{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1175","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence","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":["1993-01-14/1993-12-16"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence"],"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/1175"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n,____,/    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting January 14, 1993 RECEl\\/fED OCT 2 7 1995 Office of Desegregation tvioniwtino The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 6: 20 p. m. immediately following the Board agenda review meeting on January 14, 1993. The special meeting was conducted in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 6:20 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of conducting student disciplinary hearings and to consider reinstatement petitions. NON-CONTESTED EXPULSIONS AND LONG-TERM SUSPENSIONS: Mr. Rudolph Howard directed the Board members' attention to the non-contested expulsion recommendations of Tyrone Banks, Roger Crusterson, Bara Nichols, Phillip Watts, and Timothy White. He also directed the Board members' attention to the non-contested recommendation for the long-term suspension of Brent Armstrong, Derrick Bowman, Quentin Davis, David Faison, Keith Farr, Stacy Givens, Andre Harris, Deshun Hollis, Mervyn Johnson, Kendrick Land, Norman Miles, Shawn Moseley, Bilal Muhammad, Albert Porter, Kevin Pugh, Carlos Reese, and Jerry Roberson. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the administration's recommendations on the non-contested expulsions and long-term suspensions. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. CONTESTED EXPULSIONS: The Board conducted a hearing with regard to the expulsion recommendation for Janice Harris. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented to it, Mr. John Moore moved to long-term suspend Janice Harris and if she comes back to the Board and shows that she has been involved in counseling and that it has had an effect and if Mr. Watts agrees, we will admit her back. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried with six (6) to one (1). Dr. Katherine Mitchell dissented . . The Board conducted a hearing with regard to the expulsion recommendation of Ronnie Scott. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented to it, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved that Ronnie Scott be placed back in school on strict probation and if any further incident or violation of any school rules occur in any way, he will be expelled immediately. Mr. Bill Hamil ton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board considered the petition of Michael Hornes for reinstatement to school from the Juvenile Justice Center. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented to it, Mr. John Riggs moved to reinstate Michael Hornes preferably to a school other than McClellan, on strict probation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board considered the petition of Phillip Conway for reinstatement to school. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented to it, Mr. John Moore moved to reinstate Phillip Conway. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board considered the petition of Dana Stephens for reinstatement to school. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented to it, Mr. John Moore moved to reinstate Dana Stephens to the Alternative Learning Center and put her on the list for the Elizabeth Mitchell Residential Treatment Program. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board considered reinstatement to school. the petition of Ylanna Value After hearing all testimony for and  considering the evidence presented, Mr. John Moore moved to reinstate Ylanna Value on strict probation for the second semester of the 1992-93 school year. Mr. John Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to adjourn. the motion, and it carried unanimously. business to come within the call for the Board of Directors, the meeting adjourned Mr. John Riggs seconded There being no further special meeting of the at 8:25 p.m. O. G. Jacoveli,President 1~:dfl J!J J-V Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Regular Meeting January 28, 1993 OCT 2 7 IY~.5 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled monthly meeting at 6:22 p.m. on January 28, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: None EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frederick Fields, Teacher Representative Miss Candace Jones, student Representative ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the regular meeting to order at 6:22 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. II. READING OF THE MINUTES The chair asked for a motion to remove the November 19, 1992 minutes from the table. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved to remove the November 19, 1992 minutes from the table. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the November 19, 1992 minutes of the regular meeting of the Board. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The chair directed the Board members' attention to the minutes of the special meeting on September 16, 1992\nthe special meeting on October 5, 1992\nthe special meeting on October 15, 1992\nthe special meeting on November 5, 1992\nthe special meeting on November 12, 1992\nand the regular meeting on December 17, 1992. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved approval of the minutes. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. III. PRESENTATIONS: A. Superintendent's citations Dr. Bernd presented certificates to the winners of the American Education Week Essay Contest that was sponsored by the Little Rock PTA Council and the Central Arkansas Reading Council. The theme was \"America's Schools: Take a New Look.\" The winners who received certificates were: Primary Level (K-3 Grade): First Place - Danielle Dushkin, Brady Elementary Second Place - Sarah Pollard, Williams Magnet Third Place - Jessica Slaughter, Western Hills Elementary Intermediate Level (4th - 6th) First Place - Jonathan Jones, carver Magnet Second Place - John Crain, Carver Magnet Third Place - Lakeisha Palmer, Cloverdale Elementary Junior High Level (7th - 9th) First Place - Tonya Andrews, Mabelvale Jr. High Second Place - Walter Coleman, Mabelvale Jr. High Third Place - Heather Gregg, Mabelvale Jr. High Senior High Level - 10th - 12th) First Place - Keith Harvey, McClellan High Second Place - James Vardaman, McClellan High Third Place - Amy Ramer, McClellan High. Dr. Bernd also recognized the teachers of the winning students: Becky Dugan, Karen Latch, Shirley Thomas, Betty Glenn, Donna Hall, taking the liberty of making the decision for the Board not to meet with the group. She called for the resignation of Mrs. Jacovelli and Dr. Bernd and urged the remaining members of the Board to act responsibly when the community desires to share its concerns. Mr. \"Say\" McIntosh told the Board that this group are concerned about the safety of their children in the schools. He told the Board that the safety of our children should cause us to get as mad as the suspension of Mr. Hickman. He urged the Board to not let the news media twist them and get them to try the case in the media. He alleged that the news media is trying to cause a riot. A Little Rock Central High School senior (name unknown) questioned the methods of the Board and why things were done like they were. She told the Board that the problem is ignorance, and she feels that her rights have been violated. Mr. Melvin Moss told the Board that the actions taken by the administration and Board are peculiar and has caused students and parents a lot of frustration. He told the Board that the important things are God, the family, and the community, stupid. At this point in the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section on the agenda, Mr. Chris Heller, legal counsel for the District, responded to the unrest in the audience by explaining that it is the Board's responsibility to remain neutral in personnel issues until they hear all evidence in a formal hearing. He told the audience that he had advised the Board not to listen to any comments. Mr. John Riggs asked for a recess. The Board recessed at 7:10 p.m. and reconvened at 7:25 p.m. Upon reconvening, an unidentified speaker urged the Board get its priorities in order. Mr. Ari Merretizon told the Board that there is a lot of tension in the community and asked the Board to instruct Dr. Bernd to engage in discussion about their concerns. He expressed his view that the group would understand the limitations of the discussion. V. ACTION ITEMS: A. Election of Officers Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to remove from the table the election of officers. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Jackson moved to elect John Moore as President of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors.by acclamation. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Gloria Russ, Nancy Jones, and Gloria Blakely. The Superintendent also awarded certificates to the winners of the \"My Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages Wish\" program. Honored were: Tequesia Neal, Cloverdale Elementary, $50.00 for Little Caesar's Pizza\nShiree Lawson, Rockefeller Elementary, $100 for Wordsworth Book Stores\nMaquinta Davis, Romine Elementary, $150.00 for Lenderman Paint Company\nErica James, Badgett Elementary, $2 00 for Microcomputer Center\nKrystal Rose Marks, Romine Elementary, $250 for Radio Shack, and the first place winner, Nikkola Hadley, Badgett Elementary, $1000 for ABC Playground Equipment. Patty McNeil, principal at Dodd Elementary School, introduced the winners of the White House Replica Contest held at Dodd School. Ms. Raines' second grade class won the primary division, and Ms. Riddle's sixth grade class won the intermediate division. Dr. Bernd also presented Superintendent's Citations to the ex officio members of the Board for January: Candice Jones, student ex officio from Fair High School\nand Frederick Fields, teacher ex officio from Cloverdale Elementary. He and members of the Board thanked them for their service to the Board. IV. C. Citizens Committees None reporting. D. Board Members None. E. Partnerships None. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS: Dr. Bernd read a statement concerning the Board's policy on receiving information or commenting on pending personnel issues. Mrs. Jacovelli reiterated that it would be inappropriate for the Board to hear comments concerning a personnel issue that might ultimately come before the Board for a hearing. She stated that all of the speakers signed up to address the Board have indicated that the subject of their remarks would be \"Central High School\" or \"John Hickman.\" She told the audience that if the subject of Mr. Hickman comes up during remarks, she would gavel the speaker and the Board would go into recess. Mrs. Hafeeza Majeed asked for the resignation of Mrs. Jacovelli and Dr. Bernd. She told the Board that she had obtained the signature of fifty patrons and voters asking for a meeting with the Board under Arkansas statute. She admonished Dr. Bernd for Mr. John Moore assumed the presidency and opened the floor for nominations for vice president. Mr. Riggs nominated Dorsey Jackson for vice president. Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli seconded the nomination. Mr. Jackson was elected unanimously. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to elect Dr. Katherine Mitchell as secretary of the Board by acclamation. Mr. Bill Hamil ton seconded the motion , and it =cc.=a:..:rc..:r,....,1=-e ::.d=-w-=ia.ot:.:.h.o......:s\"\"'1\"\"x =-..(..-.= 6_,_)---=a::..:f:..cf=-=i-=r=m=a\"\"\"'t\"\"'1=-v -'-=e'--'-v-=o:....:t::..:e:.\ns=--=-. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli abstained. B. Henderson Athletic Field Agreement Dr. Bernd directed the Board members' attention to the maintenance agreement between the District and the City of Little Rock for the maintenance of the athletic field at Henderson Junior High School. He recommended that the Board approve the maintenance agreement as submitted in the printed agenda and to direct the administration to process the necessary documents. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. C. Position Paper on School Health The Superintendent recommended that the Board act to support the position as submitted in the printed agenda. Dr. Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. Community Study Center Program Dr. Bernd informed the Board that he had signed a letter of support of the Community Study Center and asked the Board to endorse the concept and support the collaborative effort with the Little Rock Boys Club in the establishment of the Community Study Center, including seeking funds through specific grants to assist with the program. Ms. Linda Young, the District's New Futures Liaison, introduced members of the Hoover Collaborative. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation for the endorsement of the collaborative efforts with the Little Rock Boys Club in the establishment of the Community study Center including seeking funding through specific grants and the approval of a waiver allowing course credit to be granted for students participating in the Center. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. E. Personnel Changes Dr. Bernd directed the Board members' attention to the personnel changes in the printed agenda and the slip sheet containing the resignation of Catherine Johnson. He recommended that the Board approve the personnel changes. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. F. Financial Reports The Superintendent pointed out the new format. Mr. Gary Jones answered questions from Board members. He told the Board that the new format was the first pass and that revisions and simplification will probably follow. Mr. Jackson moved approval of the financial reports. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Sibling Transfers Mrs. Marie Parker reported on the requirements of the desegregation plan concerning siblings going to the same schools whether they be attendance zone, non-attendance zone, or magnet schools. Board members asked questions and expressed a desire that every effort be made to get siblings in the same school. B. The Incentive Schools' Master Teacher Program Mrs. Janet Bernard highlighted the report contained in the printed agenda. Board members asked questions. Mrs. Bernard told the Board that these schools will serve as lab schools for student teachers. She also reported that this report will be sent to the Court and to the Desegregation Monitor. C. Educational Programs Report GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL'S EDUCATION BEYOND THE CLASSROOM Mrs. Arma Hart introduced Mr. Robert Brown, principal at Garland Incentive School. Mr. Brown reported on some of the events that are scheduled after school hours to help students learn and to involve parents in the life of their child. Some of the programs are group discussions on social issues within the community, trips to movies and dinner engagements at different ethnic restaurants. He also told the Board that the school had been engaged in many changes, including the lowering of class sizes, obtaining instructional aides and supervision aides, and establishing the Writing to Read labs. They have mentor programs to raise self esteem, the IRC specialists work with new teachers, they have established a staffing committee that includes parents, teachers, and administrators. He reported that the school has began the Effective Schools training for all staff members, including the custodial staff. VII. CONSENT AGENDA Dr. Bernd presented the items for the consent of the Board as follows: Donations of Property A computer disk drive to Fair Park Elementary by Mr. Howard Muldrow\nA scoreboard to Cloverdale Jr. High by Mr. John Twyford/Twin City Bank\n$6,000 to fund an art teacher to Forest Park Elementary by Forest Park PTA\nPea gravel for playground at Fulbright Elementary by Glacial Concrete, Mark \u0026amp; Mary Rose Breckenridge, and Chuck Germer\nComputer equipment to HIPPY Program by IBM/HIPPY USA\n1992 GMC Pickup Truck to Metropolitan Vo-Tech Center by Landers Trucks, Benton\nComputer equipment to Rockefeller Incentive School by Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light Company\nand Software valued at $1500 to Central High School by Systematics. Lease Agreement - King Elementary School Property A 99-year lease agreement between the District and the City of Little Rock for approximately 3.5 acres of land to be used for the new Martin Luther King School site. The lease is to be $1.00 per year for the 99 years. Air Space Agreement - King Elementary School Property An air space agreement between the District and the Arkansas State Highway Commission to lease approximately three acres of land for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a parking lot for the new Martin Luther King Elementary School. Authorization to Apply for School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas Assurances - P.L. 81-874 A request for authorization and approval of the Resolution from the Board of Directors so the District can submit this year's application in a timely manner. The Superintendent recommended that the Board approve all the items listed in the consent section of the printed agenda. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the consent agenda. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None VOTE OF APPRECIATION: Mr. Bill Hamilton moved to give Mrs. Jacovelli a vote of thanks for serving as the Board president and commended her for the manner in which she has served. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. RECESS: The Board recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:59 p.m. IX. STUDENT DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Howard directed the Board members' attention to the non-contested expulsions of Tellys Clemmons, Lynn Davis, Shawn Henson, Quawn Marshall, Trimmell McIntosh, William Teague, and Terrance Williams. He asked that the non-contested recommendations include Jason Perkins, who was listed as a contested expulsion recommendation. He also directed the Board members' attention to the non-contested long-term suspensions of Avianca Adrow, Lakeisha Barnes, Antonio Beasley, Chris Bell, Araby Branch, Gailisa Bryant, Timmy Dewitt, Patrick Ellis, Jimmy Frazier, Eric Howard, Tamika Johnson, Lourenco Lee, James May, Wendy Montgomery, Leticia Nelson, Billy Robinson, and Walter Zinamon. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved approval of all the non-contested expulsions and long-term suspensions. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried with five affirmative votes. Mr. Bill Hamilton and Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli were absent for the vote. The Board considered the reinstatement petition of Eric Allen. After hearing all the testimony and evidence presented to it, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to reinstate Eric Allen to Cloverdale Jr. High if that can be accomplished in order to give Eric's father an opportunity to serve as a positive role model and to give Eric a final chance to get an education in the Little Rock School District. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion. After discussion, Mr. Jackson amended his motion to allow for reinstatement to the Alternative Learning Center on strict probation. Mrs. Jacovelli accepted the amended motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hamilton was absent. The Board considered the reinstatement petition of Eleta Spencer. After hearing all the evidence presented to it and the recommendation of the administration to grant the reinstatement petition, Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli moved the administration's recommendation that Eleta Spencer be reinstated on strict probation regarding weapons for the balance of the 1992-93 school year. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mrs. Jacovelli moved to adjourn. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. rs. O. G. Jcovelli, President ~JIZJJ~ Ms. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: d-)'f+ 5 ' t} .3 ---'\"\"--i1'--'-\"--=-+, --'-=--- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting January 28, 1993 REC OCT 2 7 199.5 Office of Oe:::-(lrE-gak,n fl:c1 .. :0.,r J The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:35 p.m. on January 28, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: None EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frederick Fields, Teacher Representative CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) members of the Board of Directors. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering the Aerospace Magnet School. CONSIDERATION OF AEROSPACE MAGNET: Mr. John Riggs expressed the reasons for his initial support of the proposed Aerospace Magnet School and the reason that he has now changed his mind about the viability of the proposal. He cited as major reasons for his change of mind, (1) strong opposition from Board of Directors Special Meeting January 28, 1993 2 the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School, and the Magnet Review Committee\n(2) the improbability of the Aerospace Education Committee raising the required $20 million in operating funds within the next five months\nand (3) the wisdom of investing in a declining aerospace industry. Mr. Riggs reiterated his strong support for business and the aerospace industry. He also indicated that he realized the political consequences of his action. Following his statement, Mr. Riggs moved to rescind the Resolution adopted on November 24, 1992 regarding the building of an aerospace senior high school and the offering of companion aerospace courses in junior high schools, and that all work on the aerospace school and grant application cease. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion ensued, and Ms. Pat Gee moved to amend the motion to table the aerospace project until the July, 1994 Board meeting. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the amendment. Discussion ensued. Mr. Dick Holbert, representing the Aerospace Education Committee, urged the Board to submit the grant to the U. S. Department of Education and defended the viability of the project. Following Mr. Holbert's address to the Board, further discussion ensued. Mr. John Moore called the question. The amendment to the motion failed three ( 3) to four ( 4) . Dr. Mitchell, Ms. Gee, and Mr. Hamilton voted in favor of the amendment. Mr. Riggs, Mr. Jackson, Mrs. Jacovelli, and Mr. Moore voted in opposition to the amendment. The main motion carried four (4) to three (3). Mr. Riggs, Mr. Jackson, Mrs. Jacovelli, and Mr. Moore voted in favor of the motion. Dr. Mitchell, Ms. Gee, and Mr. Hamilton dissented. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. John Riggs moved to adjourn. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come within the call for the special meeting, the meeting adjourned at 6:17 p.m. coveiiCPresident Ms. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED=----'~~) -\u0026lt;.,.cd-=s:........i)c_.q.._3_ I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting February 11, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 6:37 p.m. on February 11, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli Ms. Pat Gee MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. John Riggs ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members, which constituted a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The special meeting was called for the purpose of conducting student disciplinary hearings and considering disciplinary recommendations. Board of Directors Special Meeting February 11, 1993 STUDENT DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS: 2 The Board conducted a hearing on behalf of Marty L. Page. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, the Superintendent recommended that Marty Page be expelled from the Little Rock School District\nhowever, noting that he is a senior with good grades, records, etc., and that nothing would be accomplished by having him return next year, the Superintendent recommended that the credit al~eady earned for the first semester be awarded\nthat he enroll in a correspondence course and/or vocational school to earn the needed credit for graduation\nand upon acquisition of the 1 unit that the school award him a diploma. The recommendation included the provision that he not participate in any school activity, inclusive of graduation, while the expulsion is in effect. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The chair directed the Board members' attention to the noncontested expulsion recommendations of Corey Caldwell, Willena Darrough, Michael Monroe, and Angela Redden. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the administration's recommendation for the expulsion of these students. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing on behalf of Avery Page. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, the Superintendent recommended that Avery Page be assigned to the Juvenile Justice Center Alternative Program for the remainder of the 1992-93 school year and that he receive counseling there on a weekly basis. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation and stated that if Avery and his parents want to make the decision not to go, it is their decision. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing on behalf of Briann Guin. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, the Superintendent recommended that Brian Guinn be expelled for the designated period of 20 days (1/22/93 to 2/22/93) or time served. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing on behalf of Derrick Galvin. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, the Superintendent recommended that Derrick Galvin be Board of Directors Special Meeting February 11, 1993 3 expelled for the remainder of the year\nhowever, if Galvin wants to attend the Juvenile Justice Center, the District will facilitate this. Ms. Pat Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. o. G. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mrs. Jacovelli moved to adjourn. Mrs. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the special meeting of the Board of Directors, the meeting adjourned at 7 :21 p.m. Mr. hn Moore, President ,i~ Dr:-='Katherine Mitchell, Secretary APPROVED:_---'-/~, _-- _\n_,-' - _~, __\n__ _ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting February 16, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:09 p.m. on February 16, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Bill Hamilton (joined meeting at 6:05 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Riggs EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Sue Rogers, Teacher Representative Miss Gillettie Bennett, Student Representative ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members, which constituted a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called to hear from individuals who have petitioned the Board to discuss Little Rock Central High School. The president explained to the audience that the speakers must refrain from speaking to the Board about Mr. John Hickman, suspended principal at Central High. INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS: Mrs. Hafeeza Majeed led in a silent prayer. She read a letter from Willie Lynch, a slave owner, which was written in 1712 about how to control slaves. She told the Board that our children are being neglected because a superintendent has been brought here to do a job. She compared the Little Rock School District as the plantation and the group, Fifty for the Future, as the overseer. She said the District is making sure that black children don't learn and are pitting black women against black men. She complained about Mrs. Bernard's investigating tactics with students. She asked that an impartial panel be appointed and asked that Mr. Moore resign as president and that Mr. Jackson resign as vice-president because they are insensitive to black children. A member of the audience accused Dr. Bernd of cracking sexual jokes when he spoke to teachers at a pre-school meeting last fall. Ms. Sheila Parker told the Board that the students should be first and called for Dr. Bernd's resignation. Mr. Byron Jenkins told the Board that by taking Mr. Hickman out of the school the students, mostly seniors, have really been hurt. He said there was no loyalty at the building now and that the body can't function without the head. He asked that the Board take into consideration the way students feel. The Board recessed at 5:39 p.m. Upon reconvening, Mr. Moore again asked that the speakers keep their remarks about Central High in general and not about Mr. Hickman. Mr. Say McIntosh told the Board that in 1992 the city had 52 black youngsters killed, and he had not seen the people as mad about these young people being killed as they are over the suspension of Mr. Hickman. He called on black people to stop killing each other. Ms. Bahiyyah Ward told the Board that she is a senior at Central High and that this is the worst year of her life. She said the situation at Central has destroyed the senior class. She told the Board that it underestimates the students and parents of Central are going to bring the truth to the public. Ms. Cory Smith told the Board that the school is just not the same. People are smoking and shooting dice on campus. He said there is no evidence to support what has happened. Ms. Lois Brown said her daughter goes to Central and she does not appreciate Mrs. Bernard asking her questions about her relationship with Mr. Hickman. She said the questioning has caused friction between her and her husband. Rochelle Wells, a sophomore at Central High, said Mr. Hickman treats everyone with respect. She asked the Board why it did not - ask the students what they think. Ms. Susie May, a teacher at Central, expressed concern about some of the comments. She told the Board that morale at Central is high, that the atmosphere is quiet and calm. She said they are no longer interrupted by assemblies and announcements. Ms. Nancy Wilson, an art teacher at Central, said she grew up in Detroit. She assured the Board that Central High is not out of control. She said she had noticed that the number of students in the halls have been reduced as are other incidents. She said teachers feel supported and that morale has improved. Mr. Bill Hamilton joined the meeting at 6:05 p.m. Mr. C. E. McAdoo, pastor of Wesley United Methodist Church, said he was representing the Christian Ministerial Alliance. He said the wind has moved a reed and they will keep hitting the anvil. In allegorical language, Rev. McAdoo expressed that there is a great deal of support in the community for Mr. Hickman. Miss Bahiyyah Ward told the Board that if Mr. Hickman is not returned to Central the (the students) will tear the school apart brick by brick. Mr. Charles Davis told the Board that it had taken away a role model and said they were put on this Board for a reason. He told the Board that the kids in the school are most important. Rev. J. E. Booker, Pastor of Saint Peter's Rock Baptist Church, told the Board that they have created a powder keg and not to call on the black pastors for help. Lawrence Allen, Sr. said one of the ladies caught up in the rumors at Central is his daughter. He said he talked to Mrs. Bernard and tried to stop the allegation. He now knows they are false but a man has been destroyed\nhe has been destroyed\nand he is mad as hell. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to adjourn. Ms. motion, and it carried three (3) to two (2). and Mr. Jackson voted in favor of adjournment\nMitchell voted in opposition to adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 6:37 p.m. Approved: /  ,\nJj , _., _$ Pat Gee seconded the Mr. Moore, Ms. Gee, Mr. Hamilton and Dr. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 JUN 4 1993 Otrice of Desegregation Monitoring Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:10 p.m. on February 25, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. John Riggs - MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Willie D. \"Bill\" Hamilton Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. ACTION: CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The president called the regular Board meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members, which constituted a quorum. II. ACTION: READING OF THE MINUTES Minutes for the Special Meetings on November 24, 1992\nDecember 10, 1992\nJanuary 14, 1993\nJanuary 28, 1993\nand the Regular Meeting on January 28, 1993 were read. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved approval of the minutes as submitted. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 III. REPORT: PRESENTATIONS A. Superintendent's Comments 2 Dr. Bernd presented Mr. Franklin Davis, Principal at Franklin Incentive School who introduced Mr. Billy McFarland, troop leader of the Boy Scouts at Franklin. The Boy Scout Troop presented a reading of Martin Luther King's address entitled, \"I Have a Dream\" in observance of Black History Month. Each troop member recited from memory a portion of King's address. Dr. Bernd presented a citation to Craig O'Neill who has been a very \"creative\" supporter of our District. Mr. O'Neill recently began including a small but significant time slot on his early morning radio show at KURB in which he announces school business. The Ward, Cundiff and Aaron Memorial Recognition Program, sponsored by the Pulaski Heights Lions Club, presented awards to students and teachers who have gone the extra mile in serving their community. Students are selected on the basis of having a grade point average of 3.5 or above, participation in extra-curricular activities and demonstrated community leadership. Teachers were selected on the basis of excellence in teaching, volunteering extra time with students in need and for their community involvement. Four teachers and eight students received the award. The teachers were: Mary Carter - Pulaski Heights Jr. High Geraldine Johnson - McDermott Elementary Joann Williams - Jefferson Elementary Sherrie Snowden - Fair High School Students who received the award were: Christopher Hendrix - Central High School Rob Marus - Central High School Tammi Keeton - McClellan Community School Denise Bauer - McClellan Community School Candice Jones - Fair High School Shaundra Harris - Hall High School Ashley Bailey - Hall High School Susan Russenberger - McClellan Community School The Superintendent presented a citation to Mr. Jimmy Brown who helped organize the mentoring program at Cloverdale Elementary School. The program matches adult mentors with students as a way to provide a positive role model. A citation was presented to the student and teacher ex-officio Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 3 Board Members for the month of February - student Gilettie Bennett, Hall High School and our teacher, Sue Rogers, Dodd Elementary. B. Citizens Committees None reporting C. Board Members Dr. Katherine Mitchell issued congratulations to Coach Charles Ripley, Parkview Magnet School's basketball coach, who has been named to coach the McDonald's All-American basketball team, and also congratulations to Coach Al Flanigan who will serve as the assistant. Dr. Mitchell also thanked New Futures for paying her expenses to attend the conference on \"Effective Schools\" in Phoenix, Arizona. Dorsey Jackson reported he attended an \"Our Town\" Seminar at DeGray Lake sponsored by the Junior Chamber of Commerce during the week-end of February 19. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS: Ms. Shelia Parker asked that consideration be given to the children. She asked that Dr. Bernd step down as Superintendent. Ms. Venessa Frazier stated she is a parent of children in the Little Rock School District. She stated that she had moved to Little Rock from another school district where her child was a 4.0 student. She stated he now has a grade point average of 1.7. She spoke on the loss of the population in Arkansas. She encouraged people not to hate, but rather to encourage our children to love one another. She thinks this has a great deal to do with her child's loss of interest in school. V. ACTION: A. New Partnerships Dr. Bernd directed the Board members' attention to the new partnerships between Dean's Donut Factory and Cloverdale Elementary School. After representatives of the partners were recognized and presented with certificates, Mr. John Riggs moved approval of the partnership, Dr.Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 4 B. Applied Math I - Request for New Math Course Offering for the 1993-94 School Year. Ms. Matthis announced that we were asking the Board for approval to offer Applied Math I for the 1993-94 School Year, and she in turn introduced Dianne Wood, Supervisor of Math, who explained the course. Mr. John Riggs moved the implementation of the new Applied Math I course for the 1993-94 school year, seconded by Mr. Dorsey Jackson, and it carried unanimously. C. Child Care and Development Block Grant Application Mrs. Matthis reported that the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission has announced a grant program available to all registered and licensed child day care providers. The Little Rock School District's grant proposal for the school year 1992-93 is $37,500. These grant proposals are for appropriate playground equipment for pre-kindergarten children. The grants are in the amount of $2,500 per school, and applications are being submitted for the following schools: Badgett Bale Cloverdale Franklin Garland Geyer Springs Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Washington Watson Wilson Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved acceptance of this Block Grant. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. Policy on Approval of Budget - First Reading There was discussion on this first reading of the policy on Approval of Budget. This policy requires approval by the Board of any transfer in excess of $25,000. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved approval of this policy on a first reading, seconded by Mr. John Riggs, and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Biracial Committee Incentive Schools Monitoring Report Ms. Shirley Thomas, Chairperson of the Biracial Committee was introduced by Ms. Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity. Ms. Thomas presented the Biracial Committee Incentive Schools' Monitoring Report (printed in Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 5 agenda). Ms. Thomas reported that there is evidence if varying degrees of compliance from school to school reflected in equitable staff composition, student awards and honors, and improvement plans and strategies for the schools as well as students. Ms. Thomas also reported that the Superintendent will make a presentation on Effective Schools at the March 9 Meeting of the Biracial Committee. B. Desegregation Update Dr. Bernd reported that Judge Wright has made it very clear that she wants a budget from LRSD that can be monitored by the Court. A job description is being developed for the budget person to work through the Court with the Little Rock School District in preparing a budget. It has been made very clear that when the budget preparation is accomplished, this person will no longer be employed by the District. During discussion of this report, Mr. Jackson asked the Board if they thought our desegregation plan needed to be overhauled and questioned the need for another budget person to serve at the discretion of the Federal District Court. Mr. Moore expressed his view that Board members are charged with the responsibility of hiring employees. Dr. Mitchell asked if we might just develop a new plan. Additional discussion centered around the concern for focusing our attention and resources on teaching all children instead of programs that don't appear to make a difference. C. Educational Programs Report: J. A. Fair's Mock Trial Team Mrs. Janet Bernard introduced students from Fair High School's Mock Trial Team together with the team's sponsor, Mrs. Gay McDaniel. It was announced that this team won the state competition and went to Harvard University where they competed in the national competition. Ms. McDaniel explained that the team is strictly extracurricular in nature. The students come before school and stay late in order to participate. When the team went to Harvard to participate, the District paid one-half the cost and the team raised funds for the remainder of the trip. The students gave a very interesting presentation on their \"trial\" procedure where some of the students appeared as lawyers and some as witnesses. D. Report on Policies on Suspension of Elementary students Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 6 Mrs. Bernard presented a comparative report on the number of out-of-school suspensions for elementary school students during the first semester of the 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 school year. The report shows a decline in the number of black students who have been suspended. VII. CONSENT AGENDA Dr. Bernd presented the items for the consent of the Board as follows: Donations of Property Donations to Washington Magnet School: $200 for RIF Program from Twin City Bank $1,300 for RIF Program from Washington Magnet PTA $600 from Levi Strauss Foundation 3 Books for Media Center from Little Rock Wastewater Utility\nTelevision/Videocamcorder to Brady Elementary from Holiday Inn West\n$4,500 from the 1942 Graduating Class to Central High School\nLight Table to Metropolitan Vo-Tech from BEI Motion Systems Company\nWord Processor from Sam's Club to Meadowcliff Elementary School. Youth Apprenticeship/Work-based Learning Grant - Second Year Funding. It has been learned that funding will continue for the existing six demonstration Youth Apprenticeship/Workbased Learning Projects - providing that the projects have met and/or have shown significant progress toward meeting the requirements as outlined in the 1992 RFP (Request for Proposals) and have demonstrated productivity regarding the number of student apprentices participating in the program. Ms. Matthis distributed a corrected budget for this project wherein the corrected amount for 1993-94 should read: $101,186.00 instead of $98,248.00 as printed in the agenda. Financial Reports Financial Reports for the period ended January 31, 1993 were presented along with Bond Account for the period ended Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 January 31, 1993. Personnel Changes 7 Personnel Changes with recommendations for acceptance of resignations/terminations and employment of new staff at the positions, salaries and classifications were presented for consideration and approval. The Superintendent recommended that the Board approve all the items listed in the consent section of the printed agenda. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the approval of the consent agenda. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None ADJOURNMENT: Mr. John Riggs moved to adjourn. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Dr. Katherine Mitchell,Secretary APPROVED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting March 11, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 6:07 p.m. on March 11, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The special meeting was called to order immediately following the Board Agenda Review Meeting. The president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering the 1993-94 school calendar, considering the lease agreement for the Parkin Building, and to conduct student hearings. 1992-93 SCHOOL CALENDAR: Dr. Bernd reviewed the proposed school calendar and recommended that the Board approve it for the 1992-93 school year. A Board members asked questions and discussion ensued concerning  various aspects of the calendar. Mr. John Moore moved that the school calendar be amended to include Christmas vacation where it is marked Winter Vacation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion. The motion carried three (3) to two (2). Mr. Jackson, Mr. Riggs, and Mr. Moore voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Gee voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. John Riggs moved to approve the proposed 1992-93 school calendar as amended. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. LEASE ON PARKIN BUILDING: Mr. Gary Jones explained that approval of the lease is the first step in the process because we are continuing to negotiate for the purchase of the facility, and leasing will give us the opportunity to evaluate the facility. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved approval of the lease agreement for the Parkin Building. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. STUDENT HEARINGS: Mr. Dorsey Jackson presided over the student hearings in the absence of President John Moore. Mr. Rudolph Howard reported that he would like to change his recommendation on Toyia Williams from non-contested expulsion to a long term suspension and reported that the principal concurs with the change in recommendation. Her name was moved to the long-term suspension recommendations list. The chair directed the Board members' attention to the longterm suspensions listed under Part II of the agenda, which now includes the name of Toyia Williams. Mr. John Riggs moved approval of the long-term suspensions. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Students included in this motion are Sharon Betts, Bridgette Bynum, Katherine Kreech, Darryl Lea, Toyia Williams, and Anthony Smith. REINSTATEMENT PETITIONS: Mr. Howard presented the following students' reinstatement: Darrell Freeman, Tekia Johnson, and Clifton Thomas. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved the reinstatement recommendations. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing in connection with the expulsion recommendation of Delores Hubbert. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, Mr. John Riggs moved the administration's recommendation for expulsion for the 1992-93 school year. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing in connection with the long-term - suspension recommendation of Duane Wilson. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, Dr. Bernd recommended that the suspension be for 36 days. Ms. Pat Gee moved the administration's recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing in connection with the long-term suspension recommendation of Anthony Farissa. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, Dr. Bernd recommended that the suspension be for 36 days. Mr. John Riggs moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special meeting of the Board of Directprs, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. upon motion of Mr. Riggs, a second by Ms. Gee, and unanimous approval of the Board members. :~ore, President ~ APPROVED: ------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School Districts met in its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:06 p.m. on March 25, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The vice-president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Riggs - MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Moore Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The vice-president called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. II. READING OF THE MINUTES The chair directed the Board members' attention to the minutes of the regular meeting on February 25, 1993. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved approval of the minutes as submitted. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. III. PRESENTATIONS A. Superintendent A Board of Directors W Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 2 Dr. Bernd announced the winners in the \"Pennies for Pasta - Change for Change\" contest as follows: Jefferson Elementary School for raising the most money (2,590.00)\nMs. Becky Ramsey's room at Jefferson for winning the classroom category ($382.00)\nCarver Magnet Elementary School and Central High School for winning second and third place awards, respectively\nWatson Elementary School for winning the second and third place in the classroom divisio~, respectively\nAlso honored for their help in this program was Wendy Salaam, Executive Director of Fighting Back\nTed Jones, General Manager of K-Duck Radio Station\nCindy Watkins, Director of Community Relations for KATV, Channel 7\nCapt. Jean Kozusko, U. s. Air Force\nRoger Marlin, Marketing Director of Metropolitan National Bank\nJohn Pryor, City Finance Director, City of Little Rock\nMary Hunter Wagoner, Chairman, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce Partners in Education. A special thanks was given to Mr. Bruce Thompson, General Manager of The Olive Garden Restaurant, who provided a great spaghetti lunch for the winning classroom and to Mr. Herren Hickingbotham with TCBY Enterprises, who gave the winning school two IBM lap-top computers. Dr. Bernd also presented Superintendent's Citations to the Parkview Debate team that participated at Harvard University recently. Two of the four 2-person teams placed: one in second place and one in ninth place. Representing the Parkview Debate Team were Carmen Korenbandi, Yetu Robinson, Steve Broadnax, Michael Hardin, Shawn Stephens, Laura Sandage, Brandle Stillman, and Tori Humphrey. Citations were also awarded to the student and teacher ex officio Board members for this month: Allison Tedder, a student at McClellan Community High School\nand Coach Ellis Register of McClellan High School. B. Citizens Committees None reporting. c. Board Members Mr. Dorsey Jackson and Mr. John Riggs read prepared statements. The statements were entered into the record and are attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. A Board of Directors W Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 3 Dr. Katherine Mitchell reported that she had a very interesting visit at Watson Elementary School where she spent time with the child she is mentoring. She also recognized Dr. Diana Glaze, who has been selected to participate in the national Principals Hotline program on March 27th and 28th. She explained that this program will put principals in touch with parents so they can answer questions about schools. Dr. Mitchell also commended the students who participated in MATH COUNTS. Fletcher Foti was on the winning team and will represent our District in competition in Washington, D.C. She reported that Dunbar was second overall and that Mann was third. She also commended Michael Carroll and Kimberly Yeargin, who have been selected as National Merit Finalists. Mr. Dorsey Jackson congratulated the basketball teams at Parkview, McClellan, and Fair, for ending the season at number 1, 2, and 5 in the State, respectively. D. Partnerships Dr. Bernd introduced two new partnerships: Back Yard Burgers and Rockefeller Incentive Schools\nand UALR's \"Partners in the Arts\" program and LRSD elementary schools (to be determined). He recommended approval of the partnerships. Ms. Gee moved the recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Certificates were presented to each partner commemorating the new partnerships. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Ms. Sheila Parker told the Board that what is going on now in the District is serious\nthat when the head does not function properly, the system will not work. She urged the Board to consider her letter that she wrote last month. Mr. Marcus Eubanks, representing students from Central High School, asked the Board when they were going to meet with the students. Mr. Jackson responded that we are trying to schedule a time when the Board can get a quorum. Mr. Byron Jenkins, reiterated the students' request for a meeting with the Board members. He told the Board that Mr. Freeland had no reason to call Mr. Hickman a thief. Mr. John Walker told the Board that all the parties are tired of conflict and thought we would be able to put conflict behind us when we signed the settlement agreement -- that all parties were victorious. Further, he stated that since the Board has taken the position that the plan should be changed, then there is only one force, Judge Wright, who represents the force of the A Board of Directors W Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 4 Constitution of the United States. He further stated that this litigation is about the Constitutional rights of black children. He explained that he could not allow the Board to chastise him because he would not be equal to them. He said that Judge Wright has found this District to be out of compliance and that public opposition cannot sway decisions on desegregation. He alleged that the administration has spent more time creating conflict than trying to resolve it and unless and until we try to get back on track, it will be that way. He asked Mr. Jackson to re-evaluate his position and accept the notion that the least child in the District is entitled to the same quality of education from a teacher who has only privileged in her classroom. V. ACTION ITEMS A. Hippy-JTPA Proposal Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the request to submit the JTPA-HIPPY Proposal to the City of Little Rock as reflected in the slip-sheeted (corrected) version. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Ms. Gee urged - Board members to attend the HIPPY graduation. B. JTPA Summer Learning Proposal Dr. Bernd directed the Board's attention to the JTPA Summer Learning Program application to the City of Little Rock to provide training for students during the summer of 1993. Mr. Sam Stueart answered questions from Board members and discussion ensued concerning the tracking system which has been included in this year's program as an evaluative tool. Further discussion centered around the advisability of using GPA as an indicator of success. Dr. Mitchell advocated using diagnostic tests to determine what skills the students are lacking. Following discussion, Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board adopt the proposal with the proviso that the administration will explore the possibility of using an instrument more closely aligned with our curriculum. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. c. Nurses Agreement Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the 1992-93 agreement reached between the District and the Nurses Association as reflected in the printed agenda. Dr. Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. Stephens Interdistrict School Site Selection Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 5 Dr. Bernd told the Board that the Committee had broad representation and has given long and careful consideration to the site for the new Stephens Interdistrict School. He commended the commitment of the neighborhood around the current Stephens School. He recommended that the Board approve for submission to the Court the site of the present Stephens School for the construction of the new Stephens Interdistrict School. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Mr. Sammie Mills spoke in favor of the school being constructed at the present Stephens School site. Mr. Riggs suggested that the District erect a plaque or statue that relates the history of the Stephens School and the significance of that site. Mr. Jackson reminded the Board that we must aggressively recruit students to the interdistrict school and asked that the Board see a specific recruiting plan before this is submitted to the Court. Dr. Bernd assured Mr. Jackson that a recruiting strategy is being developed with the assistance of the Pulaski County Special School District. Ms. Marie Parker told the Board that a recruiting strategy is being planned that addresses the issues of theme and safety. Mr. Jackson further suggested that we target employees at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and the Veterans Hospital. Mr. Riggs encouraged the administration to look at some of the other successful schools such as Rockefeller for indicators of what parents want for their children. Ms. Gee commended the Committee for its comprehensive study. Following discussion, the motion carried unanimously. E. Policy on Approval of Budget - Second Reading Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board adopt the Policy on Approval of the Budget on second reading. Mr. John Riggs moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Terry School's Dad's Club Mrs. Margaret Gremillion introduced Mrs. LaDell Looper, Principal of Terry Elementary School. Mrs. Looper reported on the organization of the Dad's Club. Mr. Tyrone Harris, Vice-principal at Terry School, reported on his work with the Dad's Club and introduced Mr. Greg Alagood, who reported that the Club has a speaker's bureau for men to talk to classes\nthat they are organizing a mentor program\nand generally be involved in school activities to provide youngsters a positive male role model. The Board recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m. A Board of Directors  Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 B. Desegregation Update 6 Dr. Bernd reported that the administration has furnished the Court the needs assessment for incentive school staffing, a draft organizational management chart, language on New Futures, the academic support program, and the early childhood report. He reported that we are currently hiring theme specialists, auditing the plan for compliance, and developing evaluation components. He told the Board that the highest priority is to develop an audit on the status of implementation and expressed confidence that the Board will find a high level of compliance once the audit is done. Following the Supeintendent's report, Dr. Mitchell asked that we conduct a work session as to what is in the plan. Mr. Riggs suggested that the new budget ,person talk with the Board at the next Board meeting, and strongly encouraged the administration to meet with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the budget cuts. VII. CONSENT AGENDA Dr. Bernd recommended approval of the consent agenda as follows: A. Donations Requests to donate the following: (1) Catalog Files/Catalogs to Metropolitan VocationalTechnical High School by Allied Supply Incorporated\n(2) Ellison Lettering Machine to Wakefield Elementary School by the Wakefield PTA\n(3) $500 toward an art grant match to Watson Elementary School by Lucky B. for Arkansas Children's Fundraisers, Inc.\n(4) a VCR to Terry Elementary School by Linda and Kyle Bunney ( in memory of Krista Ann Bunney\n(5) assistive listening device to the Division of Exceptional Children by Gale Stewart\n(6) an outdoor school sign to Jefferson Elementary School by Janet Jones, Jefferson P.T.A., and O.D. Tucker\n(7) $1000 in teacher grants to McClellan Comunity High School by First Commercial Bank. B. Personnel Changes Approval of resignations/terminations, employment of new staff, deceased and retirees at the positions, salaries, and classifications as reflected in the printed agenda. Also the terminations of Monica Scott, Edward Paige, and William Thomas as indicated on a slip sheet\nand the appointment of Sadie Mitchell as the principal of the new Martin Luther King Elementary School for the 1993-94 school year at an annual salary of $42,881.14 plus a car allowance of $564.00. A Board of Directors  Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 7 c. Financial Reports Approval of the financial reports as reflected in the printed agenda. Mr. John Riggs moved approval of the consent agenda. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. IX. STUDENT DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Dr. Mac Bernd recommended that the Board approve the non-contested disciplinary recommendations as follows: Non-contested expulsion of Matthew Gallien, Andre Jennings, Gilbert Jones, Everett Mack, and Laboya Walker\nNon-contested long-term suspensions of Roderick Bradford, Germain Brown, India Brown, Desmond Davis, Preston Flowers, Shajuana Harris, Shade Holley, Carnal Jackson, Orlando Jones, Waverly Jones, Fred Lawrence, Gerald Mayo, Lajessica Mayo, Tiffany Nelson, Carlos Pace, Maxley Parker, Jericho Rideout, Steve Shelton, Jermaine Simmons, Antonio Smith, Candis Thrower, Angela Williams, Racquel Williams, and Kerry Wilson. Mr. recommendation. unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Bill Hamilton moved the Superintendent's Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried Mr. John Riggs moved to adjourn. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board of Directors, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Jo Katherine Mitchell, Secretary I \"'I ' (:- \"\n] APPROVED: l{,  2 :.\n_ ' ~ Board Comments by Dorsey Jackson March 25, 1993 Just a few days more than eighteen months ago, I was elected to be the representative of Zone 3 on the Little Rock School Board. I am still moved by the honor and trust bestowed upon me by the YQtm in that Zone. I chose to run for this position because of my strong conviction that a viable public school system is critical to the economic growth of our community. When a person runs for an elected office, they are immediately labeled a \"politician.\" If nothing else, has been accomplished during the last eighteen months, I have, at least, cast doubt on the propriety of that labeling. To perhaps further prove that I am not a typical politician, recent events have caused me to look back at my campaign platform to determine whether I have been performing in the manner in which I indicated I would. Unfortunately, and regrettably, I find tliat my track record is not that outstanding. Accomplishments in two of five objectives particularly give me concern: 1. Ensuring that the District operates in a financially responsible manner through effective management of its limited resources\nand 2. Working with the administration and the Board to see that court-ordered policies are properly and fairly implemented so that the District can get out of the Courtroom. In analyzing my failures in these two areas, I have arrived at a very troubling unfortunate conclusion. The first objective is rendered extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish because of the requirements necessitated by the second objective. My only qualifications for this position, in reality, were a fairly decent financial background and a little bit of common sense. These two qualifications inspire me to try to modify the District's desegregation plan to one that is affordable. Unfortunately, common sense apparently has no place in managing the financial affairs or any other affairs of this district While I will readily admit that the settlement plan and the desegregation plan are the plans of this district, I would like to point out one simple fact that some may be overlooking. I was not on this Board when these plans were approved and originally committed to. I have merely inherited them. Although I am normally proud of my heritage, this bequest is not particularly the best thing that ever happened to me. I am firmly convinced the Desegregation Plan needs to be changed and changed quickly. A reality of our democracy is that we are able to change. Our president recently was elected on a theme of change. The Arkansas Legislature has probably introduced four to five thousand bills during this legislative session. Why? In large part, I am sure, because the individual legislators feel a need to change. Much of the media's attention this past weekend has been devoted to the pending change in the make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court, partially how it will impact previous court decisions on such matters as Roe vs. Wade. Why all the attention, if not for the possibility of change. Earlier this week, the Arkansas House voted to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot dealing with term limitations. This is an attempt to change something just overwhelmingly approved by the voters last November, less than five months ago. - As I mentioned earlier, one of my few qualifications for this job was a little bit of common sense. Realizing that it is stupid to go to a gunfight with only a knife, common sense tells me that I must seek another solution. If by my words and actions I have offended the Court, I apologize. I realize my behavior in the courtroom this past Friday was not exemplary. Just as we expect our teachers and principals to be role models, at all times, for our students, we should expect no less of ourselves. In spite of my philosophical differences with this plan, I intend to use my influence as a Board Member to see that it is implemented. Since so much money and talent is currently being wasted in the courtroom regarding our Plan, I think it is vital that we do all that is humanly possible to expedite the compliance with all aspects of both the Plan and the monumental information requests by Parties to the plan. Implementation and compliance should be our number one objective. This is where I will be focusing my attention. I hope the remainder of the Board will as well. While this will be my focus, I will also be encouraging dialogue between all parties to try to modify the plan. I trust those in higher levels of authority will not try to suppress my rights as a board member to speak out and effect change by placing undue burdens on me or other members of the Board. Finally, I must speak to the African American community. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, a viable school system is critical to economic growth in our community. It is critical not only in attracting businesses, and accordingly jobs, but also in adequately preparing our young people for those jobs. The demands being placed on this administration by the Joshua intervenors are unreasonable. If you truly are interested in a system that educates all children and a system that remains viable, you must insist that your intervenor restrain himself and his personal hostilities. These tactics, and these demands being placed on the administration, while not stealing in the pure legal definition, are nevertheless robbing this district of precious time, time we cannot afford to waste if we are to adequately prepare the children of this district. If your objective is to have total control of this district, as some would suspect, then the district is destined for failure as is the viability of the community. I have previously admitted publicly that one word to sum me up is \"stubborn\". If anyone thinks that making my life less than pleasant through constant subpoenas, forced attendance at court hearings, or other yet to be devised techniques, is going to cause me to resign from this board, you are wrong. Dead wrong. I was elected by the citizens of Zone 3 and I intend to continue to serve them. If they are unhappy, I trust they will let me know soon. Truthfully, I would rather be crappie fishing. I ask that these remarks be made a part of the minutes of this meeting, so that should someone desire to enter them into the Court record, valuable time will not be wasted watching a video. s1TEMENT OF JOHN RIGGS. IV TO THE LITTLE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT AT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL BOARD MEETING --3/25/93 Last Friday, March 19th, was my first visit to a federal court. I have a few observations on that first visit that I would like to share with our board our administration, and our students and patrons. First, for the mo~ part, people involved in the federal court system are nice folks. Although at times some folks do get a tab over emotional, on the whole I was very well treated. The court folks were kind enough to reserve a nice big chair especially for me that was in front so that I could see the action up close and personal--if the proceedings had been a Razorback basketball game we would have had the equivalent of court side seats. Being fairly naive about courts and lawyers in general, I found the day to be a very interesting civics lesson, much like the civics lesson Dr. Bernd referred to when discussing some of our Central students and our hearing for Mr. Hickman. I would say on the whole, I enjoyed most of the day and look forward to my next indoctrination into how our court system works. I just wish you lawyers would stop suing me for trying to do the best I can in this job. I do feel I did pick the best profession for me by becoming a simple tractor salesman rather than a lawyer or judge While we were in court, the judge was nice enough to give us a report on our conduct and what she expects ofus as the ultimate leaders of the LRSD. Some patrons and citizens I have talked with since Friday think the Judge was way out of line with this document--! do not. Frequently, as a manager, I give folks who work with and for me oral and written evaluations so that they can become better at their jobs by working on weaknesses and emphasizing strengths. Any good manager ( and surly our federal judge would want to be construed as a good manager) does this--so I do not think her actions were out of line.  I concur with Judge Wright that we have a legal if not moral obligation to do everything under our power t sure that the LRSD is pursuing a course of quality desegregated education. I also happen to believe that we should do what ever it takes to comply with Judge Wright's orders--after all, she is a federal judge, makes a hell of a lot more money than we do, and can not be fired or beat in an election. But besides those reasons, I believe we should do what we can to carry out this plan because the Little Rock School District Board of Directors voted to implement it to the best of the school district's ability, and I believe there are parts of it that are effective in achieving the goal of a quality, desegregated educational experience for our students though I again agree with the judge that there are parts of the plan that are expensive and may not be the most economical or effective means to achieve our goals. I do take offense to some of the statements made by Judge Wright in her report to us. First of all, I am not a whiner or a complainer. It offends me that the Judge feels the need to stereotype me for comments that were not made by me nor that reflect the official and stated policy of the LRSD. I would remind the Judge of her own words from the hearing last week \"impressions are important\". I believe that we should not allow ourselves to be involved in name call--it will serve no useful purpose. Again, though I find other areas of agreement with Judge Wright. Her statement that the LRSD acts as if it lost its court case is a dead solid perfect description of how many of the patrons and even this board feels about our current situation. And understandably so, for any time that people lose the right to direct their lives and institutions, then those people have LOST. And in a real sense, the citizens of LR have lost most of the ability to direct the most important institution in our fair city--our schools. The vital, important lesson here is this: do the moral and right thing the first time and hold people accountable so that you do not put yourself in the position where you have to seek help from the federal court system. I also am very concerned about the judge's statements seemingly discouraging discussion by duly elected  lie officials at an official public meeting. Discussion and debate are key elements in a true democracy. ainly public debate over the direction of our most important political entity, our schools, should be enAraged. Again, I am not suggesting in an way that we disregard the federal authorities in this case--we should m!l'every reasonable effort to carry out our desegregation plan and Judge Wright' orders with all deliberate speed. I also have some concerns over Judge Wright's orders in regards to our attendance at court hearings. I chose to believe that Judge Wright is being truthful in her document when she requested our attendance at this particular hearing because she feared we do not understand our obligations or her orders--others in the community believe Judge Wright's actions to be purely punitive and vindictive. I chose to reject this argument. I truly believe the judge is concerned about our understanding of some of the issues and her orders in this case. I would ask, though, that the judge give some considerations to the nature of this board when she requires our attendance at more hearings. The LRSD board is composed of non-paid volunteers who are elected by the ta,\"(payers of the school district. Each of us have a job we are employed at in order that we can pay the rent, cloth and feed our family, and pay our taxes. We serve because we are committed to public service and to quality public education. The court must be mindful of the already countless hours of time that we take away from our jobs to serve our patrons. I believe the judge runs a very real risk of implying that only the independently wealthy who do not have to work can serve on this or any other public board--this is a dangerous and wrong signal to send to our community, and again I will remind the Judge that in her own words that \"impressions are important\". I would contend that if the judge is truthful in her belief that we do not understand her orders ( and again I believe that she is) then I would say that if this board does not understand what Judge Wright expects after Friday's hearing then there is absolutely no hope for us and Judge Wright should go ahead and hold us in contempt and take over complete control of the school district. I believe that this board certainly got the message and that there is no need to continue to require us to attend hearings for the expressed reason of understanding her orders. The judge also expressed concern that our council and superintendent were not relaying to the board the full concern o court. I would suggest that as a compromise, if the judge will cancel her order to require us to attend ha gs, I will agree to attend all hearings in the next year and give a personal report back to the board on just exactly what the court expects. Although I am like the rest of the board with a job outside of my school board activities, I am very fortunate to work for an employer who will allow me to make this time commitment to the court and fortunate to work with very competent and thoughtful co-workers who will take up the slack in my absence. So I believe the judge has accomplished her goal of getting our attention and I will be willing to attend further hearings to ensure the board keeps the message, although I am sure other board members will want from time to time to attend hearings as they can and as they have done in the past. I would like to explain to the judge and our patrons also why sometimes members of this board seemed confused ( as I am most of the time) about our desegregation plan. Partly, and especially as it relates to our budget, we get mixed signals from the court. Ont the one hand the judge and Mr. Morgan at the ODM(and certainly me and rm sure other board members) are insisting that we spend the proceeds of our desegregation settlement wisely and where it will do the most good. Yet, the judge also directs us to fund programs that the school district, this board, perhaps the Joshua Intervenors, and the judge herself feel are ineffective and a waste of money. So here is the great dilemma: we get accused of not spending money wisely by the court and then we are told by the court to spend money on programs that the court feels are wasteful and will not further us on our road to achieve unitary status by having excellent desegregated education in Little Rock. It is no wonder that my wife thinks rm turning into a schizoid. I talked at the February board meeting about how my company produces a marketing document first and then puts the dollars to it, not vice-versa. This statement was made in the context of agreeing with the court for the need to hire someone to assist us with developing a budgeting process along those lines. I would also remind the court that one of the values of a marketing document is that it is flexible and can be changed as market  itions change. An inflexible document or plan is the surest way I know of to send a company or a school ct into bankruptcy. Judge Wright stated in court Friday that we have some latitude to modify this plan. Ta are only a very few provisions of the plan that are sacred according to the 8th Circuit court of appeals. I h9those items and will pass them out to our board in case some of us have forgotten what they were. Anything else is fair game as long as the parties in the case agree that the plan needs to be changed and the changes are not facially unconstitutional. ,\\nd finally, since I have taken up too much time already, let me address some thoughts to the Joshua intervenors. the LRSD administration, this board , the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the court and most importantly, our patrons. I find it very disheartening that this board and district seem to always find themselves in some sort of battle on a continuing basis. What particularly bothers me is that most times those that we fight have the exact same goals as we do!! And that goal is this: that Little Rock should have the finest desegregated school system that we can afford where fairness and equity are found as the rule and where our patrons and students feel that they are getting the best education possible in our town. As I was leaving the hearing Friday, Iv1r. John Walker was holding the elevator door for me and said, \"come on Ivir. Riggs, as long as you don't mind riding with the enemy.\" Now I know Ivir. Walker said this in jest because he knows that I consider him a friend and have great respect for him, but it is this misconception that since we sometimes do not agree on strategies that we must be enemies that holds this district and even this city back from greatness. We are not the enemy of the Joshua Intervenors\nwe are not the enemy of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\nwe are not the enemy of Judge Wright and the eighth circuit court\nwe are not the enemy of the patrons of our gifted and talent programs\nwe are not the enemy of the students and parents from Central High\nwe are not the enemy of the Aero Space Education Center advocates. We are the enemy of ignorance\nwe are the enemy of prejudice\nwe are the enemy of inequity in education. I believe all these other groups believe ignorance, prejudice and inequity to be their enemy also. And so instead of enemies, we are allies in this school district's attempt to be an example of excellent desegregated education. It is ~ aradigm that we must go forward with from this day on. This paradigm must have at its core inclusiveness\n- aradigm must go along the lines of this: that to accomplish our ambitious and noble dream YOU AND I , not you OR I, but you AND I must work together, hand in hand to make our dream reality. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting April 1, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District conducted a special meeting at 11:09 a.m. on April 1, 1993, in the employee lounge of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was hastily called as a result of a group of Central High School students and parents who presented themselves at the AdJninistration Building requesting a meeting. The vice-president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Riggs - MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Moore Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli OTHERS PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The vice-president called the meeting to order at 11:09 a.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four ( 4) Board members, which constituted a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The vice-president announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of responding to a petition of citizens which was submitted on March 17, 1993. Extensive discussion ensued regarding whether or not this special meeting is the special meeting asked for in the petition. It was finally decided that the Board would conduct another meeting when all Board members could be present. The students were particularly interested in Mr. John - Moore being present at the next meeting. Board members explained their time constraints and it was decided that the students would share some of their concerns in this meeting but with the understanding that another meeting would be held in response to the petition. The students did not identify themselves, but they shared the following concerns: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. That they were not getting a good education. That teachers are not following the curriculum. There are too many kids outside the building at Central. There is no leadership at the school. Some teachers curse in the classroom. Students who demonstrated are being harassed. People spray MACE in the bathrooms\ntherefore, they can't go to the bathroom. People smoke marijuana in the bathrooms. Teachers do not dress professionally\nthey wear very short skirts or warm-ups. Teachers say things like \"sit your ass down.