection committee are to them notifying them to serve Ms. question as wanted five parents to be included. Ms. Matthis and five teachers. -----worked, and she also jioted that explained how the .^.ted when' they get to parents could asK quesuj-uho j___rorrpqbprt to the interview process. However, parents were requested to ask the same questions of all applicants. If an applicant Most applicants had no school itctiealiy given ere an - principal, they^ applied for the Gibbs job. an audience. , . and one specialist one principal Once the applicants.had been were given for the interviews. identified, dates and times Letters were sent to the participants telling them of the dates and times. The procedure for the interviews went as follows: A listing of all brought in and a included in this A list of questions was told that n want to however, you ask applicants a question, that's fine\n_______4- t-bAt- same question to all if you candidates. II must ask that same ques-- -- A rating sheet was included in the folder also, participants. and it was explained to committee The rating sheet is one committee members were\nby their first choice. process. ' applicants part of the whole asked to rank evaluation etc., and the -2-After that, committee tries to come to a consensus. there will be questions from the interview team. Ms. Harding asked what happens if there is a the committee cannot reach a consensus. Ms. situation where Matthis said the committee reports back to the Superintendent and notifies him that no consensus has been reached. At that point, the job will be re advertised. Ms. Matthis noted that State law gives the Superintendent transfer personnel. responsibility to re-assign or Matthis and Ms. Ms. Harding asked Ms. are such large numbers in movement. Gremillion why there They noted that options are such large numoers ru j for staff to take the early retirement incentives have created a lot of the open positions. At this point, Ms Committee go into interdistrict magnet schools. Matthis requested that the Magnet Review Executive Session to discuss personnel for the Ms. Harding made a motion to go Ms. Matthis seconded the motion, unanimously. into Executive Session, The motion carried and When Executive Session was completed, Ms. Harding made a the MRC meeting and Estelle Matthis The motion carried unanimously. was motion to re-convene seconded the motion. Dr. Altom reported the He suits of the Executive Session, record in a letter to the Court that LRSD has followed re said the MRC will go on , . . stating that the MRC does not believeL-v the Court Order of Judge Wright when it says that nic vuuiu ______ MDr anri Tnn.Qt se in the consult the MRC and must seek Court in the future, the LRSD must  future, on making any staffing changes The MRC does not believe that that permission prior to magnet schools.\" 1 consultation was made. II record that MRC sure that the interview have integrity. in the letter, ork with the the Court Order is followed for 1----- - future original magnet staffing changes. When no further business was motion to adjourn Evelyn Jackson made a brought before the Committee, the meeting and r VeXVIl ul dw rfc oA *  - The motion carried m. -3-MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES July 18, 1994 Al -railed meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was he?rs thriXt R^iew committee Office 1920 Morth Mam North Little Rock, Arkansas on Monday, July 18, A the Magnet Review Committee Office, Street 1994 . Members Present: Bobby Altom, Dana Chadwick, NLRSD PCSSD - Chairperson Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Absent: Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE , , __phAimerson, called the meeting to order at He informed the Magnet meeting was l?:T^_'^^^^^gpriicipalship at Carver Dr. Altom asked for a motion to and Estelle Matthis provided the 2:05 p.m. being called to discuss District's recommendation Elementary Magnet School. go into Executive Session Dana motion. caiTiried. unanimously  Chldwick seconded the motion, and the motion Matthis made a motion to When Executive Session return the motion. The motion general session. Dana Chadwick made a motion that hail, after hearing the Little entative regarding the Rock school District's . ....... ,s,.ot,on orooess of Carver selection process --- of the LRSD ^^tthis seconded the principal recommendation jea unanimously. motion, and the motion Dr. Altom said the 1 recapped the events of the Executive Session. -- will submit, by way of He Magnet Review Committee will suomtt  formal letter to the n Desegregation Monitoring, the action meeting. As a part of the letter. 1 taken during this a statement will be madenot believe that the that the Magnet Review Committee does been done in as timely a fashion as But, the late date, the fact principals are already under contract and the belief that magnet school -to meet and support that individual. The process has would like. what the MRC parents are anxious  ---- -. Maqnet Review Committee does support_the selection. Rock School District did provide a more in depth for selection of the Carver Little discussion of rationale principal. the By consensus, the Magnet Review Comttee MrI on letter to Dr. Williams asking him to work with the MRC on nrocedures or policies affecting staffing of the original magnet schools. The MRC will ask him to work with the MRC regarding the following items: of vacancies arising\ntimely notification . for recruitment of candidates\nthe procedures for candidates\nscreening procedures---- ,-4.+.^^. of the interview committee, make-up selection UlciJS.c:Ui/ ------------------------------- , the development of the interview itsel , considered for the written criteria or factors . . of the final principal selection, removal of magnet school selection reassignment and/or principals. The MRC will ask him to help might be appropriate for pr\nmagnet schools. p look into any changes that incipal job descriptions in the When no further business was brought before the Committee, motion to adjourn the meeting and The motion carried was Estelle Matthis made a Dana Chadwick seconded the motion, unanimously, and the meeting was a adjourned at 3:05 p.m. -2-5. Verbal Communication/Instruction to Interview Teams INTERVIEW PROTOCOL V Prior to the consideration and selection of Interview Committees for the 1994-95 principalships at various schools in the district, a meeting was held on May 31, 1994, to discuss the interview protocol to be used. It was agreed between the participants that although there was no written procedure or policy, there has been a well-known long-standing past practice of interview protocol. The above-mentioned interview protocol was to be used for selection of the 1994-95 principalships. It was further agreed that this protocol would be documented and incorporated into the Personnel section of the Policy and Procedures Manual. Attending the meeting were Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent\nMr. Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations\nand Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources.! ij LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. Persons desiring employment as a School Principal shall file an application in writing (Resume, letter of intent, or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact. District application forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with Little Rock School District.) 2 . 3 . District administration officials will screen the applicants for acceptability. Taken into consideration are certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. The Deputy Superintendent and/or the Assistant Superintendent(s) will prepare a list of interview questions to be used in the interview process. 4 . The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (ie: E.E.O., Affirmative Action, Americans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be selected/appointed, as follows: Three Two Three (3) (2) (3) Parents/Patrons Teachers Administration Representatives Note:1 Note:2 Note:3 1. The Parent/Patrons representatives will be selected by a process: designated by the PTA president of the 2. of the affected school. The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by the Administration. 3 . The Deputy Superintendent appropriate staff - Assistant (in consultation with Supervisors, and Principals) Superintendents, Administration representatives. may designate the *NOTE: The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender.1 r.' t, t \u0026lt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 6 . 7. 8 . 9 . 10. a J 3 EPS CODE: GCAB The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will he provided folders containing the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) An interview schedule The approved interview questions An approved candidate rating form The applicant's application materials The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the Superintendent. '* (Note: Although the applicants are rated, the ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) The Superintendent shall review the recommendations of the Interview Committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The Superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. Once the Superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of Directors for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a Principal, the Superintendent may reassign the Principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. When approved, the candidate shall receive a contract which details his information. salary. pay grade. and other pertinent PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET little rock, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST May 10, 1994 now accepting applications for Rock School District is the 1994-95 school year. The Little the following positions for POSITIONS: Principals - Six (6) Positions __\n- (1) williams Magnet Magnet (1) Carver Magnet (1) Franklin (1) Gibbs (1) Mitchell Incentive (1) Rightsell Incentive Incentive qualifications: 1. At least five (5) years experience administrator. as a teacher and/or 7 2 . A master's degree or higher certification as an e with eligibility for Arkansa lementary principal.... s 3 . Evidence of strong organizational skills. 4 . Knowledge of ing methods. curriculum development and successful teach 5. Demonstrates and will learn in the conviction the Little 6. 7 . 8. students can learn that all -.\nRock School District. Evidence of strong experience in dealing with student problems. Evidence of involvement. Evidence successful experience with parent and staff of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. evidence of THESE BASIC performance RES PONS IB. IES: 1. Assumes re\nof his/her sponsibility for the management -- chief advisor and monitoring to the 2 . school, and serves as a^cni^t superintendent v-t-a i ni na ^KadmKiSli?2n^ budget, and S'S?ts%\nRainin, to . implementation in matters program his/her school. and Works with _ . priorities program staff and patrons and goals to determine for his/her educational school.^^^^^?|rFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Continued) BASIC 3 . Implements the proces s whereby school-level educational 4 . 5 . 6. 7 . 8 . Informs the appropriate oroorams needs are identified. Lsociate/Assistant Superintendent regarding needs are needed logistical and consultative accomplish this task. support in order to Serves on and task forces as assigned by the appropriate such Ovisory^groups^^..^-^--^^ -superintendent. the development of educational programs Oversees - plan for implementing them on the school level. and the Works with supervisory and building staff to make the necessary program changes. Assumes responsibility for evaluation of all personnel Assumes responsibility Assumes administrative tasks. EVALUATION: Performance Evaluation conducting the performance assigned to his/her building. for all record keeping and other luated annually in i-hiq -iob will be evaluated annuaixi , -Visions Of the Board  s pel i=y of Administrative Personnel. on ORGANIZATIONAL PETATIONSHIP. Reports to the Deputy Superintendent. SAIARY and TERMS: Schedule - An Month Contract 'MuSSarsLpd, car Allouance Eleven (11) - ! and Benefits plus application DEADLINE: 1994, or any time Mav 19, 1994 , or any recommended and approve later until satisfactory applicants are SEND WRITTEN LETT_ERS OF INOUITVJTQ: Hurley Dr. Richard Resources School District Director o T ittle Rock--- 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201Principals NOTE: IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED COMPT ETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS . ,,m BeSuS an individual applies FOR A POSITION DOES NOT ---- INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. THEREFORE necessarily mean that an for Desegregation. It is criminate the policy of the Little Rock on the basis of age, sex. sex, School District not to discolor, religion, national activities disability in its educational programs, origin, employment practices. or orLITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. , PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. 363 cite BS 6S9 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Afk. 1987) Faulkner\nBob Moore: Don Hindman\nShirley Lowery: Sheryl Dunn\nDavid I i of .P. f MSP Sain: Bob Slender\nGrainger Williams\nRichard A. George A. Giddings\nMcCrary: Buddy Raines\nWard, Defendants, and Dale Katherine Knight, Individually and as President of The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA)\nLRCA\nEd Bullington, Individually and as President of The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)\nPACT\nJohn Harrison, Individually and as President of The North Little Rock Classroom Association (NLRCTA): NLRCTA: and Milton Jackson, Individually and as Certified Educational Support Employee of the Little Rock-5chool District, Lorene Joshua, as next friend of minors Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua and Teachers NLRCTA\na Non- ! i j 1 I. nors Lesue josnua. ouuvj Wayne Joshua\nRev. Robert Willing- ham\nSara Matthews, as next friend of nmiit kjo*** * 1 Khayyam Davis, Alexa Armstrong and Karlos Armstrong\nMrs. Alvin Hudson, friend of Tatia Hudson\nMrs. as next next friend of Parsha Hilton Taylor, as . Taylor, Hilton Taylor, Jr. and Brian Taylor, Rev. John M. Miles as next friend of Janice Miles and Dereck ineuu -. Miles\nRev. Robert Willingham on be- half of and as President of the Little Branch of the NAACP: Lorene Joshua on behalf of and as President of  Rock Branch of Rock the North Little NAACP, Intervenors. No. LR-C-82-866. 1 s: Q} d o =r little rock school district. Plaintiff, United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, W.D. vD CO COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL Tffl So\"b'SUU.e ROCK of Education\nWayne Hartsfield\nWal- A. Haines: Jim ter Turnbow\nHarry  Dupree\nDr. Harry P. McDonald\nRob- e^rt L. Newton: Alice L. Preston\nJeH Starling\nEarle Love\nBob Lyon\nJohn Ward\nJudy Wear\nLeon Barnes\nMa- Gosser\nSteve Morley, Mac Jeff rianna Feb. 27, 1987. Order March 4, 1987. School % ! desegregation plans were submitted. The for the Eastern District United SUtes District Court of Arkansas, 59/ RSupp 1220, held that countywide inter- [1059] il ii .1 I  1ll- il. r\u0026lt;' 364 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT ji district remedy had to be utilized to correct countywide interdistrict violations. Ap- peals were taken. The Court of Appeals, Heaney, Circuit Jude, 778 F.2d 404, held that violations could be remedied by less intrusive measures and remanded. On remand, the District Court, Henry Woods, J., held that: (1) stipulations between State Board of Education and defendant school I Education and defendant school districts, ______ ________ whereby districts proposed to desegregate segregate schools, inter alia, by allowing schools, inter alia, by allowing black and white students who were in ratio majority at their respective schools to transfer to districts, whereby districts proposed to deI J J i I black and white students who were in racial majority to transfer to other schools within any participating district, would be approved in its entirety\n(2) plan for desegregation of school district, whereby district agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for recruitment and promotion of blacks to administrative positions within school system, to provide early childhood program to identify and provide special assistance to black children who continued to suffer trickle-down effects of past segregation, and to improve participation of blacks in gifted and talented programs by using racially neutral screening tests, would be approved in all respects\nand (3) that portion of school districts plan for desegregation, which proposed to correct overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes through use of culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring, and to assure black student participation and extracurricular activities by affirmative recruitment plan, would also be approved. So ordered. See also, 805 F.2d 815. r 1. Schools =13(14) Magnet review committee report and related stipulations, whereby defendant in school desegregation case agreed to use 50-50 black to white ratio for magnet program enrollment while allowing students presently enrolled at existing magnet schools to continue in those schools as appropriate, would be approved in their entirety. 2. Schools \u0026lt;5=13(14) In school desegregation case, students who were presently enrolled at magnet Rock, Ark., for plaintiff. [1060] schools would be allowed to finish their education at such schools, where evidence was presented that involved parents had contributed greatly to schools' success. J i 3. Schools \u0026lt;5=13(14) Stipulations between Suite Board of other schools within any participating district, would be approved in their entirety. 4. Schools \u0026lt;s=13(6) Plan for desegregation of school district, whereby district agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for recruitment and promotion of blacks to administrative positions within school system, to provide early childhood programs to identify and provide special assistance to black children who continued to suffer trickle- down effects of past segregation, and to improve participation of blacks in gifted and talented programs by using racially neutral screening tests, reflected solid and workable approach to end segregation in district and would be approved in all respects. I t i I i Order 5. Schools \u0026lt;5=13(6) That portion of school districts plan for desegregation, which proposed to correct overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes through use of culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring, and to assure black student participation in extracurricular activities by affirmative recruitment plan, would be approved. I t i I P.A. Hollingsworth, Philip . Kaplan, Janet L. Pulliam, John M. Bilheimer, Little II I C 1 LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. die 0 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, Little Rock, Ark., Neal, Gerber \u0026amp; Eisenberg, Chicago, Ill., for Pulaski County Special School Dist., No. 1, Mac Faulkner, Bob Moore, Don Hindman, Shirley Lowery, Sheryl Dunn, David Sain and Bob Stender. C.R. McNair, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sharon Streett, Dept, of Educ., Little Rock, Ark., for Arkansas State Bd. of Educ., Wayne Hartsfield, Walter Turnbow, Harry A. Haines, Jim Dupree, Dr. Harry P. McDonald, Robert L. Newton, Alice L. Preston, Jeff Starling and Earle Love. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, Little Rock, Ark., for North Little Rock School Dist., Bob Lyon, John Ward, Judy Wear, Leon Barnes, Marianna Gosser and Steve Morley. Stephen L. Curry, Little Rock, Ark., for Grainger Williams, Richard A. Giddings, George A. McCrary, Buddy Raines and Dale Ward. Theodore Shaw, New York City, John W. ill 365 tion of the magnet school plans of the other parties and a critique of the plan of the Magnet Review Committee. At the 1 close of the testimony on January 30, I suggested that the parties again confer and attempt to reach an agreement on the magnet school portion of the Eighth Circuit mandate. (R. 568-69). El] On February 17, 1987, the hearing was resumed to take up not only the mag- net school issues but also the student as- signment plans submitted by the Pulaski County Special School District (hereafter PCSD), the North Little Rock School District (hereafter NLRSD), and the Little Rock School District (hereafter LRSD). The three districts and the State Department of Education then advised the court that they had agreed by stipulation to a magnet school plan for the County which had been submitted to the Magnet Review Committee and approved by the latter. (R. 577). In open court the Joshua intervenors advised that they had no objections to the I Walker, Little Rock, Ark., for intervenors stipulation and were in general agreement Joshua, et al. Richard Roachell, Cearley, Mitchell \u0026amp; Roachell, Little Rock, Ark., for intervenors Knight, et al. INTERIM ORDER ENFORCING MANDATE OF COURT OF APPEALS HENRY WOODS, District Judge. In conformity with the opinion of the Court of Appeals dated November 7, 1985, 778 F.2d 404 (Sth Cir.), and the ensuing with its terms. Since the Knight intervenors had not been party to the negotiations leading to the stipulation, they declined to approve the plan but interposed no objection thereto. I have examined the stipulation in detail. In my opinion it is an excellent compromise of the many complex issues involved in magnet schools. The stipulated settlement is in all respects approved. A copy of the stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference in this order. All of the parties except the Joshua and Knight intervenors have also stated in open I I 'Im I\nII I' I I mandate, a hearing was held on January court that the provisions of the Magnet Review Committee Report dated January 29-30, 1987, to consider the recommendation of the Magnet Review Committee concerning the locations, themes, dates, operation, transportation, seat allocations, tar- 22, 1987 (MRC) not superseded by Exhibit A were stipulated as binding on the three districts and the State Board of Education. (R. 582-21). The Magnet Review Commit- I geted ratios, and administration of the magnet schools in this county. January We Report is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 1 i 29th and 30th were devoted to testimony adduced by the Magnet Review Committee on behalf of its plan. The hearing was adjourned to continue the week of February 17, 1987 a presenta- The stipulation and agreement as aforesaid are approved in all respects. On behalf of all the parties, the attorney for the Little Rock District dictated into the record some minor supplemental under- [1061] I 1'I t / \u0026gt;1 1 366 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT standings in connection with Exhibit A. (R. 577). These understandings have been reduced to letter form and have been marked as Exhibit C to this order and are implementation of the magnets including: renovations, teacher recruitment, staff incorporated herein by reference. These understandings are approved as supplemental to Exhibit A. [2] One issue remains with reference to the magnet schools presently in existence. That is the question of whether the students presently at the three magnet schools should remain and finish at the schools which they have been attending. Based on the evidence presented, I am convinced that the past success of these schools is the best argument for continuing the present student body as much as possible. Involved parents, black and white, of children attending these schools have contributed greatly to their success and have invested a huge amount of time and energy in making these schools outstanding. It would be a mistake in my opinion to dump these students and sUrt anew. There will of course be attrition and new seats available through graduation, but the students presently enrolled in Booker, Mann and Williams shall have a right to continue in these schools. The responsibilities of the Magnet Review Committee, as agreed by the three districts and the State Board of Education, training and development, community input i and involvement, and student recruitment. / The Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors have both asked for representation on the Magnet Review Committee by a voting membership. 1 am unable to comply with this request. The Court of Appeals set forth in clear and unequivocal terms the makeup of the Magnet Review Committee. At the request of all the parties, I did give the Joshua intervenors a non-voting member of the Committee. This was a modification agreed upon by all the parties that did not affect the basic structure of the Magnet Review Committee. The request of the Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors for a voting representation on the Magnet Review Committee is hereby denied. The financing of the magnet school plan has been stipulated\nit is approved as cov- appear at pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit B here- The Committee shall be financed as to. agreed by the parties with a budget of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) with Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,- 000) or half to be paid by the State and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) by each of the three districts. The MRC will necessarily work closely with the three districts and the State in order to have the six magnet schools ready for the 1987-88 school year. The MRC should report to the court on May 1, 1987, on July 1, 1987 and again on September 1, 1987 to inform the court of progress made in implementing the magnet schools. While the reports need not be lengthy, so as to be burdensome to the MRC, certainly the MRC reports should keep the court abreast of the status of critical aspects of ered in the stipulation (Exhibit A) and in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. In addition to the financing relating to magnet schools and to majority-to-minority transfers, there is only one other reference to state financing in the Court of Appeals decision. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 435 (Sth Cir.1985): If the four all- or nearly all-black elementary schools as conditionally allowed by this Court in Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock, 705 F.2d 265 (Sth Cir.1983), are retained in LRSD, compensatory and remedial programs of the type that we required for the nonintegrated schools in St. Louis shall be put into effect for the four schools. See Liddell v. State of Missouri, 731 F.2d [1294] at 1312-18 [Sth Cir.1984]. The additional cost of these programs shall be paid for by the Sute of Arkansas. Since there are no all-black schools in the LRSD student assignment plan, the conditions are not present which would trigger state financing of compensatory education, as is obvious from the above language. The Little Rock District has requested other funding from the State. None of the 1- ) I (10621 1LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. 367 die u 659 F.Supp. 365 (E.D.Ark. 1987) funding is required by the Court of Appeals ruling. The States share of the magnet school funding will be considerable. It will Strain the already meager resources of assigned students to special education das- the State at a time when the State has committed itself to new standards for all Arkansas public schools. Although the blacks in Little Rock have suffered from the ravages of segregation, so have the blacks in every section and every county of the State. Significantly the new state standards provide for compensatory education for all students where performance is substandard. (State Exhibit MX 25). [3] The parties have agreed upon a sys- majority-to-minority tern for handling transfers. The stipulation setting forth this agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, is approved and is incorporated herein by reference. The three districts and the Joshua intervenors have also agreed upon a Pulaski County Education Cooperative \u0026lt; for staff development, distribution of audio visual resources, \"teacher center activities, purchasing and other cooperative efforts of mutual benefit. The stipulation establishing the cooperative venture, attached hereto as Exhibit E, is approved. After carefully considering the student assignment plan submitted by the PCSD, I have decided that it must be rejected for the reasons set forth in the record at pages ------------- was 61517. The district was given two weeks I I \"i 1 to submit an alternative plan. At the time the Countys student assignment plan is considered, the court will deal with the other criticisms set forth by the Court of Appeals. The broad outline of the student assignare currently underrepresented. Supple- mentally the NLRSD has agreed to develop uj ______-____  numerical goals and timetables for increas- been*awaiting the resolution of the magnet jpg the number of blacks to these positions, school issues. The Little Rock District is (Supplement plan 2.1). ment plan submitted by the LRSD is hereby approved. DeUiled assignments have I hereby authorized to proceed with its stu- as submitted to the dent assignment plan court in March, 1986. [4] The North Little Rock School District was found to have purposefully comii mitted a number of segregative acts, including the following which had an interdis- trict effect\n(a) failed to assign blacks to its crict eiiecu w ----------------- , , xit non central administration or to high school ehminated^^RbD principalships and coaching positions\n(b) concentrated whites in schools north of and blacks in schools south of Interstate 40\n(c) sifications on a discriminatory basis and (d) failed to apportion the burdens of transportation equally on black and white students. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D.Ark. 1984). These findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (Sth Cir.1985). In March, 1986, the NLRSD submitted an implementation plan designed to remedy the interdistrict effects of its constitutional violations. (March plan). Subsequently, in October of 1986, the NLRSD submitted a supplement to its implementation plan (supplement plan) which addressed remediation of intradistrict impact of its prior segregative acts. The NLRSD student assignment plan, the Storm Plan, has been in effect for a number of years. When properly implemented, the Storm Plan provides for a constitutional student assignment system and for equitable busing burdens between blacks and whites. According to its March plan, all NLRSD schools are currently desegregated and deficiencies found by this court have been corrected. This evidence 1 I I I I'ii iill II uncontradicted at the June, 1986 hear- The NLRSD plan includes a detailed staff recruitment component which, if implemented, should result in substantial gains in the area of recruitment and promotion of blacks to positions where they Remediation of the unconstitutional overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes consumes most of the NLRSDs March implemenUtion plan. As with the rest of its plan, if put into effect as proposed, the imbalance caused by the categorization of inordinate numbers of black students as retarded would be has suggested several [1063]VMXfc-u---- 368 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT { / J important monitoring procedures to insure compliance. (Supplement plan, 3.1). The NLRSD supplement plan also addresses remedies for intradistrict segregative acts. In the area of compensatory education for black children who continue to suffer the trickle-down effects of past segregation, the NLRSD plan proposes an early childhood program. The program includes a testing process so that educationally disadvantaged children, both black and while, can be identified and targeted for help at an early age. For the early grades, that help will be provided through teacher aides who will provide one-to-one tutoring, through supplementary reading instruction, and through implementation of the State Minimum Performance Tests. Reading remediation will also be provided at the junior high school level, as will computer assisted instruction in basic skills with indi- black children who are gifted/talented but culturally disadvantaged. In addition to the screening tests which recognize cultural differences (i.e. System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment), the NLRSD now uses an identification process which involves nominations and recommendations based on multiple criteria from a number of people. The ultimate placement of a child in the program is a group decision. (Supplement plan 8.1-8.4). In sum, the NLRSD has made great progress in each area where it was found to have been deficient. The NLRSDs March 1986 plan, as supplemented in October 1986, reflects a solid and workable approach, if implemented, to end segregation in that school district. The NLRSP plan is hereby approved in all respects. I I vidualized programs. ORDER [5] The Pulaski County Special School __________ District (PCSSD) was found purposefully to nuX^oTprograms aimed at the problem have committed a number of segreg jive of students who leave school prematurely acts with an interdistrict effect, (a) fade The excessively high drop- to comply with a 1968 desegregation court The NLRSD supplement plan includes a out raU o7blackVinThV NLRSD is one of order (Zinnamon v. Board of Education the most pressing problems for the blacks in that district. Proposed programs such as the WIN (We Intervene Now) and SAC constructed schools in of the Pulaski County Arkansas Special School District, No. LR-CR-C-154)\n(b) locations which en- sured that they would become racially identifiable\n(c) failed to allocate the burden of (Student Assignment Classwhich serves students who are suspended from their --------- _ sound and should busing equitably between black and white I regular classes) prove beneficial. are The violation relating to the disproportionate numbers of black students who are suspended or expelled for disciplinary rea sons has largely been eliminated. For example, in the 1985-86 school year. 48% of students\n(d) failed to hire and promote black teachers and staff\n(e) refused to allow deannexation to or consolidation with the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD)\n(f) failed to assign students to schools in such a way as to maximize cnlndAd Students were black. While to schools in such a way as co ,he suspended desegregation\n(g) assigned students tu this percentage the actual percentage of black students S pecial education classifications and gifted   *  ..  Urt to* iHl enlolUdVlOW, the deviaUon is not so great programs on a \u0026lt;'1'' JJJ  t ndieate a continuing problem at th . assigned black principals  -lb ^-S'Sa^i^n a,. rhiriS 1 1 I The NLRSD has made strides in improv- ing the participation of black students in its Talented orocram. The Gifted and program. NLRSD supplement plan includes a num- ber of safeguards to insure identification of [1064] schools there. Little Rock to build new -------- r- \nSchool District v. Pulaski Co. Special School District, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (^.D^ Ark.1984). These findings were affirmed Little Rock by the Court of Appeals. II nnve en- UdeiV iSiof lEfSP  JW\nV? llifect maximiie Wto fgifted I iSF(h) I LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. die 0 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) 369 School District v. Pulaski County Special into sites for proposed new construction. School District, IIS F.2d 404, 418 (Sth While no schools have been constructed during the pendency of this case, two i w Cir.1985). Many of the violations have already been curedeither by court order or by affirmative actions of the PCSSD. The deannexa- tion/consolidation violation has been cured elementary schools are now proposed. Ihe sites chosen conform to the board's new policy and are approved. In that same vein, progress has been made recentv in Jiff^ost I'gngraded Md'failed by the redrawing of boundary lines which separate the districts. The failure to comply with Zinnamon includes the failure to appoint black members to the PCSSD board. By order of this court dated December 1, 1986, the PCSSD will now elect board members from zones. According to the plan submitted and approved, one of the zones will be majority black and another will be 407. black, 587. white and 27. other. This remedy supercedes that portion of Zinnamon dealing with black school board members. The ceding of the improving the physical plants in sc .on s such as Harris and Scott which were racial- ly identifiably black. The PCSSD has made continuous progress in hiring and promoting black fac- An affirmative action plan was 1984, ulty. adopted by the PCSSD board in which has apparently been successful. As of November, 1985, 22.67. of the PC-b\u0026gt;D from LRSD to Granite Mountain area PCSSD includes the transfer of public to PCSSD. Moreover, there housing areas are apparently other public housing developments in the PCSSD. PCSSD Exhibits teachers were black as compared with a 23.67. black student population. PCSSD Plan Appendix I. Further, the district has a goal to have black teachers make up 20-307. of the faculty in each school\n, tl.e district. PCSSD Plan, Appendix 1. Similarly, the affirmative action plan for administrative staff appears to have been successful, although there remains under18 and 20 in June, 1986 hearing. PCSSD representation in two specific categories. has created a new position in the superincoordinators and directors. In spite of these specific areas which should be carefully monitored, the percentage of I ck administrators (24.77o) is good and indicates among other Quties, reiav^ -- aeficien- velopers and planning agencies. PCSSD v The PCSSD student , u  soon be submitted and The overrepresentation of blacks i cial education classes can perhaps b' use of culturally un- tendents office, the Coordinator of Housing and Integration. This staff person will. Other duties, relate to realtors, de- PCSSD Exhibit R-2, p. 4. assignment plan will be submitted and at that time the issues of desegregation in student assignments and equiUble allocation of busing burdens will be addressed. School site selection involves two sepa- rate violations. First, the construction of new schools where they are likely to be racially identifiable and second, the closing or downgrading of schools closest to centers of black population. Since this lawsuit was filed, the PCSSD board has adopted a policy making desegregation and equal to school primary goals in cess decisions to build? renovate, or discontinue use of a school. Plan, March 1986 (hereafter PCSSD Plan) Appen- PCSSD Implementation remedied through the 1 S'C- rjst be biased screening and subsequent monitor- PCSSD plan includes both of ing The incluoes ooui vx these elements. The result of the plan has been a marked drop in the percentage of blacks classified as requiring special^ education. While the percentage designate., for PCSSD Plan, Appendix G. of blacks designate!, special education is 4.27 higher than the percentage that deviation is range. of white children so designated. within an acceptable .nt in ex- The PCSSD plan includes a comm, to assure black student participation Notably, in the lOU i ja**/   _ _ Hnusine and tracurricular activities. UM. M. ----------- Housing students com- Integration obviously should have input 1985-86 school ye dix B. The Coordinator nr i' 370 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 1 J prised 287- of the membership in extracurricular activities. PCSSD plan. Appendix G. An affirmative recruitment plan will be implemented to remedy underrepresenU- tion in activities where it occurs. PCSSD Plan, Appendix H. The foregoing proposals of the PCSSD desegregation plan represent not only a turn in the right direction, but also significant progress toward achieving a unitary school district. While much remains to be done, much has been accomplished. Accordingly, this portion of the PCSSD desegregation plan is hereby approved. School \u0026amp; Program CarverBasic Skills Math-Science WilliamsBasic Skills BookerArts GibbsForeign Language/ International Studies MannMath-Sciences/Arts ParkviewArts-Performing Arts Total EXHIBIT A STIPULATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MAGNET SCHOOLS The undersigned parties have agreed to make the following described recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee for its consideration in formulating its recommendation regarding magnet schools. LOCATIONS AND THEMES The parties have agreed to recommend the following magnet school locations and programs\nGrade Target Enrollment * K-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 7-9 10-12 ! 475 530 720 348 975 1150 4198 The curriculum at magnet schools will emphasize the magnet theme and all magits implementation timetable at the time a magnet proposal is submitted to the Court. I I I co? alt students must fully participate in magnet courses. As well as the magnet theme, net all magnet schools will have strong academically-oriented curricula. financing New magnets or expansion of magnets already existing may be provided for subsequent school years beginning 1988-89 under the provisions of the Order of September 3, 1986. Any party may present for a magnet school or program not later than the beginning of each school year preceeding the proposed year of implementation. The Committee s deci- applications sion and in recommendation shall be sub- OlUU OHU .....................- mitted to the parties no later than Novem- ber 15 The MRC shall make its recom- the Court not later than Demendation to cember 15. IMPLEMENTATION The parties propose that the District The parties agree to the financing formulas proposed by the Magnet Review Committee at the hearing held on January 29 and 30, 1987. These formulas require the State to pay one-half (Va) of the actual costs of the construction or renovation of magnet schools as well as the customary state aid and one-half W the cost of educating the magnet students attending those schools. It is understood that any district which does not provide a student to fill an allocated seat, and said seat is not occupied by other student, will be required to pay to'the host district as its full liability for any child cost of the said unfilled seat the per host districts debt service payment, both principal and interest, for the construction or renovation of the schools in the magnet lUC pa* Court order the implementation of the six (6) aforementioned magnet schools for the P   The host district 1987-1988 school year. shall provide to the MRC and to the parties [1086] program, I. The host district will provide 1 accounting and budgeting infor- to mation regarding the magnet program the Magnet Review Committee for review. of.^S cuSS that for^ less becaw plaii^ cha^ tc-O traaaaa net/S ervffi mam cosS dentu men^ Tra^ scli(w| ister^ seni^ thal'S U.S.M for thea POP!^ bla^ The^ scliOM be  mubm capa^LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. - PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST Cite u 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 19S7) INTERDISTRICT 371 TRANSPORTATION PLAN The State Board of Education remains committed to underwriting the entire actual cost of transporting magnet and M-to-M transfer students, which includes the cost extra- of transporting these students for curricular activities. The districts agree that transportation of magnet/M-to-M stu- dents should be performed utilizing mea- sures which are most cost efficient. The interdistrict transportation plan shall not be used as a means to seek compensation for additional transportation vehicles unless such vehicles are directly necessary because of the interdistrict transportation plan. New full-sized school buses I pur- chased in order to transport magnet/M- to-M students will be added to the total transportation fleet costs and applied on a pro rata basis to the transportation of magnet/M-to-M students. The cost of any other vehicles purchased to transport isolated magnet/M-to-M students will be prorated according to their actual use in transporting magnet/M-to-M students. 'V Each dis- trict agrees to separately account for the costs of transporting magnet/M-to-M students and to make those records fully available to representatives of the State Department of Education at any reasonable time. The parties agree that the Interdistrict t'on of seats. The three districts agree Transportation Plan for both magnet that each district will establish an open schools and M-to-M transfers will be admin- B' istered by an Interdistrict Transportation will be permitted to determine how children Authority (ITA). The ITA shall be composed of the Transportation Director or other designee of each district and a representative of the State. The parties agree that any conflict may be determined by a U.S. Magistrate acting as a Special Master for the District Court. iIKa SEAT ALLOCATION All magnet schools shall have a student i population which is fifty percent (50%) school will be considered as an M-to-M black and fifty percent (50%) non-black. The parties agree that for the 1987-88 school year the magnet school seats shall be allocated according to the following for-  mula\nTwenty-five per centum (257o) of the capacity of a magnet school shall be re- served for the shadow area in the host per district. The remaining seventy-five per centum (75%) of the seats shall be allocated to each of the three districts in proportion to that districts percentage of county-wide students at each school level (elementary, junior high, or senior high). At the elemen- tary level each district shall allocate its seats in proportion to the racial ratio present in such district at the elementary level. At the secondary level, each district shall allocate all its seats on the basis of 50% black, 50% non-.black. However, the total number of seats assigned to the North Little Rock- School District shall not exceed 475 seats with no more than 100 seats being allocated to the North Little Rock School District from Parkview. It is understood that seat allocations will not be made by district to a particulai school, but only by elementary, junior high and senior high level. Therefore, a particular district will be permitted to use its allocated seats in accordance with the desires of its students subject to space limitations in particular magnet schools and the maintenance of a 50-50 racial balance. If there is oversubscription among the districts by race, grade or school each district may make a recommendation to the MRC for its approval regarding actual distribu- I i !l I enrollment policy for magnet schools and will be selected for the magnet seats allocated to each district pursuant to that policy. This provision shall not prohibit the establishment of geographic preference areas where appropriate. In the event there are unused seats by any district then persons on waiting lists to attend from the other districts shall be permitted to attend before any seat is left vacant. No student attending a magnet I I transfer student for incentive payment purposes. TARGETED RATIOS The parties have previously submitted to the Court a proposed stipulation for M-to-M (1067)cNh 372 659 FEDERzVL SUPPLEMENT I ( 1I 1 transfers which in part recognizes that if M-lo-M transfers occur, ratios targeted by anv of the districts for particular schools might be affected depending upon the locations from which M-to-M transfers occur. The parties in that stipulation agreed that the first priority should be a successful M-to-M transfer program and that if it did affect targeted ratios, such departures would not be regarded or urged as constitutional violations or departures from desegregation plans. The parties further recognize that a successful operation of the magnet school program could potentially have the same or similar effects upon targeted ratios. The parties therefore recommend that any magnet transfers not be counted as a departure from a desegregation plan or urged as a constitutional violation. be composed of the person from each school district and the State responsible for desegregation planning, and two additional persons selected by each of the following parties: Joshua Intervenors Little Rock School District North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District State of Arkansas These additional representatives of the MET shall not be employees or officials of any of the districts or the State. February 16, 1987 PCSSD Administrative Offices The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) dorses the foregoing stipulations. Pulaski County Special School District en- 1 re^ as| 4 na ih^  iJ 1.1 iH I LITTLE ROCK MAGNET GRANT The parties agree and recommend that, should the Little Rock District now or in the future prove successful in obtaining grants for the operation of magnet schools, any such monies shall be applied off the top to the obligations of all parties. The parties further agree and recommend to the Court that they cooperate in the development of an application for any future magnet grants. /s/ Gene Jones North Lillie Rock School District /s/ James R. Smith Little Rock School District /s/ Jesse L. Rancifer Arkansas Department of Education /s/ Marcia A. Harding Arkansas Department of Education administration /s/ Morris F. Holmes I- INI Thd schooU respou der iid The daily administration and operation of the magnet schools shall be the responsibility of the host district. The host district shall designate a person who shall have principal responsibility for overseeing the development and implementation of its magnet program. STUDENT RECRUITMENT The parties agree that the Magnet Review Committee shall establish a Mag-net/ M-to-M Educational Team (MET). The major responsibilities of the MET shall in-elude community education and information dissemination of educational opportunities in the magnet programs and recruitment for both magnets and M to M transfers. It shall report to the MRC. The MET shall [1068] EXHIBIT B MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE report to the COURT January 22, 1987 The Honorable Henry Woods U.S. Federal District Court Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Woods: The Magnet Review Committee submits for your consideration the attached report including nine separate recommendations concerning magnet schools in Pulaski County. e ratio  ova live  mi to th^ lion, SI magnel  IK necea adminij  mo.i) ing clia magnel 5. Verbal Communication/Instruction to Interview Teams INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Prior to the consideration and selection of Interview Committees for the 1994-95 principalships at various schools in the district, a meeting was held on May 31, 1994, to discuss the interview protocol to be used. It was agreed between the participants that although there was no written procedure or policy, there has been a well-known long-standing past practice of inteiwiew protocol. The above-mentioned interview protocol was to be used for selection of the 1994-95 principalships. It was further agreed that this protocol would be documented and incorporated into the Personnel section of the Policy and Procedures Manual. Attending the meeting were Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Mr. Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations\nand Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources.f: 11 I- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS School Principal shall file Persons desiring employment as a an application in writing (Resume, letter of intent, are acceotable for the initial contact. District application or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact. forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with Little Rock School District.) District administration officials will screen , the applicants for acceptability. Taken into consideration certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. acceptability. experience, The Deputy into are education, Superintendent Superintendent(s) will prepare to be used in the interview process. a and/or the Assistant list of interview questions The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (ie. Affirmative Action, E.E.O., Americans with Disability Act, etc.) An interview committee will be selected/appointed, follows: as Three Two Three (3) (2) (3) Parents/Patrons Teachers Administration Representatives Note:1 Note:2 Note:3 1. will be selected by The Parent/Patrons representatives designated by the PTA president of the a process: of the affected school. 2 . The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by.the Administration. 3 . The Deputy Superintendent Assistant (in consultation with Superintendents, appropriate staff - Supervisors, and Principals) Administration representatives. *NOTE: The committee's composition.shall he balanced, as nearly as possible, by may designate the race and gender.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10. t J 'J ..'.J I: j J EPS CODE: GCAB 1 The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will be provided folders containing the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) An interview schedule The approved interview questions An approved candidate rating form The applicant's application materials The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the Superintendent. (Note: Although the applicants are rated, the ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) The Superintendent shall review the recommendations of the Interview Committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The Superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. the Superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of_ Directors for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a Principal, the Superintendent may reassign the Principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. Once When approved, the candidate shall receive a details his salary, pay grade, other his pay and contract which pertinent information.A' D f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASTEQN district ARKANSAS SEP 3 1986 CARL R. EREN 13, CLERK ey:________:______________ ,'.CP. CLE.'dC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECbAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Ct al DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ns Next Friend of Minors LESLIE JOSHUA, et al INTERVENORS ORDER Pursuant to the agreement entitled \"Stipulation For Proposed Order Concerning Magnet Review Committee\" filed by the three  party school districts and the Arkansas the following Order is hereby entered: o tate Board of Education,: The subject of this stipulation was addressed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its opinion of November 7, 1985 , styled as above and reported at 778 F.2d 404, 436 (Sth Cir. 1985 ) . 1. Plaintiff and each of the defendant school districts will appoint a member of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) and report th name of that person to the Court within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order. The defendants State Department of Education will appoint two members of the MRC and report the names of those persons to the Court within ten (10) days. The Joshua intervenors will appoint a person to the MRC to- serve, SEP-8 1986 ATTORNEY general OF ARKANSASc ex-officio, and report within ten (10) days. the names of that person to the Court Plaintiff and defendants will confer wi tlii n the ten -day period conccrninc those to be named in an attempt to insure til at the MIvC tins at least two black members, A excluding 2 . Order, the ex-officio member. 'Within twenty-one the MRC shall meet magnet school program. planning (21)- days from the entry of this to begin planning an interdistrict _ The MRC shall develop a and implement in planning process A. t ime table for the magnet school program. the MRC shall: Consider plans and proposals the parties\nB. C. Dur i n o the for magnet schools by Hear evidence Submit, for proposals to the D. ef.f ects E. presented by the parties\ncomment and evaluation, parties for their Evaluate interim corrment and/oi er i t i c i sm\nboth the segregative and desegregative of any proposals a-d vanced for magnet schools. Make findings concerning the number, location. stalting, racial ratios, and themes et In determining the number and location the MRC shall have as the magnet schools, .of magnet schools. its primary objective of effective desegregation. magnets ordinarily shall be located in may 0 r proximate make exceptions Williams School may the furtherance Consistent with this objective. established in school facilities to black residential areas. The MRC to this general rule\nfor example. be retained as a magnet. 23 . c ( The MRC shall report its findings to the Court, together with such recommendations as may be necessary to the efficient operat ion and administration of the magnet schools. Any member of the MRC may file con surring or dissenting reports. The MRC report and recommendations, and any concurring or dissenting repor t s, mus t be submitted to the Court on or before December 15, 1986, which deadline may be extended by the Court for good cause shown. The pa r t i es will seek a prompt hearing and determination by the Court on the MRC recomnendQtions. 4 . Upon implementation of the magnet school program. the MRC will continue to monitor, evaluate, and reconmend changes 1 n the actual operation of the magnet schools. I The MRC will file an annual report with this Court. In performing its functions under this paragraph the MRC shall follow the guidelines and procedures OU 11i nec in the preceding paragraphs. The 'IRC may retain a consultant to assist in the magnet 5 . planning process, and the parties may retain other experts and I consultants 6 . to make presentations or assist in the process. The representative shall be nonvoting, but participate fully in- 7 . on any of the Joshua intervenors on shall otherwise be entitled to all aspects of the deliberations Any party, at any time, may move re commend a_t_i_pn or Th i s the MRC of the MRC. the Court for a hearing report of the MRC. day of September, 1986 . I S. DistricTJudge  3 de -en t entered on docket sheet Ath Rulo 580 JUL 061987 OR 'ARKAt'SAS U.S cr.-JiT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL CW!L R. CREM'S, CLEH. cf p. Ct' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al NO. LR-C-82-866 DEFENDANTS ORDER After hearing from a number of witnesses, including magnet school principals and curricula specialists, and upon reviewing the Magnet Review Comm i 11 e e (MRC) reports. I remain steadfastly optimistic that six quality interdistrict magnet schools can and will be ready by fall. Th is will. of course, require the full cooperation of everyone involved. The pr incipals are most impressive and will provide excellent leadership, in spite of the manner in w..ich they were selected. Proper procedures have now been instituted for staff --_ selection. The attorneys have he 1987-88 school year reached a comp romi s e of $3100 uer i s hereby approved. All parties agree that so on the budget for ma gnet student. the role of the MRC mus that the interdistrict magnet schools can success fully implemented and operated. committee such as i n Th i s f i gu r t be c 1 ar i f/i ed be efficiently and Divergent opinions the MRC are not only inevitable thoroughly examining options. The i n a but are helpful current problem with the MRC is not that members differ in perspectives and opinions. butthat any vote wh i ch i s less than unanimous 1 s V i ev/ed by the parties as a s talemate to be resolved by the attorneys. At first blush it is tempting to a How the parties to compromise and reach agreement however through the MRC they choose, whether through their attorneys o r it runs That IS not a realistic long-term solution and counter to the clear intent of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in order ing the MRC to \"administer tl the magnets. . Generally educational decisions should be made by educators, no t by lawyers. For the mo st part, the MRC i s composed of members with exce1 lent ct edent ials and abilities i n the field 0 e educat ion. The recent opinion in the St. light on what the Court of Appeals Louis desegregation intended the role case sheds of the MRC in our corrmun i ty to be. i d d e 11 , et al V- Board of Edu_cati!h e t al , No. 86-1511, slip 01 . (8th Cir. June 8 , 1987 ) . (\"Liddell X\") . Initially it is clear that the MRC i s a decision-ma king, rather than merely an adv i sory, body. Both the MRC m Li tt . c Rock/Nor th Little Rock and Metropolitan Coordinat ing Commi 11 ee (MCC) in St. Lou i s were charged with the task o f admi n i s t er i ng specialty s choo1s. In St. Louis, the MCC was formed and given author i ty to admin i s ter the interdistrict vocational schools jus: as the MRC was formed i n this case to admi n i s t er the magnet schoo 1 s . I n the St. Lou i s case, by agre eme n t, the day -1 o -\u0026lt; a. operation of the schools rested not with the MCC but with boards o f educat ion of the host districts. The r e spons ib i 1 i t ies reserved to the boards included tl the operation o f the respective 2.. -A programs, emo 1oyment o f staff, developmen t of personnel and - appropr i at i on of funds to meet each district's needs. 11 Subsequen t to the agreemen t, the district court ordered two voca t i onal schools closed and further ordered the MCC to develop a staffing plan to accommodate the reduced and reassigned staff members in those closi ng schools. The City Boa rd of Education. argued on appeal that empowering the MCC to develop a restaffing plan infringed on the powe r s reserved to the boards o f educat i on. The_c^uit of appeals held: We find little merit in It is clear th i s content ion. add itional authority 'independence .. schools and and MCC must be objectivity than   Even''i^th 'its po' t Vh. MCC musV have the close eooperat.on the MU.^ is to succeed. the that . must be permitted to than 1t has in are be Even i ts the J Li dde 11 X at 2 7. have the 0 f dTstn'cs It Ithel plan Similarly the parties to this case have distr ict of a magnet school should make the agreed that the host day-to-day decisions regarding the operation D will not be of the school. This agreement cannot and construed to relegate the MRC t o the status o f an unused appendage. The court in unequivocal language directed the MCC in St. Lou i s to make independent investigatio_ns, evsluations i and decisions\nThere is no evidence the matter, or made respect  pract ice to or it. thoroughly revi'ewed that [the MCC1 independent cour t indicated. an decision w i I h the district cannot be permi this The MCC must itted to continue. responsibility given to it the ,ted to exercise^.^^,^ be permi district court by the Li dde11 X at 22. Accordingly, the role o f the MRC 1 s to make r ecorrmended 3poll cy decisions. regarding the opera t i on ...o f -the magnet . schools. _ Those decisions should then be conmunicated, in a written report, to the court for approval. The report should reflect the process used to reach decisions and shou Id reflect independent fact-finding. Ob jections to MRC reports should be filed wi th the court within 20 days, after which the court will approve, mod i fy or reject the MRC's r ecornrienda t ions. The court has neither the t ime nor the inclination to provide a laundry list of \"policy\" decis ions as d i s t i ngu i shed from \"day-to-day II decisions. By way of example. 1 n select! ng staff, the MRC should set the criteria to be used 'or process by which teachers are selected for magnet schools\nthe host district would implement that policy by appropr lately selecting the teachers. With respect .to seat allocation, the MRC should establish a polJ_cy_Lo.r__seat. al locat i on...wi_t_h.iA_te bounds of the s t i pu 1 at i^on wh i ch  s h o u 1 d__s e t__it s schools from all three districts. Each district criteria for select ion o f i ts students for magne t schools to enhance 11 desegregat ion efforts. For the 1987 -88 __s_chopiJ/ea the parties have agreed, and i t i s hereby approved. that all North Little Rock Schoo 1 District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special Schpol District (PCSSD) students who applied for magnel schools as o\nMay 22, 1987 may attend the magnet schools they have chosen. As agreed by the parties. the Ji.umber_,o f jea t s__a_l 1 oc_a^e d\n NLRSD and PCSSD are_to be broken down_ o_n _an _org anizational level 4Zach Polett sr 501-376-2423 DU 6/17/94 0:02 AM Liab GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 TO\nDr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSD Deputy Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Meeting Preparation for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials: . 1) A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesday's interviews. 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview process. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration 1 G'ibb$\\ schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. AttachmentsZach Poletl XT 501-376-2423 026/17/94 WO.UJAM 03/\u0026amp; Partial I ist of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selectioa Committee 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain why this lesson worked well. 2) Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficiency in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? 5) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? 6) What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary matters? 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 10) What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children?Zach Polett  501-3/\u0026amp;-2X23 J 6/17/94 Partial List of Applicants We Would Like to Interview on Tuesday. June 7 Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan StraussZach Polett W 501-376-2423 0116/17/94  8:05 AM L35/5 Proposed Procedures for Interview Process 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. We understand from discussion with Estelle Matthis on Friday, May 2) 27 that the application process was being kept open. If after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next principal of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working closely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible principal for Gibbs Elementary.TO\nGIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/15/94 Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Wilhelmina Lewellen Vickie Gonterman Gibbs Staff Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Follow Up to Our Memorandum of June 4, 1 994 As members of the LRSD's Gibbs Principal Selection Committee, we again respectfully request to interview the following people for the principalship of Gibbs at the earliest convenience: Sharon Davis Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Diane Barksdale Katherine Tweedie Please ask your staff to schedule these interviews as soon as it is feasible. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.PARENT GIBBS ELEMENTARY ' - TEACHER ASSOCIATION June 17, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District HAND DELIVERED 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Dr. Williams: on behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank you Again, Gu  ...................... - ---------------- ------------, vour time in discussing the selection process with us. . ___ ________.J_____i- _________ i- 4-,^ I for your time in discussing the selection process wiun us. think we can all agree that an important component to this successful functioning of not only an individual school such as Gibbs but of the entire school district is the meaningful and significant involvement of parents and teachers in the decision-making process. As parents and teachers, we observe, on a daily basis, how our schools operate and, therefore, can offer relevant input in the selection of a principal for our teachers. school. At the conclusion of our meeting, you indicated that you would review the process and procedures which have taken place You agreed to advise the committee whether or not you would permit us to interview additional candidates for the Recognizing that you will be involved in to date. principal's position. other activities through the end of this week, we ask that you notify us by 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 20, 1994. Although I believe we made it quite apparent during the I would like to reiterate that our course of our meeting, I would like to reiterate that our primary concern is with the validity of the procedure by which the next principal of Gibbs is to be determined. Although it stated by the administration that this particular in prior applications, it has been our is inherently and to be determined. has been procedure had \"worked\" that the process in this instance experience fatally flawed.Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Two When we initially learned that there would be a vacancy, the Gibbs PTA met and determined that we would like to be involved in the selection process. Subsequently, we undertook efforts to determine what the process would be and what we, the parents and faculty of Gibbs, needed to do in order to become a part of the At no time were we ever given specific or accurate process. information regarding the process and procedures to be employed in the selection of a new principal nor were we told what our Upon the recommendation of Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis, we met and selected a committee to represent role would be. Gibbs and drafted communications to the school district We also requested requesting involvement in the process, information regarding the names of applicants for the position but were not provided that information until third party filed a freedom of information request. Upon obtaining this information, the committee met and on June 4, 1994, submitted a list of names of candidates that we wished to interview, a list of questions to be posed to the applicants, and after learning by word of mouth some aspects of the selection procedure, a list of proposed procedures that we wished to be included. This letter was hand delivered to both your office and that of Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent by a member of the Gibbs Committee. However, it is apparent that neither you nor any administration representative on the selection committee ever saw this communique prior to the June 7, 1994 interview session. Committee. On June 7, 1994, the parents and faculty of Gibbs posed several questions to the administrative representatives on the selection committee. We asked how the five interviewees were selected and were told that all five had been selected based on their expressed interest in the Gibbs position. We are now told It was not until the expressed interest in the Gibbs position, by you that that was \"misinformation\". It was interview session that we were informed as to what the procedure Both before the for selection of the principal would be. and at the conclusion of the interviews. interview process we in the inquired of the administrative representatives whether, event that we were not satisfied with any of the applicants interviewed, could we interview additional applicants. response to our inquiries, we were told that the answer to our inquiry was unknown but were later told that, yes, if we could consensus on the applicants to be recommended to were later told that, yes. In not come to a you, the process would remain open and we would be able toDr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Three interview additional candidates. During the course of our meeting of June 15, you indicated that your representatives were \"misinformed\". The parent and faculty members of the selection committee reservations about the utilization of the also expressed serious Our concerns were the lack of prior input evaluation forms. into the questions to be posed to the applicants as well as the use the forms would serve in the selection process. We were assured that it would not simply be a matter of tabulating the scores and then selecting the top three candidates based on There was substantial reluctance on the simple mathematics. part of the faculty and parent members of the committee to fill out the forms until we gained assurances from the administration that those forms would not be used as set forth above. At the conclusion of the interview process, the consensus was that we had not interviewed a candidate that we'could r ecommend to the administration for the Gibbs principal After lengthy discussions, the group agreed not to position. , submit any names to the administration and that we would request the opportunity to interview additional candidates. Administration representatives insisted that the forms be filled out and that was done only after again receiving assurances that the forms not be used and the scores tabulated to arrive at three candidates based on the highest scores obtained. We were told that the only reason to fill out those forms was to fact that the committee had interviewed the five document the applicants. Additionally, several members of the committee_ expressly stated that any recommendation to the administration would not be based solely on the evaluation forms as those forms did not accurately reflect an individual's choices. As a general matter, it is difficult to understand how a principal can be selected based solely on a thirty minute interview. Dr . Williams, based on the foregoing, we simply ask that you provide us with an opportunity to interview additional candidates and complete what we believe is an incomplete process. I am, under separate cover, sending a copy of this letter to the individual members of the Little Rock School Board I am, under separate cover. as well as to Judge Susan Webber Wright and Donna Creer of the Magnet Review Committee.Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Four look forward to your response. Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman AFAjr/jc cc: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, AR BY: / ^f red . Angulo, 72114 T. Kevin O'Malley Ark. Board of Review Tower Building, Suite 700 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dorsey Jackson 1400 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John A. Riggs, IV J. A. Riggs Tractor Co. P.O. Box 1399 Little Rock, AR 72203 Linda Pondexter Fuller Jr. High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Patricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Oma Jacovelli 6622 Gold Court Little Rock, AR 72209 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Judge P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 \\^/ Donna Creer Magnet Review Committee 1920 N. Main North Little Rock, AR 72114 3860da GIBBS ELEMENTARY - TEACHER ASSOCIATION PARENT June 17, 1994 Dr. Katherine Mitchell T. Kevin O'Malley Dorsey Jackson John A. Riggs, IV Linda Pondexter Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Members of the Little Rock School Board: Henry Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to Dr. Williams following our committee's meeting with him on June 15, This letter is being provided to each of you so that you 1994 . ---- will be aware of our concerns regarding the selection process and procedures employed by the district administrationwhich was designed to result in the superintendent's recommendation to you of a new principal for Gibbs Magnet School. We believe that it is important for each of you to know that of the committee unanimously believe the parent-teacher members inherently and fatally flawed. that the process was if for no substantially eliminated any significant Other reason than it ... . and meaningful input by the parents and faculty at Gibbs. Additionally, the selection committee did not recommend any Williams for consideration for the principal names to Dr. position at Gibbs.Members of Little Rock School Board June 17, 1994 Page Two As you can see, we have simply asked Dr. Williams to allow us the opportunity to interview additional candidates for the position of Gibbs' principal. Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee APAjr/jc Enclosure 3861d Easter Willie Tucker Jones BY: A Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman MOV IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED NOV 0 51992 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 26, 1992, to the CARL R. BRENI8, CLERK DEP. c \"PX PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") submitted Court for review and approval a budget for the 199 2 9 3 school year for the six original magnet schools. (Document #1609.) On July 31, 1992, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a Special Status Report setting forth its operating budget for 1992- 93 . (Document #1649.) At a hearing on August 3, 1992, the Court /) heard testimony on budget reduction proposals by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Some of those cutbacks resulted in staff reductions at the magnet schools. The Court, with some exceptions. approved the LRSD's proposed reductions in an order filed on August 4, 1992. On September 28, 1992 the MRC wrote the Court, expressing its concern about certain LRSD budget cuts. It also addressed staffing changes at two of the magnet schools which resulted in a white principal and assistant principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School and a black principal and assistant ic Skills/Math-Science Magnet Elementary principal at Washington BasicSchool. (Document #1693.) The MRC complains that the LRSD failed in its obligation to work with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. The LRSD filed a response to the MRC's letter, basically arguing that the role of the MRC has changed since the establishment of the magnet schools during a period of the \"controlled choice desegregation plan. tl It contends that the MRC's role now is to recommend policy decisions which must be communicated in writing to the parties and approved by the Court. In addition, the LRSD contends there are no numerical goals or quotas in the parties' desegregation plans and the MRC's position that the new assistant principal at Gibbs should be removed from her job because of her race is in conflict with the law and the parties' plans. The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") responded that they support the LRSD's views.' Background of the Maqnet Review Committee. In November 1985 a opinion, the Eighth Circuit found constitutional violations on the part of the State of Arkansas, the PCSSD, and the NLRSD and included in the remedy the establishment of magnet schools. \"The district court may require a limited number of magnet or specialty 'The Court also received a concern about the effect of the LRSD budget cuts on the magnet See Exhibit A. letter dated September 23, 1992, from the attorney for the Joshua Intervenon.  * . -C - niin/irsal tn iiinh'a schoob and the assignment of a white vice-principal to Gibbs. -2-schools or programs to be established at locations to be determined initially by a Magnet Review Committee and approved by the district court after a hearing. If Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 436 (1985). The parties subsequently agreed upon the responsibilities of the MRC, which included oversight of staffing. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 659 F. Supp. 363, 373 (E.D.Ark. 1987) . Furthermore, on May 13, 1987, Judge Henry Woods stated that \"[sjtaffing of the magnets shall be made in close consultation with the principal and the MRC. If Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 660. F. Supp. 637, 644-45 (E.D.Ark. 1987). Judge Woods further noted that the Eighth Circuit stated that the magnet schools were to be administered by the MRC and that he considered staffing an important aspect of administration. Id. at 645. In orders entered later in May 1987, Judge Woods established the procedure for MRC review of staffing decisions: 8. Tentative selections shall be promptly submitted to the MRC for its review and comment. Any reservation or question raised by the MRC shall be promptly addressed by The MRC may, if it deems appropriate, address unresolved concerns to the Court before any actual Any reservation or the LRSD. assignments are made by LRSD. Order filed May 26, 1987, Document #843. See also Document #833. That the MRC was more than an advisory body was made clear in Judge Woods' Order of July 2, 1987: All parties agree c larified so that the a that the role of the MRC must be LLe interdistrict magnet schools can be successfully implemented and operated._ efficiently and successfully impiemenuea anu . . . At first blush it is tempting to allow the parties -3-to compromise and reach agreement however they choose, whether through their attorneys or through the MRC. That is not a realistic long-term solution and it runs counter to the clear intent of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in ordering the MRC to 'administer' the magnets. Initially it is clear that the MRC is a decision-making rather than merely an advisory body. [T]he parties to this case have agreed that the host district of a magnet school should make the day-to-day T-arra-rHi nn thp ooeration of the school This decisions regarding the operation of the school agreement cannot and will not be construed to relegate the MRC to the status of an unused appendage. Accordingly, the role of the MRC is to_ make recommended policy decisions regarding the operation of the magnet schools. Those decisions should then be d, in a written report, to the court for The report should reflect the process used to reach decisions and should reflect independent fact- Objections to MRC reports should be filed with communicated, approval. the of IS Those written report, findino. ----- , the court within 20 days, after which the court will approve modify, or reject the MRC's recommendations. of example, in selecting staff, the 1C ... By way of example, in selecting suui, tnc should set the criteria to be used or process by ^^ich teachers are selected for magnet schools\nthe host district would implement that policy by appropriate y lected for magnet schools\nselecting the teachers. Little Rock School District V . Pulaski District, 663 F. Supp. 1554, 1555-56 (E.D.Ark. County Special School 1987) . In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), the Court addressed the argument that the MRC's authority with respect to the assignment of teachers was too broad. The Eighth Circuit stated\nIn our view. the District Court order outlining the -4-duties and responsibilities of Committee was well conceived. the Magnet It Review recognizes the interdistrict character of the magnet school program and carefully allocates responsibilities between the Magnet Review Committee and the host district. . . . We specifically agree with the court's order with respect to the procedures to be followed in recruiting and hiring faculty for the magnet schools and the part that the Magnet Review Committee is to play in staffing operation. We do, however, make it clear that the collective do, it Mtsvex\", daX  ----- ---- agresinGnts between host school distiricts and bargaining agreements between host school aisiriccs ana the classroom teachers associations remain applicable to the extent that such agreements are not inconsistent with heretofore given to the Magnet the responsibilities Review Committee or with respect to the with orders of the District Court staffing of magnet schools. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1314 (Sth Cir. 1988). The Reductions in Staff. The LRSD Board of Directors approved budget reductions proposed by the LRSD administration on July 23, 1992 . The LRSD proposed to reduce magnet positions by 14.9 full time equivalent (FTE) positions. The MRC says it learned of the reductions through the newspaper and called a special meeting for the LRSD to present its budget, proposed to reduce staffing in During that meeting the LRSD the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE rather than 14.9 FTE. More meetings followed during which the MRC discussed personnel cuts with magnet school principals and LRSD central office administrators. On August 28, the MRC voted on the proposed personnel cuts and approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE in which he slated that the role of the MRC is to ^In a footnote, the Eighth Circuit quoted from Judge Woods' July 2 order in - , which would be communicated to the court for approval. See LKSU . make recommended policy decisions PCSSD, 663 F. Supp. 1554, 1556 (E.D.Ark. 1987). -5-positions. According to the MRC, the LRSD verbally agreed to reinstate the positions but declined to reinstate the people who had occupied the positions. The MRC now asks the Court to affirm the decision to reinstate 3.9 FTE positions cut from the original magnet programs by the LRSD and to reinstate to those positions the individuals who held them prior to the cuts. In response, the LRSD contends that following the implementation of the magnet schools programs. the MRC's role changed from that of administering to evaluating and monitoring the magnet schools. It asserts that the MRC failed to act in accordance with a properly established policy, citing language from Judge Woods' Order of July 2, 1987. LRSD V. PCSSD, supra, 663 F. Supp. at 1556. In addition. the LRSD contends that it has no authority under the Professional Negotiations Agreement (\"PNA\") to reinstate the individuals to the 3.9 FTE positions because those individuals have been reassigned according to the PNA. It states that the 3.9 FTE positions must be filled in conformity with the PNA. (Exhibit B to Doc. #1693.) The LRSD's position concerning the role of the MRC is not well-taken. The MRC's administrative oversight responsibility was not rejected along with the LRSD's \"controlled choice student assignment plan as the LRSD suggests. The MRC's responsibilities continue and include staffing decisions. The MRC continues on an H annual basis to submit to the Court for approval a proposed budget for the six original magnet schools. The budgets proposed by the MRC represent its efforts to assure that the magnet schools -6-continue to provide those special programs that attract and retain pupils, thereby assisting in the desegregation effort. The MRC is made up of representatives of the parties and the State of Arkansas, a former party to the action. and the LRSD has been a member of the MRC since its inception. Dr. Mac Bernd, the new Superintendent of the LRSD, acknowledged the role of the MRC when he presented Proposal No. 14 to the LRSD Board of Directors. That proposal is titled \"A Recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee\" and suggests the reduction of 14.9 FTE positions at the magnet schools. In the proposal. Dr. Bernd states: \"It is our position that any reductions of personnel in the area schools should also be made in the magnet schools monitored by the Magnet Review Committee. Therefore, it is recommended that you authorize the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions to the Magnet Review Committee . . (I (Doc. #1649.) In a July 28, 1992 memorandum to the MRC, Dr. Bernd relates that the LRSD Board of Directors authorized him to propose reduction in positions at a the magnet schools. He states: \"Because the reduction in positions would create a 1 that the per pupil rate be total reduction in costs. we recommend reduced from $3,682.00 to $3,585.17. 11 (Exhibit A to Doc. #1693.) The Court is dismayed actions. The LRSD did not and somewhat confused about the LRSD's consult with the MRC prior to gaining approval from its Board for the recommended staff reductions even though the district has a representative on the MRC and was aware that the MRC was in the process of preparing budget for the -7- amagnet schools. Furthermore, the LRSD, after presenting the proposal to the MRC, failed to heed the MRC's recommendation that the same individuals be returned to the positions the LRSD had cut before securing the MRC's permission to do so. The LRSD now attempts to dismiss the MRC's administrative role and chastises it for not following through on court directives to establish policies and criteria for staffing decisions. If the MRC has been remiss in failing to come up with such policies and criteria, the LRSD, as a full-fledged member of the MRC, must share the blame. It appears that the LRSD wishes to recognize the MRC's authority to administer the magnet schools only when it agrees with MRC decisions. The court also has considered the arguments concerning the effect of the PNA on the staffing reductions. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has said \"that the authority of a federal court to alter or modify collective bargaining contracts in school desegregation cases must be based on a finding that the alteration or modification is necessary to further the effort to integrate the schools in question. II Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1316 (Sth Cir. 1988). The LRSD claims that the PNA does not allow it to reinstate the particular individuals who were transferred from the 3.9 FTE positions in compliance with the PNA. The Court believes, however. that by reinstating those individuals who were moved out of their jobs as a result of an action the Court finds was in violation of directives in this case. it is not setting aside the PNA. The magnet schools were designed to guarantee substantial -8-integration and important educational choices and they have proven successful in fulfilling this intended purpose. The court has stated on a number of occasions the importance of maintaining excellence in the magnet schools. \"Magnet schools . . will be distinguished by the features that have made them successful in other cities: individualized teaching, low pupil-teacher ratio, specialized programs tailored to students' interests, enriched resources and active recruitment. It Little Rock School District v. a Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1309 (Sth Cir. 1988). The magnet schools are racially balanced as a result of efforts to make sure that they are \"recognized throughout the county as truly high quality schools. with excellent teaching staffs and unique programs of interest to suburban and city students alike . . It Id. at 1312. The success of these magnet schools is critical to desegregation, and tampering with a proven success could undermine public confidence in the magnets and the school district as whole. The Court recognizes that some authorities oppose magnet schools as tools for desegregation but it cannot question the concept because the parties agreed to the magnet schools and they are working. When it approved the parties' settlement plans, the Eighth Circuit stressed the need for a period of stability. While the Court does not wish to become involved in individual hiring decisions, the Court must see that court directives are being followed. The LRSD must cooperate with the MRC as it fulfills its responsibility to administer the magnet schools. As has been -9- astated, administration includes decisions concerning staffing levels adequate to effectively deliver the magnet programs. While it does appear that the MRC has failed to develop criteria for staff selection and the Court believes that actual selection of personnel is the responsibility of the host district, the MRC's role in determining staffing requirements is not to be undermined. The Court, therefore, affirms the MRC's decision to reinstate the FTE positions cut from the original magnet schools' programs and orders the LRSD to reinstate the individuals who previously held the following positions: 1) the 1.0 FTE music teacher at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School\n2) the 1.0 FTE counselor at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School, 3) the .4 FTE counselor position at Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School\nand 4) three (3) .5 FTE Gifted and Talented positions, one each at Booker, Gibbs, and Williams Magnet Schools. Assistant Principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet_School. The MRC also asks the Court to vacate the assistant principal position at Gibbs and allow the LRSD to advertise and the principal to select black assistant principal from among qualified candidates. The LRSD disputes that there is a requirement that magnet school staff positions be racially balanced and contends that the MRC'S position violates the parties' desegregation plans and the law. The MRC does not contend that there is a requirement that LRSD label certain magnet school staff positions as \"black\" or \"white. It 3.9 a 1 -10-It does state that there is a goal of equal representation for blacks and whites both for administrators and teachers. The goal of equitable staffing appears throughout the LRSD settlement plan, and the Court notes that the Eighth Circuit has admonished the NLRSD and the PCSSD for not hiring blacks. See Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (1985)\n778 F.2d. at 440 (Arnold, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Court finds that this goal of equal representation is an admirable one and should be attempted at every opportunity. Additionally, there does not seem to be a problem here with the availability of a pool of qualified applicants because the LRSD recently hired a black as the assistant principal at Washington to serve with that school's black principal. The LRSD appears to have made an unwise personnel placement decision in its selection of magnet schools. The Court, the assistant principals for the two however, will not require the LRSD to remove the assistant principal at Gibbs. It does expect the LRSD to select staff not only at the magnet schools but at all its schools consistent with the staffing goals of the desegregation plans and the law of this case. Conclusion. Although a superintendent and his board ought to have the right to run their schools in ordinary day-to-day matters. this is no ordinary matter. The LRSD must function under court order and court oversight in lawsuit the district itself a -liinitiated ten years ago this month. The districts have agreed to abide by both the spirit and letter of their own desegregation plans and they would do well to act in good faith in fulfilling the commitments made in their plans. In Freeman v. Pitts, ___U.S. ____, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992) , the Supreme Court held that in the course of supervising desegregation plans, federal courts have the authority to relinquish supervision and control in incremental stages, before full compliance is achieved in every area of school operations. Among the factors to be considered in ordering incremental withdrawal is whether the school district has demonstrated, to the parents and students of the once public and to the parents and students or one once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a action when its policies f--- constitutional course of form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations. U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 1446, 118 L.Ed.2d at 135. In summary, the LRSD is directed to reinstate to their former positions those individuals listed on page 10 of this order. It is further directed to consider racial balance in selecting staff for the magnet schools. In the future, the LRSD must consult the MRC and must seek Court permission prior to making any staffing changes in the magnet schools. Any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year shall be presented prior -12-to preschool registration in the early spring of 1993. SO ORDERED this day of November, 1992. /-y*-v^f____1 r-'-r^ /---------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE lliK -vi- -13-JOHN w. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER. JR.  .Also admitled to Praclin\nin i uno District of I nlumoia JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 September 23, 1992 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: I have several requests outstanding before the Court regarding I wish to add to that list concerns proposed by the Little to cut approximately 15 teaching See copy of letter to Magnet Bernd dated July 28, 1992. I am the District has regarding the budget cuts District. The District proposes positions in the Magnet school. Review Committee from Dr. E concerned because in the budget cut proposals taken at least one action that makes absolutely Mac 1992 . sense. It has removed the assistant principal at salary of approximately $34,000.00 a Gibbs Elementary School who had and replaced her with an fn the District who has a salary of $60,,000 or more administrator in ------------_ _ ____ I just don't understand this, principal at Gibbs wcc Afri'\" Caucasian. The further irony of this African American prrncrpal, was pled^at Wasjtxngton^^^ The the removed assistant rstand this. Moreover, the removeo o... was African American\nthe replacement for her irnnv of this whole matter is that the was with another African American principal whil Gibbs now Caucasian principals. RfeCSiVED SIJSA HAi-'IStT-: !3 OF T. WFIGhT -O Exhibit A U. S. DISTRICT JUDGEPage Two Honorable Susan Webber Wright September 23, 1992 We are, therefore, The entire matter is suspect, we believe. Ann Brown's office inquire into these matters (hopefully) hearing or meeting before requesting that Ms. prior to any scheduled with the Court. or Sincerely, Jo'lin W. Walker JWW:Ip cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Ms. Donna Creer Ms. Evelyn JacksonTO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 28 , 199 2 Magnet Review Committee Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools C- Budget Reduction Recommendation As a result of the Little Rock School Distri 1992-93 Operating Budget, it is our position Rock School District Board approving the  1 that any reductions of the area schools should also be made in the magnet Therefore, the personnel^in^^^^^^ Magnet Review Committee. schools Board has authorized the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions as follows: Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - Elementary 1.5 Counseling Elementary 1.4 Counseling Secondary 2.0 Music Teachers - Elementary (Except Booker) 3.0 Teaching Vacancies - Secondary 7.0 14.9 Because tne une reduction in positions create reduction in costs, we recomnend that the per pup $3,682.00 to $3,585.17. the the in would a total we re be reduced frommay-04-1994 15 = 38 FROM J.B. UflN HOOK REALTY, INC TO 7712420 P.01 May 4, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Wifliams\nWe, the faculty and support staff of WiUiaxna Magnet School, wish to express our deep concern over the possible reassignmeni of our principal, Dr. Edwin S. Jackson. Dr. Jackson, through his effective administrative style and leadership, has guided Williams Magnet School to a level of superior achievement. Our school's high-performance record speaks for itself. Wc highly recommend that Dr. Jackson's transfer be recraisidcrcd. Also, attached you will find a list of factors that wc hope you will considet before you make your final decision. These are just a few of the numerous accompUshmeots that Dr. Jackson has helped achieve during his tenure at Williams Magnet School. He has truly helped to make our school *a choice for excellence \" As we close this 1993-94 academic year, we want to thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns about the future of our school. Respectfully yours, Williams Mag^ School Faciilfy^Ste^ cc Board of Directors cc Magnet Review Committee cc Dr. Edwin S, JackaoQ . - Cslf- A I f - . i^4^TlKxtSu I h//i,s., t^Y-.04-1994 15:39 FPOT1 .J.B. OAN HTOK PEAI.TY. INC TO 2420 p.03 ... Strong leadership ... Staff coimrnttment ... Parental support and trust ... Extensive leadership experience ... Low staff turn-over ... Pupa comonttmenf to K-6 ... 100%P.T.A, membership ... C.O.E, leads- ... Staff support ... Continuity in sa|^xt of Magnet philosophy and goals ... Hi^ expectations ... Fima, fair and consigtent with students, staff and parents ... Knowledgeable of M^net Review Commiaco Federal sxandards ... Good reialionsh^ with the corporatc/business world ... Chosen to .serve on the Joint lotetHn Committee on Education ... Standardized test semes are cmtsistenlly high ... Conceived idea of new buildmg design and construction ... Professional in aD aspect* of his position ... National Association of Elementary Principals member ... Oversight and Directions Conunittce representative ... Attends annual Intematimial Magnet School Convention ... Federal Legislative Chairman for Arkansas Elementary PrirwqMiIs TOTAL P.0245 Huntington Road Little Rock, AR May 3, 1994 72207 6oP/ Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: Thank you so much for visiting with me this morning by telephone to discuss my strong support for Dr. Ed Jackson, Principal at Williams Magnet Elementary School. As an active member of our PTA, seen how dedicated and concerned Dr. in promoting the goals of our magnet He is uniquely qualified in temperment and background to help us achieve our goals. Jackson is school. My daughter is in the fifth grade and my student at Williams Magnet. son is a kindergarten My main concern is that our school continue to have the stablility that I feel Dr. Jackson affords us. He has worked hard and under his leadership all the children at our school have benefited as evidenced by consistently high test scores each year. Dr. Jackson has high expectations for the classroom teachers and ensures that the philosophy of academic achievemen , and discipline are consistently followed throughout the school at every level. I' ve Our PTA is looking forward to a much needed expansion in our school building scheduled to get underway this summer. Dr. Jackson has been involved in the planning and development of this project and, because of his familiarity, construction to its end. would be a great asset in seeing the My husband and I support the public school system and are eager to see it strengthened. Please hear our concerns in this matter and know that our need for stability and consistency in our school system is essential. Again, thank you for carefully considering this situation and for allowing me to share my feelings that Dr. Jackson should remain as the Principal of Williams Magnet Elementary School. Sincerely, Dorothy DeYoung (Mrs. Paul B. Young, Jr.) bcc Magnet Review Committee 16 Huntington Road Little Rock, AR May 3, 19\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_634","title":"Principal selection process, telephone surveys","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","School management and organization","School principals","Parents","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["Principal selection process, telephone surveys"],"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/634"],"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-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 July 13, 1994 Richard Kalkbrenner 1716 Beechwood Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Mr. Kalkbrenner\nThe Office of Desegregation Monitoring is looking into the process the Little Rock School District recently used in hiring principals. As part of our study, well be discussing that process with members of the principal interview committees. One of our staff members contacted you today to arrange a date and time for you to participate in a telephone survey to discuss your involvement in the selection process. This letter confirms that a member of our staff will call you at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, July 15, at 372-6175 to ask the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? What was your understanding of the principal selection process? What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? Briefly describe the interview process your committee followed. In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration adequate? If not, why? 6. Whom did you understand would make the final selection of the principal? 7. What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? 8. How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? 9. Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? Well compile the answers to our survey and submit them to the Court as part of a composite report. Before we finalize that document, well hold a meeting with the survey participants to discuss our findings and also to make sure that we've accurately recorded our information. (We'll contact you about the meeting at a later date.) It is possible that the Court will hold a hearing on this matter. You will not be required to attend the hearing or to testify, but you may attend if you would like to and you may also have the opportunity to testify if you wish. We very much appreciate your taking time to help us with this project. Please feel free to ask the interviewer any questions that may help you participate in our survey. Sincerely yours, Ann S. BrownODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Intavduction Hello... this is , an with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First... (Ask the first question)ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE School: Respondent (include race/sex): Position: Interviewer: Date/ Time: 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - When were you selected? - Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - What written or oral instructions did you receive? - When did you receive these instructions?3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Prepared interview questions - Reviewed applicant files - Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection 4) Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee.5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration was adequate? If not, why? 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal?7) What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? - What was your understanding about the next step in the hiring process?9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? Thank you for taking the time to respond to our survey. If you think of any additional information you would like to share, please call us at 376-6200. After all the survey information has been gathered, our office will be preparing a written report for the court. While your name will not appear in the report, we may be seeking parents willing to testify in court about this process. Would you be willing to testify, if asked? In order to make sure that our report information is as accurate as possible, we are planning to have a feedback session with all Interested survey participants. During that session, you will be able to review a draft of the report and make comments regarding the content. We will mail you a notice regarding the meeting, as soon as we set the date and time.LRSD Principal Hiring Process: Initial Contact Script Hi. Im with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Have I reached ? Were looking into the processes the Little Rock School District used recently in hiring principals. According to information we received from the district, you were a member of the committee that interviewed principal candidates for school, is that correct? Id like to make arrangements to phone you at a convenient time to ask you a few questions about that interview process. Weve put together a short list of questions that should take about 20 minutes to talk over with you. All of your individual answers will be confidential. Ill mail you a copy of those questions beforehand so you can know what to expect and think over your answers. Will that be OK with you? Were working to gather this information in the next few days. When would be a good time for one of us to call you? (Day and time: .) Ill be mailing a letter with more information and the list of questions to you today. However, Im not asking you to write out any answers\nwe will call and ask you to tell us your answers. What mailing address would you like us to use, or would you like us to fax you the information? What phone number should I call on (day, time)? One of my colleagues or I will be calling you during that time. Remember that we will eventually be publishing our findings and submitting them to the Court, but we will not use your name in that report. Before we finalize our report, well have a meeting to give feedback to the survey participants and to make sure that weve gotten our information straight. You may attend that meeting if you wish, but you will not be required to come. Also, its possible that the Court will hold a hearing to review the principal selection process, but you would not be required to attend or to testify. However, if you would like to attend, you will be able to do so, and if you wish to be testily, you would have that opportunity. We certainly appreciate your help. If you should think of any questions either before or after you receive our letter, please call me at 376-6200. Thank you very much.9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? Thank you for taking the time to respond to our survey. If you think of any additional information you would like to share, please call us at 376^200. After all the survey information has been gathered, our office will be preparing a written report for the court. While your name will not appear in the report, we may be seeking parent\nwilling to testify in court about this process. Would you be willing to testify, if asked? In order to make sure that our report information is as accurate as possible, we are planning to have a feedback session with all interested survey participants. During that session, you will be able to review a draft of the report and make comments regarding the content. We will mail you a notice regarding the meeting, as soon as we set the date and time.ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introduction Hello... this is , an with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First... (Ask the first question)L^s*l- '.^   sW^ . \u0026gt; *  M.^\" I *4. 2^? V'* r \u0026lt; -ti r .*1: i^jti' r -^- ' c- V t:' - '1 i-'. X Vii \u0026lt;/ tW.'A TJt=^  ?,\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 'i? 1 s-^t fcWy-J^...-\"'**\"-- fc. M-  -. ^5?^ V  -4.'.  K'-i- .'*\u0026lt;\" ' ^4  ?^''' iCk 1- W -5. : Z' r . ^. ^ 'Ll  It it.  W'5\n. kA: Mtfl  '.'ir/ 5:.- -ij-'  - 4rt 0\u0026lt; fSij 5e  ( \u0026gt;. :1 t yv f. '?r r gifCS /-X A t 5. *1^ ''  Jis ' *\u0026gt;ii f :* flc . i Y' 5  e \u0026lt; 'xl ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introdiictioii , an Hello... this is with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First... (Ask the first question) DRAFTODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introdnction Hello... this is , an with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First... (Ask the first question) DRAFT ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE School: Respondent (include race/ sex): Position: Interviewer: Date/ Time: 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? - When were you selected? - Did you receive a written or oral description of your role? 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - What written or oral instructions did you receive? - When did you receive these instructions?3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Prepared interview questions - Reviewed applicant files - Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection 4) Briefly describe the interview process followed by your committee.5) In your opinion, was the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration was adequate? If not, why? 6) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal?7) What weight do you believe your input was given in the final selection? 8) How satisfied were you with the process? What parts of the process worked well? What needs improvement? - What was your understanding about the next step in the hiring process?9) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? Thank you for taking the time to respond to our survey. If you think of any additional information you would like to share, please call us at 376^200. After all the survey information has been gathered, our office will be preparing a written report for the court. While your name will not appear in the report, we may be seeking parent willing to testify in court about this process. Would you be willing to testify, if asked? Tn order to make sure that our report information is as accurate as possible, we are planning to have a feedback session with all interested survey participants. During that session, you will be able to review a draft of the report and make comments regarding the content. We will mail you a notice regarding the meeting, as soon as we set the date and time.ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introduction Hello... this is , an with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First.. (Ask the first question) i CLi '(J'tODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE School: Respondent (include race/sex): Interviewer:___________________ Date/Time: 1) 2) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee?  What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - Did you receive any written or oral instructions? 4^ a.rhcc/' Cl 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Prepared interview questions - Reviewed applicant files - Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection 4) Do you fagi^iMt the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration was adequate? If not, why? 5) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? 6) ^ jaii-tlMak your input was considered in making the selection? Why ? Why not? 7) Wer\u0026amp;-you satisfied with the process? What was good about the process? What needs improvement? tzOUX. 8) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member?ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introduction Hello... this is draft with the , an Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Before we begin, let me assure you that your individual responses will be confidential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. Do you have any questions regarding our general process or the survey? First... (Ask the first question)ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE School: Respondent (include race/sex): Interviewer: Date/ Time: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) - i\u0026gt; How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - Did you receive any written or oral instructions? What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Prepared interview questions - Reviewed applicant files - Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection Were you satisfied with the process? What was good about the process? What needs improvement? What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? Do you think your input was considered in making the selection? Why ? Why not? 7Were you properly supported by the district administration? - Instructions from the administration 60 'Q^umber and quality of applicants provided - Response to requests for information 8) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member? ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT TELEPHONE SURVEY SCRIPT Introdnction Hello... this is , an with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Our office is looking into the processes used by the LRSD in the recent hiring of principals. As part of our inquiry we are surveying all parents who served on school interview teams. You were contacted recently by our office to schedule a convenient time to complete this survey. You should have also received a copy of the questions I will be asking you. Did you receive the material? Do you have any questions about it before we start the interview? Let me assure you that your individual responses will be conndential. Our findings will represent a composite of survey responses. First... (Ask the first question) y School: ODM PARENT INVOLVEMENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE _____________ ---------------------- ---------------- -  Respondent (include race/sex): Interviewer: Date/Time: 1) How were you selected to be a member of the interview committee? 2) What was your understanding of the principal selection process? - Did you receive any written or oral instructions? 3) What did your committee do in advance to prepare for the interview? - Prepared interview questions - Reviewed applicant files - Reviewed job description and the criteria for making the selection 4) De-yoa feef4hat-the number and quality of applicants provided for your consideration was adequate? If not, why? 5) What was your understanding of who would make the final selection of the principal? Do .you thinlt your input was considered in making the selection? Why ? Why not? T) Wctg^ou satisfied with the process? What was-^d-abTJUt the process? What needs improvement? 8) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member?8) Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as an interview team member?\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_570","title":"Program evaluation","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":["1994/2003-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Program evaluation"],"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/570"],"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(ra' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ij^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: October 24, 2002 SUBJECT: Program Evaluation Agenda, 2002-03 Background Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan included the following obligation: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. In response to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District implemented in 1999-2000 a new student assessment plan and proposed to the Board of Education a program evaluation agenda to include the most critical programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 and detailed in Section 5: elementary, middle, and/or high school English language arts and mathematics programs. Each year the agenda has also included the evaluation of one or more additional programssuch as the ESL program mandated by the Office for Civil Rights. Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy A summary of the Compliance Teams interpretation of Judge Wilsons order of September 13, 2002, pertaining to the 2002-2003 programs to be evaluated is a follows: Continue to assess the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students for 2002-03 and through the first semester of 2003-04. Since the District has now eliminated all fall testing, except for certain diagnostic tests that teachers administer without 1 Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two reporting to the district the results, this obligation to assess students ends at the end of the 2002-03 school year. The judge stated that he expected the District to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. Therefore, the program evaluations that will be completed as per the 2002-2003 program evaluation agenda will include all available data, including scores from previously administered fall tests, and they will all be completed by the end of the first semester of 2003-04. Each one will answer several research questions, including the one most critical to compliance, Was this program effective in improving and remediating the achievement of African American students? The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan obligated the District in Section 5 to assess students in the following programs, as follows: 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3.2 Primary Reading/Language Arts. g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices. Intermediate Reading/Language Arts e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices. Secondary Schools Reading/Language Arts f. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. Mathematics Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum. The 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda outlined in this proposal includes these required components. Status of the Requirements of the 2001-02 Program Evaluation Agenda The Boards program evaluation agenda for 2001-02 was as follows: Primary Reading/Language Arts Middle and High School Literacy K-12 Mathematics and Science (CPMSA) English as a Second Language 2Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three None of the four program evaluations for 2001-02 has been completed as yet due to the tardiness of our receipt of the States Benchmark scores for literacy and mathematics in grades 4, 6, and 8. The scores arrived on Thursday, October 3, 2002. The Board received an update on the Early Literacy program evaluation in June 2002 based on the Observation Surveys and the Developmental Reading Assessment data. That update confirmed the findings of the 2000-01 report and also documented even higher achievement. The previous evaluation, along with the update, are on the Boards agenda for approval on October 24, 2002. I Staff have planned to produce a brief report with data and analysis as a beginning program evaluation of the grades 3-5, 6-8, and 9-12 literacy programs with a more thorough evaluation report to come at the end of 2002-03. However, without the Benchmark scores, that report has not yet been drafted. The Board has received annual reports on assessment results for each of these programs. Comprehensive program evaluations of the grades K-5 and 6-12 literacy programs will be produced at the end of the 2002-03 school year for Board approval. The CPMSA (NSF-funded project) program evaluation (the fourth annual) will be presented at the December meeting and then will be submitted to the National Science Foundation for their review and feedback. At that time, the staff will bundle each of the previous three annual reports produced thus far, along with the NSF feedback, for the Boards formal approval of these program evaluations. The ESL report was originally scheduled for an October presentation, but we have had to reschedule since we do not yet have the Benchmark data. We anticipate being able to present that study in November. The Office for Civil Rights in Dallas has been very complimentary of our 2000-01 ESL program evaluation and has asked us to assist them in providing technical assistance to other districts on how to conduct this study. When the 2001-02 report is presented, the staff will bundle the reports for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, along with the 2001-02 report for the Boards formal approval. 2002-03 Proposed Program Evaluation Agenda The District will provide for the evaluation of the following programs for 2002-03. 1. Elementary Literacy Staff will produce, with the assistance of an external expert, a comprehensive evaluation of the elementary literacy program (grades K-5) at the end of 2002-03. This study will include findings for the following four literacy programs being implemented in LRSD: Balanced Literacy (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas or ELLA at grades K-2 and Effective Literacy at grades 3Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four 3-5), Balanced Literacy with Reading Recovery, Success for All, and Direct Instruction. This report will be completed and presented to the Board for approval prior to the winter break in 2003. 2. Secondary Literacy Staff will produce, with the assistance of an external expert, a comprehensive evaluation of the secondary literacy program (grades 6-12) at the end of 2002-03. This study will include findings for the Reading/Writing Workshop implemented at grades 6-8 and the English I Workshop implemented in three schools at grade 9. All available data will be used in determining the effectiveness of the overall program. 2. CPMSA (K-12 Mathematics and Science) Staff will issue a final report on and evaluation of the five-year NSF-funded project for grades K-12 mathematics and science, and it will be presented to the Board for approval prior to the winter break in 2003. When NSF (external experts) provides its feedback, that report will be added to the documents submitted to the court. Fiscal Impact The District will be able to complete all the program evaluation requirements outlined in the 2002-03 program evaluation agenda through funds already budgeted, except for the cost of the external experts who will serve on each team. The costs for external consultants to complete the 2002-03 program evaluations are not yet known since the District has not yet had the opportunity to identify who they might be and to negotiate contracts. Recommendations That the Board of Education approve the 2002-03 program evaluation agenda as outlined. BAL/adg 4LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO\nBoard of Education FROM\nPREPARED BY\nT. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Pat Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy DATE\nOctober 24, 2002 SUBJECT\nEarly Literacy Program Evaluations Background The Board of Education approved in its 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda the Early Literacy program, which began implementation in fall 1999. During July and August 2000 the Assistant Superintendent of PRE presented to the Board drafts of this evaluation, which the Board tabled in August 2000 pending completion. That early draft was never completed and was not again submitted to the Board of Education for review and approval. During summer 2001 Dr. Bonnie Lesley, on behalf of the Early Literacy Program Evaluation team (Pat Price, Pat Busbea, Ann Freeman, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, Anita Gilliam, and Sharon Kiilsgaard) presented a completed 204-page program evaluation\nYear 2 Evaluation\nThe Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District (1999-2000 and 2000-2001). This report was presented for information, but our Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan now requires that all program evaluations be presented for Board acceptance and approval. Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis had served as an external consultant to the team. He read both a near-complete draft and made several suggestions for its improvement, which were incorporated into the final draft. He also read the final draft and responded. All grades K-2 teachers administered the assessments, both fall and spring, in all three years, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002. All elementary principals supervised both the fall and spring administrations of the Developmental Reading Assessment and the Observation Surveys and the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2. Central office Elementary Literacy staff conducted the training for the assessments, collected the answer documents, and participated in the analysis of data\nPatricia Price, Pat Busbea, Judy Milam, Judy Teeter, Kris Huffman, and Ann Freeman. Both Dr. Ed Williams and Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Two Ken Savage assisted in the production and analysis of score reports. Anita Gilliam and Sharon Kiilsgaard assisted in checking the data tables for accuracy and in preparing the final reports. Copies of this program evaluation were provided to Mr. John Walker, to Ms. Ann Marshall at ODM, and to all elementary principals and elementary literacy staff. Executive summaries, including the program evaluation recommendations, were sent to all K-2 teachers with a cover memorandum congratulating them on their successes. The program evaluation was comprehensive, including the following:  an introduction:  a chapter on the literacy program design and its relationship to the Districts Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\n a description of all of the K-2 assessments used to measure student progress\n a chapter aligning the program with national research studies on effective early literacy programs\n numerous tables displaying the data in several different ways, disaggregated by grade level and race\n an analysis of the results (based on student performance data)\n an analysis of additional data relating to achievement gap among schools and the impact of professional development on student achievement\n a chapter on findingsanswers to the six research questions originally posed\n a bibliography\nand  tables of school-level data on each assessment for the two-year period. 1 An important chapter of the program evaluation relating to Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was the one on findings. Research Question 2 was as follows\n/s the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? The discussion filled pages 81-96. The following paragraph includes the criteria that were used to determine effectiveness. i To determine the effectiveness of the new program in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students, the District used the performance results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment. The basic criterion established in determining program effectiveness for black students was that black student achievement would have to improve and then that growth over the two-year period of the programs implementation would need to be equal to, but preferably greater than, the growth of non-black students, (p. 81)Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Three The report included a detailed analysis of all available data\nThe following findings based on Observation Survey, Developmental Reading Assessment, and Achievement Level Test results make it possible to conclude that the new early literacy program has so far been effective in improving and remediating the reading achievement of African American students, as well as all students. It is unusual in any District to find gains by both blacks and non-blacks over a two-year period on eight different measurements, as this study finds. Again, however, experts on program implementation advise that it takes approximately five years to determine program effectiveness, so this year 2 study at best establishes baseline and early trend data for comparisons in future years, (pp. 82-83) In this sections conclusions, the program evaluation included not only a summary of findings as they relate to the achievement gap, but also how they compare to the findings in recent national research on reading achievement among African American and white students: The results of two years of changes in the LRSD policies, programs, and procedures in grades PreK-2 indicate that both black and non-black children in the Little Rock School District are learning to read independently by grade 3 (see Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan). The findings and analyses in this report indicate trends in the opposite direction of the national research findings cited above and of scores of other similar studies. Instead of black students growing at slower rates than non-blacks, in most of the measurements the LRSD results indicate higher rates of growth of black students than non-blacks. Instead of the gap widening between grades 1 and 2 as it does in national studies, it narrows significantly in the LRSD by every one of the eight measures (five sub-tests of the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and two sub-tests of the Achievement Level Test), (p. 94) Pages 107-113 included recommendations for improvement in instruction, parent involvement, interventions, and professional development. Five schools were identified for improvement since they were the lowest performing schools in at least two of the three grades tested. Recommendations for the next program evaluation were also included. These recommendations were all considered by the program staff and by school-level staff and many were immediately implemented, as well as others identified in formative evaluations during year 3. The major recommendations made to principals for program improvement included (1) ensuring that all teachers are fully trained and are implementing the District program\nand (2) adding Reading Recovery and literacy coaches wherever possible, since both of these actions in some schools had resulted in higher achievement.Board of Education - Memo October 24, 2002 Page Four At the end of 2001-02 the staff decided that another comprehensive study was not necessary so early in the program's implementation (year 3). They, therefore, presented to the Board of Education in June 2002 an update that included all the 2001- 02 scores on the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment, along with a summary of analysis of performance, especially comparisons of African American student achievement with other students. Those findings not only confirmed the findings of the 1999-2001 study, but the results were even stronger in year 3. At the end of year 3, African American students scores were at least 90 percent of other student scores on all five measures of the Observation Survey by the end of grade 2. In other words, the achievement gap was either closed on these measurements or almost closed, given the standard of 90 percent as an acceptable ratio. On the Developmental Reading Assessment, the most difficult of the measurements, the black to non-black ratio grew from 35 percent at the beginning of kindergarten in fall 1999 to 82 percent at the end of grade 2 in 2002. Deeper analysis also revealed that although many African American children from poverty were not learning to read in grade 1, they did successfully learn to read in grade 2, so they will most likely reach the goal of independent reading by grade 3, even though they began far behind their peers. Interestingly, the grovtrth of other students generally exceeded African American student growth on the DRA in grade 1, but African American growth exceeded other student growth in grade 2. Copies of the program evaluation and the update are attached for Board members' review. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve, as submitted, the following: Year 2 Evaluation\nThe Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Update on the Implementation of the PreK-2 Literacy Program, Little Rock School District, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 BAL/adg AttachmentsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO\nBoard of Education FROM\nT. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY\nI Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent ^bBonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE\nOctober 24, 2002 SUBJECT\nApproval of the Charter School Program Evaluation Background Information Dr. Linda Watson and Ms. Krishna Young, former director of the LRSD Charter School, presented to the Board of Education in June 2001 the program evaluation for the Charter School. That report was presented as information, but the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Plan requires that the Board formally approve each of the program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Charter School Program Evaluation was prepared by Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Serving on the team with him were Dr. Linda Watson, Ms. Krishna Young, and Dr. Ed Williams, members of the LRSD staff. All of the Charter School teachers, grades 3-5, participated in administering the assessments\nthe Achievement Level Tests at grades 3-5, the SAT9 at grade 5, and the State Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark examinations at grade 4, and the Success for All quarterly assessments in reading. The program evaluation included not only student achievement data, but also demographic data, student attendance rates, records of suspensions, student grades, and financial costs for the program. Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American. Due primarily to budget constraints, the District eliminated funding for the Charter School in summer 2002 after two years of operation, so this program has now been abandoned. Recommendation That the Board of Education accept and approve the LRSD Charter School Program Evaluation for 2000-2001. BAL/adg Attachment 1 -ZDOi. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James,. Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Ionnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: November 21,2002 SUBJECT: Approval of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle Schools Partnership with Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL) Background Information During 1998-99 and 1999-2000 SEDL formed a two-year research partnership with five schools in their five-state region. The project was entitled Facilitating Implementation of Reform Strategies and Tactics (FIRST). Southwest Middle School was the only middle school to be selected for participation. The focus areas for the project at Southwest were literacy achievement: mathematics achievement\nstudent attendance\nand student health, wellness, and safety. The SEDL staff published two evaluations of their work with the five schools and their findings relating to the effectiveness of certain school improvement efforts. Those two reports are attached. LRSD s PRE department through Dr. Ed Williams provided data over the two-year period as requested by SEDL for their analysis. In addition, SEDL conducted informal surveys, observations, and interviews and documented each schools conditions with journal entries (see p. 2, Volume 9, Number f. Issues about Change). SEDL staff, primarily Dr. DeEtte Cowan, conducted the study and wrote the program evaluation. Southwest Middle Schools principal and grades 6-8 teachers participated in data collection and in administering student assessments. Five core issues were identified as having significant impact on the five schools past and present efforts at improvement:  organizational structures  focus of improvement work  personal and social dynamics  contextual influences  , leadership. Board of Education - Memo November 21, 2002 Page Two Although the purpose of the SEDL study was not specifically to determine the  rrQ\u0026lt;'Tn/Anr,r.n _Z___ . rr . . . reform efforts on the academic achievement of African American children, whatever findings were made would be relevant t:..,, Z__L___' Schools students are almost all African Americans. The findings for Southwest found as follows in the Volume 9, Number 2 report: since Southwest Middle are organizational structuresp. 4, first column (year 1) and second column (Year 2) focus of improvement workp. 2, second column (year 1) personal and social dynamicsp. 5, second column (year 1) and p 6 first column  contextual influencesp. 6, second column leadership p. 8, first column (year 1) and p. 8, second column (year 2) In conclusion, when improved academic achievement did not including Southwest, the researchers stated the following: occur in the five schools, While increased student achievement is the goal of any responsible school improvement effort, administrative and organizational difficulties must often be addressed before a coherent view of the student body and its needs can be formulated and connected to staff capabilities and goals. Left unaddressed issues of leadership, organization, and context, as well as personal and social dynamics can detail school improvement efforts and sap the energy of the most gifted and talented teachers. Most critically, if these /ssues are not addressed and a schoolwide improvement effort is not advanced, the quality of education individual students receive can become simply a matter of chance and class assignment (pp. 9-10, Volume 9, Number?). Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the attached research reports on the Facilitatinq Implementation of Reform Strategies and Tactics (FIRST) project / M C* . .Xi_________ X 1   I I I Al I. ... ' ' ' ..UHCU.CIUOUUII UI r\\erorm iiraiegies and lactics (FIRST) project as the proqram evaluations for Southwest Middle School's participation in the SEDL partnership. BAL/adg AttachmentVolume 9, Number 2 2000 Issues . about Change Year One and Year Two: What Do You Do In Comprehensive School Improvement Introduction During the summer of 1998, the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) began a partnership project entitled Facihtating Implementation of Reform Strategies and Tactics (FIRST). A two-year initiative, FIRST partnered staff from SEDLs Strategies for Increasing School Success (SISS) program with staff at five schoolsone in each of the five states defining SEDLs service region^Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. These initiatives would differ from former models of school improvement. FIRST partnerships would be long-term, broad scale, in-depth. u. joined at the hip partnerships focusing on the identified needs of the schools and including all relevant staff. Identified needs were not hmited to a particular program or organizational aspect of the school, but could encompass curriculmn, instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional development, parental and community involvement, school management, and a consideration of how these parts fxmctioned as a whole to create a particular school culture. For two years, SEDL staff provided information, guidance, and technical support for improvement efforts determined by the school personnel. FIRST schools collaborated with SEDL in conducting interviews, surveys, and observations about the course these improvement efforts took, including major accomplishments and stumbling blocks. The entire school program was examined and prioritized\nspecific academic areas and/or organizational structures were chosen as the focus of improvement work at each of the FIRST schools. The intent of the FIRST project was to develop the capacity of school personnel to plan, monitor, and continue improvement efforts. To that end, technical assistance providers were enlisted and coordinated with SEDL staffs work to assist the schools during the FIRST initiative. FIRST schools represented the regions diversity on many levels\nthree high schools (Banner, Community, and Pelican), one middle school (Tall Pines), and one K-8 school (San Fernando) were chosen. These schools, whose names are pseudonyms, served students across a range of ethnic and socioeconomic backgroimds, and struggled with issues both specific to their schools and common to many schools (e.g. low student achievement, lack of parent involvement). In the course of the research into school improvement strategies and particularly through the first year of experience in partner schools, SEDL staff identified and confirmed the primacy of five core issues for school improvement efforts. The staffs analysis of school issues and strategies for advancing school improvement was framed within these areas: focus of the improvement work, orgamzational structures that support school change, personal and social dynamics of the indi'viduals and organizations involved, the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh-Street, Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 476-6861widening circles of contexts that influence school work, and leadership that influence all of the preceding can Much of the first year of SEDL staffs work was devoted to becoming familiar -wi-th the school culture and context, and building relationships -wi-th school personnel. First year efforts tended to identify the issues that impeded school improvement. As these issues had often been hidden by routine and low expectations prior to the partnership, many participants became discouraged as improvement efforts caused these issues to emerge or re-emerge. I Major tasks facing the SEDL staff in the second year thus included maintaining momentum in ongoing changa efforts, continuing relationship-building, and celebrating accomphshments as they occurred. SEDL partners had bmlt trust -with school staff in their roles as external changa facilitatorsneutral parties in district, school, and interpersonal pohtics. In order to advance change efforts and maintain this trust, SEDL personnel focused their efforts on each schools identified needs, with particular attention to the five core school change issues. Focus of the Improvement Work Year 1. In order for partner schools to fully engage in the work of school improvement, the focus of the improvement work that was undertaken was identified and chosen with the full participation of staff at each school. The level and root of difficulty in achieving this objective varied from school to school. For example, Barmer High School was reconstituted during the first year of its partnership with SEDL. In its effort to provide students with a sense of community and to encourage personal relationships between students sind teachers, this single large high school was divided into four academies. The focus of improvement work quickly became apparent\nimplementation of the academies concepts and structures. At San Fernando School, SEDL assisted staff in re-viewing achievement data and performing action research. As a result of their learning, staff at San Fernando decided to focus improvement work on student retention of skills, and on curriculum, particularly in mathematics. The SEDL facilitator at Cnm-munity High School conducted student focus groups for faculty observation, supported professional development for faculty and administrators, and assisted in the collection and analysis of data from multiple so-urces in the community and from students. Freshman student success was chosen as the focus of improvement work, and the rest of the first year at Commimity High was spent identifying leverage points and making plans for implementation in the second year. At Pelican High School, issues of communication between the central office and the school inserted themselves into efforts to define the focus of improvement work. These issues were worked on as the facilitator introduced the study of student achievement data and its analysis, followed by tie-fining a -vision focused on student outcomes. While staff and administrators quickly agreed to focus efforts on improving instructional effectiveness, the consensus broke down when the SEDL facilitator pushed for more specifics. The staff ultimately decided to focus on planning^ as a way of addressing instructional effectiveness. Student achievement and other forms of data were collected by SEDL staff and utilized to inform staff at Tall Pines Middle School about the academic needs of students and the factors operating -within the school that impacted student learning. SEDL facilitated development of a shared -vision of exemplary SEDL 2schools through the distribution of researchbased studies on successful middle school reform. With this support and guidance, Tall Pines staff identified four areas for improvement\nhteracy achievement, mathematics achievement\nstudent attendance\nand student health, wellness, and safety. Year 2. In Year 2, SEDL staff sought to ensure that students remained a visible and vital target of school improvement efforts. At Tall Pines, an administrator from a neighboring school district, trained by staff from SEDLs Program for Teaching and Learning (PITL), developed Uid delivered professional development for teachers that focused on what students learnednot what teachers taught. As part of their year-long staff development in mathematics instruction, teachers at San Fernando were trained in conducting student interviews, in order to gain insight into the process and success of student learning To discover and disseminate student priorities and perceptions, SEDL staff conducted student focus groups at San Fernando School, Community High, and Pehcan High. At Pehcan High School, development of a school improvement plan began as SEDL engaged Pehcan staff in a return to the schools migainn and vision, and led the staff in reflecting on the skills and attributes of an ideal Pehcan High graduate. - These efforts to keep school improvement work focused on students helped to diminish political issues and increase staff enthusiasm and commitment. At Pelican High School, for example, staff who had been adept at blaming external circumstancedistrict pohcy, student socio-economic background^for students lack of success began to see and take responsibility for their impact on students. Staff became both more accountable and more enthusiastic as they planned, implemented, assessed, and revised specific strategies for improved student achievement. SEDL made available the resources of both its SISS and PITL programs, creating and dehvering professional development activities specifi.c to each schools needs\nconducting, analyzing, reporting and guiding revision in response to the assessment of school improvement strategies that were initiated\nleading, planning, and attending meetings of school and/or district staff\nand providing each school an observer and aUy both removed from divisive school issues and fuUy committed to school improvement and increased student achievement. In addition, SEDL staff brought in outside experts and assisted schools in accessing local resources, and devp1 oping relationships between school and district staff, and between the FIRST school and education professionals at neighboring schools and universities. Reflection. Lack of access to and understanding of student achievement data played a large role in the difficulties encountered as each partner school sought to define and maintain the focus of their improvement efforts. SEDL spent time at each school gathering existing data, collecting new data, and training school staff in interpreting data and identifying logical, research-tested strategies for school improvement In the absence of empirical information about their students' achievement, school staff had developed their own rationale for student achievement and lack of achievement. SEDL staff had to address these straw men,' ft including: student socioeconomic background\ngovernment-mandated program .q, standards, and measurements\ninterpersonal disputes\nand other factors outside staff control. SEDL partners pushed school staff to assume responsibility for student learning, and to believe in their ability to positively affect that learning 3 SEDLOrganizational Structures Year 1. During Year 1, SEDL staff famiharized themselves with the organizational structures that existed at partner schools, and assisted in the development of orgamzational structures where there were none. 'The reconstitution of Banner High School into academies required that new communication structures be developed and implemented. Pehcan High School, which had recently been created by the division of a K-12 school into an elementary, middle, and high school, had a similar need to develop new organizational structures, particularly addressing commumcation between central office staff and the school. At Community High and San Fernando School, organizational structures that were already in place were strengthened and supported through the FIRST partnership. At Commumty High, the principal provided meals and, in some cases, stipends, in support of afterschool planning meetings among teachers\nthis was to change in year two. Facffitation of meetings at San Fernando School helped to assure that all staff were included in plannings and all voices were heard at staff meetings. At San Fernando, SEDL also assisted in the creation and operation of action research teams, which collected and presented the data utilized in developing that schools focus of improvement work. Organizational structures at Tail Pines provided little support for change. Systems for routine procedures, such as tracking attendance and communicating hallway duties, were lacking. Communication among teachers and between the school administration and teachers was sporadic and ineffective. Structures such as grade level teams and the schools steering committee, while in place, were not utihzed effectively. Grade level teams collaborated on student discipline, parent/teacher conferences, and planning for special events. The schools steering committee existed primarily to commumcate the principals unilaterally developed agenda to the rest of the staff. Expectations and opportunities for teacher leadership or problem-solving were nearly nonexistent. Year 2. During the FIRST initiatives second year, orgamzational structures remained a focus of attention at partner schools. SEDL facihtators sought to enhance structures and practices that worked and mitigate the effects of structures that did not exist or work well. When funds to provide meals and stipends for professional development dried up at Community High School, SEDL supported the principal in utilizing other school resources to support unprovement efforts. Communication via e-mail helped fill the gap created by fewer meetings\nthe schools video equipment (and students) provided a means to create videotapes of training activities. At Pelican High School, in light of a new school structure, and with the cooperation of a new administrator, SEDL staff supported school personnel in adapting necessary procedures to the new organization and structures. At Banner High School, FIRST efforts targeted one academy of the four (that understood the value of FIRST and articulated interest) created by the division of a large high school. The lack of organizational structure at Tall Pines Middle School remained a .signifirant obstacle to school improvement efforts. The SEDL facilitator at Tail Pines advocated for fuller use of existing organizational structures, and helped the principal realize the strength and skills of the campus leadership team. In addition, the facilitator created opportunities from external mandated policies\nthe district required the completion of a campus plana difficult task given the lack of organization and staff expertise that characterized Tall Pines. The SEDL coordinator volunteered to assist in this effort, and in the process modeled I i SEDL 4inclusion, data driven decisions, planning and communicationand embedded greater capacity for ongoing school improvement into Tall Pines future. District requirements provided accoimtabhity and legitimacy to school efforts at San Fernando School. Here, the SEPT, facilitator utihzed district pressure to align curriculum within the school, and with state assessments helped to unify teachers^by quelling resistanci in taking the next steps in the schools focus on improved mathematics instruction and achievement. Reflection. As a result of two years work in partner schools, SEDL staff learned that they had been too optimistic in terms of organizational structures at partner schools. Partner schools functioned with minimal organization, allowing informal networks and unspoken expectations to guide and define their work, and reinforcing the isolation of teachers in their individual classrooms. Without clear access to information, the means to express opinions, or the assurance that their perspective would be honored, teachers and staff retreated from one another, convinced themselves that school-wide improvement was impossible, and focused their efforts narrowly. SEDL facilitators found themselves  working within organizational structures that were cumbersome and ineffective, or creating new organizational structures with personnel who were often skeptical and occasionally resistant. Facihtators found this work to be critical to maintaining improvement efforts, but also to be quite difficult, thankless, and slow to show benefits. improvement efforts at each school, advanced dynamics that supported those efforts, and most criticallyavoided being drawn into or ahgned with any one side of personal and social conflicts involving the partner schools. At Banner and Community High Schools, personal and socieil dynaTnirs were generally positive. Banner High School was marked by strong, clear, and widespread teacher conTmitrnp-nt. to and knowledge of students. For the most part, this commitment fueled supportive professional relationships between teachers, although there was little opportunity for teachers suggestions to be incorporated into administrative decisions about the new academy structure. At Commumty High School, trust in the principal translated into the ability for teachers to work well with one another, and to ignore small factions that arose in opposition to improvement efforts. In schools where the personal and social dynamics were less positive, SEDL facihtators sought to engage all staff in the improvement effortsand in the meetings eind decisionmaking that informed and shaped those efforts. Nudging teachers to learn one anothers names by asking a group who is missing provided a small but vital fotmdation for teachers to begin talking to one another about instruction at Pelican High School. At San Fernando, providing the opportunity for staff to discuss the issues that simmered between them allowed some of these issues to be resolved. At Tall Pines, attending to organizational structures helped to dispel some of the tensions that precluded the development of strong personal relationships among teachers and staff. Personal and Social Dynamics of Individuals and Organizations Year 1. SEDL facilitators observed the personal and social dynamics that impacted Year 2. For the most part, issues of personal and social dynamics were addressed only tangentially during the second year. SEDL staff maintained their focus on building relationships among teachers and between 5 SEDLteachers and adm i n i strators in the context of professional development and school improvement efforts. When facilitating meetings, SEDL staff worked to ensure that every voice was heard, and maintained professional neutrahty when tensions emerged. SEDL staff utilized emerging teacher leaders and other individuals invested in school change efforts to encourage schoolwide commitment to the project. In this project and in others, SEDL has learned that professional growth, focused efforts toward school improvement, and the academic success of students form the strongest bonds between school professionals. Banner High School and Tall Pines Middle School did provide notable exceptions, where personal and social d5mamics jeopardized improvement efforts. At Banner, three of the four academy principals began to isolate and undermine the fourth principal, and to reduce their commitment to the FIRST project. These three principals ultimately left the FIRST project, and the SEDL facflitator worked exclusively with that fourth principal, in the academy she administered. Issues related to leadership negatively impacted personal and social dynamics at Tall Pines Middle School. A school climate survey was conducted during each year of the FIRST projectall indicators fell in the second year, and the subscale of Collegial support fell most dramatically. Unfortunately, SEDL could do little to directly address these issues until issues of leadership improved. Reflection. Personal and social dynamics is perhaps the least distinctly bounded of the five critical areas the FIRST project identified and addressed. Problems that are rooted in leadership, context, and organizational structures almost always affect personal and social dynamics negatively. Similarly^ advancement in any of the four other areas tends to support positive dynamics. But, while SEDL facihtators acknowledged that personal and social dynamics tended to bleed into and out of the other critical areas, they found it remained an important area to consider independently. one When school personnel know and trust another, the work of school change gets easier. Communicating expectations of respect and participation, bringing parties in conflict together to dialogue, and teaching techniques for assuring full participation and equal representation helped to advance positive personal and social dynamics, which in turn advanced school improvement efforts. Contextual Influences Year 1. Each of the five partner schools operated within a different community and district context. At Community and Banner High Schools, contextual issues were minimal, and easily addressed through assuring clear communication between all stakeholders. This was a central tenet of the focus of improvement efforts, although some attention was required at Banner because of the schools reaction to the community and city politics that were at play. Contextual issues were most significant at Tall Pines, where new state and di strict, pohcies and mandated curricular changes created new roles, relationships, and responsibflities among administrntors, teachers, parents, and students. In addition. Tail Pines operated under a long-standing desegregation order that required careful scrutiny of any changes that might affect the racial composition of the school. A strong teachers union actively monitored the effect of these changes and FIRST improvement efforts on teachers work and responsibflities. At Tall Pines, SEDL sought to connect all these factors to develop a coherent improvement effort. SEDL 6 1Similarly, tensions between the digfrict- and school at Pelican High School were addressed in the first year by providing opportunities for representatives of each orgamzation to meet, dialogue, and problem- solve. The establishment of regular meetings had a powerful and immediate impact on communication and trust between school and district personnel. The students at San Fernando School provided this school its most challenging contextual issue. While most of the core staff at San Fernando were Euro-American, the majority of instructional assistants and students were Native American and T-Tispanic SEDL staff worked to assure that the voices of instructional assistants were included and honored at staff meetings, and brought in research-based materials on connecting school curricula to students ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Year 2. SEDL facilitators continued to assist school personnel in identifying and responding to a variety of contextual influences. Peril a pi more critically, SEDL facilitators sought to maintain school focus on improvement goals and specific activities toward those goals, in order to prevent contextual influences from becoming excuses for stasis. SEDL helped school personnel learn to define their real IS spheres of influence and to handle issues of context. They also provided technical support in the completion of campus improvement plans, offered advice on utilization of Title I funds, and guided professional development in areas of multiculturalisni and age-appropriate teaching strategies. Reflection. While schools are the location of improvement work, they are critically affected for better or worse by the context in which they exist. External change facilitators must have a wide and deep range of strategies and uiformation in oi\nder to be ready to anticipate and address issues of context during improvement efforts. Bringing all parties to the table, where possible, is the best first strategy in addressing contextual issues. In aU cases, more and better communication, and more and better understanding mitigated the negative aspects of context, and allowed stakeholders to begin to imagine context as a strength of, and not a hindrance to, their school. Leadership Year 1. Gathering an accurate impression of each partner school was the first step for SEDL facihtators across each of the five critical arpas for school improvement. Doing so quickly was particularly important in the area of leadership. While shared leadership is acknowledged as a pwerful form of school administration, at the FIRST partner schools, the principals retained most of the power, made most of the admimstrative decisions unilaterally, and thus wielded tremendous influence on the staffs perception of the FIRST initiative and their willingness to fiflly participate. At Community High School, relationships between staff and a d m i m'.gtr a tors were generally positive, and the Assistant Principal was particularly enthusiastic about the FIRST project. His enthusiasm would eventually lead him to overload the project with mitiatives, but at the beginning it served to create momentum, interest, and commitment among school staff. During the first year, tensions between the four academy principals at Banner High School came to a head. When the fm-mer superintendent had made them equals as administrators, she had not provided them with any model for operating as such. The resulting power struggle defused improvement efforts and negatively impacted interpersonal dynamics. The SEDL facihtator sought to assuage hurt feelings and discover and i 7 SEDL Ldisseminate leadership models that might work between these four administrators. She was unsuccessful at finding such a model, and ultimately decided to focus the FIRST project on only one of the academies. Leadership at Tall Pines was a very apparent area for potential improvement. The principal, though well meaning, seemed not to understand the function or practical value of shared leadership. While both a steering committee and campus leadership team were in place, there were no clearly defined areas of responsibihty for each or between the two. The principal rarely shared substantive decisionmaking with either body, and in fact appointed some members of the campus leadership team despite district guidelines calling for their election. When the principal did delegate responsibility, he neither monitored nor followed up to gauge progress or to identify how he could support staff efforts. As a result, many tasks were never completed, or if completed, were not recorded. Within this environment, the SEDL facihtator sought to develop a shared focus and a sense of self-efficacy among the staff. While this approach yielded enthusiasm in small group settings, plans were often jettisoned in responses to some crisis or other, and no coherent improvement plan could be developed and maintained. The principalship at San Fernando School and Pehcan High School changed hands after the first year of the FIRST initiative. At each of these schools, SEDL facihtators began again with new administrators, and built upon the relationships they had established with school staff. At Pehcan the facihtator was able to establish an immediate positive relationship with the new principal, while at San Fernando, teacher leaders maintained continuation of the project and specifically asked the new principal in the hiring interview if she was willing to support the SEDL project. In both instances, this turnover negatively impacted the momentum of the project, but did not completely erase the achievements nor void the plans made for implementation of school improvement efforts. Year 2. SEDL staff worked with FIRST school principals where they were, and in some cases, where they were not. When three of four principals in Banner High Schools new academy structure evidenced a lack of interest in or focus on how SEDL might support them, SEDL shifted its focus to full, supportive cooperation with the one principal who remained active and interested. At Tall Pines Middle School, the need for better management of routine procedures impeded efforts at communication, change, and improvement. The SEDL facihtator worked to develop leadership skills of the principal and of school staff. She advocated for utilizing existing structmes to share decision-making with the staff, and by the end of the project year, the campus leadership team was more involved in important decisions about school personnel and pohcies. In addition, the SEDL FIRST facihtator ultimately met with the school principal behind closed doors and confronted him about the need for stronger management and greater administrator visibihty in the school. The principal was able to accept this counsel, and made changes. At Community High School, one principals enthusiasm for the focus on freshman students led him to overbuild that program, nearly to the breaking point. The SEDL facilitator at Community High advocated for the staff and brought this principal to an awareness ofand sense of humor about^his tendency to take on too much. f i i At two FIRST schools, the projects second year began with new principals. SEDL facihtators took responsibihty for educating these fldTnini.qtrat.ors on the history, purposes. I SEDL 8and progress of the FIRST initiative. At Pelican High School, SEDL consistently supported and advanced the strengths of the new principal, even in trying times of adjustment. The SEDL facilitator pushed the new Pelican principal to define his vision of leadership, and supported the principal in implementing that vision throughout the predictable highs and lows of adjusting to a new school and a new assistant principal. At San Fernando school, the SEDL facilitator explained the staffs choice of mathematics as a school focus, and supported the principal in advancing this focus even as the district pushed for a shift to reading. The SEDL facihtator helped to assure the principals interest in professional development and assessment were incorporated into the school improvement plans, and reminded the principal that change takes time. When this principal also left the school, SEDL began again with San Fernandos third leader, explaining the FIRST initiatives focus, detailing the history and achievements of the staff, and offering continued assistance. Reflection. Through FIRST and other school improvement initiatives, SEDL has developed an abiding respect for the role of leadership in any school change effort. These efforts advance most effectively and smoothly in schools where principals are committed to high quality mstruction leading to success for every student\nare adept at handling both day-to-day operations as well as the crises that routinely break these routines\nenjoy strong working relationships with district and school staff\nand have both the professional security and commitment to advance and utihze teacher leadership. Unfortimately, principals with such broad and deep strengths are few and far between. In addition, all school leaders subject to relocation, retirement, and are reassignment. Shifts in leadership, even when anticipated, can have profound, lingering, deleterious effects on teacher morale and school improvement efforts. SEDL supported principals who had skills and strengthened the skill base of principals who struggled with leadership. Developing personal relationships with these administrators was an important first step. Once this foundation was estabhshed, SEDL facilitators shared professional literature on leadership with principals and coached the principals on leadership strategies ranging from use of active verbs and first person plural (in their communication with teachers) to implementing significant shared leadership. SEDL also sought to connect these school administrators with a wide web of ongoing support, and so assisted in building relationships between FIRST school principals, and supported their professional development and attendance at national and local conferences. Conclusions Through the FIRST initiative, SEDL has developed a body of research on school improvement efforts that includes close study of five schools in the process of change, a widening library of strategies for supporting school change, and confirmation of the critical role change agents can play in schools undertaking improvement and change. As outside agents, change facihtators can develop a clearer view of dynamics that support and impede change efforts, and provide and build resources and abihties. In addition, they can offer assistance that is free of existing power relationships and requirements, can advocate for aU school personnel, md, most importantly, can maintain the focus of improvement efforts on unproved instruction and increased student achievement. While increased student achievement is the goal of any responsible school improvement effort, administrative and organizational difficulties must often be addressed before a coherent view of the student body and its needs can be formulated and connected to staff capabihties and goals. Left unaddressed, issues 9 SEDLof leadership, organization, and context, as well as personal and social dynetmics can derail school improvement efforts and sap the energy of the most gifted and dedicated teachers. Most critically, if these issues are not addressed and a schoolwide improvement effort is not advanced, the quality of education individual students receive can become simply a matter of chance and class assignment. School change is a daunting proposal, and school change professionals must develop and utilize a deep and broad variety of strategies for assisting schools in change and improvement. Change facilitators must be able to respond to the particular issues of a school, and must be willing to devote time and attention to developing a clear understanding of the schools readiness and its cultural ethos, in order to adapt and implement change strategies that are specific to each schools circnmstance In addition, change agents must maintain an awareness of more universal issues in education^including administrative turnover, fluctuating funds, and student populations that are increasingly diverse and face increasing demands, both academic and personal. i i 1 j i Issues.-.about Change is published twice a year by Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. This issue was written by Melissa Capers, consultant\nD'Ette Cowan, SEDL Program Associate\nand Grace Fleming, Tara Leo, and Melanie Morrissey, Program Spedahsts, SEDL. SEDL I OERI This publication is based on work sponsored wholly, or in part, by the OfBce of Educational Research \u0026amp; Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under Contract Number RP91002003. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the Department, or any other agency of the U. S. Government. This publication may be reproduced and copies distributed to others. Please acknowledge SEDL as the source on all copies. I i I I I J i SEDL 10Voltime 9, Number 1 2000 Issues . . about Change Comprehensive School Improvement: Addressing the Challenges The report of the 1996 National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future bore a strong message regarding the need for educational change\nSchool transformation cannot succeed unless it focuses on creating conditions in which teachers can teach and teach well. This report, coupled with current nationwide interest in encouraging schools to adopt comprehensive reform strategies or programs, urgently communicates the need for school improvement. Such reform may not be much to ask of schools that are already supported by adequate funding, continuous professional development programs, and active parent involvement. Many schools dont fit that picture however, and are crying out for help. It is with these schools, the ones that are struggling to meet the needs of their students, that SEDL has engaged in the Facilitating Implementation of Reform Strategies and Tactics (FIRST) project. The goals of this paper are to provide a deeper understanding of how schools experience comprehensive reform and to identify the issues that affect schools efforts at improvement. Taking a Different Approach This project took a systemwide look at comprehensive school improvement while simultaneously working with schools that were undertaking reform efforts. For the purposes of this work, comprehensive school improvement is an inclusive term for engaging an entire school staff in an in-depth study of the teaching and learning process. Emphasis is placed on the examination of all aspects of the school  curriculum, instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional development, parental and community involvement, school management, and so on and identification of how all of these parts can work together to improve student results. SEDL formed in-depth partnerships with five schools, one in each state of the educational laboratorys diverse service region. These partnerships were intended to differ from former models of school improvement in three specific ways. First, the focus of attention and assistance was on the entire school program and all factors that have the potential to affect student learning. This work was in no way to be a quick fix to show a fast turnaround in standardized test scores. Rather, the intent was to develop the capacity of school personnel and to promote their engagement in continuous improvement. Second, the existing and proposed structures and practices at each school site were examined in terms of their expected benefits for student learning. Each schools needs were viewed as individual and unique, which required the creation of a program tailored to that specific site and a process to address specific areas of need. Third, multiple technical assistance providers were coordinated to assist in the improvement efforts at each site during the FIRST project, and also beyond that time, to enable staff to stay informed and current in their practice. Again, because of the individual needs of each school site, the providers and the assistance that they offered varied. Developing Alliances with Schools Similarities existed among the schools in that each entered the partnership acknowledging that it was at risk of fading to meet the learning needs of its students, and each lacked experiences in school change. More important, staff at the five sites expressed their interest and commitment to the partnership as a means of producing meaningful changes in their schools and positively affecting student results. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh Street, Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 476-6861Together, the sites- displayed characteristics that are symptomatic of the challenges in pubhc education across the nationachievement scores were consistently low or falling, students were unhappy and/or unmotivated, parents were ignored, community members were disengaged, and school staff did not beheve they could affect student learning. The sues varied in terms of geography and demographics (race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, students cultural background), as well as in their capacity for reform planning and implementation. What We Are Learning SEDL staff conducted ongoing informal surveys, observations, and interviews, and documented each schools existing conditions with journal entries. In the process of reviewing the first years work across all five sites, the researchers found five core issues, each of which had signifirant impact on the schools past and present efforts at improvement:  organizational structures  focus of improvement work  personal and social dynamics  contextual influences  leadership. While the school sites themselves were more dissimilar than similar, the five core issues were factors at each site, to varying degrees. Such commonalities motivated SEDL staff to examine more thoroughly the core issues and their impact on each of the schools. Each of the core issues is thematic, encompassing a number of related areas in which the schools have needed assistance. The issues are highly interactive and interrelated, some to a stronger degree than others. Growth and progress at each site required that the external agent be aware of the five core issues. Actions were taken to nurture, support, and encourage positive developments within each of the core issues, in attempts to build up the capacity of staff and administration and to develop a system that is supportive of change. Findings regarding these issues have evolved from the experiences, observations, and documentation of work done at the five sites by SEDL staff and by the shared observations and commentary of the school staffs. This paper will clarify and discuss each core issue, using observations from the FIRST sites. While the situation in the schools with respect to these core issues does raise concerns, SEDL staff feel it is increasingly important to assess the overall picture, to acknowledge school staffs weaknesses along with their strengths, in order to knowledgeably facihtate school change. While SEDL staff continue to work on these issues with schools, it is hoped that other external school improvement facihtators will benefit from the insights provided regarding the challenges that all schools may face as they undertake comprehensive reform. Organizational Structures With appropriate structures and processes in place, effective schools run efficiently. At the FIRST schools, many of the necessary organizational supports were lacking, and the result was disorganization, unclear directions and processes, few to no avenues for problem solving or collaboration among staff, and frustrated teachers. Three specific areas within the organizational structures of schools were identified as areas that needed attention: time, communication, and organization. Finding time. One of the schools had regularly scheduled in-services for the whole staff to meet for professional development or collaboration. At the other four sites, faculty meetings were often held after school and were kept short to stay within state or union guidelines. Such meetings functioned primarily as a time to address administrative items, rather an to provide an opportunity for staff to come together as a whole for learning, problem solving, or decisionmaking. The result was fragmented understanding of the schools vision or collective purpose and continued isolation of teachers within their own classroom, grade level, and/or subject area. f 1 Though in-service days and/or daily planning periods of 45 minutes or longer were scheduled at each school site, the staffs tended to use the time SEDL 2 Iindependently for grading, planning, etc. No times or structures were designated specifically to facilitate collaboration among teachers. The inabihty to find time and/or the inefficient use of time greatly affected staffs opportunities to discuss issues regarding their vision, their goals, the school, the students, and the curriculum. 1110 result at each of the sites was a disconnection of purpose, intent, and action. Staff and administrators at each site identified a need for making time to work together as a staff and for using allotted time efficiently. This particular issue required ongoing negotiation and creative problem solving between SEDL staff and the campus administrator(s). In some instances, the large size of the staff and limited time constraints have meant that only, part of a staff was together at any one point. Within this configuration, the staffs were just learning how to use their time most productively so that their collective work has a positive impact on student learning. Communication. Although aU the schools could identify some form(s) of communication between administrators, staff, students, and parents, several of them did not have a regular means of daily or weekly communication of events. Rather, they rehed on word-of-mouth messages and/or PA announcements, which were disruptive and frequently consumed valuable classroom instruction time. Each of the schools lacked efficient methods for regular, ongoing communication regarding events whether scheduled or unscheduled. Such inadequate communication often resulted in last minute scrambhng on due dates, changes in staff or student meetings, and in hasty decisionmaking. At three of the schools in particular, information from the central office was not communicated to staff and/or administrators effectively or in a timely manner. Since much of the communication between schools and the central office is in the form of requests, concerns, or questions, the lack of efficient systems for such communication led to misinformation and confusion. Several of the school sites did not have any consistent means of communicating calendar events to parents, and so parental involvement in school activities was limited. School stakeholdersthe students, parents, and community members were rarely informed of or invited to participate in school activities, especially those that required decisionmaking. Teachers contact with parents was generally in the context of reporting concerns or grievances regarding their students. Parents and surrounding community members were viewed as unsupportive of schools efforts, and yet the staffs did not know how to nurture more positive relationships. Organization. In the time that SEDL staff spent in the schools during the first year, it appeared that few organizational systems were in place for making requests, identifying concerns, allocating materials or resources, or handling necessary paperwork. At one school site, it was not unusual for administrators to be unaware of a students location  during the day, since no system existed for accessing students class schedules. If a parent came to pick up his or her child, or the administrator wanted to talk to a particular student, school office personnel would have to interrupt instructional time by making a call over the PA system asking the child to report to the office. Most office personnel and administrators had not designed an efficient system for filing or accessing pertinent information, whether it was a state mandate regarding curriculum, personnel information, or student records. Focus of Improvement Work Maintaining an undeviating focus on students is central to identifying and articulating purposeful intent for any schools reform work. Such a focus was lacking at the sites. Often, small groups or individuals appeared to have a grasp of the overall intent of improvement work at the sites, but staffwide common focus and effort were not apparent. Also significant were the low levels of teacher empowerment found within these schools teachers ability and willingness to access information, identify needs and potential solutions, and engage in self-study were hmited. The result was inconsistency of purpose, mixed messages, and inefficient implementation of instructional strategies across the sites. Four specific areas of need 3 SEDLwere noted this first year: data analysis, problem solving, access to inrormation/resources, and conflict resolution/celebration. Data analysis. SEDL staff involved each school staff in examining their schools strengths and areas of concern, engaging the entire staff in data collection, analyzing trends, and developing hypotheses. Four of the five sites found it diffimit to provide recent student achievement data for this process, often not having the scores from the past years assessments on hand at the school. Accessing longitudinal dau for interpretation and analysis was even more difficult. When SEDL staff did access student achievement data, the staff were not clear about the usefulness of information gained from examining these data. Teachers and administrators exhibited limited understanding of alternative student assessment techniques, and this restricted their ability to accurately identify the needs of their students. Therefore, SEDL staff began to teach the school staffs how to interpret and analyze testing data. Once data were accessed, and teachers were taught how to read the scores and use them to identify strengths and needs, dialogue about the impact of instruction in the classroom began. Collaborative problem solving. Beyond the examination of data is the opportunity for school staffs to engage in dialogue regarding the needs of their students and their school. Before estabhsh- ing a partnership with SEDL, the five school sites had devoted little to no time to such discourse. As noted in the Organizational Structures section above, there was limited time provided for collaborative work. When administrators or staff attempted to discuss needs, it was often in a context of hurried decisionmaking, without referring to data or acknowledging everyones concerns. Dialogue techniquesallowing everyones voice to be heard without judgementwere not employed at any of the school sites. No clear norms were established for the school personnel to use in group discussions. The result was that a few vocal staff members at each school site were heard, while the test of the group was quiet and less involved. Often the more vocal staff members were aware that not everyone was involved. and yet did not seem to know how to address the problem. On the other hand, the quieter, less involved staff members spoke of feehng alienated from the discussions and decisionmaking, and therefore were admittedly less committed to making things work. The schools, in general, did not spend time identifying the potential for their students, their school, or themselves. Staffs were continually inundated by demands to improve student test scores, improve discipline referrals, or improve something else that was seen by someone else as unsatisfactory. School staffs did not spend any time identifying their strengths, or their vision for their students, schools, or themselves, and therefore they could not collectively relate to their successes or to their potential for improvement. Access to information/resources/training. Only one of the schools had access to and made use of available technical assistance in the form of training or resources. The other sites have either had difficulty in the past accessing outside resources, were unaware of what assistance was available to them, or simply could not identify what kind of assistance would benefit them. Directly related to the schools need for a vision and goals for their improvement work, the schools staff did not regularly seek information by tapping into research or literature regarding best practices. Staffs were more likely to attempt implementation of programs that another school in the district was doing, or what they heard from other teachers about what was working in their schools, rather than investigating the claims first. School staffs often did not receive adequate training in the programs they were trying to implement. An example of this was the implementation of block scheduling at one high school. Though the block scheduling strategy was adopted three years ago, the staff never received training regarding their instructional practices while teaching in longer periods. Conflict resolution and celebration. In any organization involving creative and energetic individuals, a certain degree of conflict will be present. Such friction does not result in negative attitudes or perceptions when there are clear norms and strategies for resolution in effect. SEDL 4These school sites, however, all struggled with conflict and they had limited resolution strategies in place. The results ranged firom the development of factions within a school staff, to complete ignorance of conflict, to individuals resigning their positions and leaving the school or district. Celebration strategies were very limited at the school sites. Since the schools seldom acknowledged their progress, there was no apparent need to celebrate accomplishments, learning, or growth. When one high schools state assessment scores significantly increased this year, the SEDL staff member who had written congratulatory notes to the instructional teams was informed by teachers that the note was the only acknowledgment they had received upon learning of the improved scores. Without celebration of even the little things, staff motivation was low, which in turn affected the students perceptions of school and learning, resulting in disenfranchised staff and students. Personal and Social Dynamics A trustful culture, mutual respect and regard within relationships, and collective engagement of staff and administrators are key components of effective cultures within schools. The personal and social dynamics at these sites varied substantially. Trustful culture. Change of any kind is a very difficult process. SEDL staff recognize that when a group has personal or information concerns, it is unlikely that sustainable progress will be made until those concerns are resolved. At some schools, the staff were open with each other, and a certain level of trust had been established over time. At other sites, however, the culture was distrustfulor at best, unsupportive of staff-wide openness and respect. At each of the sites, there was the need for SEDL staff to establish norms with the group about working together and set some precedence regarding group involvement. Several of the schools displayed a pervasive feehng of distrust toward district office staff. The causes of the distrust are unknown, but the lack of trust and respept significantly affected the ability of the staff to learn to work together with district staff. Relationships. The development of a trustful culture requires strong professional relationships, and the key to developing those ties is to strengthen the personal relationships as well. Too often, the workplace is seen as the place for work, and there is no acknowledgment that everyone has a life outside. Each of the five school sites was limited in the development of relationships among staff members. There were very few opportunities, either within school or outside of it, for staff to do fun things together, learn together, laugh together, or just get to know each other. Relationships that were nurtured occurred primarily, in small groups in grade level or subject area, because of proximity in location or similar scheduling. The groups that did engage in these types of interactions and relationship building worked more effectively together within the school as a result. Collective engagement. Since the school staffs had had few experiences of working together in these schools, it is understandable iat they had not had many opportunities to experience differences, develop mutual regard, or engage in collective learning. Little to no work had been done with school staffs to acknowledge and value the differences in culture, experience, and expertise that they brought to the school environment. Due to the limited interactions between staff, opportunities for building trust and collegial growth were hindered. In several instances, pockets of staff members had worked together over a long period of time and had established some trusting relationships. In only a few instances, however, did staff use these relationships to engage in learning with and from each other regarding classroom practice. Contextual Influences A school does not operate separate or apart from surrounding entities. Four specific areas were found to have the most direct impact on the school staff and their improvement efforts: the school itself, the community, the district, and the state. School context. The most apparent issue at two of the five sites was the quality and maintenance of the facilities and grounds. Each day students 5 SEDLcame to a school that was not well cared for, and the result was a continuing lack of respect for the facilities, displayed by ripped wallcoverings, beat- up lockers, trash on the floors, writing on the desks, and general classroom and hallway disrepair. Such an environment had become so common to school staff that little was done to address the issue of facilities maintenance, either among themselves, with the custodial staff, or with the students. Upon entering the buildings, one encountered an environment that was dismal, unkempt, and drabnot an atmosphere that would encourage positive self-esteem, communicate value and respect, or nurture pride. and parents, which further alienated the two groups and kept them from developing positive relationships and understanding. Finally, the schools teachers and administrators had low expectations with regard to themselves as professionals and as self-learners. This was com- mtmicated in many ways, but the most obvious to the teachers at several of the sites was the reality that resources, materials, and training were not available. Although each of these schools struggled with low funding for such items, teachers perceived the lack of supplies and opportunity as indications of disrespect for their work. Deeply intertwined with the context at the school sites was. the quality of relationships between the students and the staff. At several of the schools these relationships were noticeably strained, and poor commimication, behavior, and morale were the result. In classes and while engaging in one-on-one conversation with students, teachers were frequently disciplining students rather than refocusing them on their work or encouraging then- creativity in class. Students were overheard complaining about how the teachers treated them, and they rebelled by acting out in class or skipping classes altogether. There was significant emphasis on maintaining control through discipline. It was questionable, however, whether such tactics had the intended positive effects on student/staff relationships and student learning. Directly related was a comment made by staff and students alike\nWe dont talk to each other. Since most students see their teachers more than they see their own parents, such unsupportive relationships can be detrimental to student learning, self-esteem, and personal growth. In three of the five schools, there were significant attitudes and/or beliefs among the school staff affecting perceptions of students, parents, and community. Issues of culture, race, and education surfaced in many overt ways. Staff did not appear to acknowledge or understand the cultural beliefs or environmental situations of their students, and community members. This affected the students and their families perceptions of the worthiness and value of the school and staff. Sometimes school staff communicated their own economic or educational superiority to students There were also low expectations held for the students as learners and for the district/community/state as viable support systems. Community context. Every school ftmctions within a community, which can maintain a limited undersunding of the school, how it works, and what its impact is on students. The community comprises the parents of schoolchildren and also the area businesses that support and prosper from the education of the communitys students. To varying degrees, each of the sites struggled with relationships within the community. It was not uncommon to hear that the community held the school in less-than-supportive regard. Often articles appeared in the local media that reflected negatively on the school, the staff, or the students. Active community members and board members at several sites voiced their concerns about their schools effectiveness publicly, which served to further deepen the divide between the school and the community. However, the school staffs engaged in little outreach to encourage more parental or community understanding. The general attitude of the school staffs seemed to be, Theres nothing we can do about it anyway. f f Staff at each site discussed the importance of involving parents and community members, informing them of the work that is done at the school, and enlisting their assistance, but at most of the sites, staff experienced difficulty with this component and were unable to overcome their discomfort in working with parents and community members'. i I SEDL 6District context. Insofar as schools work within a larger system of education, they must be responsive to the requests, mandates, and desires of that surrounding system. District offices, charged with communicating state requirements, often make demands on schools regarding policies, curriculum, discipline, and professional development. With regard to policies, administrative demands, record keeping, facility maintenance, access to data, and availability of resources and materials, the numerous interactions between the schools and their district offices were less than smooth. Until the partnership with SEDL, most of these school sites took ho action to improve the lines of cornmunica- tion between themselves and the district offices. State context. The states demands on these school sites either have changed significantly within the last few years (with the adoption of a new accountability system, for example), or are frequently changing. Therefore, clear communication of pohcies, adoptions, and mandates is very important. While district offices are often the voice of such communication, the inconsistency of messages and constant changes from the state departments continued to cause schools to struggle. Leadership The most critical of the themes emerging from the first year of work was the leadership capacity of the principals. Such administrative development includes the principals ability to communicate a clear vision, inspire others to maintain high expectations, create strong organizational systems for themselves and the school, understand what is possible regard- mg improvement, and develop a culture of murntil respect and regard. In other words, leadership capacity has significant impact and influence on the other four core issues. Clear vision. Strong leadership is a necessary component for successful school reform. In order to provide such leadership, administrators need to be clear in identifying the vision they have for their school, their staff, their students, and themselves. The administrators at these sites simply held a common vision to improve achievement scores. Although this goal is certainly desirable for each of these schools, it was unclear how the administrators envisioned achieving it, and why that goal would be importantboth'necessary components of a strong vision. Without identifying a shared focus for improvement, administrators could not guide their staff in developing and articulating a collective vision for their students or their school. This lack of clarity made it difficult for the administrators to model the image through his or her actions with staff, students, parents, and community. Without strong vision as a path toward improvement, the a schools often lost their way. 11 Expectations. Closely related to the vision are the expectations that a school leader communicates to his/her staff and students. At these school sites, high expectations were rare. There is some relationship between the Personal and Social Dynamics and Contextual Influences in this subcategory, as expectations are often based on historical norms and professional relationships. In the case of one high school, the historical norms took precedence over the principals desire to set higher expectations. Being a new principal, he deferred to the existing norms rather than estabhsh- ing his own strong expectations directly related to a clear vision for improvement. Several of the administrators at the sites spoke of high expectations for staff and students, but they rarely modeled or followed through on such expectations. Decisionmaking. As discussed in the Organizational Structures section, there were few clear procedures for decisionmaking at the school sites. The absence of decisionmaking structures prevented teachers from being involved in long-range planning and resulted in unilateral decisions made by the administrator(s). If issues were brought to the staff, they were often voted on without accurate or thorough information. Organization. School administrators at several of the sites had difficulty organizing the daily tasks and paperwork with a user-friendly system. It did not appear that office personnel were utilized effectively for organizational assistance, and it was difficult to locate something when it was needed for a teacher, a parent, or district office staff. This lack of organization was apparent in plaiming efforts, in meetings, and in daily work. 7 SEDLSystems for communication among staff and between school and home were also inadequate. Both of these forms of communication were mentioned in the Organizational Structures section. Knowledge. One of the most important roles of a school leader is to function as a model for learning. It is imperative that administrators have a deep understanding of student learning and of teaching for learning, best practices, and current educational research. Such a foundation allows them to recognize and model strong teaching strategies for teaching staff. It is also important that administrators be familiar with state and district curriculum expectations and be able to communicate them to teachers and parents. We found administrators to be willing to pursue their own learning in these areas, but too overwhelmed by the daily routine to devote any time to increasing their own understanding. Administrators who were involved in their own advanced studies were more likely to be current with best practice and aware of developing research. This strongly supports the idea that administrators need to pursue opportunities for their own professional growth, in order to increase the effectiveness of their leadership. Administrators who valued continuous learning were more likely to make the cormection between teacher efficacy and continuous improvement in their schools. They were also more likely to admit they didnt always have the right answers and to encourage teacher leadership among their staff. It is crucial that administrators be able to model the will to develop the skill. Culture. The role of the administrator includes nurturing a positive, learning culture of mutual respect and regard among staff setting high expectations, but it also requires commitment to the vision of such a culture. At the schools studied, administrators did not address the culture among the staff and students. In some cases, they appeared oblivious to the needs of the staff or students, or unable to figure out how to respond to those needs. Some of the teachers felt that the principal didnt really know what'was going on in classrooms, but should, and in some cases, students echoed that sentiment. These teachers wanted to see the principal around the school on a daily basis. Administrators also needed to develop skills that would allow them to use resolution or mediation strategies appropriately in times of conflict, whether it was between students, parents, or staff. Too often, conflict was left to resolve itself and became detrimental to the school and/or the staff. Some of the unproductive norms at these sites had arisen from unresolved conflicts that were buried and in turn, had festered into a bigger issue. Finally, the culture of a school includes the parents, and few administrators were comfortable or skilled in communicating clearly with parents and/ or community members. In some instances, parents had been caUing directly to the district office regarding issues or concerns, since they did not feel they received adequate responses from the school administrator. In Summary Although much of the work being done in schools today is called comprehensive, in fact many efforts continue to focus on a quick fix to improve student achievement results rather than addressing the system as a whole and building up the parts in need. Such reforms may suffice in the short term, but they can rarely be sustained over time, or through administrative turnover, staff changes, or legal mandates. i SEDLs FIRST project attempted to address the needs of low-performing schools at a system level and to increase the capacity of staff to address continuous improvement for the purposes of increasing student learning. In order to do that, however, it was necessary to evaluate how these schools were functioning regarding their student results, the staffs professional development, and their capacity for growth. i i This project has found that schools that fail to meet the achievement needs of their students often also lack the necessary structures and skills for initiating and sustaining continual, growth and improvementsupportive organizational structures, focus for the work, attention to human dynamics, ability to wor^ within multiple contexts, and highly skilled leadership. In order to support meaningful t I 1 SEDL 8growth and change over time, significant attention must be devoted to strengthening the schools capacity in each of these areas. Successful comprehensive reform work will necessarily include such a focus. Although results of the identification and discussion of core issues in these schools seem discouraging, we have found them to be an accurate representation of the challenges currently confronting schools that undertake comprehensive school reform efforts. The next Issues.. .about Change paper will report the actions taken by SEDL and school staff at these sites to address the five core issues that emerged in this work. References National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for Americas future. New York: Author. SEDL is addressing the challenges that accompany efforts at school reform. The difference between the FIRST project and previous reform efforts lies in this acknowledgment and identification of the issues that affect the schools past and current efforts to make changes. Without addressing the underlying issues, reform efforts will merely scratch the surface and are unlikely to be sustainable over time to benefit student learning. Identification of the core issues provides insights about schools current conditions while engaged in comprehensive reform efforts and proves invaluable in determining capacity strengths and needs at each of the school sites. Comprehensive school reform as it is defined here- ingaging an entire school staff in an indepth, broad-scope examination of the teaching and learning process and working with them to improve student outcomesplants seeds of change that will continue to grow beyond the limits of this project. We hope that other external school improvement facilitators will be informed by the findings of this work and will use this information to promote school staffs grovrth and learning more effectively, and thus have stronger impact on building schools capacity for continuous improvement. We have much yet to learn. True comprehensive reform requires a thoughtful, reflectively adapting pace. As observers and participants in this process, we are learning that continuous reform can be encouraged by practicing tolerance for the investment of time that is necessary, and by nurturing continuous development within the core issues that surface in the process. Issues... about Change is published twice a year by Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. This issue was written by Melanie S. Morrissey, Program Specialist, Strategies for Increasing School Success at SEDL. SEDL I OERI This publication is based on work sponsored wholly, or in part, by the Office ofEducational Research \u0026amp; Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under Contract Number RP91002003. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the Department, or any other agency of the U. S. Government. This publicationmay be reproduced and copies distributed to others. Please acknowledge SEDL as the source on all copies. 9 SEDLRECEIVED DEC 1 1 2002 A.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge OFRCEOF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING December 3, 2002 DNiaOilNOW N011VD3a03S3a 30331330 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One National Plaza 124 W. Capital, Ste. 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2002 I I 330 a3AI333a Dear Ms. Marshall: So that you are aware, we are presenting to the Board of Education for approval at the December 19, 2002, meeting the 2001-2002 evaluation of the Alternative Language Program for limited-English proficient students. Since it is not relevant to African American student achievement, we have not included a copy for you. If you would like to have one. however, just give me a call. We are also requesting the Boards formal approval of the first three years (1998- 99. 1999-2000, 2000-01) of the program evaluations of the Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement, along with the feedback we received on each from the National Science Foundation, and then, for each, the next years Strategic Plan for the project. We are including in that package the program evaluation for 2001-2002 and will be asking the Board to review and formally approve that document as well. Copies of all the CPMSA documents are included in this mailing for your information, although all the documents for the first three years have already been provided to you as part of the exhibits for the court. If you have questions, please let us know. As a review of the progress we have made thus far, the Board will have approved, by the end of December 2002, six of the 14 program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report: 1. Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 2 Literacy. 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001. plus the Update provided to the Board in June 2002formally approved at October 2002 meeting\n810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 Mr. Ann Marshall December 3, 2002 Page Two 2. Charter School (first year)formally approved at October 2002 meeting\n3. Southwest Middle Schools Partnership with Southwestern Education Development Lab (Austin)formally approved at November 2002 meeting\n4. Collaborative Action Team (also a partnership with SEDL)formally approved at November 2002 meeting: 5. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Evaluations of the Alternative Language Programformally approved at November 2002 meeting: the 2001- 2002 evaluation will be approved in December\n6. 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 evaluations of the Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievementwill be formally approved at December 2002 meeting. Yours truly. Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Enclosures BAL/adg cc: Kenneth James Chris Heller Clay Pendley Junious Babbs Sadie Mitchell Don Stewart John Walker The University of Memphis Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 A State of Tennessee Center of Excellence Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Local 901/678-2310 Toll 866/670-6147 FAX 901/678-4257 October 28,2002 Director of Procurement Little Rock School District 1800 East Sixth Street Little Rock, AR. 72202 RECEIVED y. / 2p eV? DEC - 4 2002 desegregation MONITORING Dear Mr. Paradis, Enclosed are five copies of the Center for Research in Educational Policys response to RFQ #23-010: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant. If additional information is needed or if I can be of further assistance, please contact the Center toll free at 1-866-670-6147. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross Director / A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action University 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 HI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFP 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, 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 HI. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. 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. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. 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 479-695-2011 FAX 479-695-2147 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. 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 KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON RECEIVED DEC - 4 2002 fje/, 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A A.D. MCALLISTER FAX 870-762-2918 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING December 4, 2002 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendleyQfec.n*! ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Dennis Hansen Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza Ofc of the Attorney General 323 Center Street RE: 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel \u0026amp; Ms. Marshall: Enclosed please find, Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District prepared by Dr. Steven M. Ross. The Little Rock School District intends to retain Dr. Ross, Dr. Larry McNeal and Dr. William Moore to complete the eight evaluations identified on page 148 of the Little Rock School Districts March 15, 2001 compliance report that were not completed with the assistance of an outside expert. These were identified on page 12 of the Compliance Committees proposed compliance plan previously provided to you. F \\HOME\\BBrown\\Fendky\\LRSD\\deseg\\counseI2 It.wpd/ All Counsel December 4, 2002 Page 2 Little Rock School District hopes that its decision to follow the guidelines prepared by Dr. Ross will deviate the Joshua Intervenors concerns about the preparation of these evaluations. If not, we respectfully request that ODM schedule facilitation related to the preparation of these evaluations as soon as possible so that the District may meet the courts March 15, 2003, deadline for Board approval and submission of the evaluations to the Court. Also enclosed for your reference are the responses to the RFQ submitted by the experts identified above. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Dr. Ken James F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fcndley\\LRSD\\dcscg\\counsel2 k.wpd1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring final evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the treatment. The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact at- risk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to cunent practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the lessons learned from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness 2 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. C. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD\n(b) using appropriate methodology\nand (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This^evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to African American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions'. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section.3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and (c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to differential sampling the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by. investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the treatment essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration (only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly unlikely to have affected students academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (user-friendly) manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31,2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc.5 C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and (c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) The EYE program is relevant to LRSDs current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOVA) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside from the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. / 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals of LRSD. However, the evaluation data collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey\n10 in the certified/non- certified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section.JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187  OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry. P A DONNA J. McHENRY' S210 Heoterson Ro.ad Little Rock. .Aekans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Pjs (501) 372-3428 Email: mche1u7d@swbell.net Via Facsimile January 6, 2003 Dr. Bonnie Lesley Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JAN -8 2003  OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Dr. Lesley: On December 10, 2002 you mailed me a package which I have just received. I enclosing a copy of the address page for your information. am Please note that you have had my correct address for years. I am sending a copy of this letter to Judge Tom Ray because I am not certain whether there are any time response requirements involved, but I do not wish to be disadvantaged by receiving your document almost a month after its mailing. Very truly yours. -''^John W. Walker JWW:js Enclosure cc\nMr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann MarshallBonnie Lesley gl 0 W. Markham IRC Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 \u0026gt;t4 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 501-324-2032 (M C. 19 sw SBfflS K.h't- Hl  i\u0026lt;!\n'Ox .J/ X An Individual Approach (o a ]]7orUofKnonledff I : Mr. John Walker 3601 S. Broadway UUle Ror\nk, AR 72206received FEB 1 1 2003 An Individual Approach to a World of'Knowledge OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORIHG February 10, 2003 Mr. John Walker Attorney at Law 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 received FEB 1  2003 DESEGREGOAFTFIIOCN** OMFO NITOWNG Dear Mr. Walker: I am attaching four items that will be on the Board of Educations agenda for approval at their February 27, 2003, meeting. The four items are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Approval of the Elementary Summer School program evaluation Approval of the Lyceum Scholars program evaluation Approval of the Extended Year Education program evaluation Approval of the Middle School Transition program evaluation The cover memoranda and attached program evaluations are included for your review and information. Please give us a call if you have questions. Yours truly, A Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction cc\nKen James Chris Heller Junious Babbs, Jr. Don Stewart Sadie Mitchell /Ann Marshall BAL/adg Attachments 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax\n501-324-2032 u I f 7 -fi  'Xw Individual Approach to a World ofKnowledge January 9, 2003 RECEIVED Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 JAN 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Walker: I received your letter admonishing me for sending my December 10, 2002, mailing to you to an incorrect address. I apologize profoundly, and I want to explain. The address of the packet to 3601 S. Broadway, rather than to 1723 Broadway, was a clerical error. In every other time that I have drafted a letter to you, I have included the address in my file in my draft and then sent it to my administrative assistant to complete and mail. In that particular letter, I just asked her to address it to you and to Ms. Marshall at ODM, and I failed to list the addresses. The address she had in her file was the old one. Neither of us knew that the mistake had occurred until we returned to work on January 6 after the winter break. When the person who delivers mail told me that it had been returned that Monday, 1 was very concerned and immediately requested that he hand-deliver the packet to you that day, which he did. That the package arrived in your office almost a month after its initial mailing, please note, was the result of our being out of the office for the winter break. The letter and accompanying document were related to the Boards approval at their December meeting of the program evaluations for the 2000-2001 ESL program and for the 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 mathematics/science programs (CPMSA). You were advised earlier that these two programs would be considered at that meeting, and, of course, you received the Board agenda materials. Again, 1 apologize for the error, and 1 hope that you see that I sent the information and materials in good faith. Yours truly, L\u0026gt;- Bonnie A. Lesley'Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg cc: Kenneth James Chris Heller I'Ann Marshall Don Stewart Junious Babbs Sadie Mitchell 810 W Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 6 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 c fax: 501-324-20326^ 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Direct Phone: Communications Office: (501) 447-1030 (501) 447-1025 DATE: February 13, 2003 TO: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Special School Board Meeting MESSAGE: The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting Thursday, February 13, in conjunction with its agenda meeting. Tire special meeting agenda will include tire review of program evaluations and employee hearings. Tlie meetings will begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markliam. Pages (including cover) 1 To Fax * An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge *A Ze % tl 1 An Individual Approach to a World ofKnowledge February 10, 2003 RECclVED Mr. John Walker Attorney at Law 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 FEB 1 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Walker\nI am attaching five items that will be on the Board of Educations agenda for review/ approval at a special session on February 13, 2003, the evening of their agenda meeting. (We are asking them to approve four of the eight remaining program evaluations at their agenda meeting and the last four at the regular February meeting.) The five items are as follows: 1. Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District: Fiscal Impact 2. Approval of the HIPPY program evaluation 3. Approval of the Campus Leadership program evaluation 4. Approval of the Vital Link program evaluation 5. Approval of the Onward to Excellence program evaluation Please note that all four of the programs evaluated were previously abandoned by the District either due to d ata analysis that suggested program ineffectiveness or due to fiscal constraints. The cover memoranda and attached program evaluations are included for your review and information. Please give us a call if you have questions. truly, Yoprs truly. Bonnie A. Lesle/ Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction cc: Ken James Chris Heller Junious Babbs, Jr. Don Stewart Sadie Mitchell i/Ann Marshall BAL/adg Attachments 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032V IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL received MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURTS COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Courts Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1. The Courts Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2.7.1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated: LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs.2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Courts Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program, 2000\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":101,"next_page":102,"prev_page":100,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1200,"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}}]}}