{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1332","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing Before''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-06-24"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Magnet schools","School administrators","School superintendents","School board members","School facilities","School buildings","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing Before''"],"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/1332"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["147 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1252","title":"'Preliminary Educational Equity by Joshua Intervenors,'' the Monitoring staff of John W. Walker, attorney","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":["Joshua Intervenors"],"dc_date":["1993-06-23"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["'Preliminary Educational Equity by Joshua Intervenors,'' the Monitoring staff of John W. Walker, attorney"],"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/1252"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["219 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Intervenors, Joshua"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1561","title":"Court filings concerning district finances, Joshua Intervenors legal fees, King Interdistrict Magnet School's denomination, and the construction of new schools including Stephens Interdistrict School","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-06-22/1993-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational planning","King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Magnet schools","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School enrollment","Education--Economic aspects","School buildings"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning district finances, Joshua Intervenors legal fees, King Interdistrict Magnet School's denomination, and the construction of new schools including Stephens Interdistrict School"],"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/1561"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["22 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1255","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing''","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":["1993-06-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Court records","King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School improvement programs","Educational innovations"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing''"],"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/1255"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["202 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1296","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing''","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":["1993-06-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Court records","King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing''"],"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/1296"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["29 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1554","title":"Court filings concerning witness lists","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-06-01/1993-06-21"],"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--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Court records","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School boards","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School buildings","Magnet schools","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning witness lists"],"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/1554"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["36 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1047","title":"\"Little Rock New Futures Initiative: The First Four Years, Selected Findings,\" Metis Associates, Incorporation","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":["Metis Associates, Incorporation"],"dc_date":["1993-06"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Metis Associates, Inc.","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","School improvement programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock New Futures Initiative: The First Four Years, Selected Findings,\" Metis Associates, Incorporation"],"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/1047"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLittle Rock New Futures Initiative: The First Four Years Selected Findings  Little Rock Prepared by: Metis Associates, Inc. 80 Broad Street, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10004 (212) 425-8833 June 1993 St!f- 18, 9J /~DO t.K o This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of a contract between Metis Associates, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, D.C. I. Introduction Little Rock ew Futures Initiative: The First Four Years Selected Findings The ew Futures Initiative. sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. is a fourcity (Dayton. Ohio\nLittle Rock, Arkansas\nPittsburgh, Pennsylvania\nand Savannah, Georgia), five-year project designed to respond to disadvantaged populations through comprehensive community partnerships. The project aims to increase academic achievement, reduce dropout and teen pregnancy rates, and increase the employability of at-risk middle and high school tudents. One of the unique features of the initiative is the creation of a rich data base containing student characteristics and outcomes. The information included in this data base will be a valuable tool, not only for the collaboratives and individuals who are directly involved with the ew Futures initiatives, but for all those in the community who have an interest in our children. Beginning with the 1988-1989 school year, each ew Futures city was asked to prepare and transmit a computer file containing, for each student enrolled in grades six (or seven) through twelve at any time during the school year', basic demographic information (school, grade, gender, ethnicitv, date of birth and free lunch eligibility2). and outcomes (reading and mathematics achievement test data, annual attendance rates, course failure information, suspensions and/or expulsions, grade retention and dropout data). Additionally, samples of students were surveyed annually on such non-school topics as home structure, parents' education, academic aspirations, work experiences, and sexual and parenting experiences. Each of these data sources can be used to:  describe the status of children during a given year (what we refer to as \"within-year analyses\")\n compare the status of children in a given year to the status of children in other years (what we refer to as \"over-years analyses\")\nand  follow the status of identified groups of children who remain in the school system over time (what we refer to as \"longitudinal analyses\"). Each city maintains a confidential student identification numbering system which protects students' privacy, permits us to track students over time, and enables us to merge information from the school computer files with information from the student surveys. While many school departments around the country maintain student information systems for such 1 Also available, but not generally referenced in this report are Year 3 and Year 4 data for kindergarten through sixth-graders. 2 Free lunch data were available in two cities beginning with the 1989-1990 school year. 1 discrete applications as class scheduling, transportation routes, grade reporting, attendance/enrollments and academic achievement, the New Futures data base is unique for its comprehensive and continuous collection of data. Further, the application of common definitions over several years and across everal different middle-sized cities creates an information base that is unparalleled in the field for its potential as a research and management tool. We have now created four reasonably complete files of reliable data for each participating city - a file for the 1988-1989 school year, a file for the 1989-1990 school year, a file for the 1990-1991 school year, and a file for the 1991-1992 school year. 3 After the 1992-1993 school year there will be five such files. Given the high quality, comprehensiveness and continuity of the data collections, the ew Futures data base offers enormous potential for assessing needs, evaluating outcomes and developing sound educational policy . In this condensed report we strive to meet two goals: to share selected findings from our first four years of data collection and analysis and to demonstrate the scope and breadth of the data. Our hope is to encourage others to explore and utilize this valuable resource. Report Organization In this summary report we present findings regarding:  enrollment trends\n within-year and over-years outcomes for students on several key measures\n the changing status of those students who have remained in the school system for the four years of our study\n longitudinal enrollments and graduation rates for Year l's 9th graders\nand  the results of the most recent student survey. Taken together, these findings constitute a fairly succinct overview of the results of our statistical analyses to date. Additional details may be found in the appendices to this report4 and in the full four-year Cohorts and Comparative Data Report. 3 Throughout this report we refer to the 1988-1989 school year as Year l, the 1989-1990 school year as Year 2, the 1990-1991 school year as Year 3 , and the 1991-92 school year as Year 4. 4 Appendi\nTable A-1 shows longitudinal enrollment, Table A-2 shows the status change on key variables for all New Futures cities, and Table A-3 examines the relationship between two survey responses and school outcomes. 2 II. Findings A. Enrollment Trends Enrollment data provide a valuable overview of the students in the Little Rock schools. Table 1 shows, over years, enrollment data for junior high school (grades 7-9) and high school (grades 10-12) students in the Little Rock school system during each of the past four school years. Shown are enrollments in each year, the percentage change in enrollments over the four-year period, and the percentage of students in each year who were black or white. Total enrollments decreased by 6.9 percent, from 13,203 students in Year 1 to 12,294 students in Year 4, with decreases in both the junior high and high schools. In Year 1, 57. 7 percent of all enrollees were black, with 62.4 percent black students in the junior high school grades and 53.0 percent black students in the high school grades. By Year 4, 62.7 percent of the students were black, with 66.8 percent black students in the junior high schools, and 58 .2 percent black students in the high schools. Little Rock Table l Over Years Enrollment Data I I Junior High High School Total School Totals Year l 6,590 6,613 13,203 Totals Year 2 6,344 6,156 12,500 Totals Year 3 6,421 5,790 12,211 Totals Year 4 6,507 5,787 12,294 Change Yrs 1-4 -l.3% -12.5% -6.9% RACE Black Year l 62 .4% 53.0% 57 .7% Black Year 2 64.9% 55.7% 60.3% Black Year 3 66.l % 57.7% 62.l % Black Year 4 66.8% 58.2% 62.7% White Year l 36.0% 45.6% 40.8% White Year 2 33.5% 42.9% 38.l % White Year 3 32.5% 40.6% 36.4% White Year 4 32.0% 39.4% 35.5% 3 Table 2 summarizes, by race and school level, the post-Year 4 enrollment status of all of the students who were enrolled in Year 1. How many are still in the Little Rock schools? How many have transferred to another school system? How many have graduated? How many have dropped out of school or been expelled from school? The table shows cumulative enrollments for junior high and high school students. Little Rock Table 2 Cumulative Enrollment Summary Status Year 1 Status Year 4 Level in Race N Still In Transferred Graduated Presumed Unaccounted Expelled Year 1 Year 1 System Out of High Dropout5 For6 Schools System School Jr. High All 6,590 42 .9% 18 .5% 18 .3% 5.0% 13 .3% 2.0% School Black 4,110 46.5% 14.4% 18 .0% 5.3% 13 .0% 2.8% White 2,374 36.l % 25 .4% 19.2% 4.7% 13 .9% 0.7% High All 6,613 0.9% 6.1 % 72 .3% 11.6% 8.3% 0.8% School Black 3,506 1.2% 5.5% 69 .7% 12.7% 9.8% 1.1 % White 3,018 0.6% 6.7% 75 .3% 10.5% 6.5% 0.4% Of the 6,590 students who were in the junior high schools during Year 1 (grades 7 through 9) , 42.9 percent were still in the Little Rock schools by the end of Year 4, 18.5 percent had transferred out of the Little Rock schools, 18.3 percent graduated high school , and a total of 20.3 percent were either presumed dropouts , unaccounted for or expelled . Of the 6,613 students who were in the high schools during Year 1 (grades 10 through 12), by the end of Year 4, less than 1 percent (0 .9%) were still in the Little Rock schools, 6.1 percent had transferred out of the Little Rock schools, 72.3 percent graduated, and a total of 20.7 percent were either presumed dropouts, unaccounted for or expelled. 5 Presumed dropouts are those students who were enrolled in school and then quit, or who had more than 15 days of consecutive unexcused absences. d did nor n turn c. 11 , I u 6 Unaccounted for students were those students who were enrolled in school one year , but unexpectedly did not return to school by October of the following year. Some of these students may have moved from the district without officially transferring. 4 B. Within-Years and Over-Years Analyses Figures 1 through 7 graphically depict, by grade, Year 4 outcomes on key variables. The graphs clearly illustrate differences across grades and between school levels.  Figure 1 shows enrollment across grades for kindergarten through 12th grade students. Between 2,000 and 2,500 students were enrolled in each elementary school grade. Junior high school enrollments were between 2,000 and 2,300 at each grade level. High school enrollments were about 2,100 at the 10th grade, but between 1,700 and 1,900 at the other grades. The graph depicts the inflated enrollments at each transitional grade (1st [primary], 7th [junior high school], and 10th [high school]) . Inflated enrollments result from students being retained in grade and from transfers into the system.  Figure 2 depicts attendance across grades for junior high school and high school students. It can be seen in the figure that attendance decreases across junior high school grades and increases across high school grades. Students in all grades attended between 85 and about 91 percent of the possible days in Year 4. Tenth grade attendance (86.7%) was the lowest and 7th grade attendance (90.8%) was the highest.  Figure 3 shows, for each grade, the percentage of students suspended out of school at least once in Year 4. Suspension rates were considerably higher in the junior high schools than at any other school level. High school rates were much lower than junior high school rates, but were largely consistent across grade levels (about as many seniors as sophomores were suspended out of school.) Less than five percent of elementary school students were suspended from grades kindergarten through five . The 6th grade rate was 6.2 percent.  Figure 4 shows the percentage of students retained in each grade. Overall, retention rates are fairly low, but there are important grade level differences within each school level. Retention rates are the highest at the elementary school level in kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grades (almost no students are retained in 3rd through 6th grades). In junior high school the rates are highest at the 8th grade, and in high school rates are highest at the 10th grade.  Figure 5 shows the percentage of students over age in each grade. The percentage of students over age is higher in each successive grade from kindergarten to 8th. There is a slight decline at 9th grade, an increase at 10th grade, and lower percentages in 11th and 12th grades than for any other secondary grades . 5  Figure 6 shows the percentage of courses failed in each grade. Junior high school course failure rates were within 2 percentage points of each other, across grades. In the high schools, a course failure rate of 38 percent in the 10th grade, is substantially higher than either the 11th or 12th grade rates (27.9% and 25.0%).  Figure 7 shows the percentage of students dropping out in grades 7 to 12. The data are presented in the form of a stacked bar. Each bar combines the percent of students unaccounted for with the percent of presumed dropouts to show the total dropout rate. It can be seen that the dropout rate was fairly similar for 7th and 8th grades, but higher for 9th graders. The dropout rate was at its highest in the 10th grade, and was lower in each successive high school grade. The dropout rate was lowest in the 12th grade. Interestingly, at the high schools, about half of the dropout rate can be accounted for by the percentage of students who are presumed dropouts (3.4 % presumed, 4.1 % unaccounted for, 7.5 % total), at the junior high school level, most of the dropouts are unaccounted for students (0.3% presumed, 4.5% unaccounted for, 4.8% total). The figures graphically depict important patterns in student outcomes. For instance, it can be seen that high school and junior high school rates are different and 10th grade (Little Rock's high school transition grade) is where many problems appear to accumulate. Tenth graders have the highest course failure rates and are the most likely to drop out of school. Negative outcomes in the transition grade to high school are a phenomenon that we have seen in other New Futures cities. 2500 2000 \"C Q) 0... . C LU en 1500 c Q) \"C -::J Cl) - 0 1000 .... Q) .0 E ::J z 500 Figure 1: Little Rock Enrollment Comparisons, Year 4 K 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Grade 6 100% Q) 95% () C Ctl -c, C 2 =i \u0026gt;, 90% ro 0 Q) Ol .C..t.l Q) \u0026gt; \u0026lt;( 85% -c, Q) -c, 20% C Q) Q. en :::, Cl) -en 15% C Q) -c, :::, u5 0 10% Q) Ol Ctl c Q) (...). Q) 5% a.. 7 Figure 2: Little Rock Attendance Comparisons, Year 4 JHS HS 8 9 10 11 Grade Figure 3: Little Rock 12 Percentage of Students Suspended Out-of-School, Year 4 K 23456 789 10 11 12 Grade 7 -0 QJ 8% 7% '-Ciii 6% QJ a: -fJ) 5% C QJ -0 ::, 4% ii5 0 ~ 3% (13 c QJ ~ 2% QJ Cl.. 0%-!=== K Figure 4: Little Rock Percentage of Students Retained 1n Grade. Year 4 K-6 JHS HS 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Grade Figure 5: Little Rock Percentage of Students Over Age, Year 4 20%......r-------------,-------..----------, QJ Cl 15% \u0026lt;( ai \u0026gt; 0 Cl) c QJ -0 10% -::J Cl) -0 c QJ .(...). QJ 5% Cl.. K K-6 JHS HS 23456 789 10 11 12 Grade 8 \"O (1) 30% ro u.. VI (1) VI '-- :J 0 () 20% 0 (1) Ol -l1l C (1) (.) '-- (1) 10% a.. 0% 7 12% -VI 10% :J 0 a. 2 0 8% a 0 .c (.) (/) 6% 0 (1) Ol l1l 4% c (1) (.) '-- (1) a.. 2% 0% 7 Figure 6: Little Rock Percentage of Courses Failed, Year 4 8 9 10 11 Grade Figure 7: Little Rock Dropout Comparisons, Year 4 JHS HS 8 9 10 11 Grade I  Unaccounted ~ Presumed 9 12 12 Table 3 and Table 4 examine the quartile distributions of junior high and high school reading and mathematics achievement scores for all of the tested students who were enrolled in the Little Rock school system during Year 4. By comparing the scores of Little Rock's students to national norms, we can compute the percentages of Little Rock's students whose scores fall in each quartile . In general, Little Rock's scores were somewhat lower than national norms. In both reading and mathematics, less than 25 percent of the tested students scored in the highest quartile (16 % reading and 17 % mathematics for junior high students\n21 % reading and 22% mathematics for high school students) . However, fewer than 25 percent scored in the lowest quartile in junior high school reading (21 % ) , and high school reading and mathematics (17% and 18%). For junior high school mathematics, 34 percent of the tested population scored in the lowest quartile . Additionally, when we analyze the data by race, we find wide discrepancies. Less than 10 percent of the tested white junior high and high school students scored in the lowest reading quartile, versus 28 percent of the black junior high school students and 25 percent of the black high school students. Similarly, only 15 percent of the tested white junior high school students and 7 percent of the tested white high school students scored in the lowest mathematics quartile, compared to 43 percent of the black junior high school students and 26 percent of the black high school students . The racial discrepancies in these data are illustrated in Figure 8 and Figure 9. Also shown in Tables 3 and 4 are the median percentile scores for each racial group. By definition, 50 percent of the tested population receive a score equal to or less than the median. It can be seen that, for junior high school students, while the median score in reading was equivalent to the 44th national percentile, the median score for black students was at the 37th national percentile and the median score for white students was at the 67th national percentile. For high school students, the median score in reading was equivalent to the 48th national percentile\nfor black high school students the score was equivalent to the 38th percentile and for white students it was at the 67th. Similarly, the median score in mathematics for junior high school students was equivalent to the 38th national percentile, while black students scored at the 31st percentile and white students scored at the 59th percentile. For high school mathematics, the overall median was at the 46th national percentile, while the score for black high school students was at the 36th national percentile and the score for white high school students was at the 66th national percentile. Little Rock Table 3 Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons -- Year 4 Junior High School I Reading I Quartile I (Lowest) 21 % 34% Black 28% White 7% Quartile TI 37% 30% Black 45% White 22% Quartile III 26% 20% Black 21 % White 34% Quartile IV (Highest) 16% 17% Black 6% White 37% Median (Expressed as a Percentile) 44th 38th Black 37th White 67th Junior High School Students Scoring in the Lowest and Highest Quartiles Reading Mathematics 100% \"O -Q) 75% en Q) f-- en C Q) \"O :::, 50% u-5 0 -C Q) .(...J. Q) a.. 25% All Black White All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 11 Math I 43% 15% 33% 24% 17% 26% 7% 34% 31st 59th Little Rock Table 4 Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons -- Year 4 High School I Reading I Quartile I (Lowest) 17% 18% Black 25%  White 6% Quartile II 35% 33% Black 45% White 20% Quartile III 28% 27% Black 23% White 34% Quartile IV (Highest) 21 % 22% Black 7% White 40% Median (Expressed as a Percentile) 48th 46th Black 38th White 67th High School Students Scoring in the Lowest and Highest Quartiles Reading Mathematics 100% \"C Q) 75% in Q) I- -(/) C (I) \"C ::::, en 50% 0 c Q) .C..) aQ..) 25% All Black White All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 12 Math I 26% 7% 40% 23% 24% 30% 9% 41 % 36th 66th In this section we examine the status of children on several key outcome measures in Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. This analysis not only provides us with information about how students are doing within each of these years, but also allows us to compare how the student body has performed over the years. It is important to note that these comparisons are not of matched groups of students. The junior high school students in Year 1 are, for the most part, different students than the junior high school students in Year 4. Thus, while over-years comparisons can help to point out status changes over time, it is difficult to ascertain which of these changes to attribute to the system and which to differing populations. Table 5 examines eight school measures for the Little Rock student body. Shown for each year are: average daily attendance rates, the percent of students whose Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) total reading or mathematics scores7 placed them into the lowest quartile (i.e., at or below the 25th national percentile), the percent of students who were at least one-and-one-half years over age for their grades, the percent of students who were suspended out-of-school at least once during the year shown, the percent of students who were retained in grade during the year shown, the percent of courses failed in each year, and the percent of students who were counted as having dropped out. The last column in the table shows, for each factor, the percentage point change from Year 1 to Year 4 (Little Rock suspension data shown are for Years 2 through 4 and the change shown is between Year 2 and Year 4). We have included the words \"better\" or \"worse\" to indicate whether the change constitutes an improvement or a decline. It can be seen in Table 5 that:  Little Rock's junior high school students show some improvements in dropout rates, but worsening or no change in all other variables.  Little Rock's high school students show declining status on attendance and suspension, and improvements on all other indicators. Table 5 also serves as a useful orientation to student performance in the Little Rock school system. 8 Overall, Little Rock's attendance and retention rates and reading and mathematics achievement were relatively good, but there was no improvement over the four year period. Some other measures show comparatively high rates of school problems. Suspension rates were particularly high in the junior high schools, where 18 percent or more of the students were suspended in each of the last three years. Almost one-third of all junior high and high school courses were failed. Total annual dropout rates in Little Rock's junior high schools and high schools improved over the four-year period. 7 Year 4 achievement data are Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) scores which have been converted to Metropolitan Achievement Test scores. 8 Included in the appendix (Table A-2) is a similar table for all New Futures cities combined (Dayton, Savannah, Little Rock and Pittsburgh) . 13 I Little Rock Table 5 Change in Status on Key Variables Percentage Year 1 Versus Percentage Year 4 Variable II Year t I Year 21 Year 31 Year 4 I Change Yr. 1 to Yr. 4 I Attendance (ADA) Junior high school 90.2% 90.7% 90.3% 89.5% -0 .7 worse High School 90.8% 87 .9% 89.3% 87 .9% - 2.9 worse Low Reading Quartile9 Junior high school 21.0% 23.0% 24 .0% 21.0% no change High School 22.0% 22.0% 19.0% 17.0% -5.0 better Low Mathematics Quartile Junior high school 21.0% 21.0% 24.0% 34.0% + 13 .0 worse High School 24.0% 21.0% 19.0% 18.0% -6.0 better Over Age Junior high school 13.4% 13 .6% 15 .9% 15 .0% + 1.6 worse High School 13.4% 13.6% 13.3% 13.2% -0.2 better Out-of-School Suspension Junior high school. NIA 18.6% 21.6% 21.4% +2.8 worse High School NIA 8.1 % 11.3% 9.1 % -ft.0 worse Retention Junior high school 4.1% 4.8% 4.9% 4.6% +0.5 worse High School 4.9% 6.4% 3.6% 4.7% -0.2 better Percent of Courses Failed Junior high school 31.3% 30.7% 31.1% 31.4% +0.1 worse High School 31.8% 31.4% 29.6% 31.4% -0.4 better Dropout Junior high school 9.5% 4.3% 6.9% 4.8% -4.7 better High School 13.8% 10.2% 10.4% 7.5% -6.3 better N for all srudents: Year l = 13,203, Year 2 = 12,500, Year 3 = 12,211, Year 4 = 12,294 N for Junior high school Srudents: Year I = 6,590, Year 2 = 6,344, Year 3 = 6,421, Year 4 = 6,507 N for High School Students: Year I = 6,613, Year 2 = 6,156, Year 3 = 5,790, Year 4 = 5,787 9 Not all high school grades were tested. 14 C. Changing Status Among Children Who Have Remained in the School System (Longitudinal Comparisons) As indicated earlier, the New Futures data base permits us to observe changes in student outcomes over time. Has the academic achievement of students who have remained in the system improved, declined, or remained the same? Table 6 and Table 7 and the accompanying figures illustrate the changes in average reading and math achievement scores for Year 1 's 7th grade (Table 6) and 8th grade (Table 7) students who were tested in Years 1 through 4 and who were not retained in grade. 10 Table 6 shows an overall reading achievement loss of two percentile ranks from Year 1 to 4, and a decline of four percentile ranks in mathematics achievement scores. 11 For both reading and math, the changes are very similar for black and white students. Little Rock Table 6 Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons12 For 7th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Srudents N Yr I Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yrs 1 to 4 (7th) (8th) (9th) (10th) Reading: All Srudents 1,011 56th 59th 65th 54th -2 Black 677 44th 48th 54th 42nd -2 White 316 78th 80th 85th 75th -3 Math: All Srudents 1.014 58th 56th 63rd 54th -4 Black 679 48th 44th 52nd 44th -4 White 317 75th 75th 80th 72nd -3 99 90- Reading Math 80- t .. .::J! 70- C a\u0026lt;':II 60- . ~ Q) rl :\n: 50- C Q) .u... 40- Q) a.. 30 20 10 1 I All Black White All Black White I Year 1 0 Year2 a Year3 Effl Year4 I IO Si ne~ retained srudents are generally at an advantage when their data are compared with grade level norms, the longirudinal achievement analyses shown only include srudents who have made normal grade progress. 11 Some of the decline in test scores may be attributable to implementation of a new testing package (from the MAT-6 to the SAT) and the score conversion process. (All Year 4 data were converted from SAT scores to the MAT-6 equivalent.) 12 The table shows the percentile ranks associated with srudents' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores on the Merropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). For comparability, Year 4 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores were convened to MAT-6 scores. 15 Table 7 shows an overall reading achievement loss of nine percentile ranks for Year 1 's 8th graders from Year 1 to 4, and a decline of three percentile ranks in mathematics achievement scores. Reading losses were greater for white students, but mathematics declines are very similar for both black (-4) and white students (-5) . Little Rock Table 7 Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons13 For 8th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank Yr 1 Rank Yr 2 Rank Yr 3 Rank Yr 4 Yrs 1 to 4 (8th) (9th) (10th) (11th) Reading: All Students 1,011 63rd 70th 58th 56th -9 Black 633 50th 58th 44th 44th -6 White 355 83rd 86th 76th 73rd -10 Math: All Students 1,01 I 61st 70th 56th 58th -3 Black 635 50th 59th 44th 46th -4 White 353 78th 85th 75th 73rd -5 99 90 Reading ,. Math 80 ~ 70- . .. C: ac:a 60 Cl) .. 50 C: Q) u... 40 Q) a.. 30- 20 10 1 All Black White ' All Black White I Year1 D Year2 - Year3 -Year4 13 The Table shows the percentile ranks associated with students ' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6) . For comparability , Year 4 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores were converted to MAT-6 scores. 16 I ...... I A longitudinal group of particular interest consists of those 4,370 students who have been in the school system for all four years. By definition, none of these students graduated, transferred out of the school system, dropped out, or were expelled before the end of Year 4. How have these students been progressing since the initiative began? Tables 8, 9 and 10 show retention, course failure and suspension histories, respectively, for the 4-YEAR COHORT students. Table 8 shows that approximately 12 percent of these students were retained in at least one of the four years. Table 9 shows that the majority (56.7%) of the 4-YEAR COHORT students failed at least one course over the four year period. About 8 percent of the 4-YEAR COHORT students failed one or more courses each year over the four year period. Table 10 shows that over one-fourth (27. 3 % ) of the 4-YEAR COHORT students were suspended out of school in at least one of the three years for which there are data, (Years 2 through 4), and just over 10 percent were suspended in more than one of the three years. Each of the tables shows disparities between outcomes for black students and white students. For example, 14.6 percent of the black students were retained in grade at least once, compared to 6.0 percent of the white students. Similarly, over the four years, 66.1 percent of the black students experienced course failure, compared to 39.4 percent of the white students, and about a third (33 .5 % ) of the black students experienced suspension, compared to just 16.1 percent of the white students. Little Rock Table 8 Retention Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT Students Status Retentions at the end of All Black White Year 4 N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N = 1,386 Never Retained N 3,860 2,495 1,303 % 88.3% 85.4% 94.0% Retained 1 out N 472 390 80 of 4 Years % 10.8% 13.4% 5.8% Retained 2 out N 38 35 3 of 4 Years % 0.9% 1.2% 0.2% Ever Retained in N 510 425 83 4 Years % 11.7% 14.6% 6.0% 17 I I II Table 9: Course Failure Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT Students Status at the end of I Course Failures Year 4 Never Failed a Course Failed a Course in 1 of 4 Years Failed a Course in 2 of 4 Years Failed a Course in 3 of 4 Years Failed a Course in 4 of 4 Years Ever Failed a Course in 4 Years All Black N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N 1,894 990 % 43.3% 33.9% N 865 637 % 19.8% 21.8% N 704 542 % 16.1 % 18.6% N 565 453 % 12.9% 15.5% N 342 298 % 7.8% 10.2% N 2,476 1,930 % 56.7% 66.1 % Table 10: Suspension Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT Students White N = 1,386 854 61.6% 222 16.0% 158 11.4% 112 8.1% 40 2.9% 532 39.4% Status Out-of-School Suspensions at the end of All Black. i . White Year 4 N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N = 1,386 Never N 3,162 1,941 1,163 Suspended % 72.7% 66.5% 83.9% Suspended in 1 N 763 600 159 out of 3 Years % 17.5% 20.5% 11.5% Suspended in 2 N 322 273 48 out of 3 Years % 7.4% 9.3% 3.5% Suspended in 3 N 123 106 16 out of 3 Years % 2.8% 3.6% 1.2% Ever Suspended N 1,208 979 223 in 3 Years % 27.3% 33.5% 16.1 % 18 I D. The Class of '92 Of special interest are the 2,047 students who were enrolled in the ninth grade in Year 1 and therefore were expected to graduate at the end of Year 4. Through the data base we have been able to follow these students, the High School Class of 1992, throughout their high school careers, from their ninth grade experiences in Year 1 to their expected graduation in June of 1992. How did the Class of '92 do? I I Race I N I Year 1 All 2,047 Black 1,198 White 820 Little Rock Table 11 Cumulative Enrollment 9th Grade -- The Class of '92 Status at the End of Year 4 Still In Transferred Graduated Presumed System Out of High Dropout Schools System School 5.5% 14 .5% 58 .7% 7.4% 6.2% 10 .9% 61.2% 8.1 % 4.4% 19.5% 55.4% 6.7% Unaccounted Expelled For 12.9% 1.0% 12 .3% 1.3% 13 .5% 0.5% It can be seen above that: 5.5 percent of the Year 1 ninth graders (including 6.2 percent of the black students and 4.4 percent of the white students) were still active in the Little Rock schools after Year 4\n14.5 percent had transferred out of the Little Rock schools (10.9 percent of the black students and 19.5 percent of the white students)\n58.7 percent graduated (including 61.2 percent of the black students and 55.4 percent of the white students)\nand a total of 21.3 percent had either dropped out of or been expelled from school ( dropouts and expulsions for black students totaled 21. 7 percent, dropouts and expulsions for white students totaled 20. 7 percent). 19 I E. The Student Survey Table 12 presents selected findings for the 2,462 students who completed student surveys in Year 4. 14 The surveys provide additional data about the students in the cohort file, including information about the status of their families, their own attitudes and behaviors regarding schooling, their employment experiences, and their sexual behavior. Table 12 shows, for all students and by race, the number of students responding to each question and the percent of students exhibiting the characteristic. For example, of the 1,971 surveyed students who responded to the question about their home structures, 3 7. 3 percent reported living in a single parent home (including 44.4 % of the black respondents and 23.5% of the white respondents). Of the respondents, 32.9 percent are free-lunch eligible (including 44.1 % of black respondents and only 10.1 % of white respondents). A total of 36 percent of the respondents indicated that they regularly cut classes, and 4. 7 percent expected not to go on to post-secondary schooling. Close to half of the surveyed students (43.3%) reported that they were working at the time the survey was administered, and 64.1 percent of those who were working reported that they were working 15 or more hours per week (during the school year). More than half of the respondents (58.2%) reported that they have had sex at least once and 32.3 percent of this group did not use birth control the last time they had sex. About 19 percent of the girls who have had sex reported that they have gotten pregnant. More than half (52.4%) of those who were pregnant have had a child. Because the survey responses contain the same identification numbers as are used with the school department's data system, we are able to investigate relationships between student characteristics and school outcomes. For instance, students eligible for free or reduced fee lunch generally perform less well on reading achievement tests than their peers who are not eligible. This association was seen among black students as well as among white students. Further, more poor than non-poor students are low attenders, fail courses, receive out-ofschool suspensions, are not promoted, and are over age for grade. Similarly, students with low academic aspirations performed less well on all of the student outcomes than their peers who do not have low academic aspirations. Once again, these associations were seen among black students as well as among white students. 15 14 The student surveys were administered to a sample of 7th - 12th grade students in each of the Little Rock junior and senior high schools. A total of 2,462 students responded to the Year 4 survey. 15 Appendix Table A-3 examines the relationships between two survey responses (low academic aspirations and freelunch eligibility) and several school outcomes. 20 Table 12 Little Rock Selected Surveyed Characteristics for All Secondary Students16 N = 2,462 Characteristic Students Exhibiting % of White Respondents, Characteristic Students By Item N % Exhibiting Characteristic N=829 N % Single Parent Home 1,971 734 37.3% 150 23.5% Free Lunch Eligibility 1,971 649 32.9% 63 10.1% % of Black Students Exhibiting Characteristic N= 1,596 N % 578 44 .4% 580 44.1% Cut Classes 2,421 871 36 .0% 454 44.4% 1,073 31.5% Low Academic 2,263 106 4.7% 32 Aspirations Working 1,731 749 43.3% 307 Working Full Time 674 432 64.1 % 117 Had Sex 2,253 1,312 58.2% 363 No Birth Control 1,268 409 32.3% 234 Last Time Fathered a Child 724 66 9.1% 15 Pregnant 558 57 10.2% 12 Ever Pregnant 557 105 18.9% 26 Have Child 105 55 52.4% 10 Single Parent Home indicates that the child is living with one parent. step parent. or foster parent. Free Lunch Eligibility includes students who are eligible for free and reduced fee lunch. 4.2% 46.0% 58.2% 47 .6% 34.1 % 7.6% 7.6% 16.4% 38.5% Cut Classes includes srudents who reported that they cut class \"often\" or \"sometimes\" (as opposed to never). 73 428 116 937 619 50 44 79 45 Low Academic Aspirations is defined as expecting not 10 pursue post-secondary schooling (i. e. , completing high school or less). Working is defined as employed at the time of survey administration. Working Full Time is defined as working 15 or more hours per week during the school year. Had sex includes both male and female srudents. 5.0% 41.2% 69.2% 64.4% 30.3% 9.6% 11.1 % 20.2% 57.0 % No Birth Control includes both male and female srudents who have had sexual intercourse and indicated that neither they nor their partner had used birth control the last time they had intercourse. Pregnant and Ever Pregnant items were tabulated for sexually active females and indicate, respectively whether they are currently pregnant or ever have been pregnant. Have Child includes female srudents who have given birth to a child. Fathered a Child was tabulated for sexually active males who indicated that they had fathered a child. 16 Only a few survey variables are considered in these analyses. Complete reports of survey data are available in separate publications. 21 III. Conclusion This report sketches an overview of the status of children attending the Little Rock public schools. It contains broad, over-years and longitudinal analyses which reflect the conditions (inside and outside of the school system) which New Futures is intended to address. W1'jle the analyses presented in this report show some of the trends and outcomes that have taken place during the first four years of the initiative, they do not constitute an evaluation of the initiative, nor of the Little Rock school system. We have presented only a small sample of the analyses that have been performed on the New Futures data base. 17 We hope that the thoughtful presentation of such analyses can engage broad constituencies in valuable discourse leading ultimately to the formulation of improved service-delivery policies and inter-agency collaboration. It is in this spirit that we offer these findings. One of the unique features of the New Futures Initiative is that the powerful data base used to generate the analyses is available to an interagency body. We strongly encourage the interagency group to put this powerful tool to use - to raise community awareness, to set priorities, and to help inform and shape policy. 17 The full four-year Cohorts and Comparative Data Report (Metis Associates, Inc., New York, NY), annual qualitative evaluation reports (Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, DC}, separate statistical reports of the survey results (Institute for Survey Research, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA), and other publications may be obtained from New Futures for Little Rock Youth. 22 Appendices Entering Junior High School \"Class of '92\" Entering High School Table A-1: Little Rock Cumulative Enrollment Status After Year 4 for all Students Enrolled in Year I Status Year I Status Year 4 Grade N In System Transferred Graduated Presumed Unaccounted Schools Dropout For 7th 2,226 62.1 % 20.9% 0.0% 1.8% 12.5% Black 1,444 66. l % 16.4% 0.0% 1.7% 11.9% White 741 54 .4% 29 .1% 0.0% 2.0% 13.8% 8th 2,317 57.2% 19.8% 0.3% 6.0% 14.5% Black 1,468 60.1% 15.2% 0.3% 6.7% 14.6% White 813 51.6% 27.8% 0.2% 5.0% 14.5% 9th 2,047 5.5% 14.5% 58.7% 7.4% 12.9% Black 1,198 6.2% 10.9% 61.2% 8.1 % 12.3% White 820 4.4% 19.5% 55.4% 6.7% 13.5% Junior High 6,589 42.9% 18.5% 18.3% 5.0% 13.3% Black 4, 110 46.5% 14.4% 18.0% 5.3% 13.0% White 2,374 36.1% 25.4% 19.2% 4.7% 13 .9% 10th 2,432 1.7% 9.8% 59.9% 15.3% 12.0% Black 1,448 2.1% 8.1 % 59.0% 15.8% 13.3% White 950 1.3% 12.3% 61.0% 14.8% 9.9% 11th 2,210 0.8% 7.2% 68 .0% 12.7% 10.7% Black 1,131 I.I% 6.5% 65.4% 13 .5% 12.4% White 1,055 0.6% 7.9% 70,3% 11.9% 9.1% 12th 1,971 0.0% 0.2% 92 .9% 5.7% 0.1% Black 927 0.0% 0.2% 91.5% 6.8% 1.3% White 1,013 0.0% 0.1 % 94 .2% 4.9% 0.6% High School 6,613 0.9% 6.1% 72.3% 11.6% 8.3% Black 3,506 1.2% 5.5% 69.7% 12.7% 9.8% White 3,018 0.6% 6.7% 75 .3% 10.5% 6.5% Total 13,203 21.8% 12.3% 45.4% 8.3% 10.8% Black 7,616 25.7% 10.3% 41.8% 8.7% 11.5% White 5,392 16.2% 14.9% 50 .7% 7.9% 9.8% Expelled 2.7% 3.9% 0.7% 2.2% 3.1% 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% 0.5% 2.0% 2.8% 0.7% 1.3% 1.7% 0.7% 0.6% 1.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.8% 1.1% 0.4% 1.4% 2.0% 0.5% Table A-2: All New Futures Cities (Dayton, Little Rock, Pittsburgh and Savannah Combined) Change in Status on Six Key Variables Percentage Year 1 Versus Percentage Year 4 Variable Year 1 Year 4 Change Attendance (ADA) Middle School 89.5% 89.3% -0.2 worse High School 86.1% 84.2% -1.9 worse Low Q Membership Middle School 28.4% 25.4% -3.0 better High School 24.7% 24.2% -0.5 better Retention Middle School 8.8% 7.0% -1.8 better High School 13.7% 18.7% 5.0 worse Over Age Middle School 19.3% 15.5% -3.8 better High School 22.3% 22.7% 0.4 worse % of Courses Failed Middle School 11.4% 14.4% 3.0 worse High School 20.7% 22.8% 2.1 worse Total Dropout Middle School 9.5% 7.3% -2.2 better High School 18.1 % 13.1 % -5.0 better N for All Students: Year 1 = 61,977, Year 4 = 60,067 N for Mtcidle School Students: Year l = 26,644, Year 4 = 27,415 N for High School Students: Year l = 35,334, Year 4 = 32,652 I I Table A3-Little Rock Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For All Surveyed Students (In Percents) Factor = Free Lunch Eligibility Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No I N=649 N=l ,321 N=580 N=735 N=63 N=563 Low Achievement 30.0% 12.5% 30.6% 18.5% 25.5% 5.1 % Low Attendance 20.3% 14.8% 20.9% 13.5% 17.5% 16.9% Course Failures 30.2% 24.6% 30.7% 30.5% 28.6% 17.2% Suspension 20.5% 11.l % 21.5% 14.0% 12.7% 7.8% Over Age 17.4% 8.1 % 17.8% 11.3% 14.3% 3.9% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed Junior High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Free Lunch Eligibility I Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N= 479 N=626 N=429 N=360 N=45 N=260 Low Achievement 28.9% 11 .5% 28.8% 16.0% 29.5% 5.5% Low Attendance 18.8% IO.I% 19.6% 8.4% 13.3% 12.3% Course Failures 26.9% 17.9% 28.2% 21.9% 17.8% 12.3% Suspension 24.6% 14.4% 26.1 % 18 .3% 13.3% 9.2% Over Age 17.3% 7.7% 17.9% 10.3% 13 .3% 4.2% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Free Lunch Eligibility Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N=l42 N=567 N=125 N=306 N=l6 N=245 Low Achievement 31.8% 13 .9% 35 .7% 21.7% 10.0% 4.7% Low Attendance 23.9% 19.2% 24.0% 18.0% 25.0% 21.6% Course Failures 36.6% 30.7% 34.4% 38.2% 56.3% 22.0% Suspension 7.7% 8.3% 8.0% 9.8% 6.3% 6.9% 0Over Age 16.9% 8.5% 16.0% 12.1 % 18 .8% 3.7% I I Table A3-Little Rock Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For All Surveyed Students (In Percents) Factor = Low Aspirations Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes 1 No Yes No I N=336 N=l,927 N=229 I N= 1,228 N=l02 N=668 Low Achievement 55.l % 17.l % 60.9% 22.9% 43.5% 6.3% Low Attendance 39.6% 15.8% 39.7% 16.2% 40.6% 15.4% Course Failures 52 .8% 25.0% 56.2% 30.2% 46.9% 15.7% Suspension 33.0% 12.2% 41.l % 15.4% 15.6% 6.8% Over Age 34.9% 9.7% 39.7% 12.6% 21.9% 4.2% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed Junior High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Low Aspirations I Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N=70 N=l,153 N=51 N=797 N=l9 N=344 Low Achievement 51.8% 17.5% 55.3% 22.4% 44.4% 6.7% Low Attendance 35.7% 12.8% 41.2% 13.2% 21.l % 11.9% Course Failures 50.0% 19.0% 52.9% 23.0% 42.l % 10.2% Suspension 37.l % 16.3% 45 . l % 19.9% 15.8% 8.1 % Over Age 35.7% 10.3% 39.2% 12.9% 26.3% 4.4% Relationships Between Survey Factors and School MIS Outcomes For Surveyed High School Students (In Percents) Factor = Low Aspirations Total Black White Outcomes Yes No Yes No Yes No N=32 N=813 N=l9 N=476 N=l2 N=310 Low Achievement 72.7% 15.8% 85.7% 23.6% 50.0% 5.0% Low Attendance 46.9% 19.8% 31.6% 20.2% 75.0% 19.9% Course Failures 56.3% 32.0% 57.9% 39.3% 58.3% 21.8% Suspension 25.0% 7.1 % 31.6% 8.4% 16.7% 5.7% Over Age 31.3% 9.0% 36.8% 12.2% 16.7% 4.1 %\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eMetis Associates, Incorporation\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_1168","title":"New Futures Initiative Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Metis Associates, Incorporation, New York, New York, , June 1993","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":["1993-06"],"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","Metis Associates, Inc.","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School attendance","School enrollment","School discipline","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Student suspension"],"dcterms_title":["New Futures Initiative Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Metis Associates, Incorporation, New York, New York, , June 1993"],"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/1168"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNew Futures Initiative Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4)  Little Rock Prepared by: Metis Associates, Inc. 80 Broad Street, Suite 1600 New York, New York 10004 (212) 425-8833 June 1993 This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of a contract between Metis Associates, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, D.C. Foreword In this report we present a series of city-wide analyses covering a number of the core impact variables specified by the New Futures Initiative (e .g., achievement, dropout, suspension). While the analyses show some of the trends and outcomes that have taken place during the first four years of the initiative, they do not constitute an evaluation of the initiative, nor of the school system. Such evaluations would involve far richer and more comprehensive information. Instead, this report contains broad, over-years and longitudinal analyses which reflect the city-wide conditions (inside and outside of the school system) that New Futures is intended to address. We believe that thoughtful presentation of such analyses can engage broad constituencies in valuable discourse leading ultimately to the formulation of improved service-delivery policies and inter-agency collaboration. It is in this spirit that we offer these findings. Acknowledgements We are indebted to the Little Rock School District for providing us with the data for these analyses. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Anita M. Baker and her staff at the Academy for Educational Development toward the writing and production of this report. Little Rock: Cohorts and Comparative Data Report 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Table of Contents Foreword ....... . Acknowledgements I. Introduction 1 A. Structure and Content of the Cohort Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 3 II. B. Types of Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Analyses ...................................... . A. Over-Years and Longitudinal Analyses of Cohort Variables .... 1. 2. Enrollment ..... .. ... ... . .. .. ....... . a. Grades 7 through 12 ..... . i. Over-years comparisons ii. Characteristics of the Year 4 Cohort iii. Longitudinal comparisons . . . . . . . . b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . . . . . i. Over-years comparisons ..... ii. Origins of the Year 4 Students Attendance . . . . . . . . . . a. Over-years comparisons b. Longitudinal comparisons ii 10 10 10 10 10 13 17 19 19 21 25 25 25 3. Academic Achievement (Reading and Mathematics) 28 a. Grades 7 through 12 . . ... . 28 i. Over-years comparisons 28 11. Longitudinal comparisons 42 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . 47 i. Over-years comparisons 47 ii. Longitudinal comparisons 53 4. Graduation . ... . .... . 58 a. Over-years comparisons 58 b. Longitudinal comparisons 58 i. Two-year Graduation Rates 58 ii. Four-year Graduation Rates 58 5. Retention . ..... ... 61 a. Grades 7 through 12 61 1. Over-years comparisons 61 ii. Longitudinal comparisons 61 m. Over age students . ... 61 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . 65 i. Over-years comparisons 65 ii. Longitudinal comparisons 66 iii . Over age students .... 67 iii III. 6. Course Failure ......... . a. Over-years comparisons b. Longitudinal comparisons 7. Out-of-School Suspensions . 8. a. Grades 7 through 12 i. Over-years comparisons ii. Longitudinal comparisons b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 . i. Over-years comparisons . ii . Longitudinal comparisons Dropouts a. Over-years comparisons b. Longitudinal analyses - returning dropouts B. Special Survey Analyses .. . . ... .. .. . . 1. 2. Survey data for secondary students Relationships between survey factors and cohort variables Summary and Conclusion A. B. C. Cross-Grade Comparisons of Year 4 Data . Change in Status (Over-Years Comparisons) Longitudinal Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . IV 68 68 71 72 72 72 72 75 75 76 77 77 81 83 83 83 87 88 97 101 D. Cumulative Enrollment Statuses 1. The 4-Year Cohort . . . . . 2. Two Consecutive Three-Year Cohorts 3. Three Consecutive Two-Year Cohorts E. Cooc~~on .. .. . . . . . . ........ . Appendices Appendix A: Over Cities, Over-Years Comparisons Appendix B: Four Cities Change in Status Appendix C: Over Cities 4-YEAR COHORT FILE Analyses V 104 104 108 108 115 Cohorts and Comparative Data Report: 1988-1989 (Year 1), 1989-1990 (Year 2), 1990-1991 (Year 3), and 1991-1992 (Year 4) Little Rock I. Introduction The New Futures Initiative, sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, is a fourcity (Dayton, Ohio\nLittle Rock, Arkansas\nPittsburgh, Pennsylvania\nand Savannah, Georgia), five-year project designed to respond to disadvantaged populations through comprehensive community partnerships. The project aims to increase academic achievement, reduce dropout and teen pregnancy rates, and increase the employability of at-risk middle and high school students. Collaboratives governing the New Futures initiatives agreed to have the impact of their efforts assessed through a common set of indicators. The requirement for consistently defined, standardized, reliable data necessitated the establishment or enhancement of local district capacity for maintaining individualized student information - i.e., a management information system (MIS). Annual unit-record cohort files emanating from each city's MIS have become the centerpiece for the New Futures data collection. Beginning with the 1988-1989 school year, each New Futures city was asked to prepare and transmit an annual cohort file containing, for each student enrolled in grades six (or seven) through twelve at any time during the school year, unique student identification numbers, basic demographic information (school, grade, gender, race/ethnicity, date of birth, free lunch eligibility [available in two cities beginning with the 1989-1990 school year]), and outcomes - standardized, norm-referenced reading and mathematics data, annual attendance rates, course failure information, suspensions and/or expulsions, grade retention, and dropout data. At this point there are four complete cohort files for each participating city - a file for the 1988-1989 school year, a file for the 1989-1990 school year, a file for the 1990-1991 school year, and a file for the 1991-1992 school year. 1 In addition, for the 1991-1992 school years there are complete data for all students in the school systems (kindergarten through twelfth grades)2. 1 Throughout this report we refer to the 1988-1989 school year as Year 1, the 1989-1990 school year as Year 2. the 1990-1991 school year as Year 3, and the 1991-1992 school year as Year 4 . These files are being used for w11hinyt! ar, over-years and matched longitudinal analyses. z Kindergarten through 6th grade data include all basic demographics and available outcome data: norm-referenced achievement test scores, suspension and retention data. In Linle Rock, kindergarten through 6th grade data are also available for the 1990-1991 school year. 1 After the end of the 1992-1993 school year, there will be five consecutive years of reliable data on student demographics and outcomes. Given the high quality, comprehensiveness and continuity of the data collections, the resultant data base offers enormous potential for assessing needs, evaluating outcomes and developing sound educational policy. While many school departments around the country maintain student information systems for a number of discrete applications (e .g., class scheduling, transportation routes , grade reporting, attendance/enrollments, academic achievement) , we know of no other environments in which comprehensive, complete, reliable and continuous files such as the New Futures cities ' files are being maintained, and where common definitions are being consistently applied across several disparate middle-sized cities. When we add to these files the systematic data derived from annually administered individual  student surveys (assessing such non-school indicators as home structure, parents' education, academic aspirations, work experiences and sexual and parenting experiences), we have an information base whose potential as a research tool is unparalleled in the field. In addition, in each city, this rich data base is available to an interagency body. We strongly encourage the interagency groups to continue putting this powerful tool to use: to raise community awareness, to set priorities, and to inform and shape policy. For this report, we have analyzed information contained in Little Rock's four annual data files , in combined cohort files that we have created (e.g. , the 4-YEAR COHORT FILES which contain students who have been in the system for all four years) and in Little Rock's survey files from the past three years. In the next section of this report we describe the structure and content of the Little Rock cohort files . 2 A. Structure and Content of the Cohort Files Little Rock School District's unit-record cohort files each contain, among other variables, each of the core indicators required by the Annie E. Casey Foundation - enrollments (including the last grade level and school attended during the school year and such demographic information as gender, race/ethnicity, date of birth and free or reduced fee lunch eligibility), attendance, achievement (standardized, norm-referenced reading and mathematics scores), graduation, retention, course failures, suspensions (out-of-school suspensions for Years 2 through 4 only) and dropouts. Unless otherwise indicated, all variables can be assumed to match the New Futures definitions being consistently applied in all four cities. In the following paragraphs we describe each of these core indicators. The files for Years 1 and 2 contain data only for students enrolled in grades seven through twelve. As of Year 3, data are also available for children in grades kindergarten through six. l. Enrollments Students who have been physically present for at least one day, regardless of age or type of program, are counted as enrolled. The district includes in its enrollment count all students in special or ungraded programs, students beyond the compulsory school age who have not graduated, and students who are temporarily out of school because of extended illness or suspension. The district does not include in its enrollment count students enrolled in non-public schools and students in public institutions other than elementary and secondary schools. The cohort files contain identifying information for each student which includes the student's last school and grade, as well as his/her gender, race/ethnicity and free or reduced fee lunch eligibility. In this report enrollment is reported by grade, by race (black or white)3 , and by race within gender. 2. Attendance Schools transmit daily attendance reports to the central district office's mainframe computer on an exceptions basis\nthat is, students are assumed present unless otherwise indicated. Students who have been absent three or more periods during the day are counted as absent. Students who have received out-of-school suspensions are reported as \"suspended\" and therefore not counted as present. Religious holidays are counted as absences, unless they are system-wide. 3 Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than black or white are not reported independently . but their numbers can be determined by calculating the difference between the sum of black and white students and the total number of students. 3 To calculate average daily attendance (ADA), the district counts the number of days that each student is present in school, and divides that number by the total number of days of possible attendance for that student (i.e., the number of school days from each student's enrollment date). Annual ADA rates from the cohort files were calculated by dividing the sum of all students' days present by the sum of all students' days of possible attendance. The rates for Year 1, however, were under-reported and possibly slightly inflated due to a minor inconsistency in record-keeping which resulted in the duplicate counting of some students' attendance. Those students with obvious duplications (those whose total number of days exceeded the maximum number of days in the school year) were eliminated from attendance estimates, however, students with duplicate counts which did not exceed the maximum number of school days were unidentifiable and therefore contributed to and probably inflated the estimates by a small margin. The record-keeping inconsistency was corrected and no duplicate counts were included in subsequent cohort files4 . 3. Achievement During the spring of Years 1 through 3, the district administered the complete battery of the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6), a national, standardized norm-referenced achievement test, to students in grades one through eleven. The district scored their achievement tests in-house for all grades except four, seven and ten. The tests for those grades were scored by the State Education Department and data tapes were returned to the district for integration into the student data base and cohort files. Each year the school district merged the achievement results into the cohort files using the student identification numbers. During the spring of Year 4, the district administered the Stanford Achievement Test (SA T-8) . Test scores were merged into the student data base and cohort files. Year 4 test data are reported as converted Stanford Achievement Test scores so as to be comparable to the Metropolitan Achievement Test data reported in Years 1 through 3. For each tested student the cohort files contain percentile ranks and normal curve equivalents (NCEs) associated with raw scores (i.e., the number of correct answers) for Total Reading and/or for Total Math. Percentile ranks indicate the percentage of raw scores in a normative group that fall below a particular student's raw score. For example, if a student's raw score converts to a percentile rank of 43, then that student scored higher than approximately forty-three percent of the students in the normative group. Percentile ranks range from 1 to 99. Students scoring at or below the 25th percentile are said to be in the first (lowest) quartile. Similarly, students scoring between the 26th percentile and the median (i.e., 50th percentile) are in the second quartile, students scoring between the 51st and 75th percentiles are in the third quartile, and students scoring above the 75th percentile are in the fourth (highest) quartile. Therefore, in a statistically \"normal\" distribution, approximately twenty-five percent of the population would be included within each of the 4 The Year I errors also impact the differences reported on Tables 2.1. 2 .2 and 2.3. Declines in attendance may be at least partly due 10 the slightly inflated rates reported in Year I. 4 four quartiles. It is important to note that the percentile scale is not composed of equal units. For example, a raw score difference between percentile ranks 5 and 10 is far greater than a raw score difference between percentile ranks 45 and 50. Because these measurement units are unequal, it is not appropriate to use them for statistical analyses, and percentile rank differences ought not be compared. By contrast, normal curve equivalents (NCEs) are based on equal intervals. NCEs are similar to percentiles in that their range is from 1 to 99, and their midpoint also is 50. However, because NCEs are composed of equal intervals, they may be used in statistical analyses, and NCE differences (within and between test instruments) may be directly compared. Since percentile ranks are more familiar (and intuitively more  appealing), we have converted NCE statistics to percentile rank equivalents. 4. Graduation The district counts as graduates all students who receive a certificate of completion or other designation conferred by a district-affiliated public educational institution indicating that the student has completed a program of study. This includes special education students who successfully complete Individual Education Plans (IEPs), and students who complete their graduation requirements after summer school. There are no vocational education diplomas: in order to graduate, all Little Rock students who take courses at the Metropolitan Vocational-Tech Center must be enrolled in Little Rock high schools, and must complete their required Little Rock School District credits. Students who leave the Little Rock School District and complete a GED or other high school equivalency certificate are not counted as graduates. In Years 1 and 4 (after installation of a new computer system), the district was only able to estimate the number of graduates by counting all 12th grade students who had not transferred, dropped out or been retained. In Years 2 and 3, completion of graduation requirements was indicated in the cohort file by addition of a graduation code. Only those students whose records contained that code were counted as graduates during Years 2 and 3. Therefore, data for Years 1 and 4 represent estimates (over counts) of the number of graduates, while data for Years 2 an 3 represent actual counts of students who completed all graduation requirements. 5. Retention In Year l and Year 4, retention counts were determined by comparing student grade level status based on fall enrollment with projected grade level status based on the prior June's enrollment. Students whose actual fall enrollments differed from their projected enrollments were counted as retained. For Years 2 and 3 retention counts were derived by tallying the number of students who had not successfully completed their course requirements at the end of the school year. Students who attend summer school and achieve promotion are excluded from retention counts. Data for Years 1 and 4 also represent estimates of the number of students who were retained. (Retention status could only be determined for students who remained in the system across the two year periods, [Years l to 2, and Years 3 5 to 41 . Some students may have been retained and subsequently transferred out or dropped out of school and therefore not included in Year 1 or Year 4 estimates). Policies regarding grade retention differ according to school level. Grade retention policy for grades seven and eight is that students who fail two or more courses are retained unless they attend summer school and successfully complete the failed courses. For grades nine through twelve, the district's policy is that students ' grade levels are advanced each year unless there is a serious credit deficiency or credit deficiency in core academic subjects. Closely related to retention is the variable over age . (Retention at any time during students ' academic careers generally make them older than their non-retained classmates.) The cohort files contain each student's birth date. Each student's age can be calculated from the birth date contained in the cohort file. Students are considered over age if, by June 30th, they are at least one year and six months above the appropriate grade-level age for students who finished 1st grade at age seven. The over age thresholds for grades kindergarten through twelve are, respectively, 7.5, 8.5 , 9.5, 10.5, 11.5 , 12.5, 13.5 , 14.5 , 15.5 , 16.5, 17 .5, 18.5 and 19.5. 6 6. Course Failures District practices for collecting and reporting course failure data are consistent with the New Futures definition for course failure. Any student who receives one or more course grades of \"F\" for regular or summer school courses is included in cohort counts. In accordance with the New Futures definition, Little Rock keeps separate course failure information for summer school. Courses and, therefore, course failures are defined differently for junior high school and high school students. For junior high school grades seven and eight, courses are graded on an annual basis. For junior high school ninth grade and high school grades ten through twelve, all course grades are for semesters. A grade of \"F\" in either a semester or an annual course is counted as a course failure in the cohort files. Because of variations between high school and junior high school accounting of course failure, we also calculated the percentage of courses failed. Any comparison of junior high school and high school course failure is based on the percentage of courses failed. 7. Suspensions For Years 2 through 4, the numbers of short-term (3 to 10 days), out-of-school suspensions were recorded in a newly activated field in each student's record. (Until Year 2, the only available suspension data were counts of incidents of suspension.) Other types of suspensions (i.e., long-term, in-school) are counted in Little rock, however they are not included in the cohort file. 8. Dropouts Students who enter the military, leave to get married or work, leave school and enter non-state approved school programs, leave school between terms and do not re-enroll elsewhere (\"summer-leavers\"), or leave school between terms but are not identified as transfers (\"no shows\"), are counted as dropouts in the cohort file. Students who leave school to get their GEDs are also counted as dropouts. Students who are deceased, incarcerated. or enroll in another approved school (public or private) after attending Little Rock's schools for at least one day are counted as withdrawals and transfers. Two kinds of dropouts are reported from the cohort file: presumed dropouts, and students who are unaccounted for. \"Presumed dropouts\" are those students who are known to have dropped out of school or who have accumulated more than 15 days of consecutive unexcused absences. Students who are \"unaccounted for\" were enrolled in the previous school year but unexpectedly did not return to school by October of the following school year (\"no shows\" and summer-leavers). It is important to note that the cohort file may slightly overstate the dropout rate because the \"unaccounted for\" category could include some number of students who are actually attending schools outside of the Little Rock public school system but whose records were not updated to reflect such out-of-district transfers. 7 B. Types of Analyses This report contains a series of analyses for each of the main cohort file variables - enrollments, attendance, achievement, graduation, promotion/retention, course failure, suspension and dropout. For each variable we include over-years comparisons (i .e., crosssectional comparisons of the 7th-12th grade students reported in the Year 1 file [1988-89] with the 7th-12th grade students reported in subsequent files) and longitudinal comparisons (e.g., Year 1 to Year 2 comparisons for students appearing in both cohort files). For some variables, we have conducted special longitudinal analyses comparing consecutive cohorts (e.g. , Years 1 - 2 versus Years 2 - 3 and Years 3 - 4), and special analyses for students who appear in each of the four years (i.e., the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE). Over-years comparisons show side-by-side statistics for each of the four years for which we have files. Also noted in the over-years comparisons are changes from Year 1 to Year 4. These changes are computed in one of two ways - as percentage changes or as differences in percentage points.  The following is an example of a percentage change. In Year 1, there were 13,203 students included in Little Rock's 7th-12th grade file. In Year 4, there were 12,294 students in the 7th-12th grade files. This constitutes a 6.9 percent decrease in enrollments at these grades (Year 4 minus Year 1, quantity divided by Year 1).   The following is an example of a difference in percentage points. In Little Rock's junior high schools in Year 1, the average daily attendance (ADA) was 90.2 percent. In Year 4, the ADA was 89.5 percent. This constitutes a 0.7 percentage point decline in ADA (Year 4 minus Year 1). Over-years comparisons can be used to show trends from Year 1 through Year 4. However, since over-years comparisons always involve substantially different groups of children (e.g. , the seventh-graders in Year 1 are different students than the seventh graders in Year 4), we advise caution when interpreting these results. By contrast, longitudinal analyses enable us to follow the performance of specific students and groups of students over time. Longitudinal comparisons show data for those students who appear in files for more than one school year. For example, of the 13,203 7th-12th graders appearing in Little Rock's Year 1 file , 9,274 students, or 70.2 percent of the Year 1 group, also appear in Year 2, 6,512 students, or 49.3 percent appear in Year 3, and, 4,370 students, or 33 .1 percent were enrolled all four years. The students no longer appearing in Years 2, 3 and 4 have either graduated, transferred out of the school district, been expelled, or dropped out of school. Longitudinal analyses of enrollments, attendance, achievement, or any of the other variables, study the changing status or performance of those students who attended school 8 during two or more school years. Longitudinal analyses are made possible through the use of the unique student identification numbers. Inter-relationships are demonstrated by combining variables from the cohort files with variables from the survey files. For example, analyses have been conducted to show inter-relationships between dwelling in a single-parent household and low achievement (low achievement is more common among surveyed students from single-parent homes than it is among surveyed students who aren't from single-parent homes). C. Report Organization Sections II and III of this report present results of the cohort file analyses. In Section IIA we report over-years and longitudinal analyses for each of the cohort file variables. In Section IIB we report: survey data for secondary students and relationships between school outcome variables and selected survey variables. Section III summarizes the data presented in the report in graphic and tabular form. Additionally, the cumulative enrollment status for each cohort is examined, by grade level. This report contains a small sample of the analyses which have been conducted to date on the cohort files. Selected statistics focus on differences between grade levels and between . races. The Appendix to this report presents selected over-years and longitudinal analyses for all New Futures cities including combined cities totals. 9 II. Analyses A. Over-Years and Longitudinal Analyses of Cohort Variables The following section presents over-years and longitudinal analyses for students enrolled in grades 7 through 12 for Year 1 through 4, and for students enrolled in grades K through 12 for Years 3 through 4. Because outcomes and trends in the elementary school grades tend to be different from outcomes in the secondary school grades, and because the elementary school data are not available for the first two years of the initiative, elementary school data are presented in separate tables. Since elementary school data are only available for the 1990-91 and 1991-92 school years, over-years and longitudinal analyses can only be conducted for Year 3 and Year 4. 1. Enrollment a. Grades 7 Through 12 i. Over-years comparisons Table 1.1 shows, across grades, by race and by gender, the Little Rock cohort enrollments in each year and the percentage change in enrollments over the four-year period. It can be seen for example, that, overall, 7th to 12th grade enrollments decreased by 6. 9 percent, from 13,203 students in Year 1 to 12,294 students in Year 4. This decrease can be attributed almost entirely to the changes in the numbers of white students enrolled in the system (enrollments for white students decreased by 19.0%, from 5,392 in Year 1 to 4,365 in Year 4). Enrollments for black students, while fluctuating over the four years, increased slightly by 1.2 percent between Year 1 and Year 4 (from 7,616 to 7,714). Grade level data show enrollment decreases between Years 1 and 4 at each grade except 7 and 9. There were substantial decreases in all high school grades between Years and 4 (13.1 % at the 10th grade level, 14.9% at the 11th grade level, and 9.0% at the 12th grade level). At the junior high school level, there were slight increases overall at the 7th and 9th grade levels, and decreases in 8th grade. Between Years 3 and 4, however, the trends were somewhat different. Junior high enrollments increased slightly overall, and high school enrollments decreased by only 0.1 percent. Table 1.2 shows changes in enrollment distributions for each year. It can be seen in the table that the percentage of black students in 7th through 12th grades has been increasing , while the percentage of white students has declined (black students comprised 57. 7 % of the 7th-12th grade population in Year 1 and 62.7% in Year 4, while the percentage of white students declined from 40.8% to 35.5%) . The gender composition has remained fairly constant and racial trends within gender are consistent with racial trends overall (i.e., the percentages of black males and black females are changing relative to the percentages of white males and white females). LITTLE ROCK Table 1.1 ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS Distribution in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level =========================================zz=========m===============~--sa: 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-9 10-12 Total ===============================================================================2 Totals Year 1 2,226 2,317 2,047 2,432 2,210 1,971 6,590 6,613 13,203 Totals Year 2 2,193 2,173 1,978 2,213 2,055 1,888 6,344 6,156 12,500 Totals Year 3 2,161 2,242 2,018 2,047 1,899 1,844 6,421 5,790 12,211 Totals Year 4 2,234 2,189 2,084 2,113 1,881 1,793 6,507 5,787 12,294 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change in Enrollment Change Yrs 1-2 -1.5X -6.2X -3.4X -9.0X -7.0X 4.2X -3.7X -6.9X -5.3X Change Yrs 2-3 -1.5X 3.2% 2.01 -7.5X -7.6X 2.3X 1.2X -5.9X 2.3X Change Yrs 3-4 3.4% -2.4X 3.3% 3.2% -0.9X -2.8\" 1.31 0.1X 0.7% Change Yrs 1-4 0.4% 5.5X 1.8% -13.1% -14.9% -9.0X -1 .31 12.5X -6.9\" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 1,444 1,468 1,198 1,448 1, 131 927 4,110 3,506 7,616 Black Year 2 1,442 1,453 1,221 1,318 1,160 949 4,116 3,427 7,543 Black Year 3 1,458 1,499 1,289 1,221 1,074 1,046 4,246 3,341 7,587 Black Year 4 1,488 1,499 1,361 1,292 1,073 1,001 4,348 3,366 7,714 1./hi te Year 1 741 813 820 950 1,055 1,013 2,374 3,018 5,392 White Year 2 n2 680 n1 863 869 909 2,123 2,641 4,764 1./hite Year 3 683 717 689 787 794 771 2,089 2,352 4,441 1./hite Year 4 718 666 699 765 763 754 2,083 2,282 4,365 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 1,151 1,179 997 1,218 1,065 955 3,327 3,238 6,565 Males Year 2 1,121 1,115 990 1,078 1,006 867 3,226 2,951 6,177 Males Year 3 1,115 1,110 1,003 971 893 874 3,228 2,738 5,966 Males Year 4 1,137 1,100 1,034 1,007 882 831 3,271 2,no 5,991 Black Year 1 n2 737 603 730 547 467 2,062 1,744 3,806 Black Year 2 740 n6 605 669 573 419 2,071 1,661 3,732 Black Year 3 764 742 629 588 530 493 2,135 1,611 3,746 Black Year 4 761 769 669 625 506 471 2,199 1,602 3,801 White Year 1 411 425 379 473 507 477 1,215 1,457 2,6n White Year 2 361 370 368 389 422 432 1,099 1,243 2,342 White Year 3 343 353 355 367 342 369 1,051 1,078 2,129 White Year 4 361 324 350 361 363 335 1,035 1,059 2,094 Females Year 1 1,075 1,138 1,050 1,214 1,145 1,016 3,263 3,375 6,638 Females Year 2 1,on 1,058 988 1,135 1,049 1,021 3,118 3,205 6,323 Females Year 3 1,046 1,132 1,015 1,076 1,006 970 3,193 3,052 6,245 Females Year 4 1,097 1,089 1,050 1,106 999 962 3,236 3,067 6,303 Black Year 1 n2 731 595 718 584 460 2,048 1,762 3,810 Black Year 2 702 n1 616 649 587 530 2,045 1,766 3,811 Black Year 3 694 757 660 633 544 553 2,111 1,730 3,841 Black Year 4 n1 730 692 667 567 530 2,149 1,764 3,913 1,/h i te Year 1 330 388 441 477 548 536 1,159 1,561 2,no 1,/h i te Year 2 361 310 353 474 447 477 1,024 1,398 2,422 White Year 3 340 364 334 420 452 402 1,038 1,274 2,312 White Year 4 357 342 349 404 400 419 1,048 1,223 2,271 Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrO\\rlds other than 'Black' or '1./hite' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurcers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sun of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 11 LITTLE ROCK Table 1.2 ENROLLMENT CCl4PARISONS Percentage Distribution of Change in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level ==========zm=============m===rms=~=== ~rmmm::sz:-------=---= 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-9 10-12 Total ==============================================--============================== Totals Year 1 2,226 2,317 2,047 2,432 2,210 1,971 6,590 6,613 13,203 Totals Year 2 2,193 2,173 1,978 2,213 2,055 1,888 6,344 6,156 12,500 Totals Year 3 2,161 2,242 2,018 2,047 1,899 1,844 6,421 5,790 12,211 Totals Year 4 2,234 2,189 2,084 2,113 1,881 1,793 6,507 5,787 12,294 RACE Black Year 1 64.9\" 63.4X 58.SX 59.5X 51.2X 47.0% 62.4X 53.0X 57.7\" Black Year 2 65.8X 66.9\" 61. 7X 59.6X 56.4X 50.3X 64.9\" 55.7\" 60.3X Black Year 3 67.5X 66.9\" 63.9% 59.6X 56.6X 56. 7\" 66.1X 57.7% 62.1X Black Year 4 66.6X 68.5X 65.3X 61.1X 57.0X 55.8% 66.8% 58.2X 62.7% White Year 1 33.3X 35.1X 40.1X 39.1X 47.7% 51.4X 36.0X 45.6X 40.8X White Year 2 32.9\" 31.3X 36.51 39.0X 42.3X 48.1X 33.5X 42.9\" 38.1X White Year 3 31.6X 32.0X 34.11 38.4X 41.8% 41.8% 32.5X 40.6X 36.4X White Year 4 32.1X 30.4X 33.SX 36.2X 40.6X 42.1X 32.0X 39.4X 35.SX GENDER BY RACE Hales Year 1 51.7% so. 9\" 48.7\" 50.1X 48.2\" 48.5X 50.5X 49.0X 49. 7\" Hales Year 2 51. 1X 51.3X 50.1X 48. 7\" 49.0X 45.9\" 50.9\" 47.9\" 49.4% Hales Year 3 51.6% 49.SX 49.7% 47.4% 47.0% 47.4X 50.3% 47.3% 48.9\" Hales Year 4 50.9\" 50.3% 49.61 47.7\" 46.9\" 46.3X 50.3X 47.01 48.7% Black Year 1 32.41 31.8\" 29.51 30.01 24.8% 23. 7\" 31.3X 26.41 28.8% Black Year 2 33. 7\" 33.4% 30.61 30.2\" 27.9\" 22.2\" 32.6% 27.01 29.9\" Black Year 3 35.4X 33.1X 31.2\" 28.7\" 27 .9\" 26. 7\" 33.3X 27.8% 30. 7\" Black Year 4 34.1X 35.1X 32.1X 29.6X 26.9\" 26.3X 33.8% 27.7% 30.9\" White Year 1 18.SX 18.3X 18.51 19.4X 22. 9\" 24.2\" 18.4X 22.0X 20.2% White Year 2 16.SX 17.0X 18.61 17.6% 20.5X 22.9\" 17.3% 20.2% 18. 7\" White Year 3 15.9\" 15. 7\" 17.61 17.9\" 18.0% 20.0% 16.4% 18.6X 17.4X White Year 4 16.2X 14.8% 16.8\" 17.1X 19.3X 18. 7\" 15.9\" 18.3X 17.0X Females Year 1 48.3X 49.1X 51.3X 49.9\" 51.8% 51.5X 49.5% 51.0X 50.3X Females Year 2 48. 9\" 48. 7\" 49.9\" 51.3% 51.0% 54.1X 49.1X 52.1% 50.6X Females Year 3 48.4X 50.SX 50.3X 52.6% 53.0X 52.6% 49.7% 52. 7\" 51.1% Females Year 4 49.1% 49. 7\" 50.41 52.3X 53.1% 53. 7\" 49.7\" 53.0X 51.3% Black Year 1 32.4X 31.5% 29.1X 29.5% 26.4% 23.3% 31.1X 26.6X 28. 9\" Black Year 2 32.0X 33.5% 31.1X 29.3% 28.6% 28.1% 32.2\" 28.7\" 30.5% Black Year 3 32.1X 33.8\" 32.7% 30.9\" 28.6X 30.0% 32.9\" 29.9\" 31.5X Black Year 4 32.SX 33.3% 33.2\" 31.6X 30.1% 29.6X 33.0X 30.5X 31.8% White Year 1 14.8% 16.7\" 21.51 19.6% 24.8% 27.2\" 17.6% 23.61 20.6X White Year 2 16.5% 14.3% 17.8\" 21.41 21.8% 25.3X 16.1% 22. 7\" 19.4X White Year 3 15. 7\" 16.2% 16.61 20.5% 23.8% 21.8% 16.2X 22.0X 18.9\" White Year 4 16.0X 15.6X 16.7% 19.1% 21.3% 23.4% 16.1X 21.1x 18.SX Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrOl.llds other than 'Black' or 'White' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nuicers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sun of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 198889, 198990, 199091, 199192. 12 ii. Characteristics of the Year 4 Cohort Table 1. 3 and the accompanying figure present, for high school students who appear in the Year 4 cohort, the years of enrollment, by grade in Year 4. It can be seen, for example, that 69.0 percent of Year 4's 10th grade students were enrolled in the Little Rock School District in each of the past four years, 4.4 percent were enrolled in each of the past three years, 7.9 percent were enrolled in Years 3 and 4, and 18.6 percent were enrolled in Year 4 only. Overall, in each succeeding grade, relatively more students were enrolled in all four years, and relatively fewer students were enrolled in Year 4 only. Thus, in Year 4, 7 5. 9 percent of the 12th graders and 69. 0 percent of the 10th graders were enrolled in all four years, and 7.8 percent of the 12th graders and 18.6 percent of the 10th graders were enrolled in Year 4 only. Tables 1.3a and 1.3b show the same data by race . By comparing the two tables it can be seen that greater proportions of black Year 4 students than white Year 4 students were enrolled in all four years. Overall, 80.9 percent of black Year 4 students were enrolled in all four years, compared to 59.6 percent of white Year 4 students. One group of particular interest in Table 1.3 is the 4,147 students were enrolled in all four years. Students in this longitudinal cohort are especially important to us because they are the ones who have been students in Little Rock School District throughout the New Futures Initiative, and for whom we have four years of complete data. We are able to compare their outcomes over time with the assurance that many of their basic experiences are the same (e.g ., the same suspension and retention policies governed their discipline and progress) . Overall, there have been 4,370 students who have been with us for each of the four years of the initiative. 5 5 This includes 223 students who, due to retentions, were still in 7th , 8th or 9th grade in Year 4. 13 Little Rock Table 1.3 Year 4 Students, Years of Enrollment Grade in Year 4 10th 11th 12th Total All 4 Years 1,459 1,3_27 1,361 4,147 69.0% 70.5% 75 .9% 71.8% Years 2 - 4 93 87 162 342 4.4% 4.6% 9.0% 5.9% Years 3 - 4 167 223 130 520 7.9% 11.9% 7.3% 9.0% Year 4 Only 394 244 140 778 18.6% 13.0% 7.8% 13 .3% I Total I 2,113 1,881 1,793 5,779 Figure 1.3: Years of Enrollment For Year 4 Students -- All Students 100% 'U Q) 75% 0 '- C UJ -en C (1) 'U 50% -:::::, Cl) -0 -C Q) () '- 25% Q) a.. 1 0th 11th 1 2th Total \\ ~ All 4 Yrs CJ Yrs 2-4 CJ Yrs 3-4 ~ Yr 4 Only 14 'U Q) .0.. . C: w (/) +-' C: Q) 'U ::::J +-' Cl) -0 +-' C: Q) .C..J. Q) a.. Little Rock Table 1.3a Year 4 Students, Years of Enrollment Black Students D Grade in Year 4 10th 11th 12th Total All 4 Years 1,021 863 840 2,724 79.0% 80.4% 83 .9% 80.9% Years 2 - 4 54 33 47 134 4.2% 3.1 % 4.7% 4.0% Years 3 - 4 68 77 50 195 5.3% 7.2% 5.0% 5.8% Year 4 Only 149 100 64 313 11.5% 9.3% 6.4% 9.3% I Total I 1,292 1,073 1,001 3,366 Figure 1.3a: Years of Enrollment For Year 4 Students -- Black Students 100% 75% 50% 25% 1 0th 11th 1 2th Total I III All 4 Yrs [=:J Yrs 2-4 [=:J Yrs 3-4 L] Yr 4 Only 15 \"C Q) .0.. . C w ..(./.). C Q) \"C ..~... Cl) -0 ..... C Q) .u... Q) a.. Little Rock Table 1.3b Year 4 Students, Years of Enrollment White Students D Grade in Year 4 10th 11th 12th Total All 4 Years 416 439 505 1,360 54.4% 57 .5% 67 .0% 59.6% Years 2 - 4 36 52 109 197 4.7% 6.8% 14.5% 8.6% Years 3 - 4 93 139 78 310 12.2% 18.2% 10.3% 13 .5% Year 4 Only 220 133 62 415 28.8% 17.4% 8.2% 18.1 % I Total I 765 763 754 2,282 Figure 1.3b: Years of Enrollment For Year 4 Students -- White Students 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 1 0th 11th 1 2th Total I 1111 All 4 Yrs CJ Yrs 2-4 CJ Yrs 3-4 ~ Yr 4 Only 16 iii. Longitudinal comparisons The 4-YEAR COHORT FILE. Table 1.4 shows the number and percentage of students by race and grade in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE. It can be seen in the table that 4,370 students have been in the cohort files for all four years . Of these students, 2,920 (66 .8%) were black (compared with 57.7% of the Year 1 students) and 1,386 (31.7%) were white ( compared with 40. 8 % in Year 1). This suggests that more black students than white students are staying through the 4-year period. As anticipated, most of the students (94. 9%) in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE were in grades 10 through 12 in Year 4. I Little Rock Table 1.4 Number and Percentage of Students in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE By Race/Ethnicity, Grade and Gender Race [:] Grade in Year 4 White Black Other 7 N 0 0 0 0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8 N I 19 0 20 % 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 9 N 25 177 I 203 % 1.8% 6.1% 1.6% 4.6% 10 N 416 1,021 22 1,456 % 30.0% 35 .0% 34.4% 33 .4% II N 439 863 25 1,327 % 31.7% 29.6% 39 . l % 30.4% 12 N 505 840 16 1,361 % 36 .4% 28.8% 25 .0% 31.1 % Total I N I 1,386 2,920 64 4,370 % 31.7% 66.8% 1.5 100.0% 17 Three consecutive two-year cohorts. Table 1.5 shows the percent of 7th-11th grade students in each year who also appear in the successive year's cohort files (see footnote six below). Overall, 82.6 percent of the 11,232 Year 1 7th-11th grade students appeared in the Year 2 cohort file. From Year 2 to Year 3, 84.0 percent of the 10,612 7th-11th grade students remained in the cohort file. Similarly, 84.3 percent of Year 3's students remained in the cohort file. Between Years 1 and 2 and Years 2 and 3, a greater proportion of black students than white students remained in the cohort files. Between Years 3 and 4, the proportions of black and white students remaining in the cohort file were nearly equal. Most importantly, Table 1. 5 suggests that enrollment trends over the three two twoyear time segments were fairly constant. Total enrollment, subgroup enrollment and inf.out migration of students appear relatively stable. The two-year period between Years 3 and 4 shows an increase in the proportion of white students remaining in the cohort file, and a slight decline in the proportion of black students remaining. Table 1.5 Percent of 7th to 11th Grade Students in Subsequent Cohort Files, By Race6 I I Total I Black I White Enrollment Grades 7-11, Year l 11,232 6,689 4,379 Percent Enrolled in Year 2 82.6% 85.2% 78.6% Enrollment Grades 7-11, Year 2 10,612 6,594 3,855 Percent Enrolled in Year 3 84.0% 86.5% 79.9% Enrollment Grades 7-11, Year 3 10,367 6,541 3,670 Percent Enrolled in Year 4 84.3% 84.8% 84.l % I 6 Students in the 12th grade are expected to graduate and are not expected to appear in the succeeding year's cohort tile. 18 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 i. Over-years comparisons Tables 1.6 and 1.6a show the frequency and percentage distribution of enrollment for students enrolled in grades kindergarten through six in Years 3 and 4. Year 4's total enrollment was slightly lower than Year 3's enrollment. Declines were experienced at all elementary grades except the second and sixth. The racial composition at the elementary level was fairly constant. About 65 percent of the students are black and about 35 percent are white. Table 1.6 ENROLLMENT Percent Change in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level K 2 3 4 5 6 Total Totals Year 3 2,178 2,451 2,167 2,183 2,352 2,255 2,090 15,676 Totals Year 4 2,144 2,389 2,207 2,061 2,213 2,236 2,178 15,428 Change Yrs 34 1.6X 2.5X 1.8X 5.6X 5.9X 0.8X 4.2X 1.6X RACE Black Year 3 1,381 1,573 1,387 1,380 1,521 1,459 1,387 10,088 Black Year 4 1,344 1,529 1,367 1,307 1,415 1,485 1,406 9,853 White Year 3 771 844 756 m 799 m 673 5,393 \\Jhite Year 4 772 826 803 728 768 726 743 5,366 GENDER BY RACE Hales Year 3 1,130 1,257 1,113 1,106 1,206 1,140 1,059 8,011 Hales Year 4 1,105 1,253 1,130 1,045 1,120 1,138 1,097 7,888 Black Year 3 696 799 703 683 778 739 697 5,095 Black Year 4 689 788 690 646 706 749 716 4,984 \\Jhite Year 3 424 441 401 408 411 390 345 2,820 \\Jhite Year 4 405 451 420 385 399 376 365 2,801 Females Year 3 1,048 1,194 1,054 1,077 1,146 1, 115 1,031 7,665 Females Year 4 1,039 1,136 1,077 1,016 1,093 1,098 1,081 7,540 Black Year 3 685 774 684 697 743 720 690 4,993 Blaclc Year 4 655 741 677 661 709 736 690 4,869 \\Jhite Year 3 347 403 355 369 388 383 328 2,573 \\Jhite Year 4 367 375 383 343 369 350 378 2,565 Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black or '\\Jhite were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nunbers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sun of racial categories. Source: Li ttle Rocle Cohort Fi les 1990-91, 1991  92. 19 Totals Year 3 Totals Year 4 RACE Black Year 3 Black Year 4 White Year 3 White Year 4 GENOER BY RACE Males Year 3 Males Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 White Year 3 White Year 4 Females Year 3 Females Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 White Year 3 White Year 4 LITTLE ROCK Table 1.6a ENROLLMENT Percentage of Change in Enrollment, Across Grades, by Race, 1990-91 (Yr. 3) and 1991-92 (Yr. 4). I( 2,178 2,144 63.4X 62.?X 35.4X 36. 0X 51.9X 51 . SX 32.0X 32.1X 19.SX 18.9X 48.1X 48.SX 31.SX 30 . 6X 15.9X 17.1X 2,451 2,389 64.2X 64.0X 34.4X 34.6X 51.3X 52.4X 32.6X 33.0X 18.0X 18.9X 48.?X 47.6X 31.6X 31.0X 16.4X 15.?X 2 2, 167 2,207 64.0X 61.9X 34.9X 36.4X 51.4X 51.2X 32.4X 31.3X 18 .SX 19.0X 48.6X 48.8X 31 .6X 30.?X 16.4X 17.4X Grade Level 3 2,183 2,061 63.2X 63.4X 35.6X 35.3X 50.?X 50.?X 31.3X 31.3X 18.?X 18.?X 49.3X 49.3X 31.9X 32.1X 16.9X 16.6X 4 2,352 2,213 64.?X 63.9X 34.0X 34.?X 51.3X 50.6X 33.1X 31.9X 17.SX 18.0X 48.?X 49.4X 31.6X 32.0X 16.SX 16.?X 2,255 2,236 64.?X 66.4X 34.3X 32.SX 50.6X 50.9X 32.8X 33.SX 17.3X 16.8X 49.4X 49.1X 31.9X 32.9X 17.0X 15.?X 6 2,090 2,178 66.4X 64.6X 32.2X 34.1X 50.?X 50.4X 33.3X 32.9X 16.SX 16.8X 49.3X 49.6X 33.0X 31.?X 15. 7X 17.4X Total 15,676 15,428 64.4X 63.9X 34.4X 34.8X 51.1X 51.1X 32.SX 32.3% 18.0X 18.2% 48.9X 48.9X 31.9% 31.6% 16 .4% 16.6% Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black' or 'White' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurbers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the sum of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 20 ii. Origins of the Year 4 Students The origins of all Year 4 elementary school students, by race are described in Tables 1. 7 through 1. 7b. Specifically, the tables show, by grade, the number and percent of Year 4 students who were new to the system, and for those who were also enrolled in Year 3, the number and percent who had advanced one grade, remained in the same grade, or advanced more than one grade in Year 4. It can be seen in the tables that (excluding kindergarten students, all of whom were new), about 14 percent of all elementary school students were new to the system in Year 4 (including 9.4% of black students and 21.1 % of white students). Most of the students (82.4%) in the 1st through 6th grades had been in the system during Year 3 and had advanced one grade level (including 85.6% of black students, and 76.9.% of white students). The table also shows that first grade has the greatest proportion of new arrivals, (17.3 percent of the students are new to the system, compared to 14% or less for other grades), and the highest grade retention rate (11. 9 percent had been Little Rock 1st graders the previous year). 21 Table 1. 7: Origins of All Year 4 Elementary School Students7 I I Grade in Year 4 [\nJ Status I 2 3 4 5 6 New to System in Year N 413 315 276 323 271 226 1,824 4 % 17.3% 14.3% 13.4% 14.6% 12.l % 10.4% 13.7% Advanced One Grade N 1,692 1,783 1,742 1,850 1,942 1,931 10,940 From Year 3 % 70.8% 80.8% 84.5% 83.6% 86.9% 88.7% 82.4% Retained In Same N 284 103 34 37 18 8 484 Grade As Year 3 % 11.9% 4.7% 1.6% 1.7% 0.8% 0.4% 3.6% Multi-promoted From N NIA 6 9 3 5 13 36 Year 3 % NIA 0.3% 0.4% 0.1 % 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% I Total I N I 2,389 2,207 2,061 2,213 2,236 2,178 I 13,284 I % Multi-promoted (0.3%) Figure 1.7: Origins of Year 4 Students For All Year 4 Students in Grades 1 Through 6 Based on Year 3 Enrollment 7 Kindergarten students are not included in this analysis because most of the kindergarten students were new to the system in Year 4. 22 I I Table 1. 7a: Origins of Black Year 4 Elementary School Students Status New to System in Year 4 Advanced One Grade From Year 3 Retained In Same Grade As Year 3 Multi-promoted From Year 3 Total I I 1 2 3 4 5 N 182 134 113 143 136 % 11.9% 9.8% 8.6% 10.1 % 9.2% N 1,103 1,152 1,160 1,241 1,332 % 72.1 % 84.3% 88.8% 87.7% 89.7% N 244 79 28 29 13 % 16.0% 5.8% 2.1 % 2.0% 0.9% N NIA 2 6 2 4 % NIA 0.1 % 0.5% 0.1 % 0.3% N I 1,529 1,367 1,307 1,415 1,485 Figure 1.7a: Origins of Year 4 Students For Black Year 4 Students in Grades 1 Through 6 Based on Year 3 Enrollment % Retained (4.7%) % New to System (9.4%) % Multi-promoted (0.3%) 23 6 92 6.5% 1,296 92.2% 8 0.6% 10 0.7% 1,406 GJ 800 9.4% 7,284 85.6% 401 4.7% 24 0.3% 8,509 11 I I Table 1.7b: Origins of White Year 4 Elementary School Students Status New to System in Year 4 Advanced One Grade From Year 3 Retained In Same Grade As Year 3 Multi-promoted From Year 3 Total I .. I I 2. l IC 4 ,... S \\ 6 N 217 172 153 172 131 % 26.3% 21.4% 21.0% 22.4% 18.0% N 569 606 566 588 589 % 68.9% 75.5% 77.7% 76.6% 81.1% N 40 22 6 7 5 % 4.8% 2.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% N NIA 3 3 1 1 % NIA 0.4% 0.4% 0.1 % 0.1 % N I 826 803 728 768 726 Figure 1. 7b: Origins of Year 4 Students For White Year 4 Students in Grades 1 Through 6 Based on Year 3 Enrollment 124 16.7% 616 82.9% 0 0.0% 3 0.4% 743 % New to System (21 .1 %)  1\\ '[otat/ ' 969 21.1% 3,534 77.0% 80 1.7% 11 0.2% I 4,594 I % Normal Progress (77.0%) 24 2. Attendance a. Over-years comparisons Table 2.1 shows, across grades, by race and by gender, each cohort's average daily attendance rate (ADA) in Years 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the percentage point difference in ADA over the four year period. It can be seen that attendance rates are generally quite high but have been declining over the four year period (by 1. 8 percentage points overall) . Attendance patterns are generally consistent over race/ethnicity and gender. b. Longitudinal comparisons Table 2.2 contains longitudinal attendance data for those students who appear in the 4- YEAR COHORT FILE. For each of the four study years, participants have been classified according to the quartile in which their ADA fell in the first year of New Futures. Year 1 students with an ADA less than 79.7 percent were in the lowest quartile (i.e ., their ADA was equal to or less than the ADA of twenty-five percent of the population), students with ADAs between 79 .7 and 91.7 percent fell in the second quartile, students with ADAs between 91.8 percent and 97 .1 percent fell in the third quartile, and students with AD As greater than 97 .1 percent fell in the fourth quartile. The table shows the Year 1 through Year 4 average daily attendance rates, by attendance quartile, for all students and by race. On average, attendance rates are declining for the 4-YEAR COHORT students. This is true across attendance quartiles and across races. For example, for Black 4-YEAR COHORT FILE students whose Year 1 attendance placed them. in the second attendance quartile we see a decline in ADA in each year (from 91.0% in Year 1, to 90.0% in Year 2, to 87.4% in Year 3 and 83 .4% in Year 4). 25 LITTLE ROCK Table 2.' ATTENDANCE COMPARISONS Percentage Point Change in Average Daily Attendance (ADA) Rates, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 1988-89(Yr. 1) to 1991-92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ======================================================================== Total Total Total 7 8 9 10 11 12 7-9 10-12 7-12 ======================================================================== Totals Year 1 91.1X 88.?X 90.8X 90.3X 90.?X 91.4X 90.2X 90.8X 90.5X Totals Year 2 91.8X 89.3X 90.9X 87.0X 88.3X 88.5X 90.?X 87.9X 89.3X Totals Year 3 91.5X 90.0X 89.3X 89.2X 89.4X 89 . 2X 90.3X 89.3X 89.8X Totals Year 4 90.8X 89.1X 88.4X 86.?X 88.2X 89.1X 89.SX 87.9X 88.?X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change in ADA Change Yrs 1-2 0.7 0.6 0.1 -3.3 -2.4 -2.9 0.5 -2.9 -1.2 Change Yrs 2-3 -0.3 0.7 -1.6 2.2 1.1 0.7 -0.4 1.4 0.5 Change Yrs 3-4 -0.7 -0.9 -0.9 -2.5 -1.2 -0.1 -0.8 -1.4 -1.1 Change Yrs 1-4 -0.3 0.4 -2.4 -3.6 -2.5 -2.3 -0.7 -2.9 -1.8 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 90.?X 88.0X 91.0X 90.0X 90.2X 91.?X 89.8X 90.SX 90.2X Black Year 2 91.SX 88.4X 90.6X 85 .6X 88.0X 88.5X 90.1X 87.3X 88.8X Black Year 3 91.1X 89.0X 88.6X 88.4X 88.8X 89.1X 89.6X 88.?X 89.2X Black Year 4 90.5X 88.6X 87.4X 85.?X 87.9X 88.9X 88.9X 87.4X 88.2X White Year 1 91.8X 89.8X 90.3X 90.?X 91.2X 91.1X 90.6X 91.0X 90.8X White Year 2 92.4X 91.2X 91.2X 88.9X 88.6X 88.3X 91.6X 88.5X 89.9X White Year 3 92.3X 91.8X 90.?X 90.2X 90.2X 89.2X 91.6X 89.9X 90.?X White Year 4 91.4X 90.1X 90.0X 88.1X 88.5X 89.1X 90.SX 88.6X 89.5X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 90.5X 88.2X 90.2X 89.6X 90.0X 91.3X 89.6X 90.3X 89.9X Males Year 2 90.SX 88.9X 90.2X 85.9X 87.?X 88.6X 89.8X 87.3X 88.?X Males Year 3 90.5X 88.9X 88.8X 88.5X 88.SX 89.2X 89.4X 88.?X 89.1X Males Year 4 89.8X 88.1X 87.6X 85.4X 87.5X 88.?X 88.6X 87.1X 87.9X Black Year 90.1X 87.SX 90.4X 89.3X 89.2X 91.6X 89.3X 89.9X 89.6X Black Year 2 90.0X 87.?X 89.?X 84.?X 87.3X 88.6X 89.1X 86.?X 88 .0X Black Year 3 89.9X 89.6X 88.0X 87.5X 87.?X 88.5X 88.6X 87.9X 88.3X Black Year 4 89.5X 87.4X 86.3X 84.3X 88.0X 88.3X 87.8X 86.?X 87.3X White Year 1 91.2X 89.SX 89.?X 89.9X 90.?X 91.0X 90.1X 90.5X 90.4X White Year 2 91.4X 90.9X 90.?X 87.6X 88.0X 88.4X 91.0X 88.0X 89.4X White Year 3 91.8X 91.4X 90.0X 89 .9X 89.SX 90.0X 91.1X 89.8X 90.4X White Year 4 90.2X 89.?X 89.8X 87.0X 86.8X 89.0X 89.9X 87.6X 88.?X Females Year 1 91.?X 89.2X 91.3X 91.0X 91.4X 91.6X 90.?X 91.3X 91.1X Females Year 2 93.2X 89.8X 91.6X 88.0X 88.9X 88.4X 91.5X 88.4X 90.0X Females Year 3 92.6X 91.0X 89.8X 89.8X 90.2X 89.2X 91.2X 89.?X 90.5X Females Year 4 91.9X 90.1X 89.1X 87.8X 88.8X 89.5X 90.4X 88.6X 89.5X Black Year 1 91.3X 88.5X 91.6X 90.?X 91.1X 91.8X 90.4X 91.1X 90.?X Black Year 2 93.0X 89.0X 91.4X 86.5X 88.6X 88.4X 91 . 1X 87.8X 89.6X Black Year 3 92.5X 90.4X 89.1X 89.1X 89.8X 89.6X 90.?X 89.5X 90.2X Black Year 4 91.5X 89.9X 88.5X 86.9X 87.8X 89.4X 89.9X 88.0X 89.1X White Year 1 92.6X 90.2X 90.8X 91.5X 91.6X 91.3X 91.1X 91.5X 91.3X White Year 2 93.5X 91.5X 91.6X 89.9X 89.2X 88.2X 92.2X 89.0X 90.4X White Year 3 92.?X 92.2X 91.5X 90 .5X 90.?X 88.5X 92.2X 89.9X 90.9\" White Year 4 92.6X 90.5X 90.3X 89.0X 90.0X 89.3X 91.1X 89. 4X 90.2X Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 26 Little Rock Table 2.2 Longitudinal ADA Comparisons, By Quartile In Year 1 and Race/Ethnicity, For 4-YEAR COHORT FILE Students Year 1 (1988-89) Through Year 4 (1991 -92) Average Daily Attendance Rates Percentage Average Daily Attendance ADA N Point Difference: Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Years l and 4 All Students 4,240 92 .9% 92.3% 90 .8% 87 .8% -5. l All Quartiles Black 2,831 92 .9% 92.2% in Year I 90.3% 87.1 % -5.8 White 1,347 92 .8% 92.6% 91.5% 89 .2% -3.6 All Students 651 79.0% 81.3% 79.0% 73.3 % -5.7 Lowest Quartile in Year 1 Black 448 78.4% 80 .5% 77.5% 70 .9% -7.5 ( \u0026lt; 79.7 %) White 198 80.4% 82 .8% 82. 1% 79 .0 % -1.4 All Students 1,026 91 .1 % 90.6% 88.4% 84.8% -6 .3 Second Quartile in Year 1 Black 621 91.0% 90 .0% 87 .4% 83.4% -7 .6 (79.7% 2_ 91.7 %) White 392 91.1 % 91.3% 89 .8% 86.9% -4 .2 All Students 1,2 10 95 .4% 94.4% 93 .0% 90 .7% -4.7 Third Quartile in Black 793 95.4% 94 .3% 92 .7% 90 .2% -5.2 Year 1 (91. 8 % 2_ 97 . 1 % ) White 399 95 .3% 94 .6% 93 .5% 91.5% -3.8 All Students 1,353 98 .5% 96 .9% 95 .8% 93 .8% -4 .7 Highest Quartile in Black 969 98 .5% 96.9% 95 .7% 93.7% -4.8 Year 1 (\u0026gt; 97 . l %) White 358 98 .4% 96.7% 96 .1% 94 .1 % -4.3 27 3. Academic Achievement (Reading and Mathematics) a. Grades 7 through 12 i. Over-years comparisons Tables 3.1 and 3.2 compare, across grades, by race and gender, average Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4 achievement test scores for 7th through 11th grade students. (Since Year 4 data are converted from SAT-8 test scores, Table 3.la and 3.2a, which show unconverted SA T-8 scores, are also included as a reference.) Data are presented as percentile ranks8 associated with the mean normal curve equivalent (NCE) scores. 9 A verage reading performance among tested seventh graders (Table 3.1) in Year 1 was equivalent to the 48th percentile, the seventh grade average in Year 4 was equivalent to the 54th percentile. Thus, relative to national norms, the seventh grade reading average improved by six percentile ranks from Year 1 to Year 4. In contrast, seventh grade math achievement (Table 3.2) dropped two percentile ranks, from the 50th percentile in Year 1 to the 48th percentile in Year 4. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 also show:  improvement in reading scores at the 7th and 10th grade levels, but declining at the 8th, 9th and 11th grade levels\n10  declines in math scores at all junior high levels, and improvements in 10th and 11th grade scores\nand  rather large disparities between black students and white students. Tables 3.3 through 3.6 and the accompanying figures show, across grades, by race and gender, the achievement quartile distributions for junior high school students, Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. Students scoring at or below the 25th percentile are said to be in the first (lowest) quartile . Similarly, students scoring between the 26th and the 50th percentile (i.e., the median) are in the second quartile, students scoring between the 51st and 75th percentiles are in the third quartile, and students scoring above the 75th percentile are in the fourth (highest) quartile. In a statistically \"normal\" distribution, approximately 25 percent of the 8 Percentile ranks indicate the percentage of raw scores in a normative group that fall below a particular student's raw score. For example, if a student's raw score converts to a percentile rank of 43 then that student scored higher than approximately 43 percent of the students in the normative group. 9 See also the discussion of achievement measures in the Introduction. 10 Year 1. 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Some of the decline in test scores may be attributable tu implementauon of a new testing package (from the MAT-6 to the SAT-8) and the score conversion process. (All Year 4 data were converted from SAT-8 scores to the MAT-6 equivalent.) 28 population would be included within each of the four quartiles. By comparing the scores of Little Rock's students to those norms, we can compute the percentages of Little Rock's students who score in each range. Information contained in Tables 3.3 through 3.6 may be used to observe differences in the percentages of students in the lowest or highest quartiles that may not be obvious when looking at overall averages . Reductions in the percentages of students in the first quartile, or increases in the percentages of students in the fourth quartile, constitute improvements. Conversely, increases in the percentages of students in the first quartile, or decreases in the percentages of students in the fourth quartile, constitute declines. For example, it can be seen in Table 3.3 that, in Year 1 and in Year 4, 21 percent of Little Rock's tested junior high school students scored in the first quartile in reading (4 percentage points better than what would be expected in a statistically \"normal\" distribution). Table 3.5 shows that in Year 1, 22 percent of Little Rock's testedhigh school students (10th and 11th graders only) scored in the first quartile in reading, while 17 percent of tested high school students were in the first quartile in Year 4. The figures show most clearly the disparities in achievement results. The comparisons shown in Tables 3.1 through 3.6, like all other over-years comparisons, are not of matched groups of students. For example, the seventh graders in Year 1 are different students than the seventh graders in Years 2, 3 or 4. In addition, some of the students tested in each year may have been retained in their grades while others may have been promoted. This does not mean that comparisons of over-years data cannot be made, or are not useful, but only that those undertaking the assessment be aware which groups of students make up the groups they are reviewing . 29 Table 3.1 ACHIEVEMENT C04PARISONS Distribution in Reading Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr.4). asa:.aa.--a ~mrmma:arm 7 8 9 10 11 ms:.as.:s-.-\u0026amp;.a :.::.::aaa:asrmaaarm.a Totals Year 1 48 54 64 50 55 Totals Year 2 50 52 65 54 52 Totals Year 3 48 52 61 54 58 Totals Year 4 54 42 48 54 54 -C--h-a-n-ge- --in- -R--e-a-d-in-g- -A--c-h-ie-v-e-m--e-n-t ------------------------------------- Change Yrs 12 2 -2 1 4 -3 Change Yrs 2-3 -2 0 -4 0 6 Change Yrs 3-4 6 -10 -13 -o -4 Change Yrs 1-4 6 -12 -16 4 -1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 36 40 51 36 38 Black Year 2 37 39 50 39 39 Black Year 3 35 37 48 39 42 Black Year 4 44 35 37 41 41 White Year 1 n 76 80 68 71 White Year 2 73 76 83 n n \"11ite Year 3 n 78 82 n 73 White Year 4 75 61 67 n 70 GENDER BY RACE MalH Year 1 48 53 64 48 56 Males Year 2 46 50 65 50 52 Males Year 3 44 50 59 54 56 Males Year 4 48 41 46 50 54 Black Year 1 34 38 51 35 38 Black Year 2 33 35 50 37 37 Black Year 3 33 35 46 39 41 Black Year 4 39 33 37 37 41 Whit  Year 1 70 76 80 68 70 White Year 2 n 73 82 73 70 White Year 3 70 75 80 n 73 White Year 4 68 59 65 68 70 Feaaln Year 1 50 55 66 51 55 F-lH Year 2 52 54 65 56 54 F-lH Year 3 50 54 63 54 58 Feaales Year 4 59 46 50 56 54 Black Year 1 38 42 51 38 39 Black Year 2 39 42 52 41 39 Black Year 3 39 39 50 41 42 Black Year 4 48 37 39 42 41 11h I te Year 1 74 77 81 70 71 White Year 2 76 79 84 n n White Year 3 73 79 84 n 73 White Year 4 79 65 70 76 70 Note: Twelfth grade students ere not tested. Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are baaed on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are baaed on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile rank associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Note: Students fr0111 racial/ethnic backgrOW1da other then 'Black' or 'WhiteM were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their rurbers were minimal. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 30 Totals RACE Black llhite GENDER BY Males Black llhi te Females Black \\lhi te Table 3.1a READING ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) Reading Scores (Perce~tile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 1991-92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ================================================ 7 8 9 10 11 ================================================ 39 39 41 48 48 25 27 28 32 33 67 65 67 71 68 RACE 30 33 39 42 48 20 24 27 27 33 58 59 63 67 68 46 42 42 52 48 32 30 30 35 33 75 68 70 76 68 Note: Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 1991-92. 31 Table 3.2 ACHIEVEMENT C!Jl'ARISONS Distribution in Math Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Gender and Race: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr.4). Grade Level =-==========---~=--===aa==s---===:z===a 7 8 9 10 11 ------------z-:s=rz=m--=---==-.srm--=-----===== Totals Year 1 50 51 64 50 55 Totals Year 2 52 48 65 54 54 Totals Year 3 48 48 59 52 59 Totals Year 4 48 37 42 54 56 -C--h-a-n-g-e --in-- M--a-th- -A--c-h-ie-v-t!-l-ll-el-'l-t ---------------------------------------- Change Yrs 1-2 2 -3 1 4 -1 Change Yrs 2-3 4 -o -6 -2 5 Change Yrs 3-4 0 -11 17 2 -3 Change Yrs 1-4 2 -14 -22 4 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 38 39 51 38 40 Black Year 2 41 37 52 41 41 Black Year 3 39 35 48 41 46 Black Year 4 39 28 30 41 42 White Year 1 70 71 79 67 70 White Year 2 73 n 80 n 70 White Year 3 67 70 76 68 75 White Year 4 68 58 65 n 68 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 48 49 64 51 59 Males Year 2 48 48 63 54 58 Males Year 3 46 46 58 52 61 Males Year 4 44 35 42 52 56 Black Year 1 35 35 51 38 42 Black Year 2 37 33 50 41 42 Black Year 3 35 35 46 39 48 Black Year 4 33 27 30 39 44 White Year 1 69 71 80 71 73 White Year 2 70 70 79 73 73 White Year 3 65 68 73 68 78 White Year 4 65 54 63 70 70 Femalu Year 1 51 53 63 48 53 Femalu Year 2 54 48 65 54 52 Females Year 3 50 48 59 54 58 F .. lu Year 4 52 41 42 56 54 Black Year 1 42 44 51 36 39 Black Year 2 42 39 54 41 39 Black Year 3 41 35 50 41 44 Black Year 4 42 32 32 42 42 White Year 1 71 71 77 63 66 White Year 2 75 73 80 70 68 White Year 3 68 n 79 68 73 White Year 4 n 59 67 n 68 Note: Tlielfth grade students are not tested. Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported s percentile ranks associated with 11111an Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrOUlds other than 'Black' or 'White\" were not Included in the 'RACE' categories because their nua\u0026gt;era were 111inimel. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 198990, 1990-91, 199192. 32 Totals RACE Black llhite GENDER BY Males Black Table 3.2a READING ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) Reading Scores (Percentile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level ==-=====-======-=====--====-==================== 7 8 9 10 11 ==-==================-=====-==================== 39 39 41 48 48 25 27 28 32 33 67 65 67 71 68 RACE 30 33 39 42 48 20 24 27 27 33 llhite 58 59 63 67 68 Females 46 42 42 52 48 Black 32 30 30 35 33 llhite 75 68 70 76 68 Note: Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 1991-92. 33 Table 3.3 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Ji.nior High School Students Scoring in Each Achievement Quartile, for Reading, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). ======================================================================================================= Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Total JHS YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 ------------=-=-===----=-----=----=--=---=--------=====--=z=======----=------=---------------------- Total Quartile I 28X 27X 29X 16X 23X 25X 25X 26X 13X 14X 17X 20X 21X 23% 24X 21% Quartile II 29X 28% 2ax 36% 2ax 29X 28X 39X 25X 23% 25X 37X 2ax 27X 27X 37X Quartile 111 20% 22X 21% 26% 21% 20% 20X 24X 29X 29X 25X 27X 23% 23% 22% 26% Quartile IV 23% 23% 22X 22X 28X 26% 27X 12X 33% 34X 33X 16% 2ax 27X 27X 16% Black Quartile I 37X 37X 38X 21X 31% 33% 35X 34% 18X 20% 24X 28X 30X 31% 33% 2ax Quartile II 35% 33X 34X 45X 35% 34% 34% 44X 32X 31X 32X 46% 34X 33% 33X 4SX Quartile Ill 18X 19X 19X 24% 19X 19X 19X 17X 31% 30X 26X 22% 22% 22% 21X 21% Quartile IV 11X ,ox 9X 10X 14% 14% 12% 4% 18X 20X 19X 4% 14% 14% 13% 6% Black Males Quartile I 40% 41X 41X 29X 34% 36% 39X 39X 20X 21X 26% 30% 32X 34% 36% 33% Quartile II 35X 32% 34X 45X 34% 37X 34% 41X 29X 30% 32% 45X 33X 33% 34% 44% Quartile Ill 16% 17X 17X 20X 1ax 16% 15% 16X 32X 29X 25% 21% 21X 20% 18% 19% Quartile IV 9X 10% BX 7X 14% 11% 12X 4X 19X 20% 17X 4% 14% 14X 12% sx Black Females Quartile I 34% 34X 35% 14% 28% 30% 31% 30X 17X 19X 22X 26% 27X 2ax 30X 23% Quartile II 35X 35X 33% 45% 38X 32X 34X 47X 34X 31% 31% 46% 36X 33% 33% 46X Quartile Ill 19X 21X 22X 28X 20% 22% 23% 19X 31X 31% 27X 23% 23X 24% 24% 24X Quartile IV 12X 10X ,ox 13% 14X 16% 12% 4% ,ax 19X 20% sx 14% 1SX 14% 7X 11h i te Quartile I 9X 8X 9X 7X 7X 8X 6% 9X sx 3X 6% sx 7X 7X 7X 7X Quartile II 18X 17X 18% 18% 19X 20% 17X 27X 14X 12% 12% 22X 17X 16X 16X 22% Quartile 111 25X 28X 23% 30% 23% 20% 22% 37X 26% 27X 23% 37X 2SX 25% 23% 34% Quartile IV 48% 47X SOX 46% S2X 52% S4X 27X ssx sax sax 36% S2X S3X S4X 37X llhite Males Quartile I ,ox ,ox 12% ,ox 8% 11% 8% 12X 6% 4% 7X 8X 8% 8X 9X 10% Quartile 11 18X 16% 16% 22% 19X 21X 19X 29X 16% 12% 13% 23X 18% 16X 16% 2SX Quartile Ill 2SX 29X 26% 29X 21X 19X 21X 3SX 22% 27X 24X 36% 23X 25% 24% 33% Quartile IV 47X 4SX 46% 38X 52% 49X 52X 24% 56X 57X 56X 33% S2X 51X S1X 32% llhite Females Quartile I 9X 6X 7X 4X 7X sx 4% 7X 4X 3% sx 3X 6X SX sx 4% Quartile II 18X 17X 19X 13% 17X 19% 16% 25X 12X 12X 12X 20X 1SX 16X 16% 19X Quartile Ill 24X 28X 21% 30% 2SX 20% 23% 39X 29X 26% 23% 3ax 26X 25% 22X 3SX Quartile IV 49X 49X S3X 53% 51% 56% S?X 30% ssx 59X 60X 39X 52% ssx 57X 4-1% Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test CMAt-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-a) scores which are coq,arable to the MAT-6. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 34 \"'C -(1) 75% (/) (1) ~ -(/) C (1) \"'C -::J 50% e-n 0 -C (1) u '- (1) 25% a. Figure 3.3: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Reading Achievement Quartiles For Junior High School Students Enrolled in Years 1 and 4, By Race Year 1 Year4 Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 35 Table 3.4 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Achievement Mathematics Quartile Across Grades and by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 199192 (Yr. 4). ==-=-========================================================-=~======================================= Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Total JHS YR1 YR-2 YR-3 YR4 YR-1 YR2 YR-3 YR-4 YR1 YR-2 YR-3 YR4 YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 ==========================================================rn~======================================== Total Quartile I 25X 22X 25X 29% 24X 27% 29% 39% 13% 12X 17% 33% 21% 21X 24% 34X Quartile II 29% 32X 33% 29% 30X 30% 31X 30% 27% 30% 29% 31X 30% 31X 31% 30% Quartile 111 26X 25X 24X 23X 21% 22X 20% 1BX 2BX 25X 2BX 19% 25X 24% 24X 20X Quartile IV 20X 21X 1BX 20X 25X 21% 20% 12X 32% 33X 26% 17% 25X 24X 21X 17% Blacl:: Quartile 32X 29% 32X 36X 32% 35X 38% 49% 1BX 16% 22X 44X 2BX 2BX 31X 43X Quartile II 35X 39% 39% 32% 36X 36% 36X 32% 36% 38X 35% 35% 36X 37% 37% 33X Quartile 111 25X 23X 21% 22X 20% 20% 17% 14X 2BX 27% 30% 14% 24% 22X 22% 17% Quartile IV 8X ,ox BX 10X 13X 9X 9X sx 1BX 20% 13X 7X 13X 12X 10X 7X Blacl:: Males Quartile I 37% 32X 35X 45X 37% 39% 41X 53% 1BX 19% 24% 46% 31X 31% 33X 48X Quartile II 34X 40X 39% 2BX 33% 33% 35% 30% 32% 37% 37% 33% 33% 37% 37% 30X Quartile 111 23X 19% 19% 20X 19% 20% 14X 12X 31X 26X 26% 14% 24X 21X 20X 15X Quartile IV 6X 9X 7X BX 11X BX 10X 5% 19% 1BX 13% 7X 12X 11% 10% 6X Blacl:: Females Quartile I 29% 26X 30X 27% 27% 31% 37% 46% 17% 13X 20X 42X 25X 24X 29X .38X Quartile II 35X 38X 39% 36X 38% 39% 36X 33X 40% 38X 34X 37% 3BX 38% 37% 36X Quartile Ill 27% 26X 22X 24X 21X 21X 19% 16% 26% 27% 33% 14% 25X 25X 24X 1BX Quartile IV 9X 10X 9X 13X 14% 9X BX sx 17% 22% 13X 6X 13X 13X ,ox BX White Quartile 9X 7X 10% 15% 10% 10% 11X 1BX 6% 6% 7X 14% BX 8% 9X 15% Quartile II 21X 19% 22X 22X 21X 19% 21% 28% 15X 16X 19X 23% 19X 20% 21X 24X Quartile Ill 2BX 31X 32X 24% 24% 27% 26% 2BX 2BX 23% 25X 27% 26% 26% 28X 26X Quartile IV 42% 43X 36X 39% 46X 44X 42% 26X 51X 55% 49% 36X 47% 45X 43X 34X White Males Quartile I 13X 10X 13X 20X ,ox 13X 11X 20X 6X 7X 10X 17% ,ox ,ox ,,x 19% Quartile II 18X 18% 21X 24X 19% 18X 22X 30X 18% 15X 21X 23X 18X 17% 21X 26X Quartile 111 26X 30X 31% 20X 27% 29% 28% 25% 23X 22X 24X 25X 26X 27% 28X 23X Quartile IV 43X 42% 35X 37% 44% 40% 39% 25% 53X 56% 45X 35X 47% 46% 40X 33X White Females Quartile I sx sx BX 11% 11% 7X 10% 16% 5% 6% 4X 10% 7X 6X BX 12X Quartile II 24X 20X 22% 19% 22% 21% 21% 25X 15X 16X 16X 23X 20X 19% 20X 22X Quartile 111 29% 31% 32% 28% 20% 23X 24X 31% 31% 24X 26% 30% 27% 26X 27% 29% Quartile IV 42X 44X 3BX 42% 47% 49% 45% 2BX 49% 54% 54% 37% 47% 49% 45X 36X Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores which are c~rable to MAT6 scores. Source: little Roel:: Cohort Files 198889, 1989-90, 199091, 1991-92. 36 \"'C -Q) 75% (/J Q) r- -(/J C Q) \"'C -::::, 50% e-n 0 -C Q) u '- Q) 25% a.. Figure 3.4: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Mathematics Achievement Quartiles For Year 1 and 4 Junior High School Students By Race Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 37 Table 3.5 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS - QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of High School Students Scoring in Each Reading Achievement Quartile Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 1988-89CYr. 1) to 1991-92(Yr. 4). ---------------------------------------------------------------------============================= Grade 10 Grade 11 Total HS YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 =======================---=------------===========-===========-=================================== Total Quart le I rn: 21 19X 18 19% 23 18 16 22 22 19X 17 Quart le II 35 31 32 35 26 27 27 35 28 29X 30 35 Quart le Ill 22 23 23 25 28 25 27 30 26 24 25 28 Quart le IV 20 25 26 22 27 25 28 19 24 25 27 21 Black Quartile I 35 31 29X 26 32 36 27 24 34 33 28 25 Quartile II 37 39X 40 44 34 31 35 46 35 35 38 45 Quartile Ill 19X 20 21 21 25 21 26 24 22 21 23 23 Quartile IV 9X 10 10 8 10 12 12 6 10 11 11 7 Black Males Quartile I 37 35 31 32 35 37 29 23 36 36 30 28 Quartile II 36 36 38 43 30 32 32 45 33 34 35 44 Quartile Ill 19X 19X 20 17 24 20 25 26 21 20 22 21 Quartile IV 8 10 11 8 11 11 14 6 10 11 12 7 Black Females Quartile I 33 27 27 20 30 35 25 25 32 31 26 22 Quartile II 37 43 42 45 36 31 37 46 37 37 40 46 Quartile Ill 19% 21 21 25 25 22 27 23 22 22 24 24 Quartile IV 11 9X 10 9X 9 12 11 6 10 10 10 8 llhite Quartile I 9 8 6 6 7 7 6 5 8 7 6 6 Quartile II 23 20 21 20 17 19X 18 21 20 20 20 20 Quartile Ill 30 27 27 30 32 31 28 38 31 29X 27 34 Quartile IV 38 45 46 44 44 43 48 36 41 44 47 40 llhite Males Quartile I 9X 9X 5 10 8 9X 9X 7 9X 9X 7 8 Quartile II 23 19X 22 23 18 16 18 19X 20 18 20 21 Quartile Ill 30 26 29X 32 32 33 22 36 31 29X 26 34 Quartile IV 38 46 44 35 42 42 51 38 40 44 47 37 llhite Females Quartile I 8 7 7 4 5 5 4 4 7 6 5 4 Quartile II 23 20 21 17 18 22 18 22 20 21 19\" 19 Quartile Ill 30 28 24 29X 32 29X 31 40 31 28 28 35 Quartile IV 39X 45 48 50 45 44 47 35 42 45 47 42 Note: Twelfth grade students were not tested. Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores which are c~rable to MAT-6 scores. Source: Little Rocle Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 38 100% \"C -Q) 75% Cl) Q) ~ -Cl) C Q) \"C -::, 50% (/) -0 -C Q) u ~ aQ..) 25% Figure 3.5: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Reading Achievement Quartiles For Year 1 and 4, High School Students By Race Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year 4 Year 1 Year4 All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 39 Table 3.6 ACHIEVEMENT COMPARISONS - QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Mathematics Achievement Quartile Across Grades and by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). ====================--============================================================================= Grade 1D Grade 11 Total HS YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 YR-1 YR-2 YR-3 YR-4 ============================================================:=================================== Total Quartile I 25X 21X 21X 20X 21X 22X 16X 16X 24X 21X 19X ,ax Quartile II 32X 31X 34X 33X 30X 30X 31X 33X 31X 31X 33X 33X Quartile Ill 21X 24X 23X 25X 21X 22X 24X 29X 21X 23X 24X 27'X Quartile IV 22X 24X 22X 22X 28X 26X 29X 22X 25X 24X 25X 22X Black Quartile I 36X 29X 29X 28X 33X 32X 23X 24X 35X 31X 26X 26X Quartile II 36X 38X 41X 40X 36X 36X 40X 40X 36X 37'X 40X 40X Quartile 111 17'X 23X 21X 22X 17X 19X 23X 27X 17'X 21X 22X 24X Quartile IV 10X 10X 9X 9X 14X 13X 14X 9X 12X 11X ,,x 9X Black Malas Quartile I 35X 30X 30X 32X 32X 30X 19X 23X 34X 30X 25X 28X Quartile 11 36X 38X 40X 40X 36X 36X 40X 40X 36X 36X 40X 40X Quartile Ill 18X 22X 21X 19X 16X 21X 26X 28X 17'X 22X 23X 23X Quartile IV 11X 10X 9X 9X 16X 13X 15X 9X 13X 12X 12X 9X Black Females Quartile I 37X 29X 27X 25X 34X 33X 27X 24X 36X 31X 27X 25X Quartile II 36X 39X 42% 40X 37X 37'X 39X 41X 36X 38X 41X 40X Quartile 111 17X 23X 22X 25X 17X 18X 21X 26X 17X 21X 22X 25X Quartile IV 10X 9X 9X 9X 12X 12X 13X 9X 11X 10X 11X 9X llhite Quartile I ,ox 9X 10X 7X ,ox 9X 7X 7X 10X 9X 8X 7'X Quartile II 26X 23X 25X 22X 24X 23X 20X 23X 25X 23X 22X 23X Quartile Ill 26X 27'X 26X 29X 25X 25X 25X 31X 25X 26X 26X 30X Quartile IV 38X 42X 40X 42X 42X 43X 48X 39X 40X 42X 44X 41X llhite Males Quartile I 9X 7X 9X 7X 7X 8X 7X 6X 8X BX BX 7X Quartile II 23X 24X 26X 24X 23X 22X 16X 24X 23X 23X 22X 24X Quartile 111 25X 25X 24X 30X 24X 24X 27X 30X 24X 24X 25X 30X Quartile IV 43X 44X 41X 39X 46X 46X SOX 40X 4SX 45X 46X 39X White Females Quartile I 11X 10X 10X 8X 12X 10X 8X 7X 12X 10X 9X 7X Quartile 11 29X 22X 23X 20X 24X 24X 22X 22X 26X 23X 23X 21X Quartile 111 26X 28X 28X 27X 26X 25X 24X 32X 26X 27X 26X 30X Quartile IV 34X 40X 39X 45X 38X 41X 46X 38X 36X 40X 43X 42X Note: Twelfth grade students were not tested. Note: Year 1, 2 and 3 test score are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-8) scores which are c~rable to MAT-6 scores. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 40 100% \"O -Cl) 75% (/) Cl) I- -(/) C Cl) \"O -::::, 50% C/J -0 -C Cl) CJ ~ Cl) 25% a. Figure 3.6: Little Rock Students Scoring in Lowest and Highest Mathematics Achievement Quartiles For Year 1 and 4, High School Students By Race Y .. 1 Year4 Year 1 Year4 Year 1 Year4 All Black White I  Lowest Quartile ~ Highest Quartile 41 ii. Longitudinal comparisons Longitudinal analyses of MAT reading and mathematics achievement were conducted for Year l's 7th graders and 8th graders who were enrolled in Years 1 through 4, and made normal grade level progresstt _ Analyses were prepared for all tested students and separately for those whose spring 1989 test score placed them in the lowest (first) achievement quartile. In the longitudinal design, the performance of student groups is monitored over sequential test administrations, and differences between mean scores are compared. In looking at these data. we expect. unless there is some systematic intervention. that groups of students whose average score is at a particular percentile in Year 1 will have an average score at approximately the same percentile in Year 4. An important exception to this principle is that students in the lowest quartile in Year 1 are likely to increase their scores by Year 4. Table 3.7 ~hows the number of seventh grade students tested in Years 1 through 4, and the percentile rank associated with the average NCE in each year for all students and by race. Table 3. 8 shows the same data for students whose Year 1 test scores placed them in the lowest reading quartile. The tables contain separate information for reading and mathematics tests . The accompanying figures serve to illustrate the change in test scores over time. For seventh grade students tested in Years 1 through 4, we see an overall reading achievement loss of two percentile ranks from Year 1 to Year 4, and a decline of four percentile ranks in mathematics achievement scores. t2 Both black and white students experienced these declines in test scores. For lowest quartile students we see increases in both reading and mathematics achievement scores. The changes are greater for white students. Tables 3.9 and 3.10 show similar data for Year l's 8th graders. It can be seen in the tables that there were losses in both reading and math for Year l's 8th graders (9 percentile ranks for reading and 3 percentile ranks for mathematics). For lowest quartile students there were increases in both reading and math. ll Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). t2 Once again. some of the decline in test scores may be attributable to implementation of a new testing package (from the MAT-6 to the SAT-8) and the score conversion process . (All Year 4 data were converted from SAT-8 scores to the MAT-6 t:4u1valent.) 42 ~ C: \u0026lt;tS a: Q) .. C: Q) .(.J.. Q) a.. Little Rock Table 3.7: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons12 For 7th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year 1 to Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (7th) (8th) (9th) (10th) Reading : All Students 1,011 56th 59th 65th 54th -2 Black 677 44th 48th 54th 42nd -2 White 316 78th 80th 85th 75th -3 Math: All Students 1,014 58th 56th 63rd 54th -4 Black 679 48th 44th 52nd 44th -4 White 317 75th 75th 80th 72nd -3 99 90 - Reading Math 80 - .. 70 - 60 - .. L 50 - . l 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 - 1 I I I I I I I All Black White All Black White , .. Year 1 D Year2 ~ Year3 mffl9 Year4 11 Y car I. 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 43 .:-:: C Little Rock Table 3. 8: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons13 For 7th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Lowest Quartile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year l to Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (7th) (8th) (9th) (10th) Reading :All Students 194 16th 24th 25th 25th +9 Black 172 15th 22nd 25th 24th +9 White 21 17th 28th 35th 32nd + 15 Math: All Students 141 17th 21st 25th 27th + 10 Black 124 17th 21st 25th 25th +8 White 17 17th 25th 28th 30th +13 50 - Reading Math 40 - (i 30 - Q) .. C ,,. ,. ,. ~ 20 ~ ,. - ,. \"\" Q) a. I 10 - f :: . :: 1 . I I I I I ' I All Black White All Black White I 1111 Year 2 c=J Year 3 ~ Year 4 13 Year 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT~). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 44 Little Rock Table 3.9: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons14 For 8th Grade Students Tested Years l through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Students Reading :All Students Math: All 99 90 80 ,_ ,- ~ 70 ,- C ~ 60 ,- Q) .:: so - C B 40 ~ - Q) a. 30 20 10 1 - - - Black White Students Black White ,. I N 1,01 I 633 355 1,011 635 353 Reading - Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year l Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 (8th) (9th) (10th) (11th) 63rd 70th 58th 56th 50th 58th 44th 44th 83rd 86th 76th 73rd 61st 70th 56th 58th 50th 59th 44th 46th 78th 85th 75th 73rd ,. Math ,. ,. ~ ~ . I I I I I All Black White All Black White /Year 1 D Year2 - Year3 - Year4 Change Year 2 to Year 4 -9 -6 :10 -3 -4 -5 I 14 Year I, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 45 ~ C ca cc: Q) -~ C Q) (.J ~ Q) a.. Little Rock Table 3.10: Longitudinal Reading and Math Achievement Comparisons15 For 8th Grade Students Tested Years 1 through 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Lowest Quartile Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Change Students N Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Year l to Year l Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (8th) (9th) (10th) (11th) Reading : All Students 132 16th 25th 22nd 25th +9 Black 120 16th 25th 21st 24th +8 White 12 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Math: All Students 134 17th 30th 22nd 22nd +5 Black 118 17th 30th 22nd 22nd +5 White 15 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA so--------------r----------------. Reading Math 40 30 20 10 1 All Black All Black , .. Year 1 c=] Year 2 m Year 3 Imm! Year 4 15 Year I. 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores shown are percentile ranks associated with students ' mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. 46 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 i. Over-years comparisons Tables 3.11 and 3.12 show percentile ranks associated with the mean reading and math NCE scores for students in grades one through six (tables 3. lla and 3.12a show un-converted SAT-8 scores for the 1st through 6th grades). Table 3.11 shows that with the exception of fourth and fifth grades, little or no change was evident in mean achievement scores. At the fourth grade there was a six percentile rank decline, and at the 5th grade there was a six percentile rank improvement. Table 3.12 shows that there were declines in mathematics achievement scores at every grade except 2nd where scores remained the same. Large declines were reported for 6th grade students. For reading, the percentile ranks associated with the mean NCE score for each grade are close to the national average, while for mathematics they are higher than the national average. Large gaps are evident at all grades between the reading and mathematics scores of white and black students. Table 3.11 ACHIEVEMENT Percentage of Change in Reading Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 1990-91(Yr. 3) and 1991-92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ==================z======================s============ 2 3 4 5 6 ====================================================== Totals Year 3 48 48 42 50 50 54 Totals Year 4 48 50 44 44 56 54 Change Yrs 3-4 0 2 2 -6 6 0 RACE Black Year 3 39 39 30 39 41 44 Black Year 4 37 37 32 35 44 42 llhite Year 3 68 68 63 72 72 73 llhite Year 4 68 70 67 65 75 72 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 44 46 37 46 48 50 Males Year 4 44 46 42 42 52 50 Black Year 3 33 33 25 35 39 39 Black Year 4 32 33 28 32 42 39 llhite Year 3 63 68 61 67 68 72 11h i te Year 4 68 67 65 61 72 70 Femaln Year 3 54 52 46 54 52 58 Females Year 4 52 52 46 48 58 56 Black Year 3 42 42 35 44 41 48 Black Year 4 42 41 35 39 48 46 llhite Year 3 76 70 68 75 73 75 llhite Year 4 70 72 68 67 78 75 Mote: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (MCEs). Mote: Students from racial/ethnic backgrol.nds other than 'Black' or 'llhi te\" were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurt\u0026gt;ers were minimal. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 47 Totals RACE Black llhi te GENDER BY RACE Males Black llhite Females Black llhite Table 3.11a READING ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT8\u0026gt; Reading Scores (Percentile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level =========================================================== 2 3 4 5 6 =========================================================== 42 37 37 42 35 46 32 25 25 30 24 33 61 61 61 65 59 72 39 33 33 39 32 42 27 22 21 25 21 30 61 58 61 61 56 67 44 42 41 46 39 so 35 30 30 35 27 37 63 63 63 67 65 75 Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test CMAT-6), Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 1991-92. 48 Table 3.12 MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT Change in Mathe11111tics Achievement Scores (Percentile Ranks), Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level =======================================z============== 2 3 4 5 6 -===-===--============================================ Totals Year 3 63 67 61 65 61 67 Totals Year 4 59 67 59 59 58 54 Change Yrs 34 4 0 2 6 3 13 RACE Black Year 3 54 58 50 54 52 59 Black Year 4 48 54 46 48 48 42 White Year 3 80 82 78 82 76 82 llhi te Year 4 79 84 82 76 76 70 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 61 67 59 63 59 65 Males Year 4 61 67 58 56 56 50 Black Year 3 50 56 48 52 50 54 Black Year 4 46 50 42 44 44 39 White Year 3 79 82 78 80 76 82 White Year 4 80 86 80 73 73 67 Females Year 3 65 67 61 65 63 68 Females Year 4 59 67 63 61 61 58 Black Year 3 56 59 52 56 54 61 Black Year 4 48 56 50 52 50 48 llhite Year 3 82 80 76 82 78 llhite 80 Year 4 76 83 84 79 79 73 Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrO\\llds other than 'Black or 11/hite\" were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nuri\u0026gt;ers were minimal. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 199091, 199192. 49 Table 3.12a MATH ACHIEVEMENT Stanford Achievement Test (SAT8) Math Scores (Percentile Ranks) Across Grade, by Race and Gender for 1991 92(Yr. 4). Grade Level ========================================================== 2 3 4 5 6 =============-============================================= Totals 48 56 56 56 50 54 RACE Blaclc 35 41 44 46 41 44 llhite 73 83 78 72 85 73 GENDER BY RACE Males 48 54 54 52 48 50 Blaclc 35 39 41 42 39 41 llhi te 72 78 75 68 67 67 Females 46 56 58 58 52 58 Blaclc 37 44 46 50 42 48 llhite 67 73 78 73 72 73 Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scores are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scores (SAT8). Scores are reported as percentile ranlcs associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Roclc Cohort Files for 199192. 50 Reading and mathematics quartile distributions for Little Rock students in grades one through six are presented in Tables 3.13 and 3.14. Reading quartile distributions in first, second and third grades are skewed, with many more students than expected in the first (lowest) quartile. In grades 4 through 6. the reading achievement distributions for the total population are better than the national nonn for the first (lowest) quartile (less than 25 % of the 4th-6th grade students are in Quartile I, except in grade 4 during Year 4) . Mathematics data at each grade level (except grade 6. Year 4) have distributions that are better than national nonns . Racial disparities are evident at all grade levels for both reading and mathematics. Table 3.13 ACHIEVEMENT QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Achievement Quartile, for Reading, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). -===============-============-==-==--================================================================= Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 YR-3 YR-4 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 ---=-==-==--=--=--==--=-==--=------------=-==-==--=--=-==================-=--=-----------=---=--==-=== Total Quartile I 36X 36X 27X 27X 36X 33X 24X 29X Quartile II 25X 23X 28X 30X 26X 28X 30X 31X Quartile Ill 14X 15X 22X 21X 19X 20X 26X 24X Quartile IV 25X 26X 22X 22X 18X 18X 20X 16X Black. Males Quartile I 49X 48X 42X 42X 54X SOX 38X 44X Quartile II 27X 25X 31X 34X 28X 31X 34X 36X Quartile III 11X 14X 17X 16X 13X 14X 19X 17X Quartile IV 13X 13X 10X 8X 6X SX 9X 3X llhite Males Quartile I 26X 23X 16X 16X 20X 13X 12X 16X Quartile II 23X 20X 18X 20X 24X 23X 20X 21X Quartile 11 I 15X 15X 23X 23X 24X 26X 32X 31X Quartile IV 36X 42X 43X 41X 33X 38X 35X 33X Black. Females Quartile I 40X 41X 26X 30X 41X 39X 26X 32X Quartile II 25X 25X 36X 38:X 30X 34X 37X 37X Quartile III 16X 15:X 25:X 22:X 19X 20X 26:X 23:X Quartile IV 19X 19X 13:X 10:X 11:X 7X 11X 8:X llhite Females Quartile I 15X 18X 12:X 9X 12:X 12:X 4:X 9X Quartile II 21:X 20% 20:X 19X 21:X 20:X 18X 21X Quartile III 15X 16X 26X 25:X 26:X 26:X 33X 32:X Quartile JV SOX 45:X 43:X 48:X 41X 43X 45X 37X Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scpres are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scpres CSAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents CNCEs). Source: Little Rock. Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 51 23X 17X 19X 19X 31X 31X 32X 34X 26X 30X 28X 27X 21X 22X 21X 20X 33X 28X 31X 29X 35X 37X 40X 42X 22X 25X 23X 21X ,ox ,ox 7X 7X 12X 8X 8X 11X 19X 18X 24X 19X 29X 31X 27X 32X 39X 43X 42X 39X 28X 18X 19X 20X 39X 38:X 37X 43:X 23:X 33:X 31X 27X 10:X 11X 13X 11:X 4X 2X 7X SX 19X 15:X 14X 17X 32:X 31X 33X 35X 4SX 51X 46X 44X Table 3. 14 ACHIEVEMENT  QUARTILE DISTRIBUTION Percentage of Students Scoring in Each Achievement Quartile, for Mathematics, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 1990-91(Yr. 3) and 199192(Yr. 4). ---======================================================================--------==--------------------= Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 YR-3 YR-4 -----------------------------------======--------------------------===================================== Total Quartile 19% 23% 13,: 16% 18% 24 16% 21,: 14% 20,: 10,: 25X Quartile II 22,: 21X 23X 21X 25X 22X 21X 24X 27'X 25X 23X 27'X Quartile Ill 21X 21X 27'X 23 24X 20,: 27'X 24X 28% 26X 33,: 23% Quartile IV 38X 35,: 37'X 40% 33,: 35,: 37'X 31X 31% 29% _ 34,: 25% Black Males Quartile I 29% 32% 19% 26X 28X 38X 23% 30% 21,: 30X 15,: 37'X Quartile II 24% 23X 27'X 26% 28% 23X 25% 29% 31X 28X 33,: 30X Quartile Ill 22,: 23% 27'X 21,: 23% 20,: 27'X 23 30% 23X 32X 20,: Quartile IV 26X 22,: 28X 27'X 22X 20X 25% 18% 18% 19% 20,: 13,: llhite Males Quartile I 9X 10,: 3X S 9,: 12,: 10,: 16% 7'X 13 4X 16X Quartile II 19X 14X 16X 11X 15% 16X 1 o,: 14X 18X 19% 13,: 21X Quartile Ill 16X 16% 2SX 20,: 21X 16X 21X 23% 24% 24X 27'X 24X Quartile IV 57'X 60X 56X 64X 54,: 56% 59% 47'X 51X 4SX 57'X 39% Black Females Quartile I 20,: 28 17'X 18% 20X 25% 1 ?'X 22,: 1SX 21X 10X 27'X Quartile II 2SX 26% 27'X 29% 32X 30X 27'X 28% 33,: 30% 24X 31X Quartile Ill 24% 23% 26% 26X 26X 21X 29% 27'X 30X 29% 38X 23% Quartile IV 30% ' 23% 29% 27'X 22,: 23% 27'X 23% 22,: 20X 28X 19% llhite Females Quartile I 7'X 10,: 6 7'X a,: a,: s,: a,: 4X 6X sx 7'X Quartile II 1SX 17X 12X 11,: 14% 10X 11,: 17'X 18X 14X 11X 20,: Quartile Ill 19,: 20X 29% 22,: 2SX 22,: 26% 23% 27X 28X 32% 26% Quartile IV 59% 54X 53,: 59,: 53X 60% 58% 52 SOX 52% 52X 47'X Note: Years 1, 2 and 3 test scpres are based on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT-6). Year 4 scores are based on converted Stanford Achievement Test scpres (SAT-8). Scores are reported as percentile ranks associated with mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1990-91, 1991-92. 52 ii. Longitudinal comparisons Longitudinal achievement analyses are included in this assessment because such analyses focus on the perfonnance of specific groups (cohorts) of students over time. Longitudinal analyses of MA T-6 reading and mathematics achievement have been prepared for all Year 3 2nd through 5th grade students who were tested in Year 3 and Year 4. and who made nonnal grade progress. Since retained students are generally at an advantage over promoted students when their data are compared with grade level nonns, we have conducted longitudinal achievement analyses which include only students who have made nonnal grade level progress (i.e., advanced one grade between Years 3 and 4). In the longitudinal design, the perfonnance of student groups is monitored over sequential test administrations, and differences between mean scores are compared. Unless there is some systematic intervention, we expect that groups of students whose average scores are at a particular percentile in Year 3 will have an average score at approximately the same percentile in Year 4. Tables 3.15 through 3.18 show, for each grade group. the number of students who were tested in Year 3 and Year 4, and the percentile rank associated with the average NCE in each year for all students. The tables contain separate infonnation for reading and mathematics tests. The data in Tables 3 .15 through 3. 18 are illustrated in the accompanying figures. It can be seen in the tables that there were systematic improvements in reading for  all grades except second. Year 3's 3rd, 4th and 5th graders improved their reading scores between 4 and 8 percentiles. For mathematics. there were declines at most grade levels (e.g .. 2nd graders declined by 7 percentiles [Table 3.15]). Third graders showed no change in their math scores (Table 3 .16 ). These patterns were similar among black students and white students although there were very disparate starting scores. For example, black and white Year 3 4th graders show average improvements in their reading scores of 7 and 6 percentile ranks, respectively, however, black students' average Year 3 scores were at the 41st percentile, while white students' Year 3 scores were at the 72nd percentile. 53 Table 3.15: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 2nd Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Nonnal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (2nd) (3rd) Year 4 Reading : All Students 1,526 52nd 44th -8 Black 1,024 41st 33rd -8 White 493 72nd 68th -4 Math: All Students 1,522 68th 61st -7 Black 1,019 61st 48th -13 White 494 83rd 84th +l 99 90 Reading Math 80 ~ 70 C: n, a: 60 Q) :\n::::\n50 C: Q) (J 40 ~ Q) a.. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I [=1 Year3 .. Year4 54 Table 3.16: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 3rd Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (3rd) (4th) Year 4 Reading : All Students 1,596 42nd 46th +4 Black 1,076 32nd 37th +5 White 504 65th 67th +2 Math: All Students 1,592 61st 61st 0 Black 1,074 52nd 52nd 0 White 502 79th 79th 0 99 90 Reading Math 80 ..x: 70 C: ca a: 60 Cl) :,.:\n50 C: Cl) () 40 ~ Q,) c.. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I c=J Year 3 .. Year 4 55 Table 3.17: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 4th Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (4th) (5th) Year 4 Reading: All Students 1,671 50th 58th +8 Black 1,152 41st 48th +7 White 502 72nd 78th +6 Math: All Students 1,668 65th 61st -4 Black I, 148 56th 52nd -4 White 503 82nd 80th -2 99 90 Reading Math 80 ~ 70 C a\u0026lt;t:l 60 Q) += 50 C Q) ,(.._) 40 Q) a. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I~ Year 31111 Year 4 56 Table 3.18: Little Rock Longitudinal Reading and Mathematics Achievement Comparisons For 5th Grade Students Tested Years 3 and 4 Who Made Normal Grade Progression Percentile Rank Percentile Rank Change Students N in Year 3 in Year 4 Year 3 to (5th) (6th) Year 4 Reading : All Students 1,657 52nd 56th +4 Black l, 118 41st 46th +5 White 524 72nd 75th +3 Math: All Students 1,654 63rd 58th -5 Black 1,116 54th 48th -6 White 523 78th 75th -3 99 90 Reading Math 80 ::it:. 70 C: n, a: 60 Q) .:. 50 C: Q) .u... 40 Q) Q. 30 20 10 1 All Black White All Black White I CJ Year3 ~ Year4 57 4. Graduation a. Over-years comparisons Table 4.1 shows the percentage of 12th graders graduating each year, by school and by race. Graduation rates for 12th graders were at about 92 percent in Year 1 (91. 7 % ) , but declined in Year 2 to less than 83 percent (82 . 9 % ) . Twelfth grade graduation rates increased in Year 3 (88.8%) , and by Year 4 (91.4%) were back above 90 percent and near the Year 1 level (91.7%). 17 Graduation rates varied across schools (two high schools had rates at 94% while the other three were around 90%). In every year but Year 4, 12th grade graduation rates for black students were lower than the rates for white students. Across gender, a. higher percentage of females graduated than males in all four years. b. Longitudinal comparisons i. Two-year graduation rates Table 4.2 shows, by race, graduation rates for three consecutive two-year cohorts of 11th grade students. The table shows that 70.6 percent of the Year 1 11th graders graduated in Year 2, 79. 3 percent of the Year 2 11th graders graduated in Year 3, and 82. 8 percent of the Year 3 11th graders graduated in Year 4. 18 The two-year graduation rate for black 11th grade students has increased: from 66.9 percent (Years 1 to 2), to 76.9 percent (Years 2 to 3), to 81.8 percent (Years 3 to 4) . The two-year graduation rate for white 11th grade students has also increased in each successive year: from 74.4 percent (Years 1 to 2), to 82 .0 percent (Years 2 to 3), reaching 84.3 percent (Years 3 to 4) . ii. Four-year graduation rates Table 4.3 shows four-year graduation rates for Year 1 's 9th graders . Of the 2,047 9th grade students in Year 1, 58.7 percent graduated in four years. A total of 26.8 percent of Year l ninth graders did not graduate because they dropped out or were retained in grade, expelled, or demoted. The graduation status of 14.5 percent of Year l's ninth graders is not known because they transferred out of the Little Rock public school system. Table 4.3 also illustrates differences in the four-year graduation rates of black students and white students. 17 Only those students whose records contained a graduation code were counted as graduates during Years 2 and 3. Therefore, data for Years I and 4 represent estimates (over counts) of the number of graduates. while data for Years 2 and 3 represent actual counts of students who completed all graduation requirements. 18 The Year I. 2 and 3 11th graders who did not graduate either transferred out of school, dropped out of school or were retained in the I Ith grade (29 .4% of the Year I 11th graders did not graduate in Year 2. 20.7 % of the Year 2 11th graders did not graduate in Year 3, and 17 .2 % of the Year 3 11th graders did not graduate in Year 4). See also the foo rnoce above regarding differences in identifying graduates in the cohort file . 58 LITTLE ROCIC Table 4.1 GRADUATION Numer and Percentage of Twelfth Grade Graduates by Race and Gender: 198889 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------=================---=======---===========- Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview TOTAL -----------------------------------------------------------------------------=================---================----=== TOTALS Year 1 570 92.4X 246 89.5X 373 92.1X 362 91.0X 257 92.8X 1808 91.7X Year 2 471 79.3X 251 88.0X 360 86.7X 274 80.3X 212 82.8X 1568 82.9X Year 3 548 91.3X 255 97.0X 358 84.6X 252 82.1X 224 89.2X 1637 88.8X Year 4 440 90.7X 274 90.4X 363 90.1X 311 92.8X 251 94.0X 1639 91.4X RACE Black Year 1 278 91.4X 99 83.2X 153 88.9X 156 88.1X 143 91.7X 829 89.3X Black Year 2 244 75.5X 129 90.1X 143 81.7X 132 77.6X 117 84.2X 765 80.5X Black Year 3 292 87.2X 137 95.8X 205 81.0X 143 79.4X 122 90.4X 899 85.9X Black Year 4 267 89.9% 149 92.5X 175 89.3X 199 93.0X 128 96.2X 918 91.7X White Year 1 281 93.0X 142 94.0X 215 94.3X 203 93.5X 108 93.9X 949 93.7X White Year 2 215 83.3X 120 86.2X 209 90.1X 138 82.5X 93 80.9X 775 85.0X White Year 3 243 96.4X 115 98.3X 149 89.8X 107 85.6X 97 87.4X 711 92.2X White Year 4 162 92.0X 122 87.8X 180 90.5X 110 92.4X 111 91.7X 685 90.8X GENDER Females Year 1 317 94.6X 112 93.3X 203 95.7X 197 92.1X 128 94.1X 957 94.1X Females Year 2 262 78.9% 130 88.4X 203 90.2X 142 83.0X 125 85.0X 862 84.3X Females Year 3 309 95.1X 129 98.5X 183 87.6X 132 83.5X 136 92.5X 889 91.6X Females Year 4 236 93.7X 137 93.8X 208 93.7X 167 93.3X 157 96.3X 905 94.1X Hales Year 1 253 89.7X 134 86.5X 170 88.1X 165 89.7X 129 91.5X 851 89.1X Hales Year 2 209 79.8X 121 87.6X 157 82.6X 132 77.5X 87 79.8X 706 81.2X Hales Year 3 239 86.9X 126 95.5X 175 81.8X 120 80.5X 88 84.6X 748 85.6X Hales Year 4 204 87.6X 137 87.3X 155 85.6X 144 92.3X 94 90.4X 734 88.3X Note: These figures include surmer graduates. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92. 59 I I I All Students Black Students White Students Little Rock Table 4.2 Comparison of 12th Grade Graduation Rates For Students in 11th Grade Year 1, Year 2 and Year 3 II Year 1 to 2 I Year 2 to 3 I Year 3 to 4 Total N 2,044 1,880 1,747 % Graduated 70.6% 79 .3% 82.8% N Graduated 1,443 1,490 1,447 Total~ 1,054 1,081 995 % Graduated 66.9% 76.9% 81.8% N Graduated 705 831 814 Total N 968 777 724 % Graduated 74.4% 82 .0% 84.3% N Graduated 720 637 610 Little Rock I Difference -297 12.2% 4 -59 14.9% 109 -244 9.9% -110 Table 4.3 4~Year Graduation Rates For Year 1 's Ninth Graders (N = 2,047) II Graduated I Transferred I Did Not Graduate19 All 58.7% 14.5% 26.8% Black 61.3% 10.9% 27 .8% White 55.4% 19.5% 25 . 1 % 19 These srudents dropped out of school or were retained , expelled or demoted. 60 I I 5. Retention a. Grades 7 Through 12 i. Over-years comparisons Table 5.1 shows, across grades, by race and by gender, the percentage of students who were designated to be retained in their grades at the end of each school year, and the percentage point difference between years. 20 As shown in the table, retention rates are relatively low in Little Rock at all grade levels. Between Years 3 and 4, retention rates decreased slightly at the junior high school grades and increased at the 10th and 11th grades. Overall, since Year 1, junior high school retention rates have increased by 0.5 percentage points (4.1 % to 4.6%). High school retention rates fluctuated throughout the period but have improved by 0.2 percentage points (4 .9% to 4.7%). Racial discrepancies in retention rates exist at each grade level and in each year. ii. Longitudinal comparisons Retention histories for students who appear in the 4-YEAR COHORT FILE are contained in Table 5.2. The table shows, by race, 4-YEAR COHORT students distributed by the number of years in which they were retained. Only 11. 7 percent of the 4-YEAR COHORT students were retained over the four year period. Of those ever retained 7.4 percent were retained more than once (0. 9 % of the total 4-YEAR COHORT). There are notable racial disparities (14.6% of the black 4-YEAR COHORT students were retained over the four-year period versus only 6.0% of the white 4-YEAR COHORT students\n35 black and 3 white 4-YEAR COHORT students were retained more than once over the four year period). Double retention within a small grade range over a short period of time, inevitably increases the number of students who are over age for grade. In Little Rock, being over age for grade is associated with dropping out of school. iii. Over age students Table 5.3 shows, across grades, by race and gender the percentage of students who were at least one-and-one-half years over age for their grade during Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. The table shows that about 14 percent of all students were over age during each year. Rates for 8th and 10th grade students were somewhat higher (about 17%). The percentage of over age students increased between Year 1 and Year 4 at each grade level except for 10th and 11th, where there were decreases of 1. 2 and 1. 8 percentage points respectively. 20 Students who attend summer school and achieve promotion are excluded from retention counts. 61 Totals Year 1 Totals Year 2 Totals Year 3 Totals Year 4 Jchange in Student Change Yrs 12 Change Yrs 23 Change Yrs 3-4 Change Yrs 1-4 RACE Black Year Black Year 2 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 1 llhi te Year 2 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 Males Year 2 Males Year 3 Males Year 4 Black Year 1 Black Year 2 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 1 llhite Year 2 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 Fe111ales Year 1 F-les Year 2 F-ln Year 3 F-lH Year 4 Black Year 1 Black Year 2 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 1 llhite Year 2 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 LITTLE ROCK Table 5.1 RETENTION COMPARISONS Distribution in Student Retentions, Across Grades by Race and Gender: 1988-89 (Yr. 1) to 1991-92 (Yr. 4). Grade Level ----------------------------------------------====================================== 7 8 9 10 11 12 79 1012 Total --------------===-=-======----====-===========-======-=-------===--========--------- 4.3 3.4 4.6 3.8 Retention 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.5 5 .5 4.4 5.6 4.7 2.0X 1.4 2.8 2.2 6.4X 5.5X 6.8X 4.6X 8.6 7.0 8.0 5.4 2.7 2.7 4.4X 3.0X 2.0X 1.1X 2.3X 3.1X 2.4X 1.7 2.9 4.0 1.2X 0.0 1.2X 1.4 6.0X 7.5X 6.1X 6.5X 1.5  1.4 0.4 0.5 8.2X 9.BX 8.0X 8.2X 2.2X 2.6X 2.1X 2.7\" 7.5X 8.6X 6.8X 7.4X 10.6X 11.5X 9.3X 9.2X 2.6X 3.7\" 1.4X 3.1X 4.5X 6.2X 5.4X 5.6X 5.9\" 8.3X 6.7\" 7.1X 1.8X 1.6X 2.7\" 2.3X 1.8X 3.4 3.8 3.4X 1.6 0.4 -0.4 1.6 1.9 4.0 5.3X 3.6X 1.6X 2.6 1.3X 2.7 2.2 4.3 4.9X 5 .1X 2.3 5.2 6.5X 5.7 2.1 2.9 2.3 4.0X 1.3X 2.5X 2.8X 1.6X 1.5X 2.7 4.1X 1.6X 1.1X 2.2X o.ox 1.4X 7.9X 7.3X 2.4X 6.5 0.6 4.9 4. 1 1.4 10.2X 9.5 2.9X a.ox 4.5X 4.3X 1.8X 4.1X 10.7 8.4X 3.3X 8.6X 13.0X 10.0X 3.9X 9.9\" 7.2X 5.9\" 2.5X 6.1X 5.1X 6.2X 1.6X 4.6X 7.2X 1.9\" 1.9X 6.1X 1.9\" 2.9X 1.2X 2.2X 4.2X 5.SX 1.9X 4.1X 1.3 3.6 2.2 0.1 5.2X 6.9X 2.4X 5.6X 3.2X 3.7\" 1.4X 2.2X 6.5X 7.4X 2.5X 6.0X 8.0X 8.7 2.8X 7.5X 4.9\" 5.4X 2.0X 3.9\" 2.1X 3.7 1.5X 2.5X 2.6X 2.0X 2.0X 3.9\" 1.6X 2.0X 0.9\" 0.7 2.1X 6.3X 6.6X 3.1X 4.2 0.3 3.5 1.0 3.1 8.2X 8.3X 3.2X 1.2X 4.5X 4.4X 3.2X 3.0X 8.3X 7.8X 4.8X 4.3X 10.2X 9.SX 4.2X 1.9\" 6.7 5.7 6.0X 1.2X 4.6X 5.5X 1.7 2.0X 7.2X 7.2X 2.3X 0.6X 2.5X 3.2X 1.0X 4.1X 4.8X 4.9\" 4.6X 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 5.4X 6.2X 6.4X 5.6X 1.9\" 2.2X 2.1X 2.5X 5.5X 6.2X 6.2X 5.7 7.5X 8.1X 8.0X 6.8X 2.5X 3.1X 2.7 3.4X 2.6X 3.3X 3.6X 3.5X 3.4X 4.3X 4.6X 4.3X 1.4X 1.2X 1.3X 1. 7X 4.9X 6.4X 3.6X 4. 7X 1 .5 -2.8 1. 1 0.2 6.7 8.3X 4.4X 5.8X 2.9\" 4.2X 2.5X 3.2 7.0X a.ox 4.SX 6.6X 9.1 9.6X 5.3X 7.5 4.7 6.0X 3.4X 5.3X 2.9\" 4.9\" 2.8X 3.0X 4.3X 3.5 3.6X 4.3X 1.3 2.5X 1.7 1.3X 4.5 5.6 4.3 4.6 1. 1 1 .3 0.3 0.1 6.0X 7.1 5 .5X 5.7 2.5 3.3 2.3 2.9 6.3 7.1 5.4 6.1X 8.2X 8.7 6.8 7.1 3.7 4.6 3.1 4.3 2.8 4.1 3.2 3.2 3.8X 5.5 4.2 4.3X 1.4 2.0X 1.6 1.5 Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 198889, 1989-90, 199091, 199192. 62 Little Rock Table 5 .2 Retention Histories For 4-YEAR COHORT students21 Status Out-of-School Retentions at the end of Year 4 All Black White N = 4,370 N = 2,920 N = 1,386 Never Retained N 3,860 2,495 1,303 % 88 .3% 85.4% 94.0% Retained 1 out N 472 390 80 of 4 Years % 10.8% 13.4% 5.8% Retained 2 out N 38 35 3 of 4 Years % 0.9% 1.2% 0.2% Ever Retained N 510 425 83 in 4 Years % 11.7% 14.6% 6.0% 11 Because of low retention rate in little Rock. No students are recained in 3 out of 4 and 4 out of 4 years 63 Table 5.3 OVER AGE aJIPARISONS Distribution of over Age Studlnta, Across Grades, by Race and Gender: 198889CYr. 1) to 199192CYr. 4). Grade Level maa ....... aaaaaa:2z:mam----m~=sa.zaa2z- 7 8 9 10 11 12 79 1012 Total -=rmsa-aaa:azaaa2aaaaaa2aasarmaasaaaaa -=mc=== Totals Year 1 12.1X 16.5X 11.3X 17.9X 12.ax 8.6X 13.4X 13.4X 13.4X Totals Year 2 , , . 7X 16.ax 12.4X 17.4X 14.1X 9.3X 13.6X 13.6X 13.6X Totals Year 3 13.ZX 17.ax 16.7X 15.4X 12.7X ,, .5X 15.9X 13.3X 14.7X Totals Year 4 12.2X 17.4X 15.6X 16.7X 11.0X 11 .3X 15,0X 13.2X 14.1X --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Change in over Age Change Yrs 1 2 0.4 0.3 , .1 0.5 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 Change Yrs 23 1.5 1.0 4.3 2.0  1 .4 2.2 2.3 0.3 1.1 Chan\n Yrs 34 1 .0 0.4 . , .1 1.3 1.7 0.2 0.9 O. 1 0.6 Chan\n Yrs 14 o., 0.9 4.3 1 .2 1 .8 2.7 , .6 0.2 0.7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 14.7X 20.4X 13.3X 21.SX 18.1X 15.1X 16.4X 18.1X 17.2X Black Year 2 14.9X 21.0X 15.8X 22.2X 18.2X 13.1X 17.4X 18.1X 17.7X Black Year 3 16.5X 22.3X 20.3X 20.3X 17.1X 14.7X 19.7X 17.5X 18.7X Black Year 4 14.SX 21.9X 19.9X 21.7X 15.2X 15.2X 18.7X 17.7X 18.3X White Year 1 6.2X 9.2X 8.4X 11.8X 7. ,x 5.1X 8.0X 7.9X 8.0X White Year 2 S.2X 7.4X 6.4X 9.ax 8.7X s.sx 6.3X 7.8X 7.1X White Year 3 6.6X 8.2X 9.4X 8.0X 6.7X 7.1X 8.1X 7.3X 7.7X White Year 4 7.SX 7.7X 7.3X 8.SX S.2X 6.1X 7.5X 6.6X 7.0X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 15.3X 19.ax ,s.ox 23.0X 17.6X 11.3X 16.ax 17.9X 17.3X Males Year 2 13.7X 21.SX 15.4X 23.0X 18.6X 13.2X 16.9X 18.3X 17.6X Males Year 3 16.3X 20.SX 22.0X 19.9X 17.9X 15.1X 19.5X 17.7X 18.7X Males Year 4 16.1X 21.0X 17.9X 22.2X 14.7X 15.4X 18.3X 17.7X ,a.ox Black Year 1 19.5X 24.6X 16.3X 27.7X 24.9X 15.SX 20.4X 23.6X 21 .9X Black Year 2 17.SX 27.3X 18.SX 27.4X 24.0X 19.0X 21.3X 23.SX 22.4X Black Year 3 20.0X 25.SX 26.7X 24.8X 21.9X 19.31 23.9X 22.ZX 23.11 Black Year 4 18.9X 26.0X 22.7X 28.5X 19.2X 19.1X 22.6X 22.ax 22.7X White Year 1 8.3X 10.ax 12.7X 15.7X 9.9X 7.ax 10.SX 11. ,x 10.ax White Year 2 5.7X 10.2X 9.9X 15.31 11.2X . 8.0X 8.5X ,, .1X 9.9X White Year 3 8.2X ,o.sx 13.51 11 .7X ,, .7X 9.SX ,a.ax 10.9X 10.9X White Year 4 10.2X 9.3X 8.9X 12.2X 8.5X 10. ,x 9.SX 10.31 9.9X Females Year 1 8.6X 13.1X 7.9X 12.9X 8.3X 5.6X 9.9X 9.1X 9.6X Females Year 2 9.SX ,1 .ax 9.3X 12.1x 9.ax 6.0X 10.3X 9.3X 9.ax Females Year 3 9.9X 15.0X 11 .3X 11.4X 8.2X 8.2X 12.ZX 9.3X 10.8X Females Year 4 8.1X 13.7X 13.3X 11 .6X 7.7X 7.8X 11. 7X 9.1X 10.41 Black Year 1 10.SX 16.3X 10.3X 15.9X ,, .7X 8.SX 12.SX 12.SX 12.SX Black Year 2 ,,.ax 14.ax 13.ZX 16.8X 12.SX 8.SX 13.31 12.8X 13.1X Black Year 3 12.SX 19.2X 14.ZX 16.1X 12.SX 10.7X 15.4X 13.2X 14.4X Black Year 4 9.9X 17.SX 17.2% 15.4X 11.6X 11. 7X 14.8X 13.11 14.1X White Year 1 3.6X 7.5X 5.0X 8.0X 4.6X 2.ax 5.4X 5.0X 5.2X White Year 2 4.7X 4.1X 2.8X 5.4X 6.2X 3.1X 3.9X 4.8X 4.4X White Year 3 5.0X 6.0X 5.1X 4.8X 2.9X 5.0X 5.4X 4.2X 4.7X White Year 4 4.8X 6.1X 5.7X 5.2X 2.3X 2.9X 5.SX 3.4X 4.4X Note: Students froa racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black' or 'White' were not included in the 'RACE' categories bee- their nuabers 11ere 111iniml. Therefore, grade l..,.l totals are greater than the SUI of racial categories. Source: Little Rock Cohort Files 198889, 198990, 199091, 199192. 64 b. Grades Kindergarten through 6 i. Over-years comparisons The percentage of elementary school students being retained in their grades is shown in Table 5. 4 by race and gender. The percentage of students being retained decreased slightly at all elementary grade levels except 6th grade. Racial disparities are evident at all primary grades (kindergarten through 2nd grade) but rates for 3rd through 6th grades are much less disparate. Overall, the percentage of black students being retained in each year is twice as large as the percentage of white students. LITTLE ROCK Table 5.4 RETENTION Change in Student Retentions, by Race and Gender for Across Grades, 199091(Yr. 3) and 1991 92 (Yr. 4). Grade Level ------------------------------=------=--=--================================ I( 2 3 4 5 6 Total ----------------------=---=---=--=--==-==-================================= Totals Year 3 5.6X 11.SX 4.8X 1.6X 1.9X 1.1X 0.4X 4.0X Totals Year 4 4.3X 7.4X 3.0X 1.0X 0.8X 0.6X 0.6X 2.6X Change Yrs 34 1.3 4.4 1.8 0.6  1. 1 0.5 0.2  1.4 RACE Black Year 3 7.0X 15.SX 5.7X 2.1X 2.4X 1.2X 0.7X 5 .1X Black Year 4 5.4X 9.2X 4.0X 1. 1X 1.1X 0.7X 0.6X 3.2X White Year 3 3.3X 4.8X 3.1X 0.7X 0.9X 0.8X o.ox ,2.0X White Year 4 2.6X 4.4X 1.4X 0.5X 0.4X 0.4X 0.5X 1.5X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 6.8X 14.4X 5.5X 1.6X 2.3X 1.1X o.sx 4.8X Males Year 4 5.4X 8.2X 2.6X 1.3X 0.9X 0.4X 1.1X 2.9X Black Year 3 8.SX 18.6X 6.8X 1.9X 3.1X 1.1X 0.7X 6.0X Black Year 4 6.SX 10.4X 3.2X 1. 7X 1. 1X 0.5X 1.1X 3.6X White Year 3 4.1X 7.2X 3.3X 1.0X 0.5X 1.0X o.ox 2.6X White Year 4 3.7X 4.?X 1.4X 0.5X 0.5X o.ox 0.8X 1. 7X Females Ye r 3 4.3X 9.1X 4.0X 1.6X 1.SX 1.1X 0.4X 3.2X Females Ye r 4 3.1X 6.5X 3.4X 0.6X 0.7X 0.9X 0.1X 2.2X Black Ye r 3 5.5X 12.9X 4.6X 2.3X 1.6X 1.4X 0.6X 4.2X Black Year 4 4.1X 8.0X 4.7X 0.5X 1.0X 1.0X o.ox 2.8X White Year 3 2.3X 2.3X 2.9X 0.3X 1.3X o.sx a.ox 1.4X White Year 4 1.4X 4.0X 1.3X 0.6X 0.3X 0.9X 0.3X 1.2X Source: Little Rock Cohort Files for 199091, 199192. 65 ii. Longitudinal comparisons Longitudinal retention data for kindergarten through 6th grade students who were retained in Year 3 are contained in Table 5.5. The table shows, by grade, the number and percentage of Year 3's retained students who were retained again in Year 4. Most of the kindergarten through 6th grade students who were retained in Year 3 were not retained twice over the two years. Overall, of the 585 elementary school students who were retained in grade in Year 3, only 6 (1.0%) were retained again in Year 4. I Little Rock Table 5.5 RETENTION Year 4 Retention Status of Elementary Students Who Were Retained in Year 3 (N=585) Status in Grade in Year 4 Total (K-Year 4 K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 6th) Not 112 275 95 32 39 19 7 579 Retained 97.4% 99.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95 .0% 87 .5% 99.0% Retained 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 6 2.6% 0.4% 0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 12.5% 1.0% Total I 115 276 95 32 39 20 8 585 *Note: All srudents reported in this table were retained in Year 3. The table then shows the retention starus of these students in Year 4. 66 iii. Over age students Table 5.6 shows, across grades, by race and gender the percentage of elementary school students who were at least one-and-one-half years over age for their grades during Years 3 and 4. The percentage of elementary students over age for grade decreased from 6.8 percent in Year 3 to 5.5 percent in Year 4. Disparities are evident between black students and white students. Ten percent or more of Year 4's black male 2nd through 6th graders were over age for grade. Table 5.6 OVER AGE Percentage of Change in over Age Students, Across Grades, by Race and Gender for 199091(Yr. 3) and 199192 (Yr. 4). Grade Level ======================================================================== IC 2 3 4 5 6 Total ======================================================================== Totals Year 3 Totals Year 4 Change Yrs 34 RACE Blaclc Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 GENDER BY RACE Males Year 3 Males Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 Females Year 3 Females Year 4 Black Year 3 Black Year 4 llhite Year 3 llhite Year 4 1.1% 0.2% 0.9 1.3% 0.3% 0.9X o.ox 1.2% 0.3% 1.6% 0.4% 0.7X o.ox 1.1% 0.1% 1.0X o.zx 1.ZX o.ox 4.8% 0.4% 4.4 5.7X 0.3% 3.2% 0.5% 5.4% 0.5% 6.6% 0.5% 3.2% 0.4% 4.8% 0.3% 4.8% 0.1% 3.2% 0.5% 6.0X 6.6% 0.6 7.6% 8.4% 3.4% 3.5% 8.0X 7.6% 10.0X 10.1% 4.7X 3.3% 6.0X 5.5% 5.1% 6.6% 2.0X 3.7X 7.7X 6.3%  1.4 9.8% 8.0X 4.2% 3.2% 9.0X 8.3% 11.6% 10.4% 4.7X 4.9% 7.7X 4.1% 8.0X 5.7X 3.8% 1.2% 8.9X 8.0X 0.9 10.9X 10.0X 5.4X 4.7X 10.9X 9.4X 12.SX 11.6X 8.3% 5.8% 8.9X 6.6% 9.3% 8.3% 2.3% 3.5% 9.4% 8.6% 0.8 11.1% 10.7X 6.1% 4.5% 11.2% 10.1% 12.4% 12.4% 9.2% 5.9% 9.4% 7.0X 9.7X 9.0X 2.9X 3.1% 9.4% 9.2% 0.2 10.7X 11.1% 6.8% 5.7X 11.SX 11.1% 13.2% 13.0X 8.1% 7.9X 9.4% 7.2% 8.1% 9.1% 5.5% 3.4% Note: Students from racial/ethnic backgrounds other than 'Black' or 1 llhite' were not included in the 'RACE' categories because their nurbers were minimal. Therefore, grade level totals are greater than the Slffl of racial categories. Source: Little Rocle Cohort Files 199091, 199192. 67 6.8% 5.5% 1 .3 8.2% 7.0X 4.2% 3.1% 8.1% 6.6% 9.7X 8.3% 5.4% 3.9X 6.8% 4.4% 6.6% 5.6% 3.0X 2.2% 6. Course Failure a. Over-years comparisons Table 6.1 shows the percent of courses failed out of all courses taken. It can be seen that students fail about one third of their courses. The percent of courses failed has stayed fairly constant at the junior high school level across the four years. At the high school level, it has fluctuated and declined slightly overall. There were substantial differences between grade levels. Table 6.2 shows, across grades, by school level and by race, the percent of students failing one or more courses. The table shows increases at the junior high school level (2.0 percentage points between Years 1 and 4 for the junior high school grades combined), and decreases at the high school level (a decline of 6.1 percentage points for the high school grades combined) . About one-quarter of all junior high school students and more than one third of all high school students fail courses. 68 Table 6. 1 COURSE FAILURE COMPARISONS Percent of Courses Failed Across Grades by Race and Gender: 198889(Yr. 1) to 199192(Yr. 4). Grade Level s:amm.aaaasz:zza:a--=--==----=-====-z--z-:-:-z:z:--=---z---z=-=--------=----= 7 8 9 10 11 12 79 1012 Total --===am~-================================================================== Totals Year 1 31.9% 38.41 26.7% 35.9% 31.21 24.21 31.31 31.81 31.7% Totals Year 2 34.51 37.11 25.21 36.0l 29.1% 26.8% 30.7% 31.41 31.21 Totals Year 3 33.0X 32.7% 29.21 33.21 31.61 23.3% 31.11 29.6% 30.21 Totals Year 4 31.31 32.21 31.0X 38.0X 27.9% 25.0l 31.4% 31.4% 31.4% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Change in Percent of Courses Failed Change Yrs 1 2 2.7 1 .3 1.5 0. 1 2. 1 2.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 Change Yrs 23  1.5 4.3 4.0 2.8 2.5 3.4 0.4 1 .7 1.0 Change Yrs 34 1 .7 0.5 1.8 4.7 3.7 1.7 0.3 1.8 1.2 Change Yrs 1 4 0.6 6.2 4.3 2.0 3.2 0.8 o. 1 0.4 0.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RACE Black Year 1 31.8% 39.41 25.51 36.41 31.21 24.31 31.11 32.31 31.9% Black Year 2 34.7% 37.3% 25.61 37.11 29.0l 25.8% 31.2% 31.8% 31.61 Black Year 3 33.51 33.9% 30.0l 33.81 32.0l 23.11 32.0l 30.0l 30.81 Black Year 4 31.7% 33.11 32.1% 38.2% 27.9% 24.7% 32.3% 31.61 31.9% llhite Year 1 32.7% 34.41 30.0l 34.81 31.11 24.31 31.81 30.9% 31.11 llhite Year 2 33.41 36.11 24.21 33.31 29.31 28.51 28.7% 30.61 30.11 llhite Year 3 30.7% 26.7% 27.11 31.81 30.BX 24.0l 27.7% 28.9% 28.51 llhite Year 4 28.BX 28.2% 26.9% 38.11 27.61 26.31 27.61 31.31 30.0X GENDER BY RACE Males Year 1 33.2% 37.8% 27.7% 39.61 34.61 24.7% 32.0l 34.81 33.9% Malu Year 2 36.ZX 37.41 27.61 37.7% 30.51 28.11 32.51 33.0l 32.8% Males Year 3 35.ZX 33.61 29.7% 35.11 33.41 23.8% 32.2% 31.11 31.51 Males Year 4 31.51 33.41 31.0l 39.7% 30.51 26.8% 31.BX 33.61 32.8% Black Year 1 33.61 38.9% 26.7% 39.21 35.11 24.8% 32.0l 35.0l 33.9% Black Year 2 35.8% 38.11 27.8% 38.31 29.7% 28.0l 32.BX 33.21 33.0l Black Year 3 35.61 34.7% 31.0X 36.31 34.31 24.2% 33.31 31.9% 32.61 Black Year 4 32.41 34.61 32.51 40.3% 29.31 27.0X 33.0X 33.7% 33.4% White Year 1 32.0X 33.8% 30.31 40.7% 33.BX 24.8% 31.7% 34.51 33.BX White Year 2 37.2% 35.0X 26.BX 36.31 32.31 28.2% 31.0X 32.51 32.11 llhite Year 3 33.31 27.51 26.9% 31.9% 32.ZX 23.0X 28.41 29.11 28.BX White Year 4 27.61 28.9% 26.41 38.61 33.11 27.0X 27.31 33.61 31.31 Females Year 1 29.11 39.41 25.0X 30.81 26.61 23.51 30.11 27.8% 28.41 Females Year 2 30.61 36.51 21.41 33.71 27.11 25.2% 27.51 29.31 28.BX Females Year 3 27.SX 31.ZX 28.31 30.BX 29.11 22.7% 29.11 27.BX 28.21 F-lH Year 4 30.8% 30.2% 30.9% 35.41 24.51 22.71 30.7% 28.51 29.31 Black Year 1 28 .51 40.11 23.51 32.8% 26.31 23.61 29.7% 28.BX 29.1% Black Year 2 32.11 36.2% 22.11 35.41 28.0l 23.61 28.51 30.0X 29.51 Black Year 3 28.51 32.51 28.51 30.61 29.11 21. 7X 29.7% 27.51 28.31 Black Year 4 30.51 30.7% 31.61 35.3% 26.0l 22.0X 31.11 28.9% 29.81 White Year 1 35.0l 36.0l 29.61 24.BX 26.BX 23.71 32.01 25.2% 26.51 11h i te Year 2 24.1% 39.9% 19.41 29.2% 25.3% 29.11 23.61 27.7% 26.BX llhi te Year 3 23.9% 25.2% 27.51 31.61 28.9% 25.51 26.2% 28.7% 28.11 White Year 4 33.11 26.61 27.8% 37.41 19.41 25.0X 28.2% 27.51 27.8% Note: These dat\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   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_1169","title":"Little Rock School District Court Submission","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":["1993-05-18"],"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 law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School principals"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Court Submission"],"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/1169"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nTO: LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 18, 1994 MA~ 1 8 1994 Oilice ol Desegregation Mon1:c, icg FROM: SUBJECT: Court Submission - May 18, 1994 Provided for your review is a copy of the District's Mai 18, 19941 Court submission. The following revisions have been made to the appropriate revenue and expenditure line items to reflect the strategies under consideration at this time: 4. $3,000,000 included for proposed draw down on settlement loan. $750,000 deducted from salaries and benefits for projected savings on 100 participants in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. $1,622,363 deducted from salaries and benefits for the proposed reduction in the teaching force. $1,316,771 deducted from salaries, benefits, services, supplies and equipment for the proposed temporary relocation of Stephens. $100,000 deducted from services, supplies and equipment for the proposed contnbution to the New Futures Program. J.-.l 6. $400,000 increase to the beginning fund balance due to the initiated spending freeze. ~~ t '/.~J1H ~ ~:: 17.z. HI( Also included are five-year revenue and expenditure projections and business cases addressing specific changes. J ... ~~ ~. 1 . . .., ,/. J _.JS''U/M ~ ~ ,,_ -1/tf/,T As we move tg_ward institutionalizing the Program Planning and Budgeting Process as outlined in the District's management tool, we are continually reminded of our desegregation obligations as well as the comprehensive long-range planning that must be done to fulfill our commitments. I look forward to the results that we can achieve through our continued utilization of this process. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rocle, Arkansas 72201  (501) 8U2000 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description Page No. Exhibit 1 Revenue and Expenditure Projections (Draft 2) 1-10 Exhibit 2 Previously Identified Budget-Balancing Measures 11-12 Exhibit 3 Status of Negotiations/Reduction In Force 13 Exhibit 4 Additional Budget-Balancing Measure 14 Exhibit 5 1994-00 Revenue and Expenditure Projection (Draft 1) 15-22 Exhibit 6 Business Cases: Safety and Security Department (Revised 4/29/94) 23-31 Teaching Assistants/Substitutes 32 Exhibit 7 Business Case for Stephens School Relocation 33-48 Exhibit 8 Schools Affected By Changes in Principalships 49 Exhibit 9 Settlement Loan Repayment 50 Exhibit 10 Budgeting Management Timeline 51-56 Exhibit 1\n\\  .. , .. ........... ,,.,: ... :tf?:}\\t: ................ , ... ,.i/: .. ,:: .. :/ :,: ........... :,/. ... ,.. ..  iMi.. ..: : .... .. .... .............. ........ ...  :: ..... .............. : .....: : . \\\n.. ,:,: .......... JJJt '-' .. 1 1... ..... ......., .. !:I\\! ,.. ...... ,.. ::,:..: .. ..  ........ -::r .. :... ...: : ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED PROPOSED CHANGE 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 31,899,357 38,196,979 39,701,855 39,625,387 38,600,327 (1,025,060) 40% PULLBACK 20,601,593 21,081,833 22,220,949 22,040,190 21,420,949 (619,241) DELINQUENT TAXES 3,214,974 4,250,186 4,293,380 4,897,429 4,802,692 (94,737) EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 118,998 140,858 145,690 146,379 140,000 (6,379) DEPOSITORY INTEREST 317,646 241,476 360,734 303,000 300,000 (3,000) REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 120,412 224,667 245,162 182,353 180,000 (2,353) MISC. AND RENTS 317,978 406,878 574,918 484,050 475,731 (8,319) INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 141,376 354,446 208,519 319,042 322.232 3,190 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 91,322 100,857 87,005 87,005 87,005 0 \u0026lt;l:1 ::\n:::. 1 } 1vt. \\: .... :si:~si656: !\n.~~~~~~\\ :\nr:a\na\n,.r ~a:ii~jm: s~fs2aiS$: :m\nREVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,971 73,419 73,428 73,419 73,419 0 SEVERANCE TAX :\u0026gt; ..... :.. .......... ,:c..:..:f\\ ..... :\u0026gt; ::::......................... .... .............. REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD 22,037,764 10,356,TT8 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 27 ,264,460 25,275,221 8,637,482 8,926,606 4,500,000 1,500,000 73,426 72,694 1,513,699 1,261,451 824,870 1,139,235 147,050 234,403 ORPHAN CHILDREN 8,820 3,000 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 2,885,960 2,379,879 3,1 98,252 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 609,943 858,743 563,602 MTOMTRANSFERS 1,007,481 1,TT0,486 2,127,216 ADULT EDUCATION 624,119 697,589 799,544 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES 25,569,811 26,778,326 8,094,112 6,042 591 0 [ 3,0,000 0 1,341,887 1,344,499 240,873 3,540 3,536,587 505,260 2,681,262 790,466 0 1,200,000 1,344,499 233,992 3,540 3,700,000 580,435 3,100,000 790,466 PUBLIC LAW 874 28,585 9,385 40,866 40,000 38,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 95,588 613,166 129,428 394,675 171,006 1,250,000 0 500,000 600,000 400,000 ..})\\..:..... ... .......... ,. . TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING. ' 103.123:8-07 114,291:121' t1S,243,307\n::,\n,074,55{ 1:14,232,204 1 1,208,515 3 (2,051,521) .. 3,000,000 \u0026amp;.O\"\"' 0 (141 ,887) 0 (6,881) 0 163,413 S 75,175 418,738 C. 0 (2,000) (650,000) 1 (100,000) I (75\n~ REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS SERVICES.SUPP.EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY RESERVE FOR ENCUMBR TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL PROJECTED PROPOSED CHANGE 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 2,886,618 3,275,099 4,288,755 4,311,404 4,406,404 95,000 ? 227,900 224,423 215,020 122,666 122,666 0 468,964 558,810 589,011 624,024 624,024 0 974,090 1,164,511 1,221,200 1,091,051 1,400,000 308,949 , 12,571,785 13,887,841 13,548,434 14,554,670 14,811,482 256,812 10 65,192,947 73,191,213 71,912,128 75,849,121 75,680,852 (1 68,269) ! 8,032,967 8,992,742 9,908,175 9,290,055 10,650,467 1,3 60,412 ! 22,735,854 22,470,043 20,080,366 21,283,431 22,149,419 8 65,988 ! 6,646,769 7,950,100 9,554,535 8,850,123 8,533,631 (3 16,492) 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 1' 000,000 714,896 4,190,920 5,132,152 5,992,216 7,035,052 6,547,138 (487,914) 12,571,785 13,887,841 13,548,434 14,554,670 14,811,482 256,812 881,922 1,m,714 1,394,9TT (2,084,086) (3,TT6,208) (1,692,122) 185,838 552,490 643,181 964,951 79,044 (885,907) 119,574 634,844 2,321,867 4,985,188 3,787,009 (1,198,179) 552,490 643,181 964,951 79,044 / 85,000 5,956 634,844 2,321,867 3,395,074 3,787,009 4,845 (3,782,164) 2 FUNCTION SALARIES 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0115 CERTIFIED INSTRUCT. ASST. 0117 STIPENDS 0120 REGULAR NON- CERTIFICATED 0121 MAINTENANCE 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME 0130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS- SHORT 0140 SUBST NON-CERTIFIED-SHORT SALARIES TOTAL w BENEFITS 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0220 TEACHER RETIREMENT 0230 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME 0240 INSURANCE 0250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0290 OntER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BENEFITS TOTAL ~ .\n.. PURCHASED SERVICES 0310 PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL 0311 INSTRUCTION SERVICES 0312 INSIBUCTIONALPROGIMPROV 0313 PUPIL SERVICES 0314 STAFF SERVICES 0318 BOARD OF ED SERVICES 0319 OntER PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual 1992193 $52,899,585.23 $5,386.52 $326,649.66 $15,668,717.99 $1,167,691.67 $69,487.74. $1,363,632.01 $410,9TT.09 $71,912, 127.91 $5,497,924.65 $7,755.35 $166,240.10 $3,985,992.66 $192,426.52 $57,835.84 $9,908,175.12 $295,885.37 $18,610.84 $768,382.37 $279,291.40 $61.60 $595,179.47 $64,266.08 Budget 1993/94 $57,841,367.85 $0.00 $305,885.31 $14,962,781.62 $1,136,945.28 $0.00 $1,226,321.00 $416,844.45 $75,890,145.51 $5,381,489.39 $6,882.48 $147,104.28 $3,467,184.64 $195,000.00 $60,000.00 $9,257,660.78 $626,800.00 $21,015.00 $741,357.00 $53,440.00 $1,000.00 $752,500.00 $75,100.00 Budget 1994/95 $56, 192, 126. 79 $0.00 $291,797.11 $16,247,301.12 $1,089,626.75 $60,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $400,000.00 $75,680,851.77 $5,637,189.03 $0.00 $155,000.00 $3,788,278.00 $200,000.00 $870,000.00 $10,650,467.03 $737,480.00 $11,115.83 $631,371.00 $54,752.00 $0.00 $1,172,000.00 $59,300.00 FTE 1994/95 1542 0 0 1298 50 0 0 1 2891 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +? LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual FUNCTION 1992/93 0321 UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL ssa1.209.n 0322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC $2,232,084.12 0323 UTILITY SER-WATER/SEWAGE/ $149,273.82 0324 CLEANING SERVICES $207,407.65 0325 REPAIRS-BUILDINGS $259,257.67 0326 REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT $531,707.94 0327 RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING $135,447.85 0328 RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEH $12,944.93 0329 OTHER PROPERTY SERVICES $18,924.55 0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION $645,404.74 0332 TRAVEL-PAYROLL $1,286.44 0333 TRAVEL $112,709.23 0339 OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERV $1,258.82 0341 TELEPHONE $338,295.60 0342 POSTAGE $91,2TT.58 0350 ADVERllSING $21,046.31 0360 PRINTING \u0026amp; BINDING-INTERN $91,146.74 0361 PRINTING AND BINDING-EXTE $116,235.20 0362 FREE PAINTED ITEMS . $404.24 0365 COPIER LEASE 'i-ltd~ $362,507.86 0370 rumoN $1,292,991.82 0380 FOOD SERVICES $144,413.73 0390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES $165,837.05 PURCHASED SERVICES TOTAL $9,534,750.79 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 0409 SUPPLIES ($64,411.96) 0410 SUPPLIES $1,180,159.22 0411 SUPPLIES - SP TRACKING $870,780.43 Budget 1993/94 $826,700.00 $2,879,165.00 $209,950.00 $400,000.00 $200,300.00 $505,785.09 $135,700.00 $15,050.00 $128,650.00 $628,067.30 $24,160.00 $60,843.63 $0.00 $386,500.00 $104,016.20 $18,006.00 $151,142.39 $153,645.50 $515.00 $503,000.00 $1,195,000.00 $178,062.69 $59,380.00 $11,034,850.80 $0.00 $1,041,625.83 $784,000.00 Budget 1994/95 $725,500.00 $2,824,615.00 $189,200.00 $250,000.46 $330,700.00 $646,911.00 $142,012.00 $21,502.00 $67,000.00 $350,820.00 $0.00 $124,676.18 $0.00 $406,000.00 $88,717.06 $16,300.00 $170,721.02 $126,169.54 $0.00 $530,000.00 $1,440,621.16 $105,027.00 $162,500.00 $11,385,011.25 $0.00 $1,311,499.11 $764,642.13 FTE 1994/95 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 + + Ul LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual FUNCTION 1992/93 0412 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN $17,966.31 0413 SOFTWARE $31,128.18 0414 SUPPLIES $1,098.52 0415 TEST MATERIALS $39,900.00 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER $479,578.46 0417 SUPPLIES-SUPPLY CENTER $1,075.62 0418 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES $0.00 0420 TEXTBOOKS $0.00 0421 TEXTBOOKS-LOCALSOURCES $167,488.65 0430 LIBRARY BOOKS $0.00 0440 PERIODICALS $22,988.87 0450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS $3,898.09 0451 AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS $24,869.01 0481 PLUMBING $18.54 0482 CARPENTRY $486.02 0483 ELECTRIC $708.32 0485 AIR COND/HEAT $172.70 0486 BOILERS/SM ENGINES $15,453.14 0488 PAll'mNG $282.25 0489 ROOFING $0.00 0490 OTHER SUPPLIES $17,943.27 0491 UNIFORMS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES $79,376.33 0492 STADIUM OPERATIONS $82,828.00 0494 GAME RELATED EXPENSES $0.00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES TOTAL $2,973,787.97 CAPTIAL OUTl.A Y Budget 1993/94 $32,157.04 $33,405.00 $2,000.00 $53,000.00 $466,941.10 $2,044.55 $714,896.22 $862,542.00 $362,420.00 $1,120.80 $26,498.35 $2,150.40 $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,300.00 $80,974.40 $71,275.80 $2,224.80 $4,594,576.29 Budget 1994/95 $13,378.00 $100,050.60 $136,660.00 $42,000.00 $455,969.70 $353.00 $0.00 $817,000.00 $407,338.28 $375.00 $23,180.00 $6,515.00 $20,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $15,500.00 $5,000.00 $10,100.00 $200.00 $500.00 $18,000.00 $85,967.85 $64,540.00 $0.00 $4,299,768.67 FTE 1994/95 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 + + 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER $654,966.90 $600,575.24 $671,824.19 0 i- 1------------------------t---------t---------t---------t-----1 0541 EQUIPMENT PER PROP SP TRA $6,461.34 $10,000.00 $10,250.00 0 LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTTIICT Actual Budget Budget fTE FUNCTION 1992193 1993/94 1994/95 1994/95 0542 EQUIPMENT (NOT INVENTORIE $0.00 $0.00 $200.00 0 0543 EQUIPMENT (REAL PROPERTY) $67,025.70 $60,000.00 $69,106.94 0 0545 EQUIPMENT LEASE PURCHASE $1,546,013.55 $926,742.00 $1,253,100.40 0 + 0548 EQUIPMENT - SUPPLY CENTER $61,031.26 $52,093.00 $21,351 .00 0 0551 VEHICLES LEASE PURCHASE $618,895.35 $0.00 $0.00 0 CAPTIAL OUTI.AY TOTAL $2,954,394.10 $1,649,410.24 $2,025,832.53 0 OTHER OBJECTS 0610 REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL $4,951,180.35 $4,074,616.00 $4,063,012.00 0 0620 INTEREST $4,597,390.58 $4,785,507.40 $4,462,619.00 0 0630 DUES\u0026amp;FEES $52,817.64 $58,539.50 $42,806.45 0 0635 DUES \u0026amp; FEES - NCA $15,023.01 $17,000.00 $19,000.00 0 0640 INSURANCE $920,983.15 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 0 0642 LIABILITY INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 0 0649 OTHER INSURANCE $52,791.12 $54,ns.oo $54,000.00 0 0660 IMPROVEMENT TAX $14,769.~ $15,000.00 $15,000.00 0 0690 OTHER EXPENSES $3,567,012.06 $5,148,290.00 $4,914,000.00 0 OTHER OBJECTS TOTAL $14,171,967.76 $14,553,727.90 $13,972,437.45 0 - UTTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL .. .-. $111,SS,203.65  $116,980,371.53 $118,014,368.70 ... ... ... I 2891 Function Description 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 1125 ELEMENTARY MAGNET 1127 SPECIALTY PROGRAMS 1129 SPECIAL TY PROGRAM 1130 MIDDLE\\JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1132 JUNIOR HIGH 1135 JUNIOR HIGH MAGNET 1137 JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURE 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 1145 HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET 1151 BOYS ATI-lLETICS 1152 GIRLS ATI-lLETICS 1154 FOOTBALL/MINOR SPORTS 1155 VOLLEYBALL 1156 BASKETBALL 1157 TRACK.TENNIS.GOLF \u0026amp; SWIMM 1158 BASEBALL 1190 O11-lER REGULAR 1193 TRAVELING TEACHERS 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 1199 SUBSTITIJTES-INSTRUCTION 1210 mNERANT INSTRUCTION 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1240 HOMEBOUND AND HOSPITAL 1290 O11-lER 1292 EXTENDED YEAR HAND. SERVI 1321 MARKETING/DIST ED-COOP 1331 BUSINESS ED COOP LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $1,195,358.65 $1,746,831.33 $3,121,214.45 $3,261,957.67 $19,905,274.36 $20,414,196.37 $0.00 $956,385.00 $146,003.86 $196,675.45 $24,406.82 $0.00 $0.00 $86,475.45 $8,267,275.44 $8,870,100.00 $5,540.42 $26,480.41 $132,143.30 $453,430.57 $535,179.49 $539,265.87 $7,823,764.65 $8,651,142.90 $265,987.68 $104,648.26 $39,661.58 $44,506.65 $25,254.43 $9,798.71 $48,990.82 $49,680.00 $6,393.73 $7,416.00 $42,832.09 $45,880.20 $13,487.01 $11,354.40 $7,440.07 $10,800.00 $20,238.80 $17,936.19 $19,897.81 $15,000.00 $2,121,435.04 $1,300,017.05 $1,438,180.65 $1,434,535.20 $1,004,570.16 $1,123,449.98 $2,088,460.12 $2,229,816.67 $1,321,TT1.13 $1,321,TT0.46 $215,503.17 $319,407.51 $1,308,911.09 $1,246,265.43 $4,123.47 $5,705.28 $228,230.75 $206,250.75 $195,TT8.88 $201,039.34 Budget 1994/95 $2,009,758.23 $3,269,209.33 s20. n2,912.s8 $889,073.86 $212,689.64 $0.00 $0.00 $8,233,002.21 $24,359.35 $106,442.18 $576,992.68 $7,440,185.48 $79,954.07 $39,459.05 $12,580.00 $49,680.00 $5,793.00 $44,545.80 $12,400.00 $9,000.00 $20,790.97 $15,000.00 $1,588,755.78 $1,937,700.00 $1,169,835.49 $2,302,743.57 $1,148,951.07 $583,478.49 $1,192,896.90 $0.00 $209,433.82 $203,839.38 FTE 1994/95 80 93 725 5 4 0 0 210 1 0 19 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 33 62 4 17 5 0 4 4 + +- ... Function Description 1332 BUSINESS ED EXPL 1333 BUSINESS ED-Stoll TR 1341 HEALTli COOP 1351 TRADE \u0026amp; IND-COOP 1352 TRADE \u0026amp; IND-EXPL 1353 TRADE \u0026amp; IND-Stoll TR 1354 YOUTli APPRENTICESHIP 1360 HOME ECONOMICS 1362 CONS/HMKG 1371 CAREER ORIENTATION 1392 COORD CAREER-COOP 1410 ADULT BASIC EDUCATION co 1420 ADULT GENERAL EDUCATION 1430 ADULT VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1440 SPECIAL PROJECTS 1445 WORKPLACE LITERACY 1490 ornER ADULT EDUCATION 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 1560 READING 1570 MATHEMATICS 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1595 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTI:D 2111 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2112 ATTENDANCE SERVICE 2113 SOCIAL WORK SERVICES 2114 PUPIL ACCOUNTING SERVICES 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES 2121 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2122 COUNSELING SERVICES 2134 NURSING SERVICES 2142 PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING SER LITll...E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992193 1993/94 $567,909.51 $647,155.07 $1,029,262.40 $1,001,393.89 $71,936.86 $30,058.48 $195,305.05 $202,903.96 $582,238.42 $552,265.88 $992,355.65 $919,838.00 $23,257.92 $115,764.01 $3,035.70 $0.00 $614,847.68 $727,503.40 $256,111.14 $247,878.64 $205,769.71 $213,754.13 $437,414.74 $424,133.49 $331,299.86 $326,524.45 $0.00 $1,888.48 $0.00 $953.04 $16,895.83 $0.00 $13,933.79 $0.00 $220,694.23 $241,274.50 $27,887.91 $26,670.67 $8,814.04 $9,807.48 $233,266.90 $352,294.55 $869,433.11 $1,096,530.84 $813,857.18 $1,108,379.67 ($16.00) $4,758.48 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $121,287.10 $16,809.66 $119,044.71 $2,542,749.16 $2,798,345.63 $2,684.06 $8,563.51 $66,678.53 $38,551.19 $811,380.61 $765,214.52 $181,256.55 $195,928.86 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $565,530.39 14 $994,887.88 22 $48,226.13 1 $162,269.05 3 $592,290.09 13 .,. $928,161.33 19 $2,600.00 2 $0.00 0 $722,980.79 18 $251,165.13 6 $216,729.09 4 $438,888.00 13 $359,004.99 11 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $272,927.30 23 $29,135.65 0 $116,508.30 5 .... $320,000.00 0 $914,257.86 13 $1,327,240.17 33 $0.00 0 $25,115.41 1 $23,774.09 2 $103,381.36 4 $3,015,075.14 74 $9,159.78 0 $39,459.11 0 $753,670.05 28 $155,925.07 4 .. Function Description 2211 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2212 INSTRUCTION AND CURR DEV 2213 INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF TRAIN 2215 INST STAFF TRAINING - TES 2216 INST STAFF TRAINING - PET 2217 CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT 2219 OIBER IMPROVEMENT OF INST 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 2223 AUDIOVISUAL SERVICES 2229 OIBER EDUCATIONAL MEDIAS 2310 BOARD OF EDUCATION SERVIC 2314 ELECTION SERVICES 2315 LEGAL SERVICES 2317 AUDIT SERVICES 2319 OIBER BOARD OF EDUCATION 2321 OFFICE OF IBE SUPERINTEND 2326 DESEGREGATION 2410 OFFICE OF Tl-tE PRINCIPAL 2490 OTI-tER SUPPORT SERVICES 2510 DIRECTION OF BUSINESS SUP 2521 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2525 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING SERV 2529 OIBER FISCAL ACCOUNTING S 2539 OIBER FACILmES ACQ \u0026amp; CO 2541 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2543 UPKEEP OF GROUNDS 2544 UPKEEP OF EQUIPMENT 2545 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 2546 SECURITY SERVICES 2548 ASBESTOS PROGRAM 2551 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION LITnE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $808,955.03 $830,928.73 $2,579,824.46 $2,044,017.31 $0.1)() $10,713.11 $0.00 $16,070.13 $0.00 $32,139.33 $756.00 $10,713.11 $183,997.25 $117,430.21 $2,615,589.49 $2,348,444.72 $34,043.16 $31,927.05 $76,000.00 $86,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38.25 $20,000.00 $467,398.72 $350,000.00 $38,242.50 $35,000.00 $279,740.50 $305,851.08 $232,171.98 $200,221,49 $429,738. 70 $433,102.41 $6,093,823.40 $6,176,083.63 $21,541.79 $9,120.69 $63,697.30 $87,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $398,488.44 $375,521.82 $3,360.50 $0.00 $208,269.23 $239,986.48 s21s.n6.61 $222,728.53 $8,176,780.17 $9,328,862.83 $11,749.67 $12,831.91 $16,043.09 $17,500.00 $56,031.80 $57,206.94 $2,957.29 $0.00 $79,391.19 $68,903.30 $7,031.70 $19,790.05 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $510,398.58 10 $2,494,955.38 52 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $162,670.14 7 $2,388,611.23 70 $34,408.42 2 $76,000.00 0 $445,000.00 0 $30,000.00 0 $1,560,000.00 0 $42,000.00 0 $48,000.00 0 $507,292.06 8 $506,601.32 14 $6,261,359.45 176 $9,121.00 0 $32,000.00 0 $68,805.16 1 $352,300.26 11 $0.00 0 $285,928.18 6 $239,969.89 9 $9,109,227.13 246 $14,500.00 0 $14,000.00 0 $80,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $70,335.08 2 $17,600.00 0 ...... 0 Function 2552 2553 2554 2572 2573 2574 2585 2587 2589 2590 2610 2623 2632 2642 2649 2664 3100 3500 3800 3900 3909 3911 4900 5100 6000 Description VEHICLE OPERATION MONITORING VEHICLE SERVICING PURCHASING SERVICES WAREHOUSING \u0026amp; DISIBIBUTIN PRINTING, PUB, \u0026amp; DUPLICAT SAFETY-DRUG TESTING SAFETY \u0026amp; SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU DIR OF CENTRAL SUPPORT SE EVALUATION SERVICES INTERNAL INFORMATION SERV RECRUITMENT \u0026amp; PLACEMENTS OTHER STAFF SERVICES OPERATIONS DIRECTION OF COMMUNITY SE CUSTODY \u0026amp; CARE OF CHILD INSIBUCTIONAL PROGRAMS OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICES DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION NF OTHER NON-PROGRAMMED CHAR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PROVISION FOR CONTINGENCI UTT1.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTI..E ROCK SCHOOL DISIBICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $3,443,249.84 $3,445,367.55 $327,629.42 $319,159.16 $2,731,640.87 $1,920,281.72 $897,242.75 $1,041,357.74 $47,038.80 $54,936.16 $106,264.92 $125,403.74 $11,897.80 $14,937.36 $804,094.93 $854,143.84 $1,063,284.28 $450,000.00 $89,803.91 $169,500.00 $149,406.41 $174,848.03 $437,888.51 $562,905.71 $154,437.80 $222,767.29 $305,827.59 $418,997.31 $88,999.58 $0.00 $1,359,339.16 $1,687,419,74 $95,000.00 $170,112.24 $0.00 $87,no.oo $229,653.19 $249,440.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,046.80 $0.00 $0.00 $530,400.00 $3,586,103.53 $3,915,500.00 $9,554,534.76 $8,870,123.40 $0.00 $1,000,000.00 $111,455,203.65 $116,980,371.53 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $3,804,404.87 335 $318,433.25 11 $1,944,818.80 11 $1,541,798.43 15 $15,750.00 1 $102,000.00 0 $14,937.36 0 $819,658.99 40 $450,000.00 0 $144,338.91 0 $285,295.58 3 $426,918.80 12 $170,286.74 4 $341,547.93 13 $104,148.49 2 $1,600,699.76 14 $170,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $331,178.89 10 $100.00 0 $29,512.50 2 $0.00 0 $3,954,000.00 0 $8,533,631.00 0 $1,000,000.00 0 $118.014,368.70 $2,89f.03 Exhibit 2 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BUDGET-BALANCING MEASURES 1. Earlv Retirement Incentive Programs 2. 3 .. Previous Court submissions have included potential savings as high as $1,500,000 for this strategy. As of May 17, 1994, seventy-seven (77) teachers have applied for the program. Expectations are still high regarding this strategy. Therefore, $750,000 has been reduced from certified salaries in anticipation of reaching the goal of onehundred (100). A report will be given on May 25, 1994, as to the count and projected savings after the May 20, 1994, application deadline. Negotiations/RIF Several strategies have been identified in this area, and they are discussed in Exlnbit 3. The Draft 2 Budget does reflect a decrease of $1,622,363 for a potential reduction of 62 teaching positions. Outsourcing of TranSJ)ortation The District is continuing its efforts regarding this budget balancing measure. Bid proposals are now due to be opened on May 31, 1994, with a decision to be made in early June. This strategy is hoped to produce a savings of $500,000 but a reduction is not included in Draft 2. 4. Spending Freeze Results of this strategy which was implemented on March 25, 1994, are still expected to yield a savings of $400,000 which has been added to the 1994-95 beginning fund balance in Draft 2. 5. New Futures Program Contnbution 6. This measure has been incorporated into the Draft 2 Budget document in the amount of $100,000. Historical spending patterns for this program indicate that this reduction can be made without adverse effect. School Closings This strategy is more fully descnbed in Exlnbit 7. The Draft 2 Budget has been reduced $1,316,771 in anticipation of the approval of this measure. 11 Previously Identified Budget-Balancing Measures Page 2 7. Millaee Election 8. The Board of Directors will continue to explore this issue and determine the level of support that the community might provide. Recent discussions concerning a County-wide reappraisal must be monitored to determine the financial impact on this item. Reduction In Materials and Su1mlies (1 %) This continues to be an available option for budget balancing. 12 Exhibit 3 STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS/REDUCTION IN FORCE NEGOTIATIONS: The negotiations teams for the District and the LRCTA have been meeting twice a week since the first week of April to reach agreement on a successor teacher contract for the 1994-95 school year. The next negotiations session is May 18, 1994 at 4 o'clock which occurs almost simultaneously with this court filing. While the parties have reached tentative agreements on several clean up proposals, no agreements have been reached on any substantive issues. Most of the proposals which remain on the table are economic proposals or are proposals on which the parties are reluctant to move until some decisions can be made on economic issues. REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF): The District has mailed RIF letters to eighty teachers notifying them that their contracts would not be renewed for next year because of a reduction in the size of the teaching force. Although it may not be possible to reduce by eighty positions, this level of notice should ensure that the District is not over staffed at the beginning of the 1994-95 school year. It is more realistic to think that as many as 60 to 65 teacher positions probably can be reduced at the start of school next year. However, the additional 15 to 20 positions gives the District a more prudent approach if the District's enrollment is smaller than anticipated next fall. Many of the teachers who have received RIF notices will be recalled if the early retirement .incentive produces the number of voluntary separations as is anticipated. Since the RIF notices had to be sent prior to the application deadline for the early retirement incentive, the District could not run the risk of rehiring the RIF'ed teachers while uncertain of the fate of the early retirement incentive. ~:.... tr1/..,\n.,,/ 1\u0026lt;'IP' ~~ r\n::\nt. ~_\n,~'~ ~,,,,b~ ~~ 1uf ~ 13 Exhibit 4 ADDITIONAL BUDGET-BALANCING MEASURE: Workers' Compensation Insurance Program Act 862 of 1993 requires all school districts in the State to provide Workers' Compensation coverage for their employees effective July 1, 1994. An allocation of $860,000 is included in the 1994-95 projected budget to meet this new requirement Language included in the March 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement r  s some issues concerning the State's obligation in this matter. A favorable outcome on this issue will result in a reduction of budgeted expenditures for 1994-95 and future years. 14 Exhibit 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1} ,, 05-18-94 NO MILLAGE NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 40,159,780 40,962,976 41,782,235 42,617,880 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 22,020,949 22,360,949 22,708,949 23,063,949 23,438,949 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176.400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 475,731 485,246 494,951 504,850 514,947 525,245 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,6TT 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TTO ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,328,936 67,750,310 68,924,641 70,123,237 71,345,420 72,604,516 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91 ,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91 ,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,TT8,326 27,1 84,007 25 ,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 3,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,1 64,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 790,466 798,371 806,354 814,418 822,562 830,788 TOTAL 46,m,849 44,255,798 41,085,153 38,236,332 39,096,446 39,983,563 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 600,000 630,000 661,500 694,575 729,304 765,769 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 1,038,000 965,000 891,500 819,575 849,304 880,769 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,232,204 113,062.527 110,992,712 109,270,563 111,382,589 113,560,268 15 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE ANO EXPENDmJRE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) 05-18-94 ,,,. NO MILLAGE NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOT AL REVENUE 135,596,780 135,046,266 133,545,094 132,406,855 135,118,479 137,910,371 EXPENSES SALARIES 75,680,852 77,799,916 79,978,313 82,217,706 84,519,802 86,886,357 BENEFITS 10,650,467 10,703,719 10,757,238 10,811,024 10,865,079 10,919,405 SERVICES.SUPP ,EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,044,256 23,505,141 23,975,243 24,454,748 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,158,921 7,941,468 7,100,036 7,120,109 6,894,349 CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,014,369 120,254,964 122,721,275 124,633,907 127,480,234 130,154,858 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262.727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL EXPENSES 139,372,989 142,238,703 145,273,656 147,770,199 151,216,124 154,504,962 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,776,209) (7,192,437) (11,728,563) (15,363,344) (16,097,645) (16,594,591) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,787,009 4,844 (7,187,593) (18,916,155) (34,279,499) (50,377,144) ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 4,844 (7,187,593) (18,916,155) (34,279,499) (50,377,144) (66,971,735) TOTAL 89,844 (7,102,593) (18,831,155) (34,194,499) (50,292,144) (66,886,735) 16 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) .. 05-18-94 NO MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 40,159,780 40,962,976 41,782,235 42,617,880 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 22,020,949 22,360,949 22,708,949 23,063,949 23,438,949 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 475,731 485,246 494,951 504,850 514,947 525,245 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,6TT 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TTO ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,328,936 67,750,310 68,924,641 70,123,237 71,345,420 72,604,516 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,778,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 3,000,000 2,000,000 3,000.000 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 790,466 798,371 806,354 814,418 822,562 830,788 TOTAL 46,m,849 44,255,798 41,085,153 38,236,332 39,096,446 39,983,563 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 600,000 630,000 661,500 694,575 729,304 765,769 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 1,038,000 965,000 891,500 819,575 849,304 880,769 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,232,204 113,062,527 110,992,712 109,270,563 111,382,589 113,560,268 17 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ..  . 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) . 05-18-94 .: NO MILLSWITH CUTS  1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742\n724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,3TT TOTAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOT AL REVENUE 135,596,780  135,046,266 133,545,094 132,406,855 135,118,479 137,910,371 EXPENSES SALARIES 75,680,852 77,799,916 79,978,313 82,217,706 84,519,802 86,886,357 BENEFITS 10,650,467 10,703,719 10,757,238 10,811,024 10,865,079 10,919,405 SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,044,256 23,505,141 23,975,243 24,454,748 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,158,921 7,941,468 7,100,036 7,120,109 6,894,349 POSmON/PROGRAM CUTS (7,200,000) (11,800,000) (15,300,000) (16,100,000) (16,600,000) CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000  .,.,.. .. TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,014,369 113,054,964 110,921,275 109,333,907  111,380,234 113,554,858 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,3TT 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL EXPENSES 139,372,989 135,038,703 133,473,656 132,470,199 135,116,124 137,904,962 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,776,209) 7,563 71,437 (63,344) 2,355 5,409 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,787,009 4,844 12,407 83,845 20,501 22,856 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 4,844 12,407 83,845 20,501 22,856 28,265 TOTAL 89,844 97,407 168,845 105,501 107,856 113,265 18 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL.DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) . 05-18-94  5 MILLS NO CUTS .,, 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 43,769,195 44,644,579 45,537,471 46,448,220 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 24,820,949 24,945,054 25,069,TT9 25,195,128 25,321,104 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 475,731 485,246 494,951 504,850 514,947 525,245 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,STT 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TT0 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,328,936 70,550,310 75,118,161 76,165,671 n..231,834 78,317,011 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91 ,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE- STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,TT8,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 3,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193.~33 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 790,466 798,371 806,354 814,418 822,562 830,788 TOTAL 46,773,849 44,255,798 41,085,153 38,236,332 39,096,446 39,983,563 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 600,000 630,000 661,500 694,575 729,304 765,769 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 1,038,000 965,000 891,500 819,575 849,304 880,769 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,232,204 115,862,527 117,186,232 115,312,996 117,269,003 119,272,762 19 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) 05-18-94 '\" 5 MILLS NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL REVENUE 135,596,780 137,846,266 139,738,613 138,449,288 141,004,894 143,622,866 EXPENSES SALARIES 75,680,852 77,799,916 79,978,313 82,217,706 84,519,802 86,886,357 BENEFITS 10,650,467 10,703,719 10,757,238 10.811,024 10,865,079 10,919,405 SERVICES.SUPP ,EQUIP 22,149.419 22,592,407 23,044,256 23,505,141 23,975,243 24,454,748 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,158,921 7,941,468 7,100,036 7,120,109 6,894,349 CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,014,369 120,254,964 122,721,275 124,633,907 127,480,234 130,154,858 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6.742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262.727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL EXPENSES 139,372,989 142,238,703 145,273,656 147,770,199 151,216,124 154,504,962 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,776,209) (4,392,437) (5,535,043) (9,320,911) (10,211,231) (10,882,096) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,787,009 4,844 (4,387,593) (9,922,635) (19,243,546) (29,454,777) ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 4,844 (4,387,593) (9,922,635) (19,243,546) (29,454,777) (40,336,873) TOTAL 89,844 (4,302,593) (9,837,635) (19,158,546) (29,369,777) (40,251,873) 20 .. UTTlE.ROCKSCHOOL DISTRICT . 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1)  .. 05-18-94 5 MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 43,769,195 44,644,579 45,537,471 46,448,220 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 24,820,949 24,945,054 25,069,779 25,195,128 25,321,104 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 475,731 485,246 494,951 504,850 514,947 525,245 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,677 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,770 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,328,936 70,550,310 75,118,161 76,165,671 77,231,834 78,317,011 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,778,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 3,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 790,466 798,371 806,354 814,418 822,562 830,788 TOTAL 46,773,849 44,255,798 41,085,153 38,236,332 39,096,446 39,983,563 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 600,000 630,000 661,500 694,575 729,304 765,769 TRANSFER FROM BONO ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 1,038,000 965,000 891,500 819,575 849,304 880,769 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,232,204 115,862,527 117, 186,232 115,312,996 117,269,003 119,272,762 21 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) 05-18-94 -\u0026gt; 5 MILLS WITH CUTS / 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221 ,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,l30,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683.004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 !TOT AL REVENUE 135,596,780 137,846,266 139,738,613 138,449,288 141,004,894 143,622,866 EXPENSES SALARIES 75,680,852 77,799,916 79,978,313 82,217,706 84,519,802 86,886,357 BENEFITS 10,650,467 10,703,719 10,757,238 10,811,024 10,865,079 10,919,405 SERVICES.SUPP.EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,044,256 23,505,141 23,975,243 24,454,748 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,158,921 7,941,468 7,100,036 7,120,109 6,894,349 POSITION/PROGRAM ClJTS (4,400,000) (5,600,000) (9,300,000) (10,200,000) (10,900,000) CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,014,369 115,854,964 117, 121,275 115,333,907 117,280,234 119,254,858 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,811 ,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL EXPENSES 139,372,989 137,838,703 139,673,656 138,470,199 141,016,124 143,604,962 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,776,209) 7,563 64,957 (20,911) (11,231) 17,904 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,787,009 4,844 12,407 77,365 56,454 45,223 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 4,844 12,407 77,365 56,454 45,223 63,127 TOTAL 89,844 97,407 162,365 141,454 130,223 148,127 22 II REVISED BUSINESS CASE (4-29-94) SAFE'IY AND SECURITY DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Exhibit 6 Based upon feedback from forums, surveys, and statements from various community leaders, safety and security in our schools remains a major concern. The District remains committed to implementing the major recommendations by the former Safety and Security Task Force for building a strong, effective safety and security program. Recommendation No. 18 in the Task Force's report was to establish a District Office of Safety and Security. The District has taken steps toward satisfying that recommendation and now seeks to move even closer to full implementation. A. Background The District currently operates a Safety and Security Department which is comp sed of a Director, two (2) Supervisors, one (1) office staff member, and thirty-six (36) school-based security officers. It was recommended that the District add fourteen (14) School Resource Officers. During the summer of 1994, the District proposed a budget that included funding for these fourteen (14) positions. The budget was later approved by the Board of Directors and the Court. The Little Rock City Board of Directors was unable to provide fourteen (14) officers within the time frame requested by the District. The police department, however, was able to provide five (5) resource officers for the 1993-94 school year. These officers were assigned to the following secondary schools: Central, Hall, McClellan, Southwest, and Cloverdale Junior High. ~1 ~~~  ~ B. Problem Definition The School Resource Officer approach appears to be a successful strategy helping to create a bridge between local law enforcement and LRSD students. Police Resource Officers have been well-accepted in the schools where officers have been assigned. Currently, all LRSD secondary schools do not have a Security Office~~ bJ:f\nEr\n:~~ j,,,,,' p '~23 Revised Business Case Safety and Security Department Page 2 C. Analysis of Alternatives The LRSD prepared and submitted a business case regarding the need for the Resource Officer Program as a part of its 1993-94 budget planning process. The District's alternatives remain the same as indicated in the previous business case. Option C (from that business case) remains the most viable and equitable option for the District. A copy of the previous business case is attached hereto as Attachment 1. D. Recommendation The Little Rock School District recommends that one (1) Police Resource Officer be placed in each of our secondary schools. The Little Rock City Board of Directors supports this recommendation and is preparing to implement this recommendation, pending Court approval of the District's 1994-95 budget  E. Objective . The Objectives and Evaluation Criteria remain unchanged from the previous business case. Information secured from the first year of implementation will be used to improve the delivery of services during the 1994-95 school year. F. Impact Analysis The program has had a positive effect on both the schools and the community. The program has been accepted by the community and LRSD schools. G. Resource Analysis The District budgeted $203,000 for program implementation during the 1993-94 school year. These costs would have been appropriate for the 1993-94 school year, -had the fourteen (14) officers been secured. A 5% cost-of-living-type of increase in overall personnel costs is projected for 1994. Additionally, the second year personnel costs should include an additional $34,079 for approved employee step increases,if any, plus $20,000 to pay for benefit increases such as educational pay and longevity. The proposed cost for placing fourteen (14) Police Resource Officers in all secondary schools during the 1994-95 year is $257,000. These costs are to be shared between the City and the Little Rock School District on a 50/50 basis. 24 Revised Business Case Safety and Security Department Page 3 H. Force Field Analysis 1. Forces For. The primary support of this recommendation will likely be the principals in the affected schools. In addition, parents and teachers in the schools affected will likely form a group that will support this move. 2. Forces Against The only persons to have voiced opposition in the past have expressed the concern that the police officers may use their authority in an abusive manner. The success of the program for one (1) year in five (5) of the District's secondary schools should help to eliminate this concern. I. General Implementation Plan Implementation begins with approval by the governing bodies of both the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock School District Following approval, meetings will be held with Little Rock Police Department officials to determine starting dates for training newly hired officers to supplement the officers that are selected to become School Resource Officers. Additionally, both the LRSD and LRPD will offer training sessions for officers selected to begin the Resource Officer program. The Director of Safety and Security will assume the task of scheduling all events that will ensure a successful program implementation. All status reports for program implementation will be submitted to the Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District 25 Attachment 1 BUSINESS CASE SAFETY AND SECURITY DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1989, after the unfortunate shooting of a student at a Little Rock Junior High School, the Board of Directors authorized the Administration to conduct a safety and security study. This study was to address the security issue on campuses, on buses, and in the neighborhoods surrounding the schools. The Board of Directors made the decision to have a committee from each school study the various safety and security issues in the LRSD. A Task Force was formed that 1. Held public hearings 2. Met with Parent-Teacher groups and/or their designated leaders 3. Interviewed city and community leaders 4. Reviewed secondary school safety and security issues in other urban school districts The Task Force enlisted the expertise of the National School Safety Center who sent its Deputy Director to Little Rock for one week and on later follow-up visits. The Task Force report was dealt with by issuing twenty (20) major recommendations to use as an outline to build a strong, effective safety and security program for the Little Rock School District Recommendation No. 18 in this report was to establish a school district office of Safety and Security. A. Background 1. At present, the Safety and Security Department is composed of a Director of Safety and Security, two supervisors, and one person who answers all alarm calls to the various sights, meets the police that have been dispatched, and secures the buildings upon completion of his report There are thirty-six (36) School Based Security Officers assigned to the secondary schools in the LRSD. A recommended addition is the addition of fourteen (14) School Resource Officers. School Resource Officers (SRO) will be assigned to the current secondary schools. A School Resource Officer is a commissioned law enforcement officer that is assigned to the local school district. 26 Safety and Security Page Two 2. School security is a problem that is currently concerning both school district employees and members of the community throughout the nation. The idea of School Resource Officers and security forces is certainly not a new idea. It is, however, fairly new to the State of Arkansas. The problem of dealing effectively with unruly students and community members has been an ongoing problem through the country for many years. Districts across the country are having to develop plans, policies, and strategies for coping with these issues and the resulting increase of fights, assaults, homicides, drive-by shootings, weapons, and general disruption to previously \"quiet\" schools. B. Problem Definition 1. Various approaches to better safety and security in the schools have been attempted. It must be recognized that there is no one single approach that will solve the multitude of problems. The School Resource Officer approach is, however, one that has been successful throughout the country in dealing with the various acting out behaviors and in helping create a bridge between local law enforcement and troubled youth in the community. C. Analvsis of Alternatives 1. Many alternatives have been approached in solving the problems. The LRSD has not discarded any of our approaches only attempted to bring new answers to the problem. The National School Safety Center, an advocate of School Resource Officers, supplied this office with information on these programs throughout the country. Visits were made to programs in California and Florida. Numerous telephone conferences were held with Resource Officers on duty in different schools. The Little Rock School District looked at these different options: a. Do nothing: A number of school districts do not need a formal security program that involves Resource Officers. With the problems facing the City of Little Rock and the schools in the Little Rock District this option was not chosen. b. Contact with a guard service. Two private guard services were contacted. Neither of these services had any experience in providing a security force that had expertise in dealing with the diverse student population in our community. Few training programs were available through these groups. Additionally, these groups seemed to have a lack of commitment to and understanding of our educational philosophy. 27 Safety and Security Page Three D. c. Employ School Resource Officers. Historically, police have played a significant role in public education. They have been involved in handling truancy, juvenile crime, and major collective disturbances. Personnel are trained. The size of the force can be down-sized when needed. A pre-employment background check is always completed and support personnel is available. A formal agreement is prepared that identifies duties and responsibilities of both the police department and the school district Recommendations 1. The Little Rock School District recommends that alternative number 3 be employed. It is our belief that School Resource Officers will help provide a balance between crime prevention, education, enforcement, and informed positive contacts. A School Resource Officer will help develop relationships with students. The School Resource Officer will lay a foundation for student confidence and trust by demonstrating both a knowledge and an interest in matters of child advocacy. E. Objectives 1. Objectives to the recommendation. Program objectives are: a. To prevent students from becoming involved in behaviors that violate state statutes, city codes, and District policy b.  To establish an improved rapport between law enforcement officers and youth c. To assist the building staff and administration in providing security for students d. To act as a resource to staff and students in legal matters and violence prevention intervention e. To help to provide an educational environment that offers prevention programs in determining youth involvement in gang activities, crime, alcohol, and drug abuse f. To assist in the coordination of community resources in promoting interagency approaches to the solution of community youth problems 28 Safety and Security Page Four 2. Good Support. One of the prerequisites for students to have a chance to learn is to have a safe, secure environment in which to learn. District level goals that would increase educational achievement with emphasis on closing disparities certainly fall within this area. A safe, secure environment is also necessary for students and staff if the following goals are to be reached: a. Providing equitable educational opportunities for all students in a desegregated learning environment b. Enabling all students to develop a lifelong capacity and love for learning c. Teaching all students to be productive contnbutors in the school, the community, and the work place d. Providing a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students 3. Evaluation Criteria. Evaluation criteria for the School Resource Officer Program include: a. Written evaluation by principals, including suggested improvements b. Written evaluation by school resource officer, including suggested improvements c. Survey of all staff members of schools d. Survey 10% of students, including high school and junior high school students e. Survey 10% of parents of high school and junior high school students f. Compare pre and post data for suspension, attendance, and dropout incidents involving unauthorized non-students on campus and juveniles processed into the juvenile justice system 29 Safety and Security Page Five F. G. Impact Analysis 1. Program. It is expected that this program will have a positive effect on both the schools and the community. Additional role models, both male and female, will be visible to all children. These officers will be able to provide assistance to students and staff in legal matters. Various crime prevention, drug and alcohol programs will be presented to students. It is expected that the relationship between students and their respect for the law will be a positive move for our community. Some of the built-in mistrust of \"police types\" will be affected. The added protection of a qualified law enforcement officer that is available at all times will also present a positive impact 2. Desegregation Plan. There will be no negative impact upon the Desegregation Plan. All employees are expected to work together to promote adherence to the Plan. 3. Court Orders. No impact is known. 4. Political Factors. No political factors will have impact upon this program. 5. Risks. Any new program bas risks that accompany the program. Schools face the risk of becoming overly dependant on police personnel to solve problems. Police officers generally have not been schooled in educational philosophy. Police lack the flexibility that school administrators have in dealing with student offenders. A special inservice program will be given to all involved before the program will be implemented. After three years of program planning, the administration believes that the community is ready for this program. 6. Timing. The major issues are the extensive training required to replace officers that join this program. The City of Little Rock must take that into account before accepting the program. The Little Rock School District must plan inservice activities before placing the program in action. These programs will be completed prior to program implementation. Resource Analysis 1. Personnel Analysis. Fourteen School Resource Officers will be added to the district staff. One support person, a LRPD supervisor, will perform support duties to the program. Personnel will be recruited from the ranks of the Little Rock Police Department 30 Safety and Security Page Six 2. Financial Analysis. Operating costs have been prepared and submitted by the City of Little Rock. Under the proposed plan, costs will be shared between the city and the Little Rock School District on a 50/50 basis. The Little Rock School District's expense for the first year of operation will be $203,000. This cost will fund fourteen (14) police resource officer positions. These costs are valid for the 1993 school year. A 5% cost of living type of increase in overall personnel costs should be planned for 1994. Additionally, the second year personnel costs should include an additional $34,079 for employee step increases plus $20,000 to pay for benefit increases such as educational pay and longevity. H. Force Field Analysis 1. Forces For. The primary support of this recommendation will likely be the principals in the affected schools. In addition, teachers in the schools affected will likely form a group that will support this move. It is my opinion that all Board members will support this recommendation. Support will come from these groups because each of the groups has studied this option for approximately three years. They have been presented with both pros and cons of the program. Parents will be a support of this recommendation. All calls to my office have been supportive. 2. Forces Against The only persons to have voiced concerns in the past have seemed to have the feeling that the policeman may use his authority in an abusive manner. The success of the program for a one semester trial at McClellan High School was discussed at a recent meeting. Board members who had voted in a negative manner in the past seemed to have changed their minds and talked in a positive manner. I. Implementation begins with approval by the governing bodies of both the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock School District Following approval, meetings will be held with Little Rock Police Department officials to determine starting dates for training newly hired officers to supplement the officers that are selected to become School Resource Officers. Additionally, both the LRSD and LRPD will offer training sessions for officers selected to begin the Resource Officer program. Bill Barnhouse, Director of Safety and Security, will assume the task of scheduling all events that will ensure a successful program implementation. All status reports for program implementation will be submitted to the Manager of Resources and School Support, Little Rock School District 31 ISSUE: SECURING OF QUALIFIED SUBSTITUTES BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District has been experiencing an ongoing high percentage of absenteeism resulting in a few occasions where classes have been covered by employees who are not in the District's regular substitute pool. A certain amount of absenteeism may be expected or necessary due to in-service educational opportunities, seminars, etc.. Compounding the situation are the required number of personal days and sick days as provided for by state law and the P.N. Agreement. Further, employees tend to group their absences contiguous to the weekend, thus making this situation much worse on Fridays and Mondays. Unfortunately, these are the days on which qualified substitutes choose or prefer not to work. PROPOSED PARTIAL RESOLUTION While it is not a panacea for absenteeism, this proposal encourages utilizing teaching assistant/substitutes for teachers who are absent or excused. TNSUBS are assigned \"Home Schools\" and are obligated to attend that school every day unless assigned to another school by the personnel office or retained from a previous assignment Although TNSUBS are kept in their home schools as much as possible, they are not allowed to decline a substitution call from S.O.S. to cover a different school. Salary for a T NSUB is based on a 10-month contract The first year salary is $11,65 . The second year salary is $13,891. Each day that a TNSUB substitutes in a classroom, he/she will receive an additional $22 per day stipend. If a TNSUB is in a classroom for 16 consecutive days, he/she will be considered a long-term substitute and will be paid teacher salary retroactiY to the day he/she began the assignment If a TNSUB is substituting in a classroom for more than 2 hours but less than 3 1/4 hours, it is considered a half-day assignment and he/she will be paid one-half of the $22 stipend. When a TNSUB is not substituting, he/she may be placed in a classroom to observe, cover a room while a teacher is out temporarily (i.e.: Doctor's appointment), or may assist teachers with errands or special projects. PROPOSAL T NSUBS will be assigned to schools on a basis of one per school. 32 II II -II n Exhibit 7 Little Rock School District Stephens School Relocation A Business Case May, 1994 Submitted to U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Arkansas Judge Susan Webber-Wright May 18, 1994 33 I Executive Summary Little Rock School District Stephens School Relocation Business Case I The condition of the environment in which children learn is an important factor in their success. ,.Stephens has become inefficient as a public school because of an aging facility, declining enrollment, and increasing costs. The problem has occurred because limited funds were available to complete needed repairs and renovations. These needs are confirmed in facility studies completed in 1981 and 1988 by Leggett and Associates. Major repairs and renovations needs still exists. The current estimated costs to bring Stephens School up to today's standards is $1.3 million.1 Over one million dollars will be saved by not using the building as a school next year and each year thereafter. The per pupil cost of delivering the instructional program for 1993-94 was $8,781.19. This was four times the cost per pupil of most schools that year. Since the 1991-92 school year, the number of students attending Stephens School has dropped from 245 to 145 in 1993-94. Declining school-age population within the attendance zone has impacted enrollment at the school and exacerbated the problem of low enrollment. This increases per pupil costs and places undue strain on an already austere budget. The recommended solution is to:  Temporarily relocate students from Stephens immediately to minimize the problem of facility needs. This alternative addresses all areas of the problem. a) A plan to offer students reasonable choices of schools will be devised and used based on available seating by grade and race in other schools.- The new William J. Clinton Interdistrict School will be one of the choices offered to students at Stephens. b) An immediate savings of 1.3 million dollars will be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nc) Staff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract\nd) The curriculum offered at Stephens will be offered at other school under the theme for that particular school\ne) A plan for use of the facility until construction can begin will be designed based on discussions with officials of the city and community agencies. Consideration will be given to housing support departments of the school district as well as other options\nand, f) Temporarily relocate the Four-Year-Old Program to Franklin Incentive School. To implement this solution, the desegregation plan must be modified to reduce the number of Incentive Schools. Current filings before both the U. S. Federal Court and the Eighth Circuit Court must be considered for consistency with this proposal. The district is aware of the concern that exists in the Stephens community about the closing of schools. A number of school buildings have been abandoned m 1 Doug Eaton, Director of Facilities, Little Rock School District 34 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 2 predominantly black neighborhoods. This and the fear that city services such as police and fire will not be as efficient without a school are of paramount concern to many in the community. Whether or not the Stephens name will be preserved if another school is built is another concern of the community. Some want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated to avoid another vacant building. While these concerns are understandable, the intent of the district is to build a new, enhanced school at the current Stephens site by the same name pending court approval.2 Negatives of this solution 1. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\n2. Community reaction will be against the decision as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by other entities\nPositives of this solution 1. Students and parents will have choices equal to the current program\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school to make new students and patrons feel welcomed\n3. New patrons will be included in appropriate school correspondence and activities as are currently enrolled patrons in the newly assigned school\n4. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized\nand, 5. The Stephens School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval.  It is critical that the process be completed before the opening of school for 1994- 95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately. Awareness must be generated in the community, students must be notified of their choices, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. No additional personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. A savings of 1.3 million dollars is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. Because the remaining schools and staffs will absorb students and personnel where vacancies occur, the total budgeted cost of Stephens School for 1994-95 is expected to be saved. This savings is a year-to-year savings. 2 Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent, Little Rock School District 35 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 3 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. Milestone Date Person 1. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors and approved 5/18/94 Williams 2. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students from St,pl~ns Sclrool 5/20/94 Williams 3. File rev1s1ons to current filings relating to Stephens which are before the courts If necessary 5/20/94 Williams 4. Obtamceourt approval\"' ''' c.::,,,,,_,,,,,_..:,}, 5126194. Williams,i-. 5. Contac: the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 5/27/94 Ingram 6. Develoo a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immea1ately 5/27/94 Modeste 7. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy 5/27/94 Williams 8. Inventory ou1lding 5/30/94 Neal 9. Conduct 1nformat1onal meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 6/6/94 Williams 10. Comp1ie list and mailing labels of all students living in the Stq,l~n Sclrool attendance zone and 6/6/94 Mayo those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Stephens Sc/tool but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Stepl~ns Sc/tool but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Stro/~11s Sc/tool but live in the attendance zone. 11 . Plan ano scnedule public meeting with the Stephens community to hear concerns 6/3/94 Mayo 12. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to: 6/3/94 Mayo a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) d) door-to-0oor delivery in the neighborhood 13. Develoo letter to parents and students with announcement and choices asking for a response 6/3/94 Mayo by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at St,p/~11s School to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 14. Make contact with key people 1n the community who should be contacted immediately and 6/3/94 Modeste solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers. 15. Send notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: 6/3/94 Mayo a) community groups and churches\nb) press release 16. Design follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their choice of school 6/3/94 Mayo 17. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and choices asking for a response by 6115/94 Mayo a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at St,pl~11s School to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 18. Deliver fliers. door-to-\u0026lt;:!oor. announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting 6120/94 Mayo 19. Im clement follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their choice of school 7/6/94 Ingram 20. Send assignment notices 7/29/94 Mayo 21 . Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) wrth 7/29/94 Mayo announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline. 22. Remove materials and equipment from school 7/31/94 Eaton 23. Reroute transportation of students 7/31/94 Montgomery 24. Secure building 7/31/94 Eaton 25. Reassign staff 7/31/94 Hurley 26. Send assignment notices 8/1/94 Mayo 3 Remaining hmeline is based on Court approval. 36 Stephens School Relocation Business Case I Background 4 I As early as 1981, suggestions to improve the condition of the building known presently as the Stephens School Incentive School appeared in a study of Little Rock School District facilities. Stanton Leggett and Associates, Educational Consultants, noted the \"gross inadequacy of present cafeteria with stage\". New construction estimated at as much as $210,000 then was suggested.4 Additionally, the report listed a number of repairs and the need for renovation that would bring the building up to standard. The estimated cost was a maximum of $208,500 in 1981 dollars. \"The extent of this work . . . is essentially that require to bring the facility up to reasonable 'as is' standards.\" To keep pace with future needs, an additional $598,000 to $786,406 in upgrades and renovation was needed. This did not include air conditioning.5 Some of these items were completed throughout the mid-eighties. No organized program with the purpose of addressing these repairs and renovations was undertaken. In 1988, Stanton Leggett and Associates again studied the facility needs of the Llttle Rock Schools. In that study, replacement of both Stephens School and Garland Elementary Schools was recommended. \"The cost of remodeling and rehabilitation of the schools did not provide the level of specialized rooms that have been [sic] provided by the school system in its recent construction and that is necessary to house the staff properly that has been assigned to these schools.\"6 Concern about the facility at Stephens School has been documented for over a decade. In recent years, enrollment at Stephens School has declined. This together with the needs of the facility has added to the current concern about the efficiency of maintaining Stephens School as it currently stands. Since 1991-92 school year, the number of students attending Stephens School has dropped from 245 students to 145 for 1993-94. The number is expected to be 130 next year. This enrollment decline is influenced in part by a declining school-age population. Continued decline is expected for Stephens and Garland attendance zones. See Figure 1. Zone Stephens AZ Garland AZ Figure 1 Projected Attendance Zone Numbers from Census Data 1991 1992 1993 1994 225 219 213 207 308 303 298 293 1995 201 288 The social and cultural relevance of Stephens School to alumnae and the community cannot be ignored. The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation 4 Study of the School Buildings of Little Rock, Arkansas, Executive Summary, May, 1981, p. 9. 5 Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 71-74. 6 Long-Range Plan for School Facilities, Little Rock, Arkansas, Section 2 - Report: Meeting the Physical Facilities Needs of Seven Racially Identifiable Schools, September, 1988, p. 10.  37 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 5 noted this in its 1993 study of the Stephens School area. Quoting from a research report on the history of Stephens School completed by Reginald Wright, an African-American student in the Donaghey Project 1993 summer program, the GLRCDC study noted: The original Stephens School was built 80 years ago on the site of the present school. The school first existed as a two story framed building, whereas the current structure is a one story masonry and steel horizontal building occupying two square blocks .... The school has received attention for many reasons. It was the first black school to be built in the Little Rock School District and is one of the oldest schools remaining in operation today. It was the school attended by many successful minorities who grew up in the neighborhood . ... The school got its name from a hard working prestigious woman named Charlotte Andrews Stephens. Born in 1854, she was an educator most of her life until she died on December 17, 1951. She showed her dedication to education and to the community by donating the land that the school presently occupies. Ms. Stephens had many accomplishments throughout her life such as becoming the first African-American teacher and principal in the Little Rock School District, and becoming the first AfricanAmerican woman in Arkansas to attend college? I Problem Definition I Stephens has become inefficient as a public school because of an aging facility, declining enrollment, and increasing costs. Currently, the Stephen's facility has accumulated a host of needed repairs and renovations that make the investment \"cost ineffective\". These needs are documented in two facility studies. One in 1981 and another in 1988. Additionally, the per pupil cost of delivering the instructional program for 1993-94 was $8,781.19. This was four times the cost per pupil at other schools. One intent of desegregation is to bring children of different cultures together for common opportunities. Stephens percentage of black students is 97%. Recruitment of white students to this school has not achieved the desired results. Increasing student enrollment using students living in the attendance zone has not been successful. I Analysis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a committee representing administrators in the LRSD. Facility studies have been reviewed as mentioned above. Upon careful consideration, three aspects had to be considered in resolving the problem. They were aging facility, declining enrollment, and increasing costs. The costs of solution number two below is based on the Leggett Study and 1988 dollars. Cost was reviewed as per pupil costs and as the total cost of keeping the school open for another year. Addressing one or two and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. 7 Stephens School Neighborhood Plan, Donaghey Project for Urban Studies \u0026amp; Design - University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1993, p. 3.  38 I Stephens School Relocation Business Case 6 Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can be addressed adequately if the alternative offers a quality for students and cost efficiency for tax-payers. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\n2. Undertake a major renovation and repair program for the facility. The cost of a recommended program in 1981 was estimated to be a maximum of $208,500 to bring the facility to standard. To prepare it for future use, it would cost an additional $598,000 to $786,406 in upgrades and renovation. This did not include air conditioning. In 1994 dollars, this now costs $1.3 million. This solution does not address the exorbitant per pupil expenses. The reasonableness of this alternative is questionable. The budget is austere and many facilities have needs. 3. Redraw the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Stephens School. This reduces the per-pupil costs but does not address the cost of either maintaining the facility or needed repairs and renovation. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. 4. Temporarily relocate students from Stephens immediately to minimize the problem of facility needs. This alternative addresses all areas of the problem. a) A plan to offer students reasonable choices of schools will be devised and used based on available seating by grade and race in other schools. b) An immediate savings of 1.3 million dollars will be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nc) Staff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract\nd) The curriculum offered at Stephens will be offered at other school under the theme for that particular school\ne) A plan for use of the facility until construction can begin will be designed based on discussions with officials of the city and community agencies. Consideration will be given to housing support departments of the school district as well as other options\nand, f) Temporarily relocate the Four-Year-Old Program to Franklin Incentive School. 5. Intensify recruitment efforts. Recruitment has been increased for the all incentive schools since January. The results have not been significant. If the enrollment of Stephens were increased by this effort, the aging facility is still a problem. I Recommendation Alternative 4 is recommended. 4. Temporarily relocate students at Stephens immediately to minimize the problem of facility needs. This alternative addresses all of the problem areas. After consideration of all other alternatives, this one was the only one to address the total problem. 39 I Stephens School Relocation Business Case I Objective 7 By the opening of school for 1994-95, Stephens students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Using this proposal will require a modification in the LRSD Desegregation Plan regarding the number of Incentive Schools and to the Interdistrict Plan as it relates to a third interdistrict school. The current motion before the U. S. Federal Court to make Washington the third interdistrict school under the plan is consistent with this proposal. The appeal before the Eight Circuit Court concerning the site for the new Stephens School may need to be reviewed for consistency with this proposal. This proposal supports the school district goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to fully support schools and the desegregation program. The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved when this solution is implemented if: 1. Students and parents choose options other than Stephens School\n2. The community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\n3. Transportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\n4. Special activities are planned and implemented by each school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\n5. Patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities as are currently enrolled patrons in that school\n6. Key members of the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\n7. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand, I 8. The relocation of students and staff at Stephens will be complete before the opening of school for 1994-95. Most of these benefits will occur when the process begins. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered and parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. I Impact Analysis The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal. Current filings before both the U. S. Federal Court and the Eighth Circuit Court must be considered for consistency with this proposal. The district is aware of the concern that exists in the Stephens community about the closing of schools. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in black neighborhoods. The buildings are vandalized and defaced. This and the fear that city services such as police and fire will not be as efficient without a school are of paramount concern to many in the community. Whether or not the Stephens name will be ~..-Ot .......... t'W41_!o. _ 40 tJ\u0026amp;/1., .. E.,nPH I Stephens School Relocation Business Case 8 preserved if another school is built is another concern of the community. Some believe this is an excuse to close another school. Some want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated to avoid another vacant building. While these concerns are understandable, the intent of the district is to build a new, enhanced school at the current Stephens site by the same name pending court approval.8 Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\n2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\nPositives 1. A new school will be built with enhanced educational opportunities for students who choose to enroll\n2. Students and parents will have choices equal to current programs\n3. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school to make new students and patrons feel welcomed\n4. Patrons will be included in appropriate school correspondence and activities as are currently enrolled patrons in that school\n5. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized\nand,  6. The current Stephens School facility will be available to the community for use pending court approval. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs, increasing complaints by staff about facility needs, and a generally poor image of facilities at this site. The risks of implementation of this solution are criticism for abandoning another school building in the black community, inconveniencing to the students who walk to school, , and the possibility that this solution will not realize all of the benefits exactly as anticipated. Timing It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know as soon as the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, students must be notified of their choices, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline 8 Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent, Little Rock School District 41 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 9 included must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. I Resources Analysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, some positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. Financial A savings of 1.3 million dollars is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. Because the remaining schools and staffs will absorb students and personnel where vacancies occur, the budgeted cost of Stephens School is expected to be saved. See attachment. This savings is a year-to-year savings. Revenue Source A source of revenue is unnecessary. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the 1994-95 budget. I Force Field Analysis I I Primary supporters of this proposal will be those not directly affected by the solution. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunity and cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. Community groups have consistently gone on record as opposed to the \"closing\" of Stephens School. They argue several points. They argue that too many have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities. That schools which are closed are those located in the black community, and that a school is the life of a wholesome community. Some say that removing a school from a community that is already experiencing economic difficulty removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The Joshua Interveners may oppose the relocation of these students for fear of closing an Incentive School. The position of the City of Little Rock is unclear at this time. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key community people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns. The strongest statement about relocating students at Stephens School temporarily is just that. We are 42 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 10 relocating the students temporarily. Consideration is being given to building a new school for students in this area. 43 Stephens School Relocation Business Case I General Implementation Plan 11 I The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. Milestone Date Person 1. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors and approved 5/18/94 Williams 2. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students from Step/rerrs Sc/rool 5/20/94 Williams 3. File rev1s1ons to current filings relating to Stephens which are before the courts if necessary 5/20/94 Williams 4-\u0026gt;- Obtain- court app.rovat:t '/ :,:/',?{\\' .,,.,./:,:,,,:,::-:,:, ,:,:,c,,.,c,., ,  --:-:-.-:--\n-.-.:-:.\n.\n:\n::-:-:-.. :-\n::::::::::::::( :::::::::::\n:::::::::\n:::: ::,C:}:5/,26194 .,'):: .\\/William\u0026amp;/ :-: 5. Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 5/27/94 Ingram 6. Develoo a list of key peoole in the community who should be contacted immediately 5/27/94 Modeste 7. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduc:1on strategy 5/27/94 Williams 8. Inventory building 5/30/94 Neal 9. Conduct informational meeting with the pnncipal. faculty, and staff about the process 6/6/94 Williams 10. Compile list and marling labels of all students living in the Stq,/rerr School attendance zone and 6/6/94 Mayo those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Step/rerrs Sc/roo/ but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Step/rerrs Sc/rool but live in the attendance zone: and. C) those who do not attend Step/rerrs Sc/rool but live in the attendance zone. 11 . Plan and schedule public meeting with the Stephens community to hear concerns 6/3/94 Mavo 12. Develop notice of relocauon and date of communrty information meeting to send to: 6/3/94 Mayo a) parents \u0026amp; students: b) community groups and churches: C) media (press release) d) door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 13. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and chorces asking for a response 6/3/94 Mayo by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at Step/rerrs Sc/rool to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 14. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and 6/3/94 Modeste solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and mrn1sters. 15. Send notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: 6/3/94 Mayo a) community groups and churches: b) press release 16. Design follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their choice of school 6/3/94 Mayo 17. Mall letter to parents and students with announcement and choices asking for a response by 6/15/94 Mayo a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at Ster,/rerrs Sc/rool to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 18. Deliver fliers. door-to-door. announcrng the relocation and date of the information meetinQ 6/20/94 Mayo 19. lmolement follow-up olan for students who do not resoond to reciuest for their choice of school 7/6/94 Ingram 20. Send assignment notices 7/29/94 Mayo 21 . Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) with 7/29/94 Mayo announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline. 22. Remove matenals and equipment from school 7/31/94 Eaton 23. Reroute transportation of students 7/31/94 Montgomery 24. Secure bu1ldrng 7/31/94 Eaton 25. Reassign staff 7/31/94 Hurley 26. Send assignment notices 8/1/94 Mayo 9 Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. 44 ra, ,~,.. ac ST'PH 11 Stephens School Relocatio~ Business Case 12 Attachment 111 Copy of pages from 1994-95 Tentative Budget relating to the cost of Stephens School 45 1111/1.,..,. IC..sn\"H Dole: 0 11-: 1: lhtle lock ldlool Dhtrlct Depertmnt Dudaet  111111 ,aOG: IU\u0026gt;OOZ fi.nctlon Object Depert-,t Code Deecrlptlon Code Deecrlptlon STEPHENS flfllENTAIJ 0041 1105 f\u0026lt;U TEAi OlD PIOClM 0110 lfWLAI aulflCAJfD 0120 lflllAI IIOll-alllflCAJO ULIU SOCIAL lfDallf JAi( 0240 INUAIICI 0410 llffllH 0540 ICIUINIENJNH0IIAL ,aQNI Inn f\u0026lt;U UAI OLD PIOCIM TOULI 1110 IIIIDflWJH UlHI HIU.AI a.uflCAJfD 0210 IOCIAL lfDallf TAIi 0410 041Z lOCAL -...LIii IP JIIADlll 1110 II IIDflc:AI I H Jot All 1 IZD flfllEIIJAIY Achl 1\"''\" H.too.00 U OU.OJ Iii ,464.DO 11.lllU.U I0.00 I0.00 n, ,., ' '4 1Jl.J6 IJ 114D.H I0.00 Ul,UJ.56 ludget 1\")/94 ao,an.00 U,164.45 ,z ,461.00 11 lll\u0026gt;.Z7 nu.JP I0.00 au ,n,.11 a\u0026gt; '.Ul.00 '4 ,ua,.11 IZ .\u0026gt;N.U IHH.ZZ u,._,z 1.6\u0026amp; .,,,.u Actual D1/J1/94 110,,uo.Z, 11 ,14Z.ZO Nln.86 I0.00 I0.00 116.'49.6' w,,,,..,,.zo 11 ,n1.,o Nln.56 I0.00 I0.00 ludget 1994/95 S50 .5\u0026amp;7.00 aLIJ ,lllD.00 u ,4Z4.n S,,,rou.00 ., , 100.00 aJ,600.00 NII 229.ll II UY.77 IZ.600.00 1252.00 I0.00 ~ .YLU.ff t=======================110111t01 1~=H=l~ll1lJll~ lC~ZHl~1I1I0r1~u~1D::~\n:::::::===============~===.~.~,\n,~,._ . u,.n uui.OOll.00 116',4H.U a,rJ.111U. J9 :1~1IJ~.t 11~:===~ii1:fi1.an .DO In ,MM. 74 1105 I YUJ .00 QUU Hllll.AI -tzHltlUIO an,n .16 \"'\" UJ,61Z.U iU,121.TU 0uu -ITIMI JIACllfHIIIOIY 120 ,OJ.,. I0. 00 I0.00 I0 . 00 0ZI0 IOCIAL 11aan, JAJI 140,tJI.JI 14Z,N6.11 ... ,\u0026gt;H.56 140,:w,.,r uuu PUILIC 1,.lOYIH 111111,_ 11.14 I0.00 I0.00 I0.00 flf 1994/95 Z.oo Z.UII z.uu Z.uu 14.17 1.00 0240 INSlaAIICI lz tza.16 aL\u0026gt; ioo.1Ki-.-+---=Uc:Jn'H.'ii-QJ+---=a.,=a-=r...,\"\n.:-ii-OO+----f D]IJ l'\\.Pll 1nv1a1 IHI ,!IN.JI ,o.oo I0.00  I0.00 l - - - ----------,D....-JIZ6\n-..\nl,\nf\n,.PAe-:l':-l,::'l'=1-=C1U'='l:=NIE:=:l:-J-----------t----ia,z,im-.T1I7 ~---Tin1,nrw-..OOrr-1i-----.llm4'Jr.-wr'JD_ ___ ,lrr.1.oa-.-11J,.OOrr-1i-----1 DJJI l'\\.Pll TIAIISNIIJATIGI 14 ,oe.U l'J .oou.00 II , ... II IID.uuu.00 l - - - --------,omin1i:-.:':\n::\nIA\n-\nVE7.l\n.--------------\n----IZ-tt-,'1Z.OO t----x,i\nso,.....oo,rr-t-----...-rr'Tlroo+----..,so,,...,.00~11-----1 O-\"Z POSTAGII! 1dl:Tr 1n7.5D UO.U SO.DO OJ60 PIIIJIICI I IIIIDIICllllfll 14'1.00 ~, .,o 1160.00 I0.00 0161 HIIJIIII AIII IIIIDIHIXTI 11,4JI.N I0.00 15Z7.'J0 I0.00 OJ80 fOOD IIIVlal 19 ,,n.05 111,000.00 IJ ,)87.IO a1uuu.DD 0410 UPLIU II , 195.111 11 ,IJl  .60 IZ ,4ZZ.U i20. ,n.00 IK16 u,uu  llfflY alJH 14 .\u0026gt;.IJ 11 \u0026amp;aZ .SI 14 .244.'JZ Ml.OD 0411 ,11oa (NQ.NIAIICH I0.00 -~,u.O I0.00 Ml.OU J__ ___________\n,\n054\n.\n-D-\nf.\nOU\nl\n.\n,Plll==,l\n'.:f...:H~\n:,\n1011=Al\n..\nH,\nOP=E=-----------~\"1-.Uffl'.,lli-lf----v'\n'''59T\"\"o~_ _. =,ll\u0026lt;c:,n.....C7.\n,\n,,77~1-----'-'.c.LC''\u0026gt;UU~-\n,\n,oo~---~ 05411 fflJIPIIINT  UPU aNTH an,.14 aol:5o I0.00 I0.00 11zu flfHENTAU JOTAU 1661, 151.ZI MYY,LYD.6l o ,4116.)9 -~.11111.06 22.11 1124 llfllEITAU IIJSIC ------ - - - ----,.o.,11oi--...::'-:f:=lll.:7.\"Al--'=Cfc::c::J:-:-l\n,fl:-\"CA~J:-:=E,:..D_ ________- t-___, aorr,.oo.,,-t---u'-iu\nt'Jl~IZ:.c..oo.\n.....----~'~oo~1----.-..~.\" ',-.' !~!:- .~n------f 0Z10 SOCIAL IEDMIJY JAX I0.00 IZJ14.00 I0.00 .. , .. , Ol40 IIISURAIICI I0.00 11, 111,.00 ao.oo I0.00 1124 flfHEIITAIY IIJSIC TOUll I0.00 114,0)1.00 I0.00 an.-.4D Pou I 1J D1te: OJ/2]/94 Tl: IJ:44 little lock ldtoot Dl1trlct Dep rta.lt ludtet - CIOtl PlOG I ll.0002 hroetlon ObJ.c:t Dq,ert_,t Code DHcrlptlon Codi D11crlptlon SIEPHENS flEMENTA-T 0041 11Y\u0026gt; ACCELERATED LEAANING OllO Hill.AA --aUlflCATID UC 10 IOCIAL l(aJIITY TAX uc,u INUAIICI 11n ACCllllATlD LWNINI JOTALI 1itu ITINEIAIIT 1HllUC110N 0110 lfGULAII CllllflCAJfD UC IU IOCIAL RQJIIJY JAJI uc\n,u 1N-....... J~u llllflAlll IHllOCJION fOTALI IUU Actual 1ffl/9J HO,..,..,, Iii ,\u0026gt;VI .If Ml ,111111.11' ludl,et 1991/94 1u.,11.uo 111., ..... 111 Actual Ot/Jl/94 11.ne.24 111 , 11141. 16 IIJ .,,, .JO 11.uu.ll 14n.n IH.14l.l4 t.J.\u0026gt;11.U'I IH,927.6J \u0026gt;lU.UU llZ, 119.117 UllU HIU.M CHJlflCAlff lll,U'4.UU 11l1111.JII U,r.,a.'6 IH '1J.JII UllU IOCl11l ~WIIJY JAJI nee.JU .,,.,,.11.J Hao.DZ 11,114.11 \"' 1994/95 11.,0 Ol411 IN.....ur ~!!~f utz.,u 1161. l-------11,11u~u'l\"'E'\"ICUl:\n.:Cl~l\nOlll\n-.:..=::===--,,.,,o-','in..,1r------------t--,,muF-tPfp:irtr--1_1!_!rTi.ri,.r,:,,r.nllJ--t---,14:r,111r9t ---,11rrr6R7,.,J1.U\u0026gt;a.nU-.O-.. J1rr1t--r11.-.. ,,x10 '\"O IIIMl\u0026lt;UID AIII IIOSPIJAL 1--------------i,0'1nlr-U-::l'tUUUllll\nijn:~~:~1nl1rr.1' 7.t\nAll~V---------+---'-.:'-jiuLj\"m''\"7'm -'f----'-j\"'j'r'ij,_rn.llOn-f---\"='iif tl69Ur.Il\"llT\"'_ _, ilZ4r,riJUYr.OOW-f----'1..\n...w-j ~ 11~111 IOC_!A~~DJllfY fAll l\\,'49.00 I_! 546.01 nu.Tl ,1 ,aJa.ll 0l40 !Na.Ma 11 ,r,.u ll.1.'61.,Z 14JJ.IJ 11,,uu.OO ll4U IICMIIU.III AND IIIUM\"llM. JOHLi H.l..41t,~ IZ4, .. n.JJ 11u.1111.1.JJ Ml, 161.U 111111 11'1ED ,._ JALUTED l-------------iiUl'jl.,.-U-ilOC\n:.'\n1i.'.Al~lf~CUl'--':.\n.clll'-'-Y_l.c...All--'-----------\n---,i'[T~! uc,u llstMAIICI 11 ,\u0026gt;46.!) 1Y1u Clflfll AIIO tALHllD JOTALI Ul .zu.11 l11J SOCIAL lJIIK IEIVICll au na.91 11 ,lOY.JJ wrw.,Y 11,J60.19 ., ..... uu 11'1',nu.n 1.w 0.60 0.60 UllU IElllA.AII IICll-alllflCAUD IO.UU I0.00 H ,.J\u0026gt;.J.UU 110,!\u0026gt;Y.UIJ U.\u0026gt;~ l------------iuc.,1ii-,u-.:-~:111ir'Li,\nn\n_...,..r-T,1111 1yrrn,1111---------,---10u-.mruu1 ---u111-.M\"\"\"oo--\"\"194lmwlr.IT491--n,11,zl'r11. ..\u0026gt;... r-+1-----t P1gt 114 lll40 INSURAIICI IO.UU ID.DO 11116. 16 90\u0026gt;U.00 l11J SOCIAL lJIIK lflVICH JOTALI IO.UU 111.00 H ,NY.24 111 ,9J7.'1 ZlZO GUIOANCf lllVICES 0110 lElllA.AII aaTIFICATED U(IU SOCIAL lfCUIITY TAIi ucc~II INSURAIICI lllll GUIDANCE lflVICU lOHLI l1\" IIUUING SUVICU UllU lfQJI.AII -CIITlflCATID u\"u SOCIAL lfCUIITY TAIi OZ4U IN\u0026gt;UIUUlut Z1J4 PIING IEIVICfS JOlALI wru ,u.....,a H.J6l~ .cc,,, 11').19 HCC ,,,.,, ,)9 IZ4,Yfl.J1 11,YIU.JZ '1.M.\u0026gt;0 zf.620.JJ .a,,zo.01 tl,fY'l'.U nc1.oo 140,67U.OO 5J, 111.ll .,,,.,.,.w SU.11111.lO -,,cc,.,,-,.uu ll6, 1J4.'6 11.~o 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.w Date: 0J/2J/94 J , ... : 1J:44 FU'lCtlon m\u0026gt;Ject Departaent Code D11crlptlon Code D11crlptlon STEPHENS flfHENTAIY 0041 2 2 SCHOOl LIIIAIY SERVICES IECilJI.U 11011-aRTIFICATED SOCIAL lfMITY TAIi INSUUIICf IUPl'LIH Page 115 little lock lchool Dl1trlct Dpertant ludeet  OOfl Actual '\"ll9J ludget 199J/94 Actual 01/]1/94 ludget 1994/95 PIOG: IIU\u0026gt;OOZ fff 1994/95 Exhibit 8 1994-95 LRSD PRINCIPA.I.SHIP CHANGES May 18, 1994 In accordance with the request in the Court's Order dated May 9, 1994 regarding the schools affected by changes in principalships for the 1994-95 school year, the schools which will have principal changes due to assignments/reassignments (per A.C.A.  6-17-303), early retirements, resignations from the District, etc. are as follows: Bale Elementary Baseline Elementary Carver Magnet Central High School Cloverdale Junior High Fair High School Fair Park Elementary Forest Heights Franklin Elem. Gibbs Magnet Henderson Junior Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Junior Mitchell Elem. 49 Rightsell Elem. Romine Interd. Southwest Junior Washington Mag. Williams Mag. Wilson Elem. Exhibit 9 SE'ITLEMENT LOAN REPAYMENT Discussions are currently underway between the District and the Arkansas Department of Education to develop the criteria for measuring student achievement increases as descnbed in the March 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Settlement Agreement Strategies are also being developed to address loan repayments that might arise should the student achievement increases fail to meet the agreed-upon criteria. Due to the uncertainty of the measurement criteria, amounts for any potential repayments have not been included in the five-year projections included elsewhere in this submission. It is arguable that the first year to be impacted by a loan repayment would be 1997-98 where a $300,000 payment could be due. All of this is stated with the proviso that the District may have legal and other remedies available to it to address this matter. All such legal and other remedies are hereby reserved and no waiver or concessions are either being made or intended by supplying this information pursuant to the Court's order. 50 u, ...... IU I 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 II Page 1 of6 1 ask uescnpt1on Prepare initial financial forecasts for coming year. Issue lnslfllclions for budget preparation al all levels. Develop budget preparation training material. Conduct budget preparation training sessions. Budget manager, submit 94-9S budget requests. Begin budget development. Revise financial forecast for coming year Submit proposed budget to Board. Conduct Board work sessions on budget. Revise budgets, as needed. Secure seniority list. DRAFT llttle Rock School District Budgeting Menegement Tlmellne o/e Comp. :start IOOo/ Dec I '93 100% Nov 30 '93 100% Nov 18 '93 100 Dec 6 '93 100% Jan 14 '94 100% Jan 18 '94 100% Marl '94 100% Mar 24 '94 100% Mar28 '94 60% Mar 24 '94 100% Apr I '94 FY 95 ExhlbltlO 1m1sh Resources Feb 11 '94 Milhollen Dec 3 '93 Milhollen Nov 30 '93 Milhollen Dec 17 '93 Milhollen Feb 28 '94 Milhollen Jan 18 '94 Milhollcn Apr IS '94 Milhollen Mar 24 '94 Milhollcn AprlS'94 Milhollen Jul 28 '94 Milhollen Apr 14 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 5/18/94 U1 N little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmellne JLJ 1 asK ucscnpt1on Comp. -Start 12 Identify elementary enrollment (tentative) for 1994-95 and determine teachers 100% Apr I '94 needed. 13 Review master schedules. Note possible cuts based on low classes. 100% Apr I '94 14 Make determinallon by subject area (secondary) of possible reductions and 100% Apr I '94 elementary enrollment. IS Verification of need, based on manpower report and by program (program 100% Apr I '94 managers and principals). 16 Check results oflD#'s 12-15 against known retirement, resignations, and 100% Apr 20 '94 intern positions. 17 Identify teachers for Reduction In Force (RIF), if needed. 100% Apr 20 '94 18 Board approval of RJF, if needed. 100% Apr 28 '94 19 Notify certified personnel of possible staff reduction. 100% Apr 29 '94 . 20 Prepare modified tentative budget. 15% Apr 25 '94 21 Board of Directors work session on budget. 100% May 12 '94 22 Board approval of modified tentative budget. 00/4 May 2 '94 Page 2 ol 6 FY95 l-lnish Kesources Apr 19 '94 Gadberry,Hurley Apr 14 '94 Gadberry,llurley Apr 19 '94 Gadberry,llurley Apr 19 '94 Gadberry,llurley Apr 26 '94 Gadberry.Hurley Apr 29 '94 Gadberry.Hurley Apr 28 '94 Gadberry.Hurley Apr 29 '94 Gadberry.Hurley May 18 '94 Milhollen May 12 '94 Milhollen,Board May 26 '94 Milhollen,Board, Williams 5118194 (.1l w Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmeline IU 1 ask Ucscnpllon 'Yo Comp. Start 23 Evaluate early retirement incentive numbers. 0% May 20 '94 24 Recall from RIF, if needed. 0% May 23 '94 25 Review ofOulsourcing 48% Feb 17 '94 26 Notify classified personnel of staff reduction. 0% May 3 '94 27 Account reconciliation and Purchase Order (PO) cleanup. 0% Jun 15'94 28 Receipt of state-generated revenure numbers {payroll liabilities, adjusted 0% Jun IS '94 supplemental payroll, last payroll, Carl Perl\u0026lt;ins, M to M, JTPA, Voe Ed, Sp Ed, Chapters I and 2, Compensatory Education, MFPA, Transportation, ABC). 29 Prepare proposal to temporarily relocate Stephen's students. 100-/4 Mar 29 '94 30 Evaluate final proposal to temporarily relocate Stephen's students. 20'1. Apr29 '94 31 Submit to court (if approved by Board) proposal to temporarily relocate 0% May 6 '94 Stephen's students. 32 Court hearing on modified tentative budget. 0% May 25 '94 33 Prepare proposal for second school closing. 75% Apr2S '94 Page 3 or 6 FY 95 F,nisn Resources May 22 '94 Gadbcrry,llurley Jun I '94 Gadberry,llurley Jun I '94 Williams,Milhollen,Mayo May 31 '94 Gadberry ,Hurley Jul 15'94 Milhollen Jul IS '94 Milhollen Apr 28 '94 Williams,Council May 18 '94 Williams.Board May 20 '94 Williams.Board May 26 '94 Williams Jun I '94 Williams.Council 5/16/94 Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmeline IU 'I ask 1.Jcscnpt1on %Comp. Start Fm1ili Resources 34 Evaluate final proposal for second school closing. 0% Jun 2 '94 Jun 9 '94 Williams.Board 35 Submit 10 court (if approved by Board) proposal for second school closing. 0% Jun 9 '94 Jun 13 '94 Williams.Board 36 Review philosophy and/or objectives for incentive schools' programs. 100% Apr 25 '94 Apr 28 '94 Mallhis,Curriculum Supervisors 37 Schedule and hold meetings for organizing the project. IOOo/. Apr 28 '94 Apr 28 '94 Mallhis,Currlculum Supervisors 38 Establish framework for: instructional day\ncurriculum offerings\nservices and 100 Apr 28 '94 May 17 '94 Mallhis,Curriculum Supervisors support programs\nmaterials/supplies/equipment\nstaffing needs and staff develoment needs. 39 Relate program recommendallons to program offerings In designated area and 40% May 17 '94 May 31 '94 Mallhls,Currlculum Supervisors magnet schools. 40 Develop business case for Incentive schools' program modifications for 40 Apr 28 '94 May 31 '94 Mallhis,Currlculum Supervisors submilling to Superintendent and Council. 41 Review Incentive schools' program modificallons with Council. 0% May 31 '94 Jun I '94 Mallhis,Curriculum Supervisors 42 Submit business case for incentive schools' program modifications to Board of 0% Jun 2 '94 Jun 9 '94 Willian1s,Board Directors. 43 Submit to Court (If approved by Board) Incentive schools' program 0% Jun 9 '94 Jun 13 '94 Williarns,Board modifications. 44 Request for Proposal (RFP) on outsourcing mailed. 100 May 6 '94 May 6 '94 Mayo,Montgomcry Page 4 of 6 FY 95 5/18/94 u, u, IU I ask ucscnpl1on 45 Pre-proposal conference on Outsourcing. 46 Proposals due on Outsourcing. 47 Board of Directors' decision on Outsourcing. 48 Court hearing-status report on 1994-95 modified lenlalivc budget. 49 Close-out of 1993-94 accounts: adjust physical inventory, (fiscal) federal grants, magnets, stale grants, accruals so Compule ending fund balance. 51 Adminstralive review of budget. 52 Submit to Board 1994-94 Budget. 53 Court hearing on 1994-95 proposed budgets of LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD. S4 Board review and adoption of94-9S Budget. 55 Submil 94-95 Budge! lo Court/Parties. Page 5 of 6 little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmeline o/.Comp. Start 100 May 16 '94 O May 30 '94 O Jun 9 '94 Oo/o Jun 28 '94 0% Jul I '94 O Jul 21 '94 O Jul 22 '94 O Jul 25 '94 0% Jul 27 '94 0% Jul 28 '94 O Aug I '94 FY 95 t 1n1sn Kesources May 16 '94 Mayo,Monlgomery May 30 '94 Mayo.Montgomery Jun 9 '94 Williams.Board Jun 29 '94 Williams Jul 20 '94 Milhollen Jul 21 '94 Milhollen Jul 28 '94 Williams.Council Jul 25 '94 Williams Jul 29 '94 Williams Jul 28 '94 Board Aug 22 '94 Williams 5118/94 u, O'I IU Task Uescnpllon 56 Submit 94-95 Budget to State. Page 6 of 6 Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmalina %Comp. Start ~-m,sh Kesources 0% Aug 22 '94 Aug 26 '94 Board,Milhollen FY 95 5/18/94\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_1121","title":"Little Rock School District, Position Control Policy and Procedures Manual","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":["1993-05-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School administrators","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, Position Control Policy and Procedures Manual"],"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/1121"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLI'I*fLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION CONTROL POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL DRAFT MAY 10, 1993 NOTICE This policy and procedures manual has been developed by the Little Rock School District to provide direction and guidance in the processing of various personnel actions. The manual is designed to provide manual and data entry procedures to assist in accomplishing most personnel actions. The Human Resource Management System used by the Little Rock School District is one of several modules in the Comprehensive Information Management for Schools III (CIMS III) system. The CIMS III system is a product of National Computer Systems. For reference, consult the following user manuals:  Human Resources Management System, Applicant Tracking System, 4F330.  Human Resources Management System, Position Control System, 4F230 SECTION 1 POSITION CONTROL POLICY STATEMENT SECTION 1 POSITION CONTROL POLICY STATEMENT The Little Rock School District position control process is designed to provide a framework for successful personnel actions, sound stewardship of positions, and a base of accurate and timely information for decision-making. A quality position control process benefits all employees of the district every work day. A quality position control process requires the pride and professionalism of all employees. All positions in the Little Rock School District are authorized and allocated funding by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. As administrator of the district, the Superintendent is ultimately responsible for the position control process. Accordingly, the Superintendent has directed all employees of the district to follow the policy and procedures outlined in this manual. The Director of Human Resources is the position control authority. Within the parameters set by the Board and Superintendent, the Director will have final approval on setting up new positions and initiating the hiring process. Prior to action, the Director will require the approval signature of the requesting Associate Superintendent (thereby acknowledging the position is necessary), and the approval signature of the Manager of Resources and School Support (thereby acknowledging that funds are available to support the position). The Director of Human Resources will maintain the Position Control Policy and Procedures Manual. All recommended changes must be submitted to the Director. The Director will be responsible for training on the position control system. Hiring managers must realize their key role and comply with the procedures outlined in this manual to ensure success. Paperwork must be initiated in a timely manner, be accurate in all respects, and reflect the proper accounting codes. SECTION 2 LRSD01 NEW HIRE LRSD(.U NDI HI RI A B F DISISION TO HIRE COMPLETE NDI POSITION REQUEST FORM YES PCS 301H UACANCY SET-UP C H J 0 Q YES PCS 301.11 CHANCE NECESSARY DATA PCS 301,12 CHANCE NECESSARY DATA PCS 301.13 CHANCE NECESSARY DATA PCS )00(  XX GENERATE UACANCY NUPIBER RETURN AtfflTAT[]) COPY or NEW POSITION FORM TO MANAGER ]( NO SIT UP JOB CODES L PCS 301,11 ADJ) NECESSARY DATA N p ____, UBAYC ANSCIQY UFffIiCLEE NUPIBER R s T u w l( MANAGER ASKS HR roR CANDIJ\u0026gt;ATI LISTING ATS 552.SER UACANCY MEttJ TO PREP SELECT ATS 550 Xl'Y UACANCY tllMBER AND PULL SELECT GIMRATI TRr CANDIDATI LlSTlHC MANAGER RlVlIS TRr CANDIDATE LlSTlHC MANAGER CONDUCTS IN1ERUIIWS u AR AD OLD POSITION BECOMES UACANCY y 2 AA AB AC YES MANAGER COMPLETES POSITION CONTROL FOJlfl MANAGER SENDS POSITION CONTROL FOJlfl TO ASSO SUPER ASSO SUPER APPROIJES AN]) SOOS TO HR DIRECTOR ATS 550 CRF.ATI CA NJ) I DA TI FILI ATS 230,SER CHANCE INFO ON TRF CHIRED\u0026gt; AJ NO AL AM AN AO AP ATS 550 CRF.ATI CA NJ) I DA TI LISTING OF ALL APP MANAGER RlVIDIS APP LISTING MANAGER CONDUCTS INTERUIDIS MANAGER SELECTS APP FOR HIRING MANAGER COMPLETES POSITION CONTROL FOJlfl MANAGER SENDS POSITION CONTROL FOJlfl TO ASSO SUPER 2 AH COPY or PCF AND FORMS SENT TO PAYROLL AE AF AG RINT SCRm POSITION ENTORY AND POSITION HISTORY Per, FORMS Fli.El) IN PERSONNEL FILE IN HR AQ AR AS AT AU ASSO SUPEJ! APPROIJES AND SENDS TO HR ])I RECTOR ATS 550 CREATE CANDll)ATE FILE HR CALLS SELECTEI) APPLICANT INTO OFFICE APPLICANT COMPLETES INSURANCE AND OTHEJ! FORMS PRINT SCREEN ON POSITION INVENTORY AND OTHEJ! -~ AU\\ l AW I AI I EEN D r PCPF~ INFOT RMFSlL EDAN / COPY or ALL :B-PROCESS IO PERSottm. MATERIAL IO FILI IN HR PAYROLL ..___. ...__ ~ I! SECTION 2 LRSDOI NEW IDRE A. The hiring manager makes the decision to begin the hiring process. B. The hiring manager completes the NEW POSITION REQUEST FORM (Appendix A). It is most important that the information is accurate. All information must be completed through the justification section. If not, the form may be returned, and the hiring process delayed. By signing the form, the hiring manager is certifying the position is necessary for the successful operation of the unit/ school. Upon completion, forward the form to the Associate Superintendent responsible for the position. C. The Associate Superintendent responsible for the position must sign and date the form. By signing the form, the Associate Superintendent is certifying the position is necessary for the successful operation of the unit/ school, and that they approve of the action. Upon signing, forward the form to the Manager of Resources and School Support. If not approved, return the form to the hiring manager with an appropriate explanation. D. The Manager of Resources and School Support must sign and date the form. By signing the form, the Manager is certifying that funding is authorized and available to support the position, and that they approve of the action as fiscally sound. Upon signing, forward the form to the Director of Human Resources. If not approved, return the form to the Associate Superintendent responsible for the position with an appropriate explanation. E. The Director of Human Resources must sign and date the form. By signing the form, the Director is certifying that this is a valid position and directing the Human Resources staff to complete the personnel action. If not approved, return the form to the Associate Superintendent responsible for the position with an appropriate explanation. F. The Human Resources staff enters the PCS 301H series of screens (Position Inventory) to start setting up the vacancy in the system. G. The Human Resources staff looks to see if the position requested is already set up in the system. PCS 301H.ll. (Ref 4F230, 5-2). H. The Human Resources staff enters screen PCS 301.11 (Ref 4F230, 5-2) and makes any necessary data element changes. NOTE: PLEASE LIST ANY DATA ELEMENT CHANGES WHICH WOULD LIKELY BE MADE. I. The Human Resources staff enters screen PCS 301.12 (Ref 4F230, 5-2) and makes any necessary data element changes. NOTE: PLEASE LIST ANY DATA ELEMENT CHANGES WHICH WOULD LIKELY BE MADE. J. The Human Resources staff enters screen PCS 301.13 and makes any necessary data element changes. NOTE: PLEASE LIST ANY DATA ELEMENT CHANGES WHICH WOULD LIKELY BE MADE. K. If the job codes are not already set up in the system, the Human Resources staff will set up the job codes in steps L,M,N. L. The Human Resources staff enters screen PCS 301.11 and adds necessary data elements. NOTE: PLEASE LIST ANY DATA ELEMENT ADDS WHICH WOULD LIKELY BE MADE. M. The Human Resources staff enters screen PCS 301.12 (Ref 4F230, 5-2) and adds necessary data elements. NOTE: PLEASE LIST ANY DAT A ELEMENT ADDS WHICH WOULD LIKELY BE MADE. N. The Human Resources staff enters screen PCS 301.13 (Ref 4F230, 5-2) and adds necessary data elements. NOTE: PLEASE LIST ANY DAT A ELEMENT ADDS WHICH WOULD LIKELY BE MADE. 0. The Human Resources staff enter screen PCS 301.11 (Position Inventory Detail) (Ref 4F230, 5-2), generating a new vacancy number. Write the vacancy number on the corresponding NEW POSITION REQUEST FORM (Appendix A). P. The Human Resources staff signs and dates the NEW POSITION REQUEST FORM (Appendix A),and files the original in the vacancy file by vacancy number sequence. Q. The Human Resources staff returns a copy of the signed and dated NEW POSITION REQUEST FORM (Appendix A) directly to the hiring manager. R. At this point, the hiring manager is able to proceed with the hiring process. The hiring manager asks Human Resources for a candidate listing from which records can be reviewed. S. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking Option, and the ATS 400 Vacancy Information Option (Ref 4F330, 5-1). At the ATS 552.01/ 11/ 12 screen, prepare the selection criteria. NOTE: WE NEED TO DEVELOP SOME GUIDELINES ON THE CANDIDATE CRITERIA. PLEASE GIVE THIS SOME THOUGHT, AND ADD YOUR COMMENTS. T/ U. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 550 series screens (Ref 4F330, 5-7), keys vacancy number, and pulls the select. This first listing should be set up to pull from the file of eligible transfers so that existing employees are looked at first. V. The Candidate Selection Report is generated, and should be used as the initial listing of candidates. W. The hiring manager reviews the Candidate Selection Report, reviews the individual personnel records of the prospective transfers, and decides on those to interview. X. The hiring manager conducts interviews with the top transfer candidates. Y. The hiring manager decides if there is a suitable transfer to fill the position. If yes, the manager will proceed with step Z below. If not, the manager will go to step AJ, to pull general applicants into the candidate listing. Z. The hiring manager completes the POSITION CHANGE FORM - TRANSFER (Appendix B). The hiring manager should pull the correct vacancy number from the NEW POSITION REQUEST FORM which was returned earlier in the process, and use that vacancy number on the POSITION CHANGE FORM - TRANSFER. This will link the two requests and ensure quicker approval. AA. The hiring manager sends the completed POSITION CHANGE FORM - TRANSFER to the responsible Associate Superintendent for approval. The Associate Superintendent forwards the signed form to the Director of Human Resources for approval and action. AB. NOTE: ACCORDING TO OUR CHARTS, WE SHOULD GO INTO THE ATS 550 SERIES AND CREATE A CANDIDATE FILE. I AM NOT SURE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THIS STEP. I WILL NEED SOME HELP HERE. PLEASE GIVE SOME WORDS. AC. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking option, ATS 400 Vacancy Information option, and ATS 230 Applicant Hiring or Change of Status option. Once in the A TS 230 series screens (Ref 4F330, 5-27), the specific information on the individual is changed to make the hire. At this point, the transfer applicant is hired. NOTE: PLEASE LIST ANY SPECIFIC DATA ELEMENTS FOR CHANGE YOU THINK IMPORTANT TO MENTION HERE. AD. Transferring the applicant out of the old position will put the old position in the \"vacant\" status. This should be noted for backfill purposes. AE. The Human Resources staff enters EIS 301 series (Ref HELP), and changes the pay location site so that the absentee report will be correctly aligned. NOTE: NEED MORE SPECIFIC SCREEN INF OR MA TION AND POSSIBLY DATA ELEMENTS TO CHANGE. PLEASE PROVIDE. AF. The Human Resources staff enters PCS 000 Position Control System option, and the PCS 301 Position Inventory option. In the PCS 301 series, the staff does a print screen of PCS 301.11 and 301.13 (Ref 4F230, 5-1). The Human Resources staff enters PHS 000 Position History System option, and the PCS 820L Display Employee Position History option. In the PCS 820.01 and 820.11 screens (Ref 4F230, 6-1), the staff does a print screen on PCS 820.11. NOTE: CHECK ME CLOSELY HERE. AG. The Human Resources staff files the POSITION CHANGE FORM - TRANSFER, and the original of each of the four print screens above in the personnel file of the individual. AH. The Human Resources staff sends a copy of each of the four print screens above to the payroll office for necessary action. Al. In the case of a transfer, the hiring sub-process is now completed. No further action is required. If a transfer was not to be hired, go to step AJ. AJ. If a general applicant is to be hired rather than a transfer, these branch procedures should be followed. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 550 series screens (Ref 4F330, 5-7), keys vacancy number, and pulls the select. AK. The Candidate Selection Report is generated by pulling from this file of general applicants. General applicants will be considered after transfer candidates. AL. The hiring manager reviews the applicant listing, checks all of the appropriate records, and decides which applicants will be interviewed. AM. The hiring manager conducts interviews with the top applicants. AN. The hiring manager selects one of the applicants for hiring. AO. The hiring manager completes the POSITION CHANGE FORM - NEW EMPLOYEE RECOMMENDATION (Appendix C). The hiring manager should pull the correct vacancy number from the NEW POSITION REQUEST FORM which was returned earlier in the process, and use that vacancy number on the POSITION CHANGE FORM - NEW EMPLOYEE RECOMMENDATION. This will link the two requests and ensure quicker approval. AP. The hiring manager sends the completed POSITION CHANGE FORM - NEW EMPLOYEE RECOMMENDATION FORM to the responsible Associate Superintendent for approval. The Associate Superintendent forwards the signed form to the Director of Human Resources for approval and action. AQ. NOTE: SAME AS STEP AB. ACCORDING TO OUR CHARTS, WE SHOULD GO INTO THE ATS 550 SERIES AND CREATE A CANDIDATE FILE. I AM NOT SURE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THIS STEP. I WILL NEED SOME HELP HERE. PLEASE GIVE SOME WORDS. AR. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking option, ATS 400 Vacancy Information option, and ATS 230 Applicant Hiring or Change of Status option. Once in the A TS 230 series screens (Ref 4F330, 5-27), the specific information on the new employee is entered to make the hire. At this point, the new employee is hired. NOTE: PLEASE LIST ANY SPECIFIC DATA ELEMENTS FOR CHANGE YOU THINK IMPORTANT TO MENTION HERE. AS. The Human Resources staff telephones the selected applicant, and requests they come into the office to complete the hiring process. AT. The new employee completes all necessary insurance forms and other required personnel forms. AU. The Human Resources staff enters PCS 301 (Position Inventory) and does a print screen on PCS 301.11 and PCS 301.13 (Ref 4F230, 5-1). NOTE: IS THERE ANY OTHER PRINT SCREEN PRODUCED AT THIS POINT? AV. The Human Resources staff files the POSITION CHANGE FORM - NEW EMPLOYEE RECOMMENDATION, and the original of each of the print screens above in the personnel file of the individual. AH. The Human Resources staff sends a copy of each of the print screens above, insurance forms, and any other required forms to the payroll office for necessary action. AI. In the case of a new employee being hired, the hiring sub-process is now completed. No further action is required. ' SECTION 3 LRSD02 NEW HIRE - TRANSFER CANDIDATE LRS002 NI HI RI - TRANSrIR CAHD I DATI A TRF CANDIDATE COMPLETES TRr REQUEST FORM ....__ ~ B TRF CANDIDATE SENDS TRr REQUEST FORM TO ASSO SUPER ASSO SUPER SENDS TRr REQUEST FORM TO HR l\u0026gt;IRICTOR C 1 ATS 3(11 ENTER REQUISITION DATA i I) , ATS 33(1 OOER DATA E F I ATS 32(1 \\ RFEIQLEU ISTITRIrO N / ENTER DATA FORM IN PERSottm. FILE I I G H l l~r~IN) '\\/ SECTION 3 LRSD02 NEW IDRE -TRANSFER CANDIDATE A. The transfer candidate completes the TRANSFER REQUEST FORM (Appendix E). B. The transfer candidate sends the TRANSFER REQUEST FORM to the Associate Superintendent for approval. Upon approval, the Associate Superintendent sends the form to Director of Human Resources. C. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking option, the ATS 300 Applicant Information option, and the ATS 301 Applicant Basic Information option. In the ATS 301 series screens (Ref 4F330, 4-4), the individual's information is verified and is \"T\"ed for transfer. If the requester is not already in the Applicant Tracking System, they will have to entered. D. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking option, the ATS 300 Applicant Information option, and the ATS 330 Applicant All Information Driver option. In the ATS 330.01 screen (Ref 4F330, 4-2), data is entered on about the individual and the transfer requester is set up as an applicant. The staff can now begin to pull over information on the transfer applicant. NOTE: DO WE NEED TO PUT MORE INFORMATION AT THIS POINT? E. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the A TS 300 Applicant Information option, and the ATS 320 Application Type and Positions option. The staff enters the necessary data on the ATS 320.01, 320.11, and the 320.12 screens (Ref 4F330, 4-9). This enters the application type and positions for which the transfer applicant is applying. F. The Human Resources staff files the TRANSFER REQUEST FORM in the employee's personnel file. G. At this point, the transfer applicant is set up in the application file and can be selected as a candidate for vacancies. Candidate listings will be pulled from this file. See step V in LRSD0l. H. The transfer candidate sub-process is now completed. SECTION 4 LRSD03 NEW HIRE - GENERAL APPLICANT B LRS003 NEW HIRE - GINIJIAL APPLICANT 111ST HAUE COPY or SSN CAR]) CREATE FILE ON GENERAL APPLICANT A APPLICANT COMPLETES APPLlCATlON FORM C OTHER REQU[RII) i----------\u0026gt;\"-------1 ])OCIJMENTATlON MA'i BE INCREMENTAL I) E r C MATERIAL COLLECTD BV HR ATS 3'11 ENTER APPLICATlON ATS 3'11.12 ENTER CHOICE l\u0026gt;ATA, MA'i BE MILi) CAR]) FILE APP ANI\u0026gt; SUPPORT PAPERS IN PERSottm. FILE H J )( ATS 320 COMPLETE NECESSARY l'IATA SECTION 4 LRSD03 NEW lllRE - GENERAL APPLICANT A. The general applicant (one who is not a current employee of the district) completes the appropriate application form, and submits the form to Human Resources. NOTE: DO WE WANT TO INCLUDE THE APPLICATION FORMS AND TALK ABOUT THEM? B. The general applicant must have at least a copy of the Social Security Card as part of the application package before it will be accepted by Human Resources. This copy will be attached to the application. C. The general applicant will be required to submit other documentation to verify citizenship, eligibility, and credentials. The latter two will vary depending on the job requirements. These materials may be submitted with the application or after the application is filed. NOTE: DO WE WANT TO INCLUDE MORE INFORMATION AT THIS POINT? D. The Human Resources staff will collect all general applicant information and documentation, and create a file on the general applicant. Data on the general applicant can be entered into the system on an incremental basis as it is received by Human Resources, or on a batch basis if everything is submitted at once. Standard practice will be to enter data incrementally as received. E. The Human Resources staff enters the ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the ATS 300 Applicant Information option, and the A TS 301 series screens. In the ATS 301.01 and the ATS 301.11 (Ref 4F330, 4-4), the staff enters the necessary basic information needed for the general applicant. F. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking option, the ATS 300 Applicant Information option, and the ATS 330 Applicant All Information Driver option. In the ATS 330.01 screen (Ref 4F330, 4-2), data is entered about the general applicant. NOTE: DO WE NEED TO PUT MORE INF OR MA TION AT THIS POINT? G. NOTE: I AM CONFUSED AT THIS STEP. CHART SAYS ATS 301.12 FOR \"CHOICE\". I THOUGHT THIS WAS ATS 320.12. WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE IN 301.12? H. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the ATS 300 Applicant Information option, and the ATS 320 Application Type and Positions option. The staff enters the necessary data on the A TS 320.01, 320.11 (Ref 4F330,4-9), and the 320.12 screens. This enters the application type and positions for which the applicant is applying. I. The Human Resources staff files the application and all supporting documents in the general applicant's personnel file. J. At this point, the general applicant is set up in the application file and can be selected as a candidate for vacancies. Candidate listings will be pulled from this file after transfer applicants have been considered. See step AK in LRSDOI. K. The general applicant sub-process is now completed. SECTION 5 LRSD04 999 EXCEPTION HANDLING LRSD04 999 EXCEPTION HANDLING A B C D I r EMPLOYEE COMPLETES EXTINDD LIAUI REQUEST. SEND TO ASSO SUPER YES HR DIR RICIIUES EXTINDD LIAUI REQUEST HR CHICJ\u0026lt;S LIAUI AUA I LABI LITY HR DIR COLLECTS NECESSARY SUPPORT PAPERS NO rILI EXTINDD LIAUI REQUEST ---~,AND SUPPORT IN PERSONNEL rILI FILE MOOD Lr.AUE REQUEST C H J AND SUPPORT IN , __ ____. PERSONNEL FILE )( L OFFLINE CHECJ\u0026lt; or LEAUE AUAILABILITV HR NOTIFIES DIPLOVEE or LEAUE AUAILABLE HR DIR WRITES MDIO TO BUS orr WITH DETAILS ATS 330 .01 CHANCE NECESSAJIV DATA Q u FILE IN PERS\u0026lt;Hm. FILE FILE IN PERSONNEL FILE M N 0 p ATS'230,11 CHANCE DATA, UACANCY IIIMBER IN])EX ATS 233.11 OLD POSITION MOIJD TO \"OPEN\" STATUS PCS 820L.11 1~--~ PRINT SCREEN T u PCS 301H,11 PCS 301H.13 PRINT SCREEN PCS 301H .13 PRINT SCREEN, NI \"OPEN\" POSITION R s w COPY TO PAYROLL ABSENTEE ROUTINE .-------... 1----41 sus-r.\u0026amp;: '-----~ \"------\" SECTION 5 LRSD04 999 EXCEPTION HANDLING 999 exceptions include employees on extended leave. They are still set up on the payroll and are active employees, but will not be working in their jobs for some period of time. This category includes, but is not limited to, the following: - Medical leave, with or without pay - Suspension, with or without pay - Military leave due to mobilization, not annual training - CTA leave - Educational leave - Sabbatical leave A. The employee completes an EXTENDED LEA VE REQUEST FORM (Appendix F), and sends the form and supporting documentation to the responsible Associate Superintendent for approval. B. The responsible Associate Superintendent approves or rejects the request. If rejected, the EXTENDED LEA VE REQUEST FORM with written explanation is returned to the employee. A copy of the EXTENDED LEA VE REQUEST FORM with written explanation is filed in the employee's personnel file. If approved, the EXTENDED LEA VE REQUEST FORM is signed and dated, and forwarded to the Director of Human Resources. C. The Director of Human Resources receives the EXTENDED LEAVE REQUEST FORM and reviews it for appropriateness. D. The Human Resources staff enters an off-line leave application to check and verify the available leave credited to the employee. E. The Director of Human Resources collects all necessary supporting documentation which may be required in support of the request. These requirements will vary with the type of leave requested. F. The Director of Human Resources decides on approval of the leave. If rejected, the EXTENDED LEA VE REQUEST FORM with written explanation is returned to the employee. A copy of the EXTENDED LEAVE REQUEST FORM with written explanation is filed in the employee's personnel file . If approved , the EXTENDED LEAVE REQUEST FORM is signed and dated, and further processing takes place. G. The Human Resources staff enters an off-line leave application to check and verify the available leave credited to the employee. NOTE: THIS SEEMS REDUNDANT. WE CHECKED IT IN STEP D. CAN WE DELETE THIS STEP? H. The Human Resources staff notifies the employee of the leave and options available. I. The employee decides how to utilize the leave available, and provides the Human Resources staff this information for execution. J. The Director of Human Resources writes a memo to the Business Office with all of the details of the extended leave. The EXTENDED LEAVE REQUEST FORM, the supporting documentation, and a copy of the memo is filed in the employee's personnel file. K. The Human Resources staff enter PCS 000 Position Control System option, and the PCS 301 Position Inventory option. In the PCS 301H.01, the PCS 301H.11, and the PCS 301.11 screens (Ref 4F230, 5-2), the staff sets up a new position of the same type in location 999. While on extended leave, the employee will reside in this position. L. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking system option, the A TS 300 Applicant Information option, and the ATS 330 Applicant All Information Driver option. In the A TS 330.01 screen (Ref 4F330, 4-2), the staff changes the necessary data. NOTE: WHAT IS THE NECESSARY DATA? M. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the ATS 400 Vacancy Information option, and the ATS 230 Applicant Hiring or Change of Status option. In the A TS 230.01 and 230.11 (Ref 4F330, 5-27), the staff changes necessary data and enters the vacancy number of the new position in 999 location. This action moves the employee into the new position. NOTE: WHAT OTHER DATA ELEMENTS NEED TO BE MENTIONED? N. The Human Resources staff continues in the same screen series to ATS 230.12. At this screen, the staff enters the SSN of the Director of Human Resources in the data element block \"HIRED BY SSN\". The staff will also enter the appropriate dates using the date definition rules. NOTE: WE NEED SOME RULES/DEFINITIONS ON THESE DATES SO THAT PAYROLL AND HR ARE ON THE SAME SHEET. PLEASE HELP ME WITH WORDS. O. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the ATS 400 Vacancy Information option, and the ATS 233H Employee Terminations option. In the ATS 233H.0l and 233.11 screens (Ref 4F330, 5-51), the staff enters the data to move the \"old\" position into the \"open\" status. The employee is now terminated from the old position, and the position is in the \"open\" hold. P. The Human Resources staff enters PHS 000 Position History System option, and the PCS 820L Display Employee Position History option. In the PCS 820.01 and 820.11 screens (Ref 4F230, 6-1), the staff does a print screen on PCS 820.11. Q. The Human Resources staff files the original print screen in the employee's personnel file. R. The Human Resources staff sends a copy of the print screen to Payroll for further action. S. Payroll staff will use the print screen information to make the necessary changes to correct absentee reporting. T. The Human Resources staff enters PCS 000 Position Control System option, and the PCS 301 Position Inventory option. In the PCS 301 series (Ref 4F230, 5-2), the staff does a print screen of PCS 301.11 and 301.13. The Human Resources staff files the original print screens in the employee's personnel file. U. The Human Resources staff enters PCS 000 Position Control System option, and the PCS 301 Position Inventory option. In the PCS 301 series (Ref 4F230, 5-2), the staff does a print screen of PCS 301.11 and 301.13. This series of print screens are on the new \"open\" position. This copy will allow an audit trail of the original location from which the 999 exception came. V. The Human Resources staff files the original print screen in the employee's personnel file. W. The 999 Exception Handling sub-process is now completed. SECTION 6 LRSD05 999 EXCEPTION HANDLING - REMOVAL LRSl\u0026gt;05 999 EXCEPTION HAN])LING - RDIOIJAL A B C D E r HR DIR WRITES AUTHORIZATION TO BRING BACK DIPLOYEI PULL SHEET ON OLD \"OPEN\" POS lTl ON FROM PERSONNEL FILE PCS 301,01 CHANGE POS lTl ON FROM \"OPEN\" TO \"UACAHT\" ATS 230.11 UERU'Y DATA ATS 230.12 UERIF'i ACTION CODIS AN]) DATIS COPY TO PERSONNEL FILI FILE IN PERSONNEL FILI C H J ATS 233.11 CHANCE uACANCY TO NO PCS 8201,11 ,.,__ __, PRINT SCREEN )( L PCS 301H IN 999 llELITE OPEN/UACANT POSITION COPY TO PAVROLL COPY Of BOTH SCREENS TO PAVROLL ...__ \" l N 0 PUT BACJ\u0026lt; ON PAVROLL PUT BACJ\u0026lt; ON ABSOOEI LOC SECTION 6 LRSD0S 999 EXCEPTION HANDLING - REMOVAL A. The Director of Human Resources writes an authorization to bring back an employee from the 999 EXCEPTION status. There is no form\na memo will be utilized. B. The Human Resources staff pull the print screen of PCS 301.11 and 301.13 created in step V. of Section 5 (LRSD04 999 EXCEPTION HANDLING). The print screen will be in the employee's personnel file. C. The Human Resources staff enters PCS 000 Position Control System option, and PCS 301 Position Inventory option. In screens PCS 301.01 and 301.11 (Ref 4F230, 5-2), the staff changes the old position, matching the print screen from step B, from \"open\" status to \"vacant\" status. D. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the ATS 300 Applicant Information option, and the ATS 301 Application Basic Information option. In the A TS 301.01 screen (Ref 4F330,4-4), the staff checks the status of the employee and makes it \"active\". E. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the A TS 400 Vacancy Information option, and the A TS 230 Applicant Hiring or Change of Status option. In screens A TS 230.01 and 230.11 (Ref 4F330, 5-27), the staff verifies the data on the employee to ensure transfer to the correct position. F. The Human Resources staff continues in the ATS 230 series screens to ATS 230.12. In this screen, the staff verifies the action codes and the dates. G. The Human Resources staff enters A TS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the A TS 400 Vacancy Information option, and the A TS 233H Employee Terminations option. In the ATS 233H.01 screen (Ref 4F330, 5-51), the staff terminates the employee from the 999 position location. H. The Human Resources staff continues in the ATS 233 series screens to ATS 233.11. In this screen, the staff changes the data element \"create vacancy'' to \"N\", preventing a vacancy in the old position. I. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the ATS 300 Applicant Information option, and the ATS 301 Application Basic Information option. In the ATS 301.01 screen (Ref 4F330, 4-4), the staff checks the status of the employee and makes it \"inactive\". J. The Human Resources staff enters PHS 000 Position History System option, and - the PCS 820L Display Employee Position History option. In the PCS 820.01 and 820.11 screens (Ref 4F230, 6-1), the staff does a print screen on PCS 820.11. The original of the print screen is filed in the employee's personnel file. A copy of the print screen is sent to Payroll for further action. K. The Human Resources staff enters PCS 000 Position Control System option, and the PCS 301 Position Inventory option. In the PCS 301H.11 screen (Ref 4F230, 5-2), the staff goes into the old 999 position and deletes it from the inventory. L. The Human Resources staff enters PCS 000 Position Control System option, and the PCS 301 Position Inventory option. In the PCS 301 series (Ref 4F230, 5-2)for the new position to which the employee has been moved, the staff does a print screen of PCS 301.11 and 30l.13. The original print screens are filed in the employee's personnel file, and copies of both print screens are sent to Payroll for further action. M. N. 0. Payroll staff places the employee back on the payroll in the new position. Payroll staff places the employee back on the proper absentee log. The 999 Exception Handling - Removal sub-process is now completed. L ' SECTION 7 LRSD06 SATELLITE HIRING - LRSl\u0026gt;06 SATELLITE HIRING A B C I) I r I MANAGER MAXIS J\u0026gt;ICISION TO HIRI I HIRING PACKAGE IS J)I1JILOPD AT SATELLITE ..._ - A LL l\u0026gt;OCU MOOS SINT TO HR ATS 301, 11 COMPLITI ON THI Nill HIRI 1 ATS 320.11/12 COMPLITI ON THE NDI HIRI ATS 311,11 COl1PLITI DATA I FlLE lN PERSottW. FILE C H J )( ATS 230, 11 ATS 230.12 ATS 230.13 COMPLETE :DATA ATS 233,01 PASS THRU SCREDI EIS 301 CHANCE :DATA PCS 301.11 PCS 301.13 PRINT SCREDI COPY or BOTH SCRDM TO PAYROLL SECTION 7 LRSD06 SATELLITE IDRING This sub-process applies to satellite hiring areas such as\nFood Services, HIPPY program, custodians, bus drivers, etc. A. The hiring manager at the satellite site makes the hiring decision. B. The hiring manager prepares the hiring package on the individual. The hiring manager must ensure all necessary documents are in the package, and that the documents are properly and clearly completed. NOTE: WE NEED STANDARDS FOR PACKAGE DOCUMENTS. WE NOTED 1-9 INFORMATION, INSURANCE AND BENEFITS FORMS, APPLICATION. WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO GO IN HERE. C. The hiring manage sends all documents to the Director of Human Resources for processing. D. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the ATS 300 Applicant Information option, and the ATS 301 Application Basic Information option. In ATS 301.01 and 301.11 (Ref 4F330, 44), the staff enters all of the necessary information on the new hire. E. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the ATS 300 Applicant Information option, and the A TS 320 Application Type and Positions option. The staff enters the necessary data on the ATS 320.01, 320.11, and the 320.12 screens (Ref 4F330, 4-9). This enters the application type and position for which the new hire is being employed. F. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the ATS 300 Applicant Information option, and the ATS 311 Applicant Documents Received option. The staff completes all of the necessary information on the new hire in ATS 311.01 and 311.11 (Ref 4F330, 4-33). G. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the ATS 400 Vacancy Information option, and the ATS 230 Applicant Hiring or Change of Status option. In screens ATS 230.01, 230.11, and 230.12 (Ref 4F330, 5-27), the staff completes the necessary data on the new hire. ATS 230.13 is a pass-thru screen. The new hire has now actually been hired into the system. H. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the A TS 400 Vacancy Information option, and the A TS 233H Employee Terminations option. The ATS 233H.0l (Ref 4F330, 5-51) is a pass-thru screen. The purpose of going through this screen is to add the base to the pay. NOTE: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS ONE. WE SHOULD PROBABLY ADD SOME MORE EXPLANATION. I. The Human Resources staff enters EIS 301 (Ref HELP). The staff changes necessary data on the new hire. NOTE: I HA VE NO INFORMATION ON EIS 301 SO I CAN'T DO MUCH WITH THIS ONE. PLEASE GIVE ME SOME WORDS. J. The Human Resources staff enters PCS 000 Position Control System option, and the PCS 301 Position Inventory option. In the PCS 301 series, the staff does a print screen of PCS 301.11 and 301.13 (Ref 4F230, 5-2). The staff files the original of both print screens in the new employee's personnel file. The staff sends a copy of both print screens to Payroll for further actions. K. The Satellite Hiring sub-process is new completed. SECTION 8 LRSD07 TERMINATION r J.RSJ)07 TERMINATION A B C D YES H HR DIR COMPLETES TERMINATION DOCIIMffiT PCS 381.11 HR UERIFIES CORRECT PERSON ATS 233 ,01 TERMINATE POSITION YES E NO PCS 301 DELETE UACIIHCY C HR A])IJERTISES POSITION J SOO COPY TO PAYROLL ATS 353 J\u0026gt;ILl'TI TIJIMINATION FROM FILI FILI IN PIRSottm. FILI SECTION 8 LRSD07 TERMINATION A. The Director of Human Resources writes a termination document on the employee. Since no form currently exists for this purpose, a memo will be used. B. The Human Resources staff enters PCS 000 Position Control System option, and the PCS 301 Position Inventory option. In the PCS 301.11 screen (Ref 4F230, 5-2), the staff verifies the correct employee. NOTE: CHECK THIS ONE CLOSELY. ARE WE CHECKING THE POSITION OR THE PERSON? C. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the A TS 400 Vacancy Information option, and the A TS 233H Employee Terminations option. In the ATS 233.01 screen (Ref 4F330, 5-51), the staff terminates the position on the employee's listing. D. Continuing to ATS 233.11, the Human Resources staff enters the necessary data to terminate the employee from the position. A decision is necessary at this point concerning creating a vacancy to backfill the employee. An entry must be made on this screen. E. If no vacancy is to be created, the Human Resources staff enters PCS 000 Position Control System option, and the PCS 301 Position Inventory option. In the PCS 301.11 screen (Ref 4F230, 5-2), the staff deletes the \"vacancy\". F. If a vacancy is to be created, the Human Resources staff enters PCS 000 Position Control System option, and the PCS 301 Position Inventory option. The staff prints the PCS 301.11 screen (Ref 4F230, 5-2) with the new vacancy number on it. This will be used for advertising the new vacancy. G. The Human Resources staff advertises the position. All general applicants will be entered into the system following the procedures in LRSD 03 New Hire - General Applicant. H. The Human Resources staff enters PHS 000 Position History System option, and the PCS 820L Display Employee Position History option. In the PCS 820.01 and 820.11 screens (Ref 4F230, 6-1), the staff does a print screen on PCS 820.11. The original of the print screen is filed in the employee's personnel file. A copy of the print screen is sent to Payroll for further action. Payroll staff will remove the former employee from the payroll using EMS programs. I. The Human Resources staff enters ATS 000 Applicant Tracking System option, the A TS 400 Vacancy Information option, and the A TS 353 Remove Pending Terminations option. In the ATS 353L.01 screen (Ref 4F330, 5-56), the staff deletes the termination from the file. This will remove the pending termination records entered using A TS 233H in step C/ D above. J. The Termination sub-process is new completed. SECTION 9 LRSDOS CHANGE IN SALARY CLASS LRS:OOS CHANGE IN SALARY CLASS A HR :OIR RECEIVES ACTION NOTICE ,.____ - B HR :OIR WRITE MEMO TO PAYROLL TO EXECUTE CHANGE ---- - C PAY 345 PAYROLL ENTERS CHANCE INFORMATION :0 PAYROLL RETURNS MEMO TO HR NOTING COMPLETION ...__ - r E 1 I \\ FILE \"EMO IN PCS 3(ill,SER PERSONNEL c CHANGE FILE ALL SCREDIS, I G EB-~J '----' - SECTION 9 LRSD08 CHANGE IN SALARY CLASS A. The Director of Human Resources receives an action notice from an Associate Superintendent to change the salary classification of a specific employee. There is currently no form to initiate this action, so the notice will likely be a memo. B. The Director of Human Resources will write a memo to Payroll describing the necessary change, and requesting that the change be executed. C. Payroll staff enters PAY 345 series (Ref HELP), and enters the change information. D. Payroll staff annotates the memo from the Director of Human Resources as to date and successful completion of the requested change, and returns the annotated memo to the Director of Human Resources. E. The Human Resources staff enters PCS 000 Position Control System option, and the PCS 301 Position Inventory option. The staff enters \"C\" changes on all screens in the PCS 301 series (Ref 4F230, 5-2). NOTE: WHAT IS THIS ACTION DOING FOR US? WE NEED A WHY IN HERE. PLEASE HELP ME WITH SOME WORDS. F. The Human Resources staff files the annotated memo in the employee's personnel file. G. The Change In Salary Class sub-process is now completed. -- SECTION 10 LRSD09 CHANGE OF CONTRACT LENGTH LRSD09 OIANCI or CONTRACT LmCTH D FILI ACTION REQUEST IN PERSONNEL FILI A B C I r C HR DIR RECIIUES ACTION REQUEST TRANSFER ROUTINE DELETE OLD RECORD SECTION 10 LRSD09 CHANGE IN CONTRACT LENGTH NOTE: IT WAS LATE IN THE DAY, AND WE DID NOT PROVIDE VERY MUCH INFORMATION ON THESE STEPS. PLEASE REVIEW THEM CLOSELY, AND HELP WITH SOME WORDS. A. The Director of Human Resources receives a request to change a contract length. The request must be in writing\nno form is currently used for this sub-process. This request must be endorsed and approved by the responsible Associate Superintendent. B. The Human Resources staff enters the CIMS system and performs the transfer routine\nLRSD02 NEW HIRE - TRANSFER CANDIDA TE, steps C, D, and E. NOTE: I AM NOT SURE WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE. PLEASE HELP ME OUT. C. The Human Resources staff enters the systme and changes the contract date of the employee. NOTE: NO SCREENS WERE GIVEN HERE. PLEASE PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION. D. The Human Resources staff files the action request in the employee's personnel record. E. The Human Resources staff enters the system and deletes the old record. NOTE: NEED SOME MORE INFORMATION HERE ... SCREENS AND DAT A ELEMENTS. F. The Human Resources staff enters the system and changes the calendar code. NOTE: NEED SOME MORE INFORMATION HERE ... SCREENS AND DAT A ELEMENTS. IS THIS PCS 120 SERIES FOR CALENDAR CODE? G. The Change of Contract Length sub-process is now completed. SECTION 11 LRSD10 DELETE POSITION E F H J K NO PCS 301 LOOIQJP tllKBER AH \"PREii HELD BV\" VES PCS 301 FIN LINE AH :DELllE 1 LINE IIDI VOii HAUE A PROBLEM L l \\ i~~s}tf:'/ IN DELETED POSITION FILI SECTION 11 LRSDlO DELETE POSITION A. . A manager makes an initial decision that a specific position should be deleted from the position inventory. B. The manager completes the POSITION CONTROL FORM - DELETE POSITION (Appendix D). All information above the first line of stars must be completed correctly. The form is then sent to the responsible Associate Superintendent for approval, and then on to the Director of Human Resources. C. The Human Resources staff must determine if the position is in \"open\" status. If it is, then they proceed to step H for processing. If it is not, they proceed to step D for further determination. D. The Human Resources staff must determine if the position is in \"vacant\" status. If it is, then they proceed to step H for processing. If it is not, they proceed to step E for further determination. E. The Human Resources staff must determine if the position is \"filled\". If it is, then they must talk to the Director of Human Resources to see if the manager really wants to delete a position with an employee currently in it. This may require going back to the manager for more information. If it is not, they proceed to step F for further determination. F. The Human Resources staff must determine if the position is a 999 Exception which is being backfilled. If the answer is yes, then there is a problem with deleting a position for which an employee is targeted sometime in the future. The Director of Human Resources must discuss the matter with the manager to make sure this is a valid move. If the answer is no, they proceed to step H for processing. H. The Human Resources staff enters the PCS 000 Position Control System option, and the PCS 301 Position Inventory option. From the PCS 301H .11 and the 301.11 screens (Ref 4F230, 5-2), they lookup the position number and the \"Person Replaced SSN\" data element. I. The Human Resources staff continues in the PCS 301 H .11 screen to see if there are more than one of these positions. If the answer is no, they proceed to step K to delete the position. If the answer is yes, they proceed to step J to identify the position to delete. J. The Human Resources staff continues in the PCS 3 lOH .11 screen, identifies the position, and flags one of them for deletion. K. The Human Resouces staff enters PCS 000 Position Control System option, the PCS 100 Management option, and the PCS 120 Position Codes option. In the PCS 120 series screens (Ref 4F230, 4-18), the staff flags the position \"D\" for deletion. L. The Human Resources staff files the POSITION CHANGE FORM - DELETE POSITION in the DELETED POSITION file for audit and history purposes. M. The Delete Position sub-process is now completed. APPENDICES APPENDIX A NEW POSITION REQUEST FORM THIS FORM IS USED TO REQUEST SET-UP OF A NEW POSITION AND VACANCY IN THE POSITION CONTROL PROCESS. PLEASE BE ACCURATE. Requesting manager: ___________ Date: ____ _ Requesting manager SSN: School/Dept: ____ _ Job Code State Dept Job Title Level Funding FTE Salary Schedule --- Range___ Step _ _ Contracted days _ _ Days/ week __ _ Hours/day __ _ Projected budget: FU - SF - IO - FUNC - OPUN - OBJT - PCT Justification: ------------------------ Requesting manager signature: ________________ _ ************************************************************* Associate Superintendent Responsible: _____________ _ Approved:_____ Disapproved: ____ _ Signature:______________ Date: ______ _ ************************************************************* Manager/ Resources and School Support Approved:_____ Disapproved:. _____ _ Signature:______________ Date:. _______ _ ************************************************************* Director of Human Resources Approved:_____ Disapproved: ____ _ Signature:______________ Date:. _______ _ ************************************************************* Human Resources Set-up date:_____ Vacancy number assigned: _______ _ Set-up by: ____________ _ APPENDIX B POSITION CHANGE FORM - TRANSFER THIS FORM IS USED TO REQUEST AN EMPLOYEE BE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE POSITION TO ANOTHER POSITION. PLEASE BE ACCURATE. Requesting manager: ___________ Date: ____ _ Requesting manager SSN: School/Dept: ___ _ Employee Name: ____________ _ SSN: ------ Current Site: ---------- Assignment: -------- Absentee Location: -------- Pay Location: -------- ] ob Code State Dept Job Title Level Funding FTE Effective Date of Transfer:______ Vacancy Number: ____ _ Position Previously Held By:________ Site: ____ _ New Position Site: Assignment: _____ _ Job Code State Dept Job Title Level Funding FTE New Salary Classification: ------------------- Requesting manager signature: _______________ _ ************************************************************** Associate Superintendent Responsible: ___________ _ Approved:_____ Disapproved: ____ _ Signature:_____________ Date: ______ _ ************************************************************* Director of Human Resources Approved:_____ Disapproved: ____ _ Signature: ___________ _ Date: -------- ************************************************************* Human Resources Date entered: ___ _ Entered by: ____________ _ APPENDIX C POSITION CHANGE FORM - NEW EMPLOYEE RECOMMENDATION THIS FORM IS USED TO REQUEST A NEW EMPLOYEE BE PLACED IN A POSITION AND ON THE PAYROLL. PLEASE BE ACCURATE. Requesting manager:____________ Date: ____ _ Requesting manager SSN: School/Dept: ____ _ Employee Name: ___________________ _ Address: City: __-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ --S-ta-te:- --------- --- ZIP: ----- SSN: ------- Birth Date:- ----- Sex: Race:- -- Effective Date of Hire: ------------ Position site:___________ Assignment: _______ _ Position Previously Held By:________ Site: ______ _ Vacancy Number: ________ _ Job Code State Dept Job Title Level Funding FTE Projected budget: FU - SF - IO - FUNC - OPUN - OBJT - PCT Requesting manager signature: _______________ _ ************************************************************** Associate Superintendent Responsible: ____________ _ Approved:_____ Disapproved: ____ _ Signature: ___________ _ Date: -------- ************************************************************* Director of Human Resources Approved:_____ Disapproved: ____ _ Signature: ___________ _ Date: -------- ************************************************************* Human Resources Date entered: ___ _ Entered by: ____________ _ APPENDIX D POSITION CHANGE FORM - DELETE POSITION THIS FORM IS USED TO DELETE A POSITION FROM THE POSITION CONTROL INVENTORY. PLEASE BE ACCURATE. Requesting manager: ____________ Date: ____ _ Requesting manager SSN: School/ Dept: ____ _ Position: ___________ _ Effective Date: -------- Position Previously Held By: _________ _ SSN: ------- Location: __________ _ Job Code State Dept Job Title Level Funding FTE Requesting manager signature: ________________ _ ************************************************************** Associate Superintendent Responsible: ____________ _ Approved:._____ Disapproved: ____ _ Signature: ____________ _ Date: -------- ************************************************************* Director of Human Resources Approved: Disapproved: ____ _ Signature:. ____________ _ Date: -------- ************************************************************* Human Resources Date entered: ___ _ Entered by: ____________ _ APPENDIX E TRANSFER REQUEST FORM THIS FORM IS USED FOR AN EMPLOYEE TO REQUEST A TRANSFER WITHIN THE DISTRICT. Employee Name: ____________ _ Date: ____ _ Employee SSN: ______ _ School/ Dept: ---------- Current Site: ---------- Assignment: _______ _ Transfer requested to: I ___________________ _ 2 -------------------- 3 -------------------- Requested date for transfer: ------------------- Reason for Request: ---------------------- Requesting employee signature: ________________ _ ************************************************************** Associate Superintendent Responsible: _____________ _ Approved:_____ Disapproved: ____ _ Signature: ____________ _ Date: -------- ************************************************************* Director of Human Resources Approved:_____ Disapproved: _____ _ Signature: _____________ _ Date: -------- ************************************************************* Human Resources Date entered: ___ _ Entered by: ____________ _ APPENDIX F EXTENDED LEA VE REQUEST FORM THIS FORM IS USED FOR AN EMPLOYEE TO REQUEST ANY TYPE OF EXTENDED LEA VE. Employee Name: ___________ _ Date: ____ _ Employee SSN:_______ School/Dept: _______ _ Current Site:__________ Assignment: ________ _ Type of leave requested: -------------------- Requested start date of leave: ________________ _ Requested end date of leave: ________________ _ Reason for request: ____________________ _ Requesting employee signature: _________________ _ ************************************************************** Associate Superintendent Responsible: ___________ _ Approved:_____ Disapproved: ____ _ Signature: ____________ _ Date: -------- ************************************************************* Director of Human Resources Approved:_____ Disapproved: ____ _ Signature:______________ Date: ______ _ ************************************************************* Human Resources Date entered: ___ _ Entered by: ____________ _\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_1569","title":"Court filings concerning Interdistrict Magnet construction and planning, district planning and finance","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","King Interdistrict Magnet Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School buildings","School buses","School management and organization","School integration","School facilities","School improvement programs","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Interdistrict Magnet construction and planning, district planning and finance"],"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/1569"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["225 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_573","title":"Program identification and coding","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":["1993-05/1993-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Program identification and coding"],"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/573"],"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\nSTPR0G09 Date: May 14, 1993 To: Janet Bernard Brady Gadberry Sterling Ingram Gary Jones Estelle Matthls Marie Parker Jeanette Wagner Fro: Bill Mooney SubJ: Program Identification As we have discussed in Cabinet meetings, we must identify all of the programs in the district before we can move into comprehensive planning and budgeting. Additionally, those programs must be identified soon enough to change the coding in the accounting system so that we may begin collecting expenditures on July 1 against those programs. Once identified, we will have a list of programs around which we can begin to build a planning structure, and we will begin accumulating program costs which will help us in decision-making and reporting. So that we dont have to start form ground zero, I have prepared an initial program listing for your review and correction. This listing is a composite of an old list prepared some months ago and a more recent list prepared by Sterling Ingram. This listing represents ONLY programs which can be found in the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Plan. We certainly want to identify those programs, but we also need to identify ALL programs conducted by the District. You will really have to help me out here. We want to come out of this with a listing of ALL programs operated by the District. We will use this listing for the following purposes: a) Starting point for our comprehensive planning, b) The link to evaluation criteria and progress reporting, c) Unit upon which we collect expenditures for FY93-94. For our purposes, a program can be defined as an established plan of operation, composed of a group or series of related strategies which are carried out to serve a specific area of identified need. It is a major undertaking by the district to fulfill statutory, executive, and/or legal requirements. Program's are the district's methods of implementing goals and objectives, and will be the basis for work progress monitoring and fiscal reporting. A word about the listing. The \"source\" column is a code I used to keep myself straight. The first character\nS = from Sterling's list, 0 = from theolder list, B = from both lists, and P = pulled directly from the Plan. The second character\nP = LRSD Desegregation Plan, I = Interdistrict Plan. The numerics are the page numbers of the respective plan. Please mark-up any additions/corrections to any of the information, and return to me by first thing Monday, May 24, 1993. draft. If I can help in any way. Just give me a call. This will give us several days to clean up the 2020. Your help in accurately identifying our programs will be the foundation for a comprehensive planning, budgeting, and reporting process which will help us get ahead. Thank you for your help. Copy to: Mac Bernd Mark MUhoUenSTPROG08 REVISED 13 MAY 93 PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION WORKSHEET SOURCE PROGRAM NAME PRIMARY SECONDARY SPl Commitment to Desegregation Board Bernd SP2 Leadership Board Bernd BP 6 HIPPY Matthis Shead, Price BP 7 4-year old program Matthis Shead, Price PP9 City-wide Early Childhood Education Program Matthis OP12 Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Matthis SP20 Special Programs Matthis BP21 Summer Learning Program Bernard Stueart BP24 ASSET Program Bernard Stueart BP28 School Operations Bernard SP Alternative Learning Center Bernard BP28 Testing Assistance - Disadvantaged Parker Ingram OP28 Student Hearing Officer OP28 Office of Desegregation and Student Assignment Parker BP34 In-School Suspension Bernard Stueart BP35 Job Fair Bernard OP39 Extra-Curricular Participation BP44 Teacher Recruiter Bernard Robertson BP46 Staff Development Matthis ZimmermanBP48 Academic Support Program Matthls Adams, Wood Stovall SP58 Gifted Education Matthls Donaldson BP63 Multicultural Programs Matthls Various SP81 Focused Activities Bernard Robertson Stueart Gremillion OP82 Academic Incentive Grants Bernard BP86 Original Magnets Matthls Bernard PP86 Parkview Science Magnet Bernard BP9 3 McClellan Community School Bernard Daggett PP9 5 Recruitment of Private School Students Parker SP96 Federal Programs Matthls Adams SP98 Vocational Education Matthls Dlllahunty BP106 Library Services Matthls Lyons BP114 Special Education Learning Center at Washington Matthls Kohler PP124 Staff Development Matthls BP125 Prejudice Reduction Board Bernd BP129 Security required for safe Schools Jones Barnhouse BP129 Data Processing System for Student Information Jones Klngsella SP129 Facilities Jones Eaton PP130 Employment Practices PP130 Bidding Practices Jones PP131 Parent Involvement/Communlty Linkages Parker BP131 VIPS - Recruiting Parker Milam PP139 Student Assignments ParkerBP143 M-to-M Magnet Schools (Central,Dunbar, Washington, Henderson, McClellan) Parker Pederson W1edower SP145 New Futures Bernard Young PP146 Facilities Jones OP148 King Interdistrlet School OP148 Stephens Intedlstrlct School OP149 IS. Office of Incentive Schools Bernard BP152 IS. Writing To Read Bernard Hart BP153 IS. Science Labs Bernard Hart BP153 IS. Computer Labs Bernard Hart OP153 IS. Foreign Language BP153 IS. Computer Loan Program Bernard Hart OP153 IS. Other Incentive School Academic Programs - Kindergarten - Reading across the Curriculum - Oral Expression across Curriculum - Learning Styles Inventory - School Themes - Seml-departmental - Instructional Tech - Study/Test-taking - Parent Home Study - Computer Managed Inst - Student Educ Plans - Specialized Programs - Incentive Programs - Homework - Criterlon-Refer Test - Heterogeneous grouping - Effective Schools - Afrlcan/Amer History BP154 IS. Extended Day Bernard HartPP156 IS. Social Skills - Family Forklore - Positive Imaging - Interpersonal skills - Rites of Passage - Role Model Program - Mentoring Program PP157 IS. Special Actlvltes - Peer Tutoring Program - Academic Reinforcement Clubs - Special Interest Clubs BP158 IS. Field Trips Bernard Hart PP159 IS. Latin Enrichment Program OP171 IS. Homework Centers BP171 IS. Transportation (Add) Bernard Hart OP171 IS. Homework Hotline OP171 IS. Mentors/Tutors BP172 IS. Instructional Aides (add) Bernard Hart PP172 IS. Supervision Aides PP172 IS. Career Skills Development BP172 IS. Extended Year Bernard Hart PP173 IS. Support Services Other - Community Access/Fleld Trip - Community Involve - Special Skills Prog - Special Training - Parental Involvement - Learning Time sched - Home/School Comm - Extracurricular Prog - Attendance and Behav - SubJ Related Extracurr PP175 IS. CounselIng/Soclal Work - Community Services Access - College/Post Grad Aware - Study Skills - Home/Nelghborhood Meet- Individual and Group Counselling - Wellness Program BP176 IS. Incentive/Recognltion Bernard Hart OP176 IS. Resident Counseling Service Camp Pfeiffer OP176 IS. Monitoring OP178 IS. Permanent Substitute OP178 IS. Additional Compensation PP178 IS. School Policies and Procedures Others OP179 IS. Extended Week OP190 IS. Staffing - Recommended Full-time positions PP190 IS. Staffing - Other - Staffing Committee - Staffing Needs Assessment - Staff Recruitment - Staff Selection - Staff Commlt/Effect Monitor - Teacher Demonstration Program - Master Teacher Prog - New Teacher Assist SP190 IS. Alternative Classroom Bernard Hart BP193 IS. Required Staff Development Bernard Hart BP194 IS. Teacher Stipends for Inservice and Extra 5 days Bernard Hart SP205 IS. Parent Involvement Parker Milam PP215 IS. Parent Recruitment BP224 Monitoring activities (Eval Parker BP227 Dept plus CMIS- ABACUS Ingram Computerized Transportation System Jones Montgomery**************************************************************** SIS student Cholces/Optlons Parker Pederson Wiedower 019 Romine Interdistrict Theme SI13 Summer School Bernard Roberts o n Gremillion Stueart SI21 Staff Development Matthls Zimmerman SI23 School Operations Bernard Robertson Gremillion Stueart SI33 Library Media Matthls Lyons SI35 Special Education Matthls Kohler SI53 Vocational Education Matthls Dlllahunty SI54 Guldance/Counseling Program Matthls Elston BI56 Parent Involvement/Communlty Linkages Parker Milam SI59 Public Relations WagnerSTPROGIO Date: June 21, 1993 To: Janet Bernard Brady Gadberry Sterling Ingram Gary Jones Estelle Matthis Marie Parker Jeanette Wagner From: Bill Mooney Sub j : 2! Program Identification Attached is the final draft of the identified programs. Today, I met with those that responded to the initial listing, and we worked through all the unresolved issued in a very productive meeting. This final draft represents all of the changes to date. Please review this draft, and feel free to mark it up if it is not right. This is the last chance before \"go\" time. If you have any comments, please get them to me prior to 10:00 AM, Wednesday, June 23, 1993. If from you by then, I forward. I don't hear I will go The next step will be to identify those programs for which we need to collect expenditure data during the coming year. Once that is done, I will get with Mark and finalize the coding structure so he can get it done. Better check to see if someone made YOU responsible for something you know nothing about. Copy to: Mac Bernd Mark Milhollen C # N N N 1 N 2 A A 3 A C N N A STPROG08 REVISED 1300 21 JUN 93 SOURCE SPl SP2 BPS BP7 PP9 OP12 SP20 BP21 BP24 BP28 SP N 29 BP28 A 5 OP28 N 6 OP28 N 27 BP34 A 28 BP35 PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION WORKSHEET SECOND REVISED MARK-UP PROGRAM NAME PRIMARY SECONDARY Commitment to Desegregation Leadership HIPPY 4-year old program City-wide Early Childhood Education Program Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Special Programs Summer Learning Program JTPA ASSET Program School Operations Alternative Learning Center Testing Assistance - Disadvantaged Student Hearing Officer Office of Desegregation and Student Assignment In-School Suspension Job Fair Board Bernd Board Bernd Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Parker Bernd Parker Bernard Matthis Shead Price Shead Price Shead Price Shead Price Bernard Glasgow Adams Young Stueart Stueart Stueart Ingram Howard Stueart ElstonN 7 OP39 Extra-Curricular Participation Bernard Stueart Gremillion Robertson C 8 BP44 Teacher Recruiter Gadberry Robinson N 9 BP46 Staff Development Matthls Zimmerman N 10 BP48 Academic Support Program Matthls Adams Woods Stovall N SP58 Gifted Education Matthls Donaldson N 12 BP63 Multicultural Programs Matthls Various N SP81 Focused Activities Bernard Robertson Stueart Gremillion A 13 OP82 Academic Incentive Grants Bernard Robertson Stueart Gremillion N 14 BP86 Original Magnets Matthls Bernard A PP86 Parkview Science Magnet Matthls Bernard N 26 BP93 McClellan Community School Bernard Daggett A PP95 Recruitment of Private School Students Parker Cole Rather N SP96 Federal Programs Matthls Adams A SP98 Vocational Education Matthls N 32 BP106 Library Services Matthls Lyons C 15 BP114 Special Education Matthls Kohler N PP124 Staff Development Matthls Zimmerman N 35 BP125 Prejudice Reduction Board Bernd A 16 BP129 Security required for safe Schools Jones Barnhouse Bernard C 17 BP129 Data Processing System for Student Information (including CIMS and ABACUS) Jones Klngsella N SP129 Facilities Jones EatonA PP130 Employment Practices Gadberry A PP130 Bidding Practices Jones A PP131 Parent Involvement/Community Linkages Parker Gill N 34 BP131 VIPS - Recruiting Parker Milam A PP139 Student Assignments Parker Wiedower N 18 BP143 M-to-M Magnet Schools (Central,Dunbar, Washington, Henderson, McClellan) Parker Pederson Wiedower N SP145 New Futures Bernard Young A PP146 Facilities Jones Bernard Parker A 19 OP148 King Interdistrict School Bernard Parker Matthis A 21 OP14 8 Stephens Intedistrict School Bernard Parker Matthis N 51 OP149 IS. Office of Incentive Schools Bernard A 52 BP152 IS. Writing To Read Bernard Matthis Parker A 53 BP153 IS. Science Labs Bernard Matthis Parker A 54 BP153 IS. Computer Labs Bernard Matthis Parker A 55 OP153 IS. Foreign Language Labs Bernard Matthis Parker A 56 BP153 IS. Computer Loan Program Bernard Matthis Parker A 75 OP153 SD IS. Other Incentive School. Academic Programs - Kindergarten - Reading across the Curriculum - Oral Expression across Curriculum - Learning Styles Inventory Bernard Matthis ParkerSD SD - School Themes - Semi-departmental - Instructional Tech - Study/Test-taking - Parent Home Study - Computer Managed Inst - Student Educ Plans - Specialized Programs - Incentive Programs - Homework - Criterion-Refer Test - Heterogeneous grouping - Effective Schools - African/Amer History A 57 BP154 IS. Extended Day Bernard Matthis Parker A PP156 IS. Social Skills - Family Forklore - Positive Imaging - Interpersonal sicills - Rites of Passage - Role Model Program - Mentoring Program Bernard Matthis Parker A PP157 IS. Special Activites - Peer Tutoring Program - Academic Reinforcement Clubs - Special Interest Clubs Bernard Matthis Parker A 59 BP158 IS. Field Trips Bernard Matthis Parker A PP159 IS. Latin Enrichment Program Bernard Matthis Parker A 60 OP171 IS. Homework Centers Bernard Matthis Parker A 61 BP171 IS. Transportation (Add) Bernard Matthis Parker A 62 OP171 IS. Homework Hotline Bernard Matthis Parker A 63 OP171 IS. Mentors/Tutors Bernard Matthis Parker A 64 BP172 IS. Instructional Aides (add) Bernard Matthis ParkerA PP172 IS. Supervision Aides Bernard Matthis Parker A PP172 IS. Career Skills Development A 65 BP172 IS. Extended Year Bernard Matthis Parker A PP173 IS. Support Services Other Bernard A PP175 A 66 BP176 A 67 OP176 A 68 OP176 A 69 OP178 A 70 OP178 A PP178 A 71 OP179 A 72 OP190 - Community Access/Field Trip - Community Involve - Special Skills Prog - Special Training - Parental Involvement - Learning Time Sched - Home/School Comm - Extracurricular Prog - Attendance and Behav - Subj Related Extracurr IS. Counseling/Social Work - Community Services Access - College/Post Grad Aware - Study Skills - Home/Neighborhood Meet - Individual and Group Counselling - Wellness Program IS. Incentive/Recognition IS. Resident Counseling Service Camp Pfeiffer IS. IS. IS. IS. Bernard Bernard Bernard Monitoring Ingrain Permanent Substitute Additional Compensation School Policies and Procedures Others IS. Extended Week IS. Staffing - Recommended Full-time positions Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Bernard Parker Gadberry Gadberry Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis ParkerA PP190 IS. Staffing - Other - Staffing Committee - Staffing Needs Assessment - Staff Recruitment - Staff Selection - Staff Commit/Effect Monitor - Teacher Demonstration Program - Master Teacher Prog - New Teacher Assist Bernard Matthis Parker A SP190 IS. Alternative Classroom Bernard Matthis Parker A 73 BP193 IS. Required Staff Development Bernard Matthis Parker A 74 BP194 IS. Teacher Stipends for Inservice and Extra 5 days Bernard Gadberry A SP205 IS. Parent Involvement Bernard Parker A PP215 IS. Parent Recruitment Parker Bernard C 22 BP224 Monitoring Dept) activities (Eval Ingram Parker N 24 BP227 Computerized Transportation System Jones Montgomery N SI8 Student Choices/Optlons Parker Pederson Wiedower A 25 019 Romine Interdistrict Theme Bernard Matthis Parker N SI13 Summer School Bernard Robertson Gremillion Stueart / / N SI21 Staff Development Matthis Zimmerman N SI23 School Operations Bernard Robertson Gremillion Stueart N SI33 Library Media Matthis LyonsN SI35 Special Education Matthis Kohler N SI53 Vocational Education Matthis N SI54 Guidance/Counseling Program Matthis Elston A 33 BI56 Parent Involvement/Communlty Linkages Bernard Parker A SI59 Public Relations Wagner ParkerSTPROG12 Date: July 2, 1993 (SI To: Estelle Matthis Brady Gadberry Sterling Ingram Marie Parker Jeanette Wagner From: Bill Mooney Subj: Program Identification and Coding On June 30, 1993, I reached agreement with Bob Morgan on the expense coding in the attached program listing. Bob believes the current coding structure can provide the program-to-budget link we are looking for, assuming we follow through with program definitions and details. This is a great step forward for us since it means Mark would not have to revise any coding for this year. However, it does place a burden on us to follow through on the program side. I have provided you with the final program listing in the same order we have been using, that is in plan sequence order. For your convenience, I have also provided you the same listing in the current program code sequence. I wanted to give everyone a last shot at reviewing the expense coding for this year. If you believe coding changes are needed, please mark up the listing (either one) and get it back to me not later than 8:00 AM, July 9,1993. Remember, if there is no number in the far left column we will not try to collect program level expenditures for that program during the current fiscal year. If I do not have your mark-up by the noted time, I will assume you concur with the current coding and will proceed with the program listing as it is in the attachments. Time is sliort...lets get those cards and letters flowing. Copy to: Mark MilhollenSTPR0G13 Date: July 19,1993 fS, To: Estelle Matthis Brady Gadberry Sterling Ingram Mark Milhollen Marie Parker Jeanette Wagner From: Bill Mooney Subj : Program Identification and Coding Attached is your copy of the final version of the Program Identification Worksheet. sequence order and in program code sequence. I have provided the listing in plan No further action is required at this time. We will be using these listings to ensure program coverage when we start work on the program budget document. other For your information, am also working on listing of tf programs in desegregation plan. the district not directly related to the This draft listing covers the rest of the services $100,000,000. in the district, approximately 150 These will be addressed later. Iprograms tf for over I a If you have any questions, or if I can help you in any way, just give me a call. STPR0G13 Date: July 19,1993 From: Estelle Matthis Brady Gadberry Sterling Ingram Mark Milhollen Marie Parker Jeanette Wagner Bill Mooney Program Identification and Coding Attached is your copy of the final version of the Program Identification Worksheet. sequence order and in program code sequence. I have provided the listing in plan No further action is required at this time. We will be using these listings to ensure program coverage when we start work on the program budget document. other\" For your information, programs in I am also working on a listing of desegregation plan. services the district not directly related to the This draft listing covers the rest of the $100,000,000. in the district, approximately 150 These will be addressed later. tr programs It for over To: Sub j : If you have any questions, or if I can help you in any way, just give me a call.# 1 2 3 29 5 6 27 28 STPROG08 REVISED 09 JUL 93 SOURCE SPl SP2 BP6 BP7 PP9 OP12 SP20 BP21 BP24 BP28 SP BP28 OP28 OP28 BP34 BP35 PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION WORKSHEET IN PLAN SEQUENCE ORDER FINAL VERSION PROGRAM NAME PRIMARY SECONDARY Commitment to Desegregation Leadership HIPPY 4-year old program City-wide Early Childhood Education Program Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Special Programs Summer Learning Program JTPA ASSET Program School Operations Alternative Learning Center Testing Assistance - Disadvantaged Student Hearing Officer Office of Desegregation and Student Assignment In-School Suspension Job Fair Board Board Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Parker Bernd Parker Bernard Matthis Bernd Bernd Shead Price Shead Price Price Bernard Glasgow Adams Young Stueart Stueart Robertson Stueart Gremillion Stueart Ingram Howard Bernard Matthis Stueart Elston7 OP39 Extra-Curricular Participation Bernard Stueart Gremillion Robertson 8 BP44 Teacher Recruiter Gadberry Robinson 9 BP46 Staff Development Matthis Zimmerman 10 BP4 8 Academic Support Program Matthis Adams Woods Stovall 12 13 14 26 32 15 35 16 17 SP58 BP63 SP81 OP82 BP86 PP86 BP93 PP95 SP96 SP98 BP106 BP114 PP124 BP125 BP129 BP129 SP129 Gifted Education Multicultural Programs Focused Activities- Academic Incentive Grants Original Magnets Parkview Science Magnet McClellan Community School Recruitment of Private School Students Federal Programs Vocational Education Library Services Special Education Staff Development Prejudice Reduction Security required for safe Schools Data Processing System for Student Information (including CIMS and ABACUS) Facilities Matthis Matthis Bernard Bernard Matthis Matthis Bernard Parker Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Board Jones Jones Jones Donaldson Various Robertson Stueart Gremillion Robertson Stueart Gremillion Bernard Bernard Daggett Cole Rather Adams Green Lyons Kohler Zimmerman Bernd Barnhouse Bernard Kingsella Eaton I34 18 19 21 51 52 53 54 55 56 75 PP130 PP130 PP131 BP131 PP139 BP143 SP145 PP146 OP148 OP148 OP149 BP152 BP153 BP153 OP153 BP153 OP153 Employment Practices Bidding Practices Parent Involvement/Communlty Linkages VIPS - Recruiting Student Assignments M-to-M Magnet Schools (Central,Dunbar, Washington, Henderson, McClellan) New Futures Facilities King Interdistrict School Stephens Intedistrict School IS. Office of Incentive Schools IS. Writing To Read IS. Science Labs IS. Computer Labs IS. Foreign Language Labs IS. Computer Loan Program IS. Other Incentive School Academic Programs - Kindergarten - Reading across the Curriculum - Oral Expression across Curriculum - Learning Styles Inventory Gadberry Jones Parker Parker Parker Parker Bernard Jones Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Neal Gill Milam Weidower Young Bernard Parker Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker57 BP154 PP156 PP157 59 BP158 PP159 60 OP171 61 BP171 62 OP171 63 OP171 64 BP172 - School Themes - Semi-departmental - Instructional Tech - Study/Test-taking - Parent Home Study - Computer Managed Inst - Student Educ Plans - Specialized Programs - Incentive Programs - Homework - Criterion-Refer Test - Heterogeneous grouping - Effective Schools - African/Amer History IS. Extended Day IS. Social Skills - Family Forklore - Positive Imaging - Interpersonal skills - Rites of Passage - Role Model Program - Mentoring Program IS. Special Activites - Peer Tutoring Program - Academic Reinforcement Clubs - Special Interest Clubs IS. Field Trips IS. Latin Enrichment Program IS. Homework Centers IS. Transportation (Add) IS. Homework Hotline IS. Mentors/Tutors Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard IS. Instructional Aides (add) Bernard Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis ParkerPP172 IS. Supervision Aides Bernard Matthis Parker PP172 IS. Career Skills Development 65 BP172 IS. Extended Year Bernard Matthis Parker PP173 IS. Support Services Other Bernard 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 PP175 BP176 OP176 OP176 OP178 OP178 PP178 OP179 OP190 - Community Access/Field Trip - Community Involve - Special Skills Prog - Special Training - Parental Involvement - Learning Time Sched - Home/School Comm - Extracurricular Prog - Attendance and Behav - Subj Related Extracurr IS. Counseling/Social Work - Community Services Access - College/Post Grad Aware - Study Skills - Home/Neighborhood Meet - Individual and Group Counselling - Wellness Program IS. Incentive/Recognition IS. Resident Counseling Service Camp Pfeiffer IS. Monitoring IS. Permanent Substitute IS. Additional Compensation IS. School Policies and Procedures Others IS. Extended Week IS. Staffing - Recommended Full-time positions Bernard Bernard Bernard Ingram Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Bernard Parker Gadberry Gadberry Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker73 74 22 24 25 PP190 SP190 BP193 BP194 SP205 PP215 BP224 BP227 SIS 019 SI13 SI21 SI23 SI33 IS. Staffing - Other  Staffing Committee - Staffing Needs Assessment - Staff Recruitment - Staff Selection - Staff Commit/Effeet Monitor - Teacher Demonstration Program - Master Teacher Prog - New Teacher Assist IS. Alternative Classroom IS. Required Staff Development IS. Teacher Stipends for Inservice and Extra 5 days IS. Parent Involvement IS. Parent Recruitment Monitoring activities (Eval Dept) Computerized Transportation System Student Choices/Options Romine Interdistrict Theme Summer School Staff Development School Operations Library Media Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Bernard Parker Ingram Jones Parker Bernard Bernard Matthis Bernard Matthis Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Gadberry Parker Bernard Parker Montgomery Pederson Wiedower Matthis Parker Robertson Gremillion Stueart Zimmerman Robertson Gremillion Stueart Lyons33 SI35 SI53 SI54 BI56 SI59 Special Education Vocational Education Guidance/Counseling Program Parent Involvement/Community Linkages Public Relations Matthis Matthis Matthis Bernard Wagner Kohler Green Elston Parker Parker'i * 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 STPROGll REVISED 09 JUL 93 SOURCE BP6 BP7 OP12 OP28 OP28 OP39 BP44 BP46 BP48 BP63 OP82 BP86 BP114 BP129 BP129 PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION WORKSHEET IN PROGRAM CODE SEQUENCE FINAL VERSION PROGRAM NAME PRIMARY SECONDARY HIPPY Matthis Shead 4-year old program- Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Student Hearing Officer Office of Desegregation and Student Assignment Extra-Curricular Participation Teacher Recruiter Staff Development Academic Support Program Multicultural Programs Academic Incentive Grants Original Magnets Special Education Security reguired for safe Schools Data Processing System for Matthis Matthis Bernd Parker Bernard Gadberry Matthis Matthis Matthis Bernard Matthis Matthis Jones Jones Price Price Howard Bernard Matthis Stueart Gremillion Robertson Robinson Zimmerman Adams Woods Stovall Various Robertson Stueart Gremillion Bernard Kohler Barnhouse Bernard KlngsellaStudent Information (including CIMS and ABACUS) 18 BP143 M-to-M Magnet Schools (Central,Dunbar, Washington, Henderson, McClellan) Parker 19 OP148 King Interdistrict School Bernard Parker Matthis 21 OP148 Stephens Intedistrict School Bernard Parker Matthis 22 BP224 Monitoring activities (Eval Dept) Ingram Parker 24 BP227 Computerized Transportation System Jones Montgomery 25 019 Romine Interdistrict Theme Bernard Matthis Parker 26 BP93 McClellan Community School Bernard Daggett 27 BP34 In-School Suspension Bernard Stueart 28 BP35 Job Fair Matthis Elston 29 BP2 8 Testing Assistance - Disadvantaged Parker Ingram 32 BP106 Library Services Matthis Lyons 33 BI56 Parent Involvement/Community Linkages Bernard Parker 34 BP131 VIPS - Recruiting Parker Milam 35 BP125 Prejudice Reduction Board Bernd 51 OP149 IS. Office of Incentive Schools Bernard Parker 52 BP152 IS. Writing To Read Bernard Matthis Parker 53 BP153 IS. Science Labs Bernard Matthis/ Parker 54 BP153 IS. Computer Labs Bernard Matthis Parker 55 OP153 IS. Foreign Language Labs Bernard Matthis Parker 56 BP153 IS. Computer Loan Program Bernard Matthis Parker 57 BP154 IS. Extended Day- Bernard Matthis Parker 59 BP158 IS. Field Trips Bernard Matthis Parker 60 OP171 IS. Homework Centers Bernard Matthis Parker 61 BP171 IS. Transportation (Add) Bernard Matthis Parker 62 OP171 IS. Homework Hotline Bernard Matthis Parker 63 OP171 IS. Mentors/Tutors Bernard Matthis Parker 64 BP172 IS. Instructional Aides (add) Bernard Matthis Parker 65 BP172 IS. Extended Year Bernard Matthis Parker 66 BP176 IS. Incentive/Recognition Bernard Matthis Parker 67 OP176 IS. Resident Counseling Service Camp Pfeiffer Bernard Matthis Parker 68 OP176 IS. Monitoring Ingram Bernard Parker 69 OP178 IS. Permanent Substitute Bernard Gadberry 70 OP178 IS. Additional Compensation Bernard Gadberry 71 OP179 IS. Extended Week Bernard Matthis Parker 72 OP190 IS. Staffing - Recommended Full-time positions Bernard Matthis Parker 73 BP193 IS. Required Staff Development Bernard Matthis Parker 74 BP194 IS. Teacher Stipends for Inservice and Extra 5 days Bernard Gadberry 75 OP153 IS. Other Incentive School Academic Programs - Kindergarten - Reading across the Curriculum - Oral Expression  across Curriculum - Learning Styles Inventory - School Themes - Semi-departmental - Instructional Tech - Study/Test-taking - Parent Home Study - Computer Managed Inst - Student Educ Plans - Specialized Programs - Incentive Programs - Homework - Criterion-Refer Test - Heterogeneous grouping - Effective Schools - African/Amer History Bernard Matthis Parker SPl Commitment to Desegregation Board Bernd SP2 Leadership Board Bernd PP9 City-wide Early Childhood Education Program Matthis Shead Price SP20 Special Programs Matthis Bernard Glasgow Adams Young BP21 Summer Learning Program JTPA Bernard Stueart BP24 ASSET Program Bernard Stuearti BP2 8 School Operations Bernard Robertson Stueart Gremillion SP Alternative Learning Center Bernard Stueart SPSS Gifted Education Matthis Donaldson SP81 Focused Activities Bernard Robertson Stueart Gremillion PP86 Parkview Science Magnet Matthis Bernard PP95 Recruitment of Private School Students Parker Cole Rather SP96 Federal Programs Matthis Adams SP98 Vocational Education Matthis Green PP124 Staff Development Matthis Z immerman SP129 Facilities Jones Eaton PP130 Employment Practices Gadberry PP130 Bidding Practices Jones Neal PP131 Parent Involvement/Communlty Linkages Parker Gill PP139 Student Assignments Parker Weidower SP145 New Futures Bernard Young PP146 Facilities Jones Bernard Parker PP156 IS. Social Skills - Family Forklore - Positive Imaging - Interpersonal skills - Rites of Passage - Role Model Program - Mentoring Program Bernard Matthis Parkert PP157 IS. Special Activites - Peer Tutoring Program - Academic Reinforcement Clubs - Special Interest Clubs Bernard Matthis Parker PP159 IS. Latin Enrichment Program Bernard Matthis Parker PP172 IS. Supervision Aides Bernard Matthis Parker PP172 IS. Career Skills Development PP173 IS. Support Services Other Bernard PP175 PP178 PP190 - Community Access/Field Trip - Community Involve - Special Skills Prog - Special Training - Parental Involvement - Learning Time Sched - Home/School Comm - Extracurricular Prog - Attendance and Behav - Subj Related Extracurr IS. Counseling/Social Work - Community Services Access - College/Post Grad Aware - Study Skills - Home/Neighborhood Meet - Individual and Group Counselling - Wellness Program IS. School Policies and Procedures Others IS. Staffing - Other - Staffing Committee - Staffing Needs Assessment - Staff Recruitment - Staff Selection - Staff Commit/Effeet Bernard Bernard Bernard Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parker Matthis Parkerr Monitor - Teacher Demonstration Program - Master Teacher Prog - New Teacher Assist SP190 IS. Alternative Classroom Bernard Matthis Parker SP205 IS. Parent Involvement Bernard Parker PP215 IS. Parent Recruitment Parker Bernard SIS Student Choices/Options Parker Pederson Wiedower SI13 Summer School Bernard Robertson Gremillion Stueart SI21 Staff Development Matthis Zimmerman SI23 School Operations Bernard Robertson Gremillion Stueart SI33 Library Media Matthis Lyons SI35 Special Education Matthis Kohler SI53 Vocational Education Matthis Green SI54 Guidance/Counseling Program Matthis Elston SI59 Public Relations Wagner ParkerC0RR23 Date: August 26, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis Sterling Ingraa Mark MilhoUen Fron: Bill Mooney 2i, J*J '?!. sa . 1- Subj: Identification of Non-desegregatlon Prograas As you know, our Planning and Budget Calendar calls for us to have all non-desegregatlon prograas identified by Noveaber and for those prograas to be included in the Program Budget Docuaent for reporting in January. To that end, I have looked at how we could identify those prograas and link thea to budget expenditures. I started by reaovlng all the desegregation prograas and the related budgets. With what was left, it looked like following the current function code scheae would provide the best option. Using this approach allows us to see everything we do and capture all non-desegregation related dollars. The first attachaent lists these \"possible\" prograas In function code sequence. Looking at the list in this way does not show us auch \"prograa structure\" logic. Attachaent two is one way to arrange the function codes into \"prograa structure\" logic. This approach also follows the state coding guidelines, and would let us account for every dollar spent. (Instruction) would be the prograa. For exaaple, Eleaentary There would have to be at least one prograa goal for Eleaentary. There would have to be at least one objective for each of the four eleaents\nEleaentary, Specialty Prograas, Office of the Principal, and Other Support Services - B. You alght question objectives for the latter two, but before you aake up your aind please let ae talk to you about it. V I have taken the liberty to group these \"possible\" prograas into a recoaaendatlon for you. I suggest we handle this task just like we did the desegregation prograas\nthe Cabinet aarks tbea up and sends thea back, aarks thea up and sends thea back. Once we get the listing correct, then we can look at a strategy for developing the narrative', which will have to be written froa scratch. Hopefully, this will give us a starting point\nsoaething to shoot at. Maybe we can talk about this in Cabinet aeetlng and decide how best to proceed. I will help in any way I can.STPROG14 REVISED 20 JUL 93 PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION WORKSHEET NON-DESEGREGATION RELATED TOSSIBLE\" PROGRAMS NOTE: The following listing identifies \"possible\" programs which might be included in the program planning and budgeting process for the District. These \"possible\" programs were taken from the complete list of function code items for which funds have been budgeted for FY93-94. These \"possible\" programs are not addressed in the desegregation plan and are not coded as expenditures against the desegregation plan. These \"possible\" programs represent over $100 million in budgeted expenditures for this fiscal year. IO FUNC DESCRIPTION PROG PRIMARY SECONDARY 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1105 1120 1130 1140 1146 1151 1152 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1190 1191 1193 1199 REGULAR PROGRAMS Four Year Old Program Elementary Middle/Junior High School High School High School Standards Boys Athletics Girls Athletics Football/ Minor Sports Volleyball Basketball Track, Tennis, Golf, Swim Baseball Other Regular Multi-Ethnic Program Traveling Teachers Substitutes - Instruction 00 00 00 00 00 00 1210 1220 1230 1240 1290 1292 SPECIAL EDUCATION Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Special Class Homebound and Hospital Other Extended Year Hand. Service VOCATIONAL EDUCATION00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1321 1331 1332 1333 1341 1351 1352 1353 1354 1362 1371 1392 Marketing/ Dist. Ed- Coop Business Ed Coop Business Ed Expl Business Ed - Skill Train Health Coop Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Coop Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Expl Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Skill Train Youth Apprenticeship Cons/HMKG Career Orientation Coord Career - Coop 00 00 00 00 00 00 1410 1420 1430 1440 1445 1490 ADULT EDUCATION Adult Basic Education Adult General Education Adult Vocational Program Special Projects Workplace Literacy Other Adult Education 00 00 00 1560 1570 1595 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Reading Mathematics Compensatory Education 00 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED Gifted and Talented 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2111 2114 2120 2121 2134 2142 2211 2212 2213 2217 2219 2222 2229 2314 2315 2317 SUPPORT SERVICES Service Area Direction Pupil Accounting Services Guidance Services Service Area Direction Nursing Services Psychological Testing Services Service Area Direction Instruction and Curr Develop Instructional Staff Training Classroom Management Other Improvement of Inst School Library Services Other Education Media Serv Election Services Legal Services Audit Services00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2319 2321 2490 2510 2521 2525 2529 2539 2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2548 2549 2551 2552 2553 2554 2572 2573 2574 2587 2589 2590 2610 2623 2632 2642 2649 2664 3800 3900 3909 3911 4900 5100 6000 Other Board of Education Office of the Superintendent Other Support Services Direction of Business Sup Service Area Direction Financial Accounting Services Other Fiscal Accounting Serv Other Facilities Acq \u0026amp; Co Service Area Direction Upkeep of Buildings Upkeep of Grounds Upkeep of Equipment Vehicle Maintenance Security Services Asbestos Program Other Oper \u0026amp; Maintenance Service Area Direction Vehicle Operation Monitoring Vehicle Servicing Purchasing Services Warehousing \u0026amp; Distribution Printing, Pub. \u0026amp; Duplication Safety \u0026amp; Security Risk Management Other Support Services - B Dir of Central Support Serv Evaluation Services Internal Information Services Recruitment \u0026amp; Placement Serv Other Staff Services Operations Instructional Programs Other Community Services Drug Abuse Prevention Family Life Education N F Other Non-Programmed Ch Bonded Indebtedness Provision for Contingencies 03 1550 Early Childhood Education 07 1152 Girls Athletics 20 20 1110 1120 Kindergarten Elementary20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 1127 1210 1220 1230 1240 1570 1910 2120 2122 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 Specialty Programs Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Special Class Homebound and Hospital Mathematics Gifted and Talented Guidance Services Counseling Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services - B 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 1130 1132 1137 1151 1210 1220 1230 1240 1332 1333 1352 1353 1360 1362 1371 1595 1910 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 Middle/Junior High School Junior High Junior High Restructure Boys Athletics Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Special Class Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital Business Ed - Expl Business Ed - Skill Train Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Expl Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Skill train Home Economics Cons/HMKG Career Orientation Compensatory Education Gifted and Talented Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services - B 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 1110 1120 1140 1210 1220 1230 1321 Kindergarten Elementary High School Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Special Class Marketing/Dist. Ed - Coop40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 1331 1333 1351 1352 1362 1392 1595 2120 2134 2222 2223 2410 2542 2590 Business Ed Coop Business Ed - Skill Train Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Coop Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Expl Cons/ HMKG Coord Career - Coop Compensatory Education Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Audiovisual Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services - B 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 1140 1322 1333 1341 1353 1354 1362 1393 2120 2134 2410 2539 2542 High School Marketing/ Dist Ed - Expl Business Ed - Skill Train Health Coop Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Skill Train Youth Apprenticeship ConsHMKG Coord Career - Expl Guidance Services Nursing Services Office of the Principal Other Facilities Acq \u0026amp; Co Upkeep of BuildingsSTPROG15 REVISED 27 JUL 93 PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION WORKSHEET NON-DESEGREGATION RELATED TOSSIBLE\" PROGRAMS MOONEYS RECOMMENDATIONS NOTE: The following listing identifies \"possible\" programs which might be included in the program planning and budgeting process for the District. These \"possible\" programs were taken from the complete list of function code items for which funds have been budgeted for FY93-94. These \"possible\" programs are not addressed in the desegregation plan and are not coded as expenditures against the desegregation plan. These \"possible\" programs represent over $100 million in budgeted expenditures for this fiscal year. IO FUNC DESCRIPTION PROG PRIMARY SECONDARY 00 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD Four Year Old Program 03 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD Early Childhood Education 20 40 1110 1110 KINDERGARTEN Kindergarten Kindergarten 00 20 40 20 20 20 1120 1120 1120 1127 2410 2590 ELEMENTARY Elementary Elementary Elementary Specialty Programs Office of the Principal Other Support Services - B 00 1130 JUNIOR HIGH Middle/Junior High School30 30 30 30 30 1130 1132 1137 2410 2590 Middle/Junior High School Junior High Junior High Restructure Office of the Principal Other Support Services - B 00 40 50 00 40 40 1140 1140 1140 1146 2410 2590 HIGH SCHOOL High School High School High School High School Standards Office of the Principal Other Support Services - B 00 30 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 1151 1151 1152 1152 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 ATHLETICS Boys Athletics Boys Athletics Girls Athletics Girls Athletics Football/Minor Sports Volleyball Basketball Track, Tennis, Golf, Swim Baseball 00 20 30 40 00 20 30 40 00 20 30 40 00 20 30 00 00 1210 1210 1210 1210 1220 1220 1220 1220 1230 1230 1230 1230 1240 1240 1240 1290 1292 SPECIAL EDUCATION Itinerant Instruction Itinerant Instruction Itinerant Instruction Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Resource Room Resource Room Resource Room Special Class Special Class Special Class Special Class Homebound and Hospital Homebound and Hospital Homebound \u0026amp; Hospital Other Extended Year Hand. Service00 40 50 00 40 00 30 00 30 40 50 00 50 00 40 00 30 40 00 30 50 00 50 30 30 00 40 50 00 30 00 40 50 50 1321 1321 1322 1331 1331 1332 1332 1333 1333 1333 1333 1341 1341 1351 1351 1352 1352 1352 1353 1353 1353 1354 1354 1360 1362 1362 1362 1362 1371 1371 1392 1392 1393 2410 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Marketing/ Dist. Ed- Coop Marketing/ Dist. Ed - Coop Marketing/ Dist Ed - Expl Business Ed Coop Business Ed Coop Business Ed Expl Business Ed - Expl Business Ed - Skill Train Business Ed - Skill Train Business Ed - Skill Train Business Ed - Skill Train Health Coop Health Coop Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Coop Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Coop Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Expl Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Expl Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Expl Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Skill Train Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Skill train Trade \u0026amp; Ind - Skill Train Youth Apprenticeship Youth Apprenticeship Home Economics Cons/HMKG Cons/HMKG Cons/ HMKG ConsHMKG Career Orientation Career Orientation Coord Career - Coop Coord Career - Coop Coord Career - Expl Office of the Principal 00 00 00 00 00 00 1410 1420 1430 1440 1445 1490 ADULT EDUCATION Adult Basic Education Adult General Education Adult Vocational Program Special Projects Workplace Literacy Other Adult Education00 00 20 00 30 40 1560 1570 1570 1595 1595 1595 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION Reading Mathematics Mathematics Compensatory Education Compensatory Education Compensatory Education 00 20 30 1910 1910 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED Gifted and Talented Gifted and Talented Gifted and Talented 00 00 2111 2114 ATTENDANCE/SW SERV Service Area Direction Pupil Accounting Services 00 20 30 40 50 00 20 2120 2120 2120 2120 2120 2121 2122 GUIDANCE SERVICES Guidance Services Guidance Services Guidance Services Guidance Services Guidance Services Service Area Direction Counseling Services 00 20 30 40 50 2134 2134 2134 2134 2134 HEALTH SERVICES Nursing Services Nursing Services Nursing Services Nursing Services Nursing Services 00 2142 PSYCHOLOGICAL SERV Psychological Testing Services 00 00 00 2211 2212 2213 CURRICULUM SERVICES Service Area Direction Instruction and Curr Develop Instructional Staff Training00 00 2217 2219 Classroom Management Other Improvement of Inst 00 20 30 40 40 00 2222 2222 2222 2222 2223 2229 EDUCATIONAL MEDIA SERV School Library Services School Library Services School Library Services School Library Services Audiovisual Services Other Education Media Serv 00 00 00 00 2314 2315 2317 2319 BOARD OF ED SERVICES Election Services Legal Services Audit Services Other Board of Education 00 2321 EXEC ADMIN SERVICES Office of the Superintendent 00 00 00 2510 2590 2610 SUPPORT SERVICE MGMT Direction of Business Sup Other Support Services - B Dir of Central Support Serv 00 00 00 2521 2525 2529 FISCAL SERVICES Service Area Direction Financial Accounting Services Other Fiscal Accounting Serv 00 50 2539 2539 FACILITIES ACQ SERVICES Other Facilities Acq \u0026amp; Co Other Facilities Acq \u0026amp; Co 00 00 20 30 2541 2542 2542 2542 PLANT SERVICES Service Area Direction Upkeep of Buildings Upkeep of Buildings Upkeep of Buildings40 50 00 00 00 00 00 00 2542 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2548 2549 Upkeep of Buildings Upkeep of Buildings Upkeep of Grounds Upkeep of Equipment Vehicle Maintenance Security Services Asbestos Program Other Oper \u0026amp; Maintenance 00 00 00 00 2551 2552 2553 2554 PUPIL TRANSPORT SERV Service Area Direction Vehicle Operation Monitoring Vehicle Servicing 00 00 00 2572 2573 2574 PURCHASING SERVICES Purchasing Services Warehousing \u0026amp; Distribution Printing, Pub. \u0026amp; Duplication 00 00 2587 2589 SAFETY \u0026amp; SECURITY SERV Safety \u0026amp; Security Risk Management 00 2623 PLANNING \u0026amp; EVAL SERV Evaluation Services 00 2632 COMMUNICATIONS SERV Internal Information Services 00 00 2642 1199 HUMAN RESOURCE SERV Recruitment \u0026amp; Placement Serv Substitutes - Instruction 00 2649 LABOR RELATIONS Other Staff Services DATA PROCESSING SERV00 2664 Operations 00 00 00 00 1190 1191 1193 3800 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS Other Regular Multi-Ethnic Program Traveling Teachers Instructional Programs 00 00 00 3900 3909 3911 COMMUNITY SERVICES Other Community Services Drug Abuse Prevention Family Life Education N F 00 00 2490 4900 NON-PROGRAMMED Other Support Services Other Non-Programmed Ch 00 5100 INDEBTNESS Bonded Indebtedness 00 6000 CONTINGENCIES Provision for ContingenciesGENERAL FUCNTION CODING GUIDE FUNCTION DESCRIPTION 00 20 30 40 50 60 61 62 70 90 District wide Elementary Junior High High School Vocational Center Adult Education Post-Secondary (Vo-tech) Adult Vocational Educational Cooperative OtherSTPROG08 REVISED 26 OCT 93 / # ex c s / 76 3 LI 76 3 L2 1 1 L6 2 1 L7 1 L9 3 6 L12 77 3 L20 77 3 L21 77 3 L24 2 L2 8 27 2 L 29 2 L28 5 2 L28 6 3 L28 27 2 L34 28 2 L35 PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION WORKSHEET IN PLAN SEQUENCE ORDER FINAL VERSION PROGRAM NAME PRIMARY SECONDARY Commitment to Desegregation Leadership HIPPY 4-year old program City-wide Early Childhood Education Program Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Special Programs Summer Learning Program JTPA ASSET Program School Operations Alternative Learning Center Testing Assistance - Disadvantaged Student Hearing Officer Office of Desegregation and Student Assignment In-School Suspension Job Fair Board Board Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Mayo Williams Mayo Matthis Matthis Williams Williams Shead Price Shead Price Price Glasgow Adams Young Anderson Anderson Robertson Anderson Gremillion Anderson Ingram Watson Matthis Anderson Elston7 2 L39 Extra-Curricular Participation Matthis Anderson Gremillion Robertson 8 3 L44 Teacher Recruiter Gadberry Robinson 9 3 L46 Staff Development Matthis Hudspeth 10 1 L48 Academic Support Program Matthis Adams Woods Stovall 1910 1 L58 Gifted Education Matthis Donaldson 12 1 L63 Multicultural Programs Matthis Various 13 2 L81 Focused Activities Matthis Robertson Gremillion Anderson 13 2 L82 Academic Incentive Grants Matthis Robertson Anderson Gremillion 14 6 L86 Original Magnets Matthis 14 6 L86 Parkview Science Magnet Matthis Anderson 26 2 L93 McClellan Community School Matthis TEA 33 4 L95 Recruitment of Private School Students Mayo Cole Rather 1 L96 Federal Programs Glascow Adams 1 L98 Vocational Education Glascow Green 32 3 L106 Library Services Glascow Lyons 15 1 L114 Special Education Glascow Kohler 9 3 L124 Staff Development Matthis Hudspeth 35 3 L125 Prejudice Reduction Board Williams 16 3 L129 Security required for safe Schools TBA Barnhouse 17 3 L129 Data Processing System for Student Information (including CIMS and ABACUS) TBA Kingsella 2540 3 L129 Facilities TBA Eaton3 L130 Employment Practices Gadberry 33 34 6 18 F15 3 4 4 3 6 2 2540 3 19 6 21 6 51 5 52 5 53 5 54 5 55 5 56 5 75 5 L130 L131 L131 L139 L143 L145 L146 L148 L148 L149 L152 L153 L153 L153 L153 L153 Bidding Practices Parent Involvement/Community Linkages VIPS - Recruiting Student Assignments M-to-M Magnet Schools {Central,Dunbar, Washington, Henderson, McClellan) New Futures Facilities King Interdistrict School Stephens Intedistrict School IS. Office of Incentive Schools IS. Writing To Read IS. Science Labs IS. Computer Labs IS. Foreign Language Labs IS. Computer Loan Program IS. Other Incentive School Academic Programs - Kindergarten - Reading across the Curriculum - Oral Expression across Curriculum - Learning Styles Inventory TBA Mayo Mayo Mayo Mayo Matthis TBA Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Neal Gill Milam TBA Young Matthis Mayo Mayo Gremillion Mayo Robertson Mayo Robertson Gremillion Robertson Gremillion Robertson Gremillion Robertson Gremillion Robertson Gremillion Robertson Gremillion57 5 L154 5 L156 5 L157 59 5 L158 5 L159 60 5 L171 61 5 L171 62 5 L171 63 5 L171 64 5 L172 - School Themes - Semi-departmental - Instructional Tech - Study/Test-taking - Parent Home Study - Computer Managed Inst - Student Educ Plans - Specialized Programs - Incentive Programs - Homework - Criterion-Refer Test - Heterogeneous grouping - Effective Schools - African/Amer History IS. Extended Day IS. Social Skills - Family Forklore - Positive Imaging - Interpersonal skills - Rites of Passage - Role Model Program - Mentoring Program IS. Special Activites - Peer Tutoring Program - Academic Reinforcement Clubs - Special Interest Clubs IS. IS. IS. Matthis Matthis Matthis Field Trips Latin Enrichment Program Homework Centers IS. Transportation (Add) IS. Homework Hotline IS. Mentors/Tutors IS. Instructional Aides Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis (add) Matthis Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo5 L172 IS. Supervision Aides Matthis Glascow Mayo 5 L172 IS. Career Skills Development Matthis Glascow Mayo 65 5 L172 IS. Extended Year Matthis Glascow Mayo 5 L173 IS. Support Services - Community Access/Field Trip - Community Involve - Special Skills Prog - Special Training - Parental Involvement - Learning Time Sched - Home/School Comm - Extracurricular Prog - Attendance and Behav - Subj Related Extracurr Other Matthis Glascow Mayo 5 L175 IS. Counseling/Social Work - Community Services Access - College/Post Grad Aware - Study Skills - Home/Neighborhood Meet - Individual and Group Counselling - Wellness Program Matthis Glascow Mayo 66 5 L176 IS. Incentive/Recognition Matthis Glascow Mayo 67 5 L176 IS. Resident Counseling Service Camp Pfeiffer Matthis Glascow Mayo 68 5 L176 IS. Monitoring Matthis Glascow Mayo 69 5 L178 IS. Permanent Substitute Matthis Glascow Mayo 70 5 L178 IS. Additional Compensation Matthis Glascow Mayo 5 L178 IS. School Policies and Matthis 71 5 L179 Procedures Others Glascow Mayo IS. Extended Week Matthis Glascow Mayo72 5 L190 IS. Staffing - Recommended Full-time positions Matthis Glascow Mayo 5 L190 IS. Staffing - Other - Staffing Committee - Staffing Needs Assessment - Staff Recruitment - Staff Selection - Staff Commit/Effeet Monitor - Teacher Demonstration Program - Master Teacher Prog - New Teacher Assist Matthis Glascow Mayo 5 L90 IS. Alternative Classroom Matthis Glascow Mayo 73 5 L193 IS. Reguired Staff Development Matthis Glascow Mayo 74 5 L194 IS. Teacher Stipends for Inservice and Extra 5 days Matthis Glascow Mayo 33 4 L205 IS. Parent Involvement Matthis Glascow Mayo 33 4 L215 IS. Parent Recruitment Mayo Matthis 22 3 L224 Monitoring activities (Eval Dept) Ingram Mayo 24 3 L227 Computerized Transportation System TBA Montgomery 6 18 student Choices/Options Mayo Pederson Wiedower 25 6 19 Romine Interdistrict Theme Matthis Mayo 65 3 113 Summer School Matthis Robertson Gremillion Anderson 9 3 121 Staff Development Matthis Hudspeth 2 123 School Operations Matthis Robertson Gremillion32 3 133 Library Media Glascow Anderson Lyons 15 1 135 Special Education Glascow Kohler 1 153 Vocational Education Glascow Green 3 154 Guidance/Counseling Program Glascow Elston 33 4 156 Parent Involvement/Community Matthis Linkages Mayo 33 4 159 Public Relations Wagner MayoSTPROG08 REVISED 26 OCT 93 PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION WORKSHEET IN CLUSTER SEQUENCE ORDER FINAL VERSION # c s CLUSTER 1 PROGRAM NAME CURRICULUM PRIMARY SECONDARY 1 1 L6 HIPPY Matthis Shead 2 1 L7 4-year old program Matthis Price 10 1 L4 8 Academic Support Program Matthis Adams Woods Stovall 12 1 L63 Multicultural Programs Matthis Various 15 1 L114 Special Education Glasgow Kohler 15 1 135 Special Education Glascow Kohler 1910 1 L58 Gifted Education Matthis Donaldson 1 L9 City-wide Early Childhood Education Program Matthis Shead Price 1 L96 Federal Programs Glasgow Adams 1 L98 Vocational Education Glasgow Green 1 153 Vocational Education Glasgow Green # C S CLUSTER 2 PROGRAM NAME SCHOOL OPERATIONS PRIMARY SECONDARY 1 2 L28 School Operations Matthis Robertson Anderson Gremillion 2 123 School Operations Matthis Robertson Gremillion Anderson7 2 L39 Extra-Curricular Participation Matthis Anderson Gremillion Robertson 5 2 L28 Student Hearing Officer Williams Watson 27 2 L34 In-School Suspension Matthis Anderson F15 2 L145 New Futures Matthis Young 13 2 L82 Academic Incentive Grants Matthis Robertson Anderson Gremillion 13 2 L81 Focused Activities Matthis Robertson Anderson Gremillion 26 2 L93 McClellan Community School Matthis TEA 27 2 L Alternative Learning Center Matthis Anderson 29 2 L28 Testing Assistance - Disadvantaged Mayo Ingram 28 2 L35 Job Fair Matthis Elston # C S CLUSTER 3 PROGRAM NAME SUPPORT PRIMARY SECONDARY 76 3 LI Commitment to Desegregation Board Williams 76 3 L2 Leadership Board Williams 6 3 L28 Office of Desegregation and Student Assignment Mayo Matthis 6 3 L139 Student Assignments Mayo TBA 9 3 L46 Staff Development Matthis Hudspeth 9 3 L124 Staff Development Matthis Hudspeth 9 3 121 Staff Development Matthis Hudspeth 32 3 L106 Library Services Glasgow Lyons 32 3 133 Library Media Glasgow Lyons 24 3 L227 Computerized Transportation TBA Montgomery17 3 16 3 System L129 Data Processing System for Student Information (including CIMS and ABACUS) TBA Kingsella 8 3 22 3 35 3 65 3 77 3 77 3 77 3 2540 3 2540 3 3 3 3 # C S 33 4 33 4 33 4 L129 Security required for safe Schools TBA Barnhouse Matthis L44 Teacher Recruiter Gadberry Robinson L224 Monitoring activities (Eval Dept) L125 Prejudice Reduction 113 L21 L24 L20 Ingram Board Mayo Williams Summer School Matthis Robertson Gremillion Anderson Summer Learning Program JTPA ASSET Program Special Programs L129 Facilities L146 Facilities 154 Guidance/Counseling Program L130 Employment Practices L130 Bidding Practices CLUSTER 4 PROGRAM NAME L131 156 L205 Matthis Matthis Matthis TBA TBA Glascow Gadberry TBA RECRUITING PRIMARY Parent Involvement/Community Mayo Linkages Parent Involvement/Community Matthis Linkages IS. Parent Involvement Matthis Anderson Anderson Glasgow Adams Young Eaton Matthis Mayo Elston Neal SECONDARY Gill Mayo GlasgowMayo 33 4 L215 IS. Parent Recruitment Mayo Matthis 33 4 L95 Recruitment of Private School Students Mayo Cole Rather 33 4 159 Public Relations Wagner Mayo 34 4 L131 VIPS - Recruiting Mayo Milam # C S CLUSTER 5 PROGRAM NAME INCENTIVE SCHOOLS PRIMARY SECONDARY 51 5 L149 IS. Office of Incentive Schools Matthis Mayo 52 5 L152 IS. Writing To Read Matthis Robertson Gremillion 53 5 L153 IS. Science Labs Matthis Robertson Gremillion 54 5 L153 IS. Computer Labs Matthis Robertson Gremillion 55 5 L153 IS. Foreign Language Labs Matthis Robertson Gremillion 56 5 L153 IS. Computer Loan Program Matthis Robertson Gremillion 57 5 L154 IS. Extended Day Matthis Glasgow Mayo 59 5 L158 IS. Field Trips Matthis Glasgow Mayo 60 5 L171 IS. Homework Centers Matthis Glasgow Mayo 61 5 L171 IS. Transportation (Add) Matthis Glasgow Mayo 62 5 L171 IS. Homework Hotline Matthis Glascow Mayo 63 5 L171 IS. Mentors/Tutors Matthis Glascow Mayo 64 5 L172 IS. Instructional Aides (add) Matthis Glasgow65 5 L172 IS. Extended Year Matthis 66 5 L176 IS. Incentive/Recognition Matthis 67 5 L176 IS. Resident Counseling Matthis Mayo Glascow Mayo Glasgow Mayo Service Camp Pfeiffer Glasgow Mayo 68 5 L176 IS. Monitoring Matthis Glascow Mayo 69 5 L178 IS. Permanent Substitute Matthis Glascow Mayo 70 5 L178 IS. Additional Compensation Matthis Glascow Mayo 71 5 L179 IS. Extended Week Matthis Glascow Mayo 72 5 L190 IS. Staffing - Recommended Full-time positions Matthis Glascow Mayo 73 5 L193 IS. Required Staff Development Matthis Glasgow Mayo 74 5 L194 IS. Teacher Stipends for Inservice and Extra 5 days Matthis Glascow Mayo 75 5 L153 IS. Other Incentive School Academic Programs - Kindergarten - Reading across the Curriculum - Oral Expression across Curriculum - Learning Styles Inventory - School Themes - Semi-departmental - Instructional Tech - Study/Test-taking - Parent Home Study - Computer Managed Inst - Student Educ Plans - Specialized Programs - Incentive Programs - Homework - Criterion-Refer Test - Heterogeneous grouping - Effective Schools Matthis Robertson Gremillion5 L156 5 L157 5 L159 5 L172 5 L172 5 L173 5 L175 5 L178 - African/Amer History IS. Social Skills - Family Forklore - Positive Imaging - Interpersonal skills - Rites of Passage - Role Model Program - Mentoring Program IS. Special Activites - Peer Tutoring Program - Academic Reinforcement Clubs - Special Interest Clubs IS. Latin Enrichment Program IS. Supervision Aides Matthis Matthis Matthis Matthis IS. Career Skills Development Matthis IS. Support Services - Other - Community Access/Field Trip - Community Involve - Special Skills Prog - Special Training - Parental Involvement - Learning Time Sched - Home/School Comm - Extracurricular Prog - Attendance and Behav - Subj Related Extracurr IS. Counseling/Social Work - Community Services Access - College/Post Grad Aware - Study Skills - Home/Neighborhood Meet - Individual and Group Counselling - Wellness Program IS. School Policies and Procedures Others Matthis Matthis Matthis Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo Glasgow Mayo Glasgow Mayo Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo Glascow Mayo5 L190 IS. Staffing - Other - Staffing Committee - Staffing Needs Assessment - Staff Recruitment - Staff Selection - Staff Commit/Effeet Monitor - Teacher Demonstration Program - Master Teacher Prog - New Teacher Assist Matthis Glascow Mayo 5 L90 IS. Alternative Classroom Matthis Glasgow Mayo CLUSTER 6 STUDENT CHOICES/OPTIONS CLUSTER # C S PROGRAM NAME PRIMARY SECONDARY 19 6 L148 King Interdistrict School Matthis Mayo Gremillion 21 6 L148 Stephens Intedistrict School Matthis Mayo Robertson 25 6 19 Romine Interdistrict Theme Matthis Mayo 3 6 L12 Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Matthis Price 14 6 L86 Original Magnets Matthis 14 6 L86 Parkview Science Magnet Matthis Anderson 18 6 L143 M-to-M Magnet Schools (Central,Dunbar, Washington, Henderson, McClellan) Mayo 6 18 Student Choices/Options Mayo Pederson WiedowerCHECKLIST JOR DEVELOPING PT'iiTOldiA'NCL OBJECTIVES ] ]. In order to accomplish the objectives of your dcpartment/section, what are the significant contributions that you expect from the subordinate manager? 2. Are the reconwCTdcd objectives consistent with the contributions you expect? 3. Should any objectives his/her rccoimiended objectives? be established for his/her function in addition to or as substitutes for 4. Are his/her objectives realistic - the priority, timing, budget requirements, and his/her capabilities to accomplish them? 5. As stated, do they meet the criteria of a good performance objective? 6. What assistance will you need to provide to enable them to accomplish their objectives? 7 Are the objectives consistent with and do they effectively coordinate with the objectives of - no conflicts or inappropriate overlapping? your other subordinate managers - 8. Does he/she have sound plans for accomplishing their objectives? 9. How will you evaluate the progress toward accomplishing the objectives? a. How frequently and in what form do you want reports on progress? b. Hovj will interim progress be measured  how will you know if progress is on schedule? FORMAT FOR A HELL-STATED OBJECTIVE (Accomplishment verb) (cost in S and/or work hours). (single specific end result) By (specific time period or date) AT A good objective states the WHAT, WHEN and COST but avoids the HOW and FEASIBILITY, EXAMPLES provide introductory M.B.O. training for all departments within the organization by September 1978. To To implement a total M.B.O. program by January 1979. To review the committee structure of Nursing Service and develop a revised approach by 15 January 1979. To achieve a medical supply expenditure rate of 84% of FY 77's experiences by September 1978. NOTE\nStating the cost and/or work hours in the objective is not always necessary, up to the discretion of the manager. It is leftDEVELOPING PFRFORHANCF OBJECTIVES Check List of questions for the Individual 1. What are the major responsibilities of the position? Does your current position description accurately describe those responsibilities? 2. For each of your major responsibilities, what are the significant results that you should be achieving? a. b. c. Based on your best judgment, evaluate whether the results have been reasonable satisfactory or \"need improving.\" In those areas most in need of improvement, what specifically needs to be accomplished? In order to make your best profit contribution, in which areas should you concentrate your efforts during the next year  over the next several years? 3. What are the objectives of the next higher unit to which you are expected to contribute? a. What specific contributions should your function make to accomplishing those objectives? 4. Considering your major responsibilities and the objectives of the unit that your unit is part of, list the objectives that you feel should be established for your function for the next year. 5. What priorities should be assigned to those objectives? a. Too many-objectives can lead to confusion or frustration. Reduce the principal objectives b. c. d. to a list of not more than six. Are the principal objectives those that will most significantly contribute to profit? Is it reasonable to expect that they can actually be achieved within the extablished time limits? Will your superior agree to the objectives and priorities? 6. As stated, do your objectives meet the criteria of a good performance objective? 7. How will the stated objectives be accomplished? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. What brganizational resources, assistance, budgets, etc., will be needed to accomplish the objectives? What assistance will be needed from your superior, associates, and subordinates? What responsibilities for implementation will be delegated to subordinates? What steps will have to be taken and how much lead time will be required in order to accomplish the objectives as scheduled? What difficulties are likely to be encountered and how can they be prevented or overcome? What are possible alternate approaches to accomplishing each objective? Under what conditions may it become necessary to revise any of the objectives.PREPARATION OF OBJECTIVES Objectives are end results to be achieved within a given period of time. 1. Endeavor to set an objective for each unit goal. Exceptions are permitted, if data can't be obtained or experience Is insufficient to set mean- Ingful objectives. 2. Objectives should be stated in terms of end results to be accomplished, activity may be used as an objective. Occasional ly, an 3. Objectives should be set at a challenging level, attainable. They should be difficult to achieve but 4. Objectives should be stated as precisely as possible. The more measurable the better. 5. Objectives should be set even though all conditions for their attainment are not within the control of the subordinate. 6. Don't be inhibited by difficulties in planning. CRITERIA FOR OBJECTIVES 1. OUTPUT ORIENTED 2. TIME BOUNDED 3. END RESULT 4. SPECIFY SINGLE RESULT 5. HEASURABLE/VERIFIABLE 6.' CONTROLLABLE 7. REALISTIC/ATTAINABLE 8. STRETCH 9. SUPPORT SUPERORDINATE'S OBJECTIVES 10. INDICATES SUCCESS OR FAILURE 11. FEEDBACK (HOW ARE WE PROGRESSING?) 12. CONCENTRATES ON THE \"WHAT\" \u0026amp; \"WHEN\"\nTHE \"WHY\" ANO \"HOW\" ARE AVOIDED 13. MEASURES A MAJOR SEGMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S RESPONSIBILITY 14. NOT SHARED 15. MUTUALLY AGREED UPON 16. CONSISTENT WITH ORGANIZATIONAL POLICIES, PRACTICES, \u0026amp; RESOURCES 17. RELATE DIRECTLY TO ROLES AND MISSION  18. BE UNDERSTANDABLE 19. WRITTEN3 DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAMS REQUIRING FUNDS Deseg Plan Proa # Page # Description 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 g 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 49 5 5 12 28 28 39 44 46 48 63 82 86 114 129 129 143 148 148 224 227 1-9 93 34 35 28 106 1-56 131 125 00 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 z 60 61 \u0026lt; 62 ,63 64 65 66 67 149 152 153 153 153 153 154 158 171 171 171 171 172 172 176 176 Hippy 4-Year Old Program Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Student Hearing Officer Office of Desegregation (and Student Assignment - p. 142) Extra-Curricular Participation\ne.g., transportation / Teacher Recruiter Staff Development '/Academic Support Programs, including remediation (PAL) (See 5/1/92 order) / Multicultural Programs/Curriculum Academic Incentive Grants ^Original Magnets (also page 4 in the Interdistrict Plan) Special Education Learning Center at Washington Security (required for \"safe schools\") Data Processing System for Student Information (also page 177) / M-to-M Magnet Schools (Central. Dunbar. Washington, Henderson. McClellan) King Interdistrict School (also page 386) Stephens Interdistrict School (also page 386) Monitoring Activities (Evaluation Department plus CMIS-ABACUS) \u0026lt;/ Computerized Transportation System Romine Interdistrict Theme / McClellan Community School In-School Suspension / Job Fair /^Testing Assistance - Disadvantaged / Library Services Parent Recruiting '^VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction To Be Allocated Incentive Schools (Items numbered 50 and above) Office of Incentive Schools - Supplies/Miscellaneous ^Writing To Read Science Labs Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program V Extended Day /Field Trips (also 173) Homework Centers (cost included in Extended Day) /Transportation (additional) Homework Hotline Mentors/Tutors ^Instructional Aides (additional) Extended Year / Incentlve/Recognition Resident Counseling Service (Camp Pfeiffer)/ . Desegregation Plan Programs Requiring FurxJs Page 2 68 / 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 176 178 178 179 '^190 ^193 \u0026lt;194 153 Monitoring Permanent Substitute (Recommended\ntherefore, required) Additional Compensation - extra hours Extended Week Staffing - Recommended Full-Time Positions (Recommended\ntherefore, required) Required Staff Development (also Page 204 - Paula Greer) Teacher Stipends for Inservice and Extra 5 Days Other Incentive School Academic Programs c:\\memos\\planoo8l wpd 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 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":106,"next_page":107,"prev_page":105,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1260,"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}}]}}