\" At lunch all white students are in the front and all black students are in back. Black or African history. is not taught and that one month of black history emphasis is insulting, artificial and divisive. There are very few library books on African-Americans. They think that the exclusion of black people is deliberate. Textbooks ignore African-Americans. Teachers wait until you leave their room before writing students up and then the student has D-Hall but doesn't know anything about it. Extensive discussion ensued concerning the students' complaints about the lack of African and African-American history. The students asked that an elective course in African studies be offered and that the curriculum be truly multi-cultural. Mr. Bill Hamilton had to leave the meeting at 11:58 a.m. to attend another meeting. Mrs. Hafeeza Majeed complained that she did not get a reply to her letter which contained the petition asking for a special meeting and that she was directed to go through the chain of command when she complained of the harassment of students. The students pointed out that a great deal of attention is given to the 6 million Jews that were killed by Nazi's in Germany but very little is said about the 100 million African-American slaves that have been killed in the United States. Mrs. Frazier, a parent, complained that there is a complete disregard and respect for citizens as people who can go to Central - and voice their opinions. Mr. Dorsey Jackson left the meeting at 12:50 p.m. because of a prior commitment. After discussion was completed, the special meeting adjourned at 1:02 p.m. John~:esident ,~A,..Jdhll@ Katherine Mitchell, Secretary ( ~- , ,  -, APPROVED: __- '-~----_\n'~- ~- --_\"-~_) _____ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled monthly meeting at 6:04 p.m. on April 22, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: None - EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Caroline Bryant, Teacher Representative Miss Terry Luster, Student Representative ALSO PRESENT: I. Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: President John Moore called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. II. READING OF THE MINUTES: The chair directed the Board members' attention to the minutes of the special meeting on February 16, 1993\nthe regular meeting on March 25, 1993\nand the special meeting on April 1, 1993. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved approval of the minutes as submitted. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. Superintendent 2 Dr. Mac Bernd presented a Superintendent's Citation to Mrs. Mary Guinn, Principal of Carver Magnet Elementary School, in recognition of Carver School being named one of \"America's Best Elementary Schools\" by REDBOOK MAGAZINE. Carver will receive $2,000 from the SEGA Youth Education and Health Foundation as a result of this distinction. Also honored with a Superintendent's Citation was Coach Charles Ripley of Parkview Magnet High School and his 1992-93 basketball team who won the ,l\\rkansas State Championship. Mr. Ripley was also recognized for being named by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as the 1993 High School Coach of the Year. Dr. Diana Glaze was presented a Superintendent's Citation in honor of her being chosen as one of 50 educators to receiving training in a National Association of School Principals SAAC workshop held last month in San Francisco. She was also chosen to participate in the convention's Principal' s Hotline, which was organized to offer a toll-free telephone line to parents, students, and educators from throughout the nation giving them the opportunity to ask questions concerning learning problems, interpretation of school policies, and basic parenting. Dr. Glaze also presided at one of the NASP meetings entitled \"Make a Difference in the Lives of Children -- Building a Winning Team.\" Citations were also given to the student and teacher ex officio members of the Board for this month: Ms. Caroline Bryant of Fair Park Elementary, and Miss Terri Luster of Parkview Magnet School. B. Citizens Committees None. c. Board Members Ms. Pat Gee reminded the Board members and audience that this is Arkansas Childrens' Week. Mrs. Gee also asked that the agenda be re-ordered to allow the educational report to be given after the educational partnerships are recognized. The Board approved of the request\ntherefore, Ms. Gee moved to re-order the agenda to allow the educational report to be given after the partnerships on the agenda. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Dorsey Jackson directed the Board members' attention to a Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 3 program called \"Arkansas Designated Driver Highway Hero Program\" and the \"Prom Promise\" program for an alcohol and drug free prom. He expressed appreciation and thanks on behalf of the Board for those fine programs. Mr. Jackson also asked the Board to consider taking the desegregation plan and begin to get regular reports on it at each month's Board meeting. He asked the Board members to begin thinking about the types of reports and information it would like to receive. In addition, Mr. Jackson asked that the administration and Board begin to review Board policies and start revising and updating the policies as necessary. Dr. Katherine Mitchell said she believed the Board should have a work session to find out what is in the desegregation plan and make sure the different school administrators and teachers know what is in the plan. Mr. John Riggs agreed with Mr. Jackson's request to begin receiving regular reports on the desegregation plan. He also told Board members that he found it educational to learn of the concerns of the Judge and of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring but it was heartening to learn that ODM and the administration agreed on many items. Mr. Riggs also announced that he attended the VIPS Evening with the Stars and expressed that he felt the success of individual schools is directly proportionate to the amount of input and time spent in the schools by parents. He also called for the administration and Board to begin strategic planning and to \"create a vision\" for our schools. Mr. John Moore said that he and other Board members who missed Court this week will go back for a private session with the Judge to catch up. Mr. John Moore presented a souvenir gavel to Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli commemorating her service to the Board of Directors as president of the Board. Mrs. Jacovelli thanked everyone for their expressions of good wishes during her recent illness and asked for their continued thoughts and prayers. D. Partnerships Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the following schools and businesses who have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives: University of Arkansas at Little Rock College of Arts, Humanities \u0026amp; Social Sciences, and Mann Arts and Math/Science Magnet\nthe Arkansas cattlemen's Association and Romine Interdistrict School\nand the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, and Wilson Elementary School. Representatives of all partnerhips were introduced and awarded certificates to commemorate the new partnerships. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS REPORT 4 Mrs. Janet Bernard introduced Mr. Larry Robertson, Assistant Superintendent. Mr. Larry Robertson introduced Ms. Mary Golston, principal of Badgett Elementary School. Mrs. Golston reported that the \"Operation Excel\" program at Badgett Elementary School was a mentoring program that brings together several advocates of the school, including Dr. Brown from the University of Georgia, and the school's partner in education, Webster University's Jerry Peters. She reviewed some of the volunteer work that is taking place at the school and introduced Mr. Greg Gipson, Youth Minister at First United Methodist Church. Mr. Gipson reported the his church has a program called ASEP (A Student Enrichment Program) to work with at-risk students. Each Tuesday evening church members pick up children at their home and bring them to the church for tutoring and a meal. They also maintain a relationship with the children throughout the school year. Mr. Jerry Peters reported on some of his activities at Badgett, including a contract for good behavior. He also recognized the Rebsamen Golf Association for donating 250 golf clubs for Badgett's golf course. He challenged the Board to be leaders because vision is developed by leaders. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS: Dr. Lloyd Benjamin, representing the Board of Overseers of KLRE/KUAR, reviewed the District's history of support for the radio station and the partnership with UALR. He urged the Board not to cut the District's share of funding for the station. Dr. Tom Munson, representing the Friends of KLRE/KUAR, emphasized the broad educational ventures that the programming at KLRE/KUAR provides. He urged the Board to continue its support of the station. Mr. Somers Matthews spoke in opposition to the use of calculators in grades K-6. He asked the Board to re-visit this practice and abolish the use of calculators in grades K-6. Ms. Sheila Parker told the Board that she is sick of what is going on in the District and asked the Board to bring the evidence before the community. She suggested that if the Board cuts the budget, it should start with the administration. - Mr. Bill Lambright asked the Board to reconsider the decision to change the name of winter vacation to Christmas vacation. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 RECESS: The Board recessed at 7:22 p.m. and reconvened at 7:55 p.m. v. A. ACTION ITEMS: Proposal for Naming the Mann Magnet Junior High School Gymnasium in Honor of Coach Oliver Elders 5 Mrs. Marion Lacey, principal of Mann Magnet Junior High School, introduced the contingency of alumni who support the naming of the gymnasium at Mann in honor of Coach Oliver Elders. The alumni members present were Mr. Grant Cochran, Mr. Morris Williams, Mrs. Gwen Ziegler, Coach Oliver Elders, and Mr. Sterling Ingram. She also recognized Dr. Katherine Mitchell as an alumnus. Dr. Grant Cochran briefly spoke in favor of the naming of the gymnasium. Dr. Mac Bernd recommended that the Board approve this tribute to Coach Elders by naming the Horace Mann Gymnasium the OLIVER ELDERS GYMNASIUM. Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli moved the recommendation. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. B. King Attendance Zones Dr. Bernd introduced Ms. Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity. Mrs. Parker made a presentation concerning the proposed zones, explaining the significance of each zone block. She also reported on her meetings with the parents of Ish Incentive School concerning the possibility of closing the school. Extensive discussion ensued concerning the incentive schools, their purpose, and the need to desegregate the incentive schools. Mrs. Sarah Facen, representing the Ish community, urged the Board to keep Ish Incentive School open and suggested that it not be included in the King attendance boundary. Following discussion, Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the proposed attendance zone for the new Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School. Mr. John Riggs moved the administration's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A copy of the attendance zones are attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. VI . REPORT AGENDA: A. Report on 1993-94 Budget A Dr. Bernd told the Board that this report is really a W \"Financial Forecast,\" which is preliminary to proposing a budget. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 6 He reviewed the process that has been and will be used to develop the final 1993-94 budget which he will present for the Board's adoption in July. He also reviewed the Citizens Budget Report which is attached to the materials forwarded to the Board. Dr. Bernd introduced Mr. Gary Jones, Manager of Resources and School Support. Mr. Jones presented the District's revenue/expense forecast. Using an overhead projector, his presentation included an examination of the budget reduction criteria, which is (a) compliance with the desegregation plan\n(b) minimize impact to programs\nand (c) streamline organizational pyramid. He reviewed the budget recommendations and position reductions, all of which will reduce the growth in the pudget by $7.5 million. Mr. Jones reviewed the reinstatement of programs and the revenue forecast for 1993-94. Board members expressed concern about Mabelvale Junior High being the only junior high with a six period day, the seniority of the former Pulaski County teachers, the impact of the reduction of 50 computer aides, a need to listen to the staff members from the bottom up, and the need for Board members to be provided with an organizational chart and accompanying job descriptions. A copy of the budget presentation is attached to these minutes and made a part hereof. B. Report on Summer School Plans Mrs. Janet Bernard directed the Board members' attention to the report contained in the printed agenda. Board members asked questions. VII. CONSENT AGENDA: Mrs. Jacovelli moved the consent agenda. seconded the motion. The consent agenda included: Dr. Mitchell A. approval of the donations as listed in the printed agenda\nB. approval of the right-of-way at Wakefield Elementary School as described in the printed agenda\ne C. approval of the submission of the Levi Strauss grant as described in the printed agenda\nBoard of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 7 D. approval of the personnel changes as reflected in the printed agenda: and E. approval of the financial reports as submitted in the printed agenda. The motion to approve the items in the consent agenda carried unanimously. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS Dr. Selma Hobby suggested that employees have an opportunity to suggest budget cuts. IX. STUDENT AND/OR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Dr. Bernd directed the Board's attention to the noncontested expulsion recommendation of Eric Dailey and the long-term suspensions of the following students. Adrienne Alexander, Bridget Austin, Latisha Austin, Gary Brown, Galisa Bryant, Branden Cage, Rondale Cox, Jalal Dawson, Damien Ellison, Melvin Floyd, Cyrus Gamble, Bobby Harris, Martin Henderson, Leroy Hurd, Kamil Jabara, Mervyn Johnson, Tameka Johnson, Kendall Jones, Naomi Jones, Calvin Long, Owen McMullen, Jermaine Morris, Robert Porter, Marcus Rafter, Bobby Salazar, Shannon Scales, Antwan Scott, DeAngela Staples, Willie Tyler, Shantae Whale, Keenan Wheeler, and Undra Williams. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the administration's noncontested recommendations on the above students. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board of Directors, upon motion by Mr. Riggs, a second by Mrs. Jacovelli, and unanimous approval of the Board members, the meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m. JJ?de]~ Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Secretary APPROVED: 0 _, ru\ni ~ 7 ~ -~---------------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting April 28, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5: 11 p. m. on April 28, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, ~rkansas. The president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 5:11 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering the District's budget reductions and for the re-election of personnel. CITIZENS COMMENTS: Mr. Michael Nellums spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruiter Coordinator. Mr. Eric Coleman spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruiter Coordinator. Ms. Stephanie Copes spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruiter Coordinator. Ms. Pamela Staton spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruiter Coordinator. Ms. Georgia Wells spoke in opposition to the recommendation to reduce the hours of library clerks. Ms. Judith Runyon spoke in opposition to the recommendation to ablish the position of computer lab attendant. Rev. C. E. McAdoo spoke in .opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruiter Coordinator. Ms. Valarie Scarbrough spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Ms. Linda Battisto spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruiter Coordinator. Ms. Eleanor Reasoner spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Mr. Calvin Carter spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Mr. Frank Martin expressed his view that lack of planning and mismanagement has caused the current budget deficit. Ms. Ginny Kurrus spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Ms. Susan Hood spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Ms. Judith Yeager spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Ms. Joyce Lamb spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Rev. James Thrower spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruitment Coordinator. Mr. Donald Richardson spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruitment Coordinator. Mr. Don Umfleet spoke in opposition to the recommendation to - abolish his position. PERSONNEL RENEWALS: Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the personnel actions listed in sections 1 through 5 on the handout given to each Board member. Board members asked questions. Following discussion concerning the recruitment of students for classes at Metropolitan and the method for removing deficiencies in certification, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the recommendation of the administration on the staff renewals as presented. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried four (4) to two (2). Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Gee voted in opposition to the motion. PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS: Dr. Bernd directed the ,Board members' attention to the restructuring of the budget reduction in the Volunteers in Public Schools department. He explained that this restructuring will reduce the contract lengths of six (6) VIPS staff members in order to realize the necessary savings. The Board recessed at 6:47 p.m. and reconvened at 7:15 p.m. Upon reconvening, Dr. Bernd presented the remainder of the list of reductions as follows: 1) two driver trainers\n2) two custodial supervisors\n3) one construction manager\n4) one EPA Coordinator\n5) one assistant director for media services\n6) one recruitment coordinator\n7) one communications specialist\n8) onehalf assistant principal at Gibbs Magnet School\n9) one Partners in Education Manager\n10) one secretary in Human Resources\n11) one secretary to an assistant superintendent\n12) one vocational secretary\n13) one plant services secretary\n14) one transportation shop clerk\n15) one food service data entry person\n16) reduction in contract lengths of VIPS staff members\n17) 50 computer aides\n18) reduction of the hours of media clerks\n19) one plant services painter\n20) one plant services stock clerk\n21) one plant services trade helper\nand 22) eight math teachers. Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the personnel reductions and reviewed the process and timeline for approving a tentative budget at the end of May so the tentative budget can be submitted to Judge Wright for approval. Extensive discussion ensued concerning the District's ability to meet its obligations under the Desegregation Plan in light of the budget reduction recommendations. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Gee indicated that they would like to have a budget work session. Following additional discussion and questions from Board members, Dr. Mitchell moved to table action on the recommendations for budget cuts until the Board has an opportunity to review the District's desegregation plan and the cuts' effect upon it. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion. After discussion, the motion carried five (5) to one (1). Mr. John Moore voted in opposition to the motion. SUBMISSION OF TENTATIVE BUDGET: Mr. Gary Jones presented the tentative budget document and commended his staff for their hard work in preparing the document in a timely manner. He suggested that the Board schedule individual meetings with him to discuss the format and coding. Mr. Jackson commended Dr. Bernd for fulfilling his promise to get the budget to the Board before May 1. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved for adjournment. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the special meeting of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Jo] re, President '-~~ Katherine Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting May 3, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:08 p.m. on May 3, 1993, in the Roosevelt Thompson Auditorium at Central High School. The meeting was held in response to a petition of fifty (50) citizens requesting a meeting. The pre~ident, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called in response to a petition signed by fifty (50) citizens. The meeting was held at Central High School at the request of Mrs. Hafeeza Majeed on behalf of Central students. STUDENT COMMENTS: Mr. Reginald Taylor read the \"1993 Little Rock Central High Crisis\" philosophy statement. A copy of the philosophy statement is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. Truman Hardin submitted to the Board two requests: that students be excused from school on May 27 and 28 in order to make a trip to Memphis\nand that Mr. Hickman be allowed to be a part of the 1993 graduation ceremonies. Miss Tenille Mitchell expressed her disappointment in her educational environment and complained about the lack of AfricanAmerican authors on the reading lists. Mr. Reginald Dodson reiterated the students' request to be excused on May 27 and 28. He also expressed disappointment that his previous complaints about harrassment has not been followed up. He told the Board that two of the teachers who are harassing him are Robin Davis and Joe Gray. He also complained about the lack of a multi-cultural curriculum. He complained that the students did not have enough notice on the NCCJ sponsored retreat. Ms. Pat Gee asked Mr. Dodson to send her an itinerary on the trip to Memphis. Willis Bailey asked for fairness and equitable treatment of personnel. He told the Board that he was afraid to come to Central High before Mr. Hickman came. Tracy Oliver expressed disappointment that there are no caucasian students at this meeting. She expressed that she was offended that someone would feel threatened by those who demonstrated and that she felt a strong sense of racism because of it. Naima Majeed told the Board that she wanted Mr. Hickman to get his job back because he is innocent. She expressed her view that Central is a hateful place since Mr. Hickman left and that teachers are not dressing professionally and not coming to school. She said she had been looked at funny, harassed by teachers, and called stupid. Pauline Williams said the students' personal lives have been affected and that the image of the community has been affected by what has happened to Mr. Hickman. She expressed that she is proud of the mature way in which the students have handled the situation. She urged the students to continue to do that. She urged them to search out assistance from adults they respect. She urged the - students to use \"reverse peer pressure.\" Dr. Katherine Mitchell told the students that she applauds their efforts and commended them for the way in which they have conducted themselves. She expressed regret that the students who marched to the Administration Building was not allowed to enter the building. She urged them to continue to stand for what they believe in a peaceful and orderly way. Mr. James H. Powell commended the students for their presentations to the Board. He reviewed his background in the civil rights movement and his work with Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. He said he had fought for his daughter, who is now a student at Central High School. He suggested that if Mr. Hickman is a criminal he should be prosecuted. He expressed concern that \"droplets\" of 1957 are still here at Central., i.e., students do not intermingle. Ms. Linda Williams expressed concern that the children are hurting. She asked that the school set another date for the NCCJ program and give more notice to the students. Mr. Byron Jenkins, a senior at Central High School, said Mr. Hickman was a great role model. Miss Tenille Mitchell asked if the District administers drug tests to teachers. She said there is a lot of \"stuff\" going on at Central and she doesn't see the Board doing its job. She said education here is a joke. Mr. Akim Majeed told the Board that everyone needs to \"get off their seats downtown\" and find out what is going on. He said he could name people who are under the influence of drugs at Central High School. Mr. Sammy Mills told the Board that the kids are reaching out for help. He urged the Board to find another date for the NCCJ program and offer it again. He expressed disappointment that there are not more parents and students at this meeting. He said there should be white students and parents and teachers here. Mr. Rochelle Webb told the Board that she loves Mr. Hickman and wants him back. Ms. Dorothy Oliver asked if suspension was the only option the administration had or could a less drastic action been taken. She asked why this meeting could not have been scheduled during the day to allow all students, parents, and teachers to attend. Ms. Sheila Parker told the Board that she is trying to get rid of Dr. Bernd. Miss Michelle Wallace complained that Ms. Swain never comes out of her office except when the students are in class. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special meeting, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to adjnurn. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried five (5) to one (1). Dr. Katherine Mitchell voted against adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Jo~e, President 4,,J~ Katherine Mitchell, Secretary PREAMBLE \"1993 LIT'rLE ROCK CENTRAL HIGH CRISIS\" PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT We, the undersigned students of Little Rock Central High School, Little Rock, Arkansas, do hereby adopt the following Philosophy Statement. The groundwork for the development of this statement was achieved by conducting student surveys at LRCH, copies of which are attached . This statement addresses our concerns and resolutions for the current \"crisis\" at our school and the resulting racial polarization of our city and state. This \"crisis\" is the result of the suspension of our principal, Mr. John L. Hickman, Jr., an African American male who, single-handedly, restored a safe educational and social environment to the school. Furthermore, the educational goals and aspirations of many students presently enrolled at Little Rock Central, have been greatly impacted by the sudden loss of this \"Mr. Joe Clark\" personality, because, in the words of many parents and students, \"Mr. Hickman is the only reason that I am attending Little Rock Central High today.\" e we, therefore, submit our names as representation that we believe the time has come for the students of this great and historical institution to begin writing the history of the \"second\" crisis at Little Rock Central High, the \"1993 Crisis of Little Rock Central High.\" STATEMENT During the crisis at Little Rock Central High School in 1957, nine African American students were denied the right to a \"quality\" integrated education . In 1993, we believe that the \"crisis\" at Little Rock Central High still remains the same, because the right to a \"quality\" integrated education for all children continues to be attacked. The education that we seek and the lessons that we are currently learning can no longer be contained within the four walls of the physical building. For many of us, \"learning\" has advanced from the \"pages\" of our textbooks and has spilled over into our city's streets, neighborhoods and communities. Clearly, for many of us, \"education\" has become a lesson about racism, which is alive and well at Little Rock Central High, and throughout our city and state. - The \"one--of-a-kind\" educational environment that Mr. John L. Hickman, Jr. created in our school has been attacked and destroyed by the racist attitudes of the \"leaders\" of our school district. The dominoe effect of this racism is evidenced by the racial polarization that is plagueing our school and our city. LRCH PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT Page 2 As children, we learn from the examples of our parents and other adults. Thus, we have witnessed African American students actively supporting the \"cause'', and Anglo-Saxon students have been absent in expressing support for the safe educational and social environment that was present under the administration of Mr. Hickman. The racial polarization is further evidenced by a majority Caucasian Board of Directors who continue to make decisions based on \"color\" instead of \"content.\" Furthermore, the present \"crisis\" has resulted in a placed on the local media, preventing them from entering to report peaceful assemblies by students who have express themselves through demoristrations. ban being the campus chosen to Inevitably, many students at Little Rock Central High have experienced strained relationships among students, teachers, and other administrative staff. Some students, along with parents, have been arrested, handcuffed and jailed as a result of a March 31 demonstration (\"sit-in\") in the school's cafeteria. The demonstration, ironically, was in protest of the refusal by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to honor Ark. State - La\\-:, AR Code Annotated 6-13-619, which states that \"School Boards are required to meet with citizens to address the issues of concern to those citizens when the petition is signed by fifty (50) or more registered voters of the school district.\" Thus, the students of Little Rock Central High who, hereby, agree with this philosophy statement, do offer the following resolutions for a peaceful end to the \"1993 Crisis at Little Rock Central High School, Little Rock, AR: 1. We believe that it is fair and rational for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to immediately reinstate Mr. John L. Hickman, Jr., as the Principal of Little Rock Central High School. 2. In the absence of \"fair and impartial\" conduct by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, we believe that a thorough investigation must be conducted that will ultimately result in the termination of the contract of Dr. Cloyde \"Mac\" Bernd as Superintendent of the Little Rock Public Schools. 3. We believe that the presence of Associate Superintendent, Ms. Janet Bernard, in our District, has greatly hampered and ultimately destroyed the safe educational and social environment at Little Rock Central High. We further believe that the degrading actions of Ms. Bernard has negatively impacted the lives of many students and parents in our city. We, therefore, appeal to Little Rock residents, and the parents and students of Little Rock Central High to join us in seeking to have the contract of Mrs. Bernard terminated. LRCH PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT Page 3 4. The Ad Hoc Committee for Fairness and Equity in Little Rock Public Schools believe that the members of the Board of Directors should be representative of the majority population of African American students in our District. We, therefore, have agreed to actively participate in seating at least four African American Board members. We, the student representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee For Fairness and Equity in Little Rock Public Schools, and all other students whose names appear below, do invite all members of the community and media representatives to a \"send-off\" ceremony, on Tuesday, May 4, 2:00 p.m., at 1723 S. Broadway, Little Rock, AR. This ceremony will be held to send our Philosophy Statement and the attached signatures, via facsimile and Federal Express, to the following individuals: 1. The Honorable Bill Clinton, President of the United States, Washington, D.C. 2. The Honorable Jim Guy Tucker, Governor, State of Arkansas Little Rock, AR 3. Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, President, National Rainbow Coalition Washington, D.C .  Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting May 13, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:22 p.m. on Thursday, May 13, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The vice-president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: The Vice President called the meeting to order at 5:22 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members. Mr. Riggs joined the meeting at 5:35 p.m. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ON TRANS: Dr. Bernd explained the Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory notes and Fixing Form and Terms Thereof. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved approval of the Resolution. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A copy of the Resolution is attached to these minutes and made a part hereof. - ADOPTION OF COMPUTER SCIENCE TEXTBOOK: Board of Directors Special Meeting May 13, 1993 2 Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the Selection Committee's recommendation as shown on the Local Adoption Form furnished to the Board members. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A copy of the Local Adoption Form is attached to these minutes and made a part hereof. ADOPTION OF SECONDARY MATHEMATICS TEXTBOOK: Dr. Bernd recommended th~t the Board approve the Selection Committee's recommendations as shown on the memo from Mrs. Estelle Matthis to the Board members. Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A copy of the memo listing the secondary mathematics textbook recommendations is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ABC CONTINUING GRANT: Dr. Bernd directed the Board members' attention to the information previously furnished to them concerning the Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) grant for third-year funding of developmentally appropriate early childhood education programs. Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the submission of the 1993-94 grant application in the amount of $233,992.00. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. RECESS: The special meeting was recessed at 6:38 p.m. to convene the regularly scheduled agenda review meeting. Following the agenda review meeting, the special meeting was reconvened. DISCUSSION OF STUDENT REQUESTS: Dr. Bernd reminded the Board members that the Central High School students had made two requests during the meeting with them on May 3. Discussion ensued concerning the requests for excused absences to go on a trip to Memphis and for Mr. Hickman to preside over their graduation. By consensus, the Board decided that the absence request should be handled by the school administrato\"r in compliance with the LRSD Attendance Policy and that the exact rules used in similar cases should be followed. Dr. Bernd also mentioned that Mr. Hickman's attendance at graduation should depend upon his employment status at the time. Board of Directors Special Meeting May 13, 1993 EMPLOYEE HEARING: 3 The Board conducted a closed hearing on behalf of Monica Scott. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved for an executive session. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board recessed into executive session at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:31 p. m. Upon reconvening, Dr. Mac Bernd recommended that Ms. Scott be su\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_1002","title":"Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Magnet schools","Aviation Education Programs (U.S.)","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Technology Magnet School, grant"],"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/1002"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n~ ~ cJ7 kt ... [(1 ~ '--.rc/4-+,/( 4-/1 ~ \u0026amp;iv ~ ~ (.,(2 51) VlA) ~ t ~~ ~7()#1 ~ad, ~ ~~t vT 12\u0026lt;-~ ~~ ~ V\n,,d(: :--\"'\" ~ ,/4_,, ,\u0026amp;,, ~'4 6'-4..d-~al~ -- ~ t2U J ~ :__ (ll_,_ /1 :\u0026gt; ~ ~uL__ ~~ - ~~~ _7 r t11JJT ~ d ,,z /V1t2-J2- /f\nJa,o -\u0026gt; UH 1J /1 ivo U2JtJ ~ 6f/f/6 tv 'I ~ f- ~- ge,t-/4:_ CJ..L [J\n6~ - S'~ j ~ OOM \u0026lt; Ed) (J' - \u0026lt;#$Cl\u0026gt; - ~ ~ ~t.f' ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 cJ3 / S\u0026lt;(Ct -Cl ltd \u0026lt;id~ Jwv 9\n) t/a_ M~~ 61508 Federal Register / Vnl. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Part 280 RIN: 1810-AA63 Maanet Schools Assistance Program AGENCY: Department of Education. ACTION: Final regulations. SUMMARY: The Secretary amends the regulations governing the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). These amendments are needed to improve administration of the program and to enable the Secretary to select applications for funding .that best demonstrate promise of achieving the purposes of the program. EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations take effect either 45 days after publication in the Federal Register or later if the Congress takes certain adjournments. If you want to know the effective date of these regulations, call or write the Department of Education contact person. A document announcing the effective date will be published in the Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sylvia Wright, Chief, Magnet Schools and Desegregation Branch, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 2059, Washington, DC 20202--6246. Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1- 800-877-8339 (in the Washington, DC 202 area code, telephone 708-9300) between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern time. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These amendments are based on the Department's experience in implementing the program over several years. These final regulations also complement the President's AMERICA 2000 strategy by requiring that, in order to receive MSAP assistance, local educational agencies (LEAs) demonstrate how well their proposed magnet schools will provide highquality educational programs in desegregated learning environments that are designed to improve significantly the academic and vocational skills of America's students. On August 12, 1992, the Secretary published a notice of proposed rulemalcing (NPRM) for this program in the Federal Register (57 FR 36324). As a result of public comments since publication of the NPRM, the Secretary has made the following revisions:  Section 280.20 has been revised to clarify that, in determining the eligibility of an applicant's voluntary desegregation plan, an LEA will be asked to submit ad,iitional information only after the Secretary has reviewed the enrollment data and other materials the LEA has submitted with its application and determined that additional information is necessary to assist the Secretary in determining the eligibility of the LEA's plan.  Section 280.32(d} has been revised to explain further the factors used to evaluate an applicant's need for assistance. Note: These final regulations do not solicit applications. A notice inviting applications under this competition is published in a separate notice in this issue of the Federal Register.  Analysis of Commenlll and Changes regulations in this document do not require transmission of information that is being gathered by or is available from any other agency or authority of the United States. List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 280 Civil rights, Desegregation, Education. Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs-education, Magnet schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.165A Magnet Schools Assistance Program) Dated: December 18, 1992. Lunar Alexander, Secretary of Education. The Secretary amends part 280 of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPRM, six parties submitted comments on the proposed regulations. An analysis of the comments and of the changes in the regulations since publication of the NPRM is published as an appendix to these final regulations. - follows: Substantive issues are discussed under the section of the regulations to which they pertain. Technical and other minor changes-and suggested changes to sections of the regulations that were not discussed in the NPRM-are not addressed.  Executive Order 12291 These regulations have been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12291. They are not classified as major because they do not meet the criteria for major regulations established in the order.  Intergovernmental Review This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for this program. Assessment of Educational Impact In the NPRM the Secretary requested comments on whether the proposed regulations would require transmission of information that is being gathered by or is available from any other agency or authority of the United States. Based on the response to the proposed rules and on its own review, the Department has determined that the PART 280-MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for Part 280 continues to read as follows: Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3021-3032, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 280.2 is amended by redesignating the undesignated introductory text as paragraph (a), redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively, and adding a. new paragraph (b) to read as follows:  280.2 Who la ellglble to apply for  grant? (b) The Secretary approves a voluntary plan under paragraph (a)(2) of this section only ifhe determines that for each magnet school for which funding is sought- (1) The magnet school will reduce, eliminate, or prevent minority group isolation within the period of the grant award, either in the magnet school or in a feeder school, as appropriate\nand (2) The establishment of the magnet school will not result in an increase of minority enrollment, at the magnet school or at any feeder school, above the districtwide percentage of minority group students in the LEA's schools at the grade levels served by that magnet school. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3022) 3. Section 280.4 is amended by _. designating \"Minority group isolation\" in paragraph (b) as a separate definition by italicizing the words \"Minority group isolation\" and adding a definition for \"Feeder school\" in alphabetical order to read as follows:   F:\" ont DUAL! TY COt it IEC T IIJl'I SEPV I CES PHONE No. 310 598 6773 Jan. 22 1993 8 :20AM P02 Federal Regfster / Vol. 57, No. Z48 I ThW'lday, Deoemher 24, 1992 / Rulea and Rogulatlont 6150! . l :,.. l I .I i I I l \\ 1 I I 4 t 290 4 wnet de1\\nttton1 1ppty lo thle p,9g1,m? Fe-,rlrr school mun~ 1 school from whic:h 5tudonts ue dr11wn to stl\\lnd 1 mognel $c:liool. 4. Section 280.20 l1 amondnd by adding now puHgr11ph1 (f') (4) and (5), rod\"~iRnAt!ng lhll cum1nt puRgroph lR) as puragroph (i), and adding now paregr~ph~ (g) and (h) to ~d as follows: I 2\u0026amp;c.?0 How doff OM -wiy for I gr1r,t'P (0  (41 For an LEA that tlffka assistance for existing m11gnet 1ehool,- (i) Enrollment number11 and percentegea, for minority and nonminority group students, for oach mego11\\ school for which funding ls IIQUl(\"hl and each ftl8der school- (,._) For the tchool year prior 10 the Cffiltlon of each magn,t 11\u0026lt;\nhool: (8) For the school year In which the applicatlon Is  ubmllled : an,I (C) For each of the two scln\u0026gt;ol years ortha propoaad grant cycl11 (i.e., projl'cied enrollment flgunu)\\ and (I i) Obtrlc:tw!de enrollment number, and porcont1111e for minority iiroup student in the l..E/\\'s schools, for grade l11v1\u0026gt;la Involved In th11 appllcant's mr.net r.hool, {8 .g., K~, 7-0, 10-12}( M for the school year prior lo the CNM1Uon of each magnet school: (ti) For tha school ye.r In which the application le whmltted: and (C) F'or each or lhe two school year of the propo1\u0026amp;d g-rant cycle (I.e., pro)IIC11td enrollment ngui,,11). (r,J For ,n LEA thet 1eeks u,luanc. for new magnet achool,- (1) Enrollment numbor, and percenteges, ror minority and non minority group 1tudent1, for Heh rnei\nnet 11chi\n,ol for which funding I sou~ht and for nac:h (iieder Jr.hool- (t\\) F'1ir tho i\n,\nhool yo~r In which the appllaition ia suhmitted: and (JJ) For each or the two ,\u0026lt;ehi\n,ol year,  of the propo~tld grent cycle (I.e., pro jected enrollment ligures)\nand (ii) Dislrictwide number1 and pereenteRet of minority group students In the l.l:A 'a achoola, for the l!ftld love!, Involved In the appllr..11nt '11 magnet IIChools (e .g., K~. 7-9, 1~12}- (A) For the school year In which th.a eppllcetlon II auhmllled: and (0) F'ot eaeh of Iha two school yea.,. oflhe propo11\u0026amp;d grant cycle (I.e., proloctod enrollment flgures) . (g) An applicant that does no\\ have an p11roveddesogregallon plan, 1111d demonRlrates that it cannot provide some portion of th11 ln!ormallon r\u0026amp;q l111stRd under IlAl'egreph~ (0(4) end (:1) vf tl,is \u0026amp;Ccilon, may pi\"Ovlde olhr inlurmntion (In llou orth,t portion of th'-' lnformetlon not p,ovldl'd In re~pome to par111tfRphi (1)(4) and(~) of thi~ ~1ctio11) to domon~trotu thnl the i\nn\u0026gt;ntk1n or Op(lrallon of its propo,\ned mngnut ~chool would reduce, eliminate, or prev~nt 1nlnorl1y group l,olatiotl In the Applicant's ichool, end would not result In an lncre111Ul or minority '1uilont l~olallon at one of Ule 11ppllcant't schools above the dlstrlctwlde pnrr.rntni!B for minority 11t11d1mts at the 11Bme grade levels as thote served In th m11g11et Jcbool. (h) AIIIIT ~lewlng the lnformetlon providod ln reRpon!MI to pal'lgreph (0(4) or (5) of tnb tectlon, or u provided undor paragnph (g) of this Mctlon, the Secretary rney 1'9qUett o\\hBt lnforrnatlon, If necetl48ry (e.g., d11mographlc det.e con011rning the 11t111nd11nr.o 11re11 In which the m11inat M\".hools are or wtll be located), to dotormine whethor to appl'Ove an t.A' plan.    !Approved by lht Office orM1n1sement and lhrl11nt uodor control 11urnber 181~$16) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3027) 5. Soctlon 280.31 ls 111vlsed to reed H follow1: 1,\u0026amp;0.31 wtiat ~ eritwt  doff the Secretary uN? T1:te Seaetery usu the followlnlJ solectlon criteria In avaluallng eech apl1Hcetlo1\\: . a) Plan of optrotlett. (2S point ) (1) The Secretl\\l')' review, e.ach eppllc1tlon 10 detem,lne lha quality of the plan of operation for the pto)tlc1, (2) The Socnllery detcirmlnM the exlent lo which the applicant dnmon\u0026amp;tratea- (i) The efrect.lv11net1 or Its mn110Ram11nt plan lo ensuN proper and llffl i:l ont Admlnl1tnlion of 1h11 pro)A\u0026lt;:1: (ii) 1'11,. 11Hi\u0026gt;ctlvenc,$~ af IIA pion to atte ln ~por,iflc outcomes thnt- (A) Will eccompllsh the purpose, of 1h11 program\n(DJ Arf! 1ttalnabl, within the project pflrlCld\n(C) An, mett\\1!'1lblo and quantlflsble: ancl (DJ For mulU-)'Mr projectJ, c.an be u,ed lo determine the proJIICt' ptogrM In m1111llng lh lntor,dad outcome : (IUJ The errectlvaneu or It, plan for ullllllns Ila N!\u0026amp;OUl'Cff and pertonnel to eclalnve tho obfectlvu or lha _projtoci, Including how well It utlllzn key porsonnul to complete tos.k and achlove lha ob}ocUvet or the project: (l't') How It will enture c,qual access 11nd l.nlatment for eligible project participants who havo bo(in tradltlonall\n unrl11rr11p~nled In COUl'tff or artivllio~ oIT,mid \u0026amp;ft part of the m11g1111t 11d1uol. e.~ .. wom,\n,n 11nd girl In mutliematics, ~lonco or technology coursc,A, nnrl dhabh+d Al,ud\"nts\nanrl (vi The AIToctlvenou or ii plftn to r11CTUlt 1tudenta from diffeN1nt 11ocial. oconomlc, othnlc, onrl m:iol bacltgrounde Into the mftgnet schook (b) Q1.1nlity of personnel. (10 point~) (1) Th Secr-etary t0vlew1 etr.h application lo detennlne the q11oliflc.Atlone or the pen:nnnel the appllr.ant plan lo URe on the projflct, (2) Tho Secffltary detAnnlnes the 11xtent to whlch- {I) The pmJect director (lf one 111 used) I, ~uallfied to msnage the project: (11) Other key par80nnel fll'II qualified to menage the proled: (Ill) Teechert who will provide Instruction In par1lc:lpating magnet tehool\u0026amp; are qualified to Implement the spBClel curriculum or the megnut 11Choola\nend (iv) Tho epplicant,  part orus nondlscrimlnetory emplo)'11'1frlll pl'tlctlr.es wlll 11nsure thet Its personnel an, selllcied for employm11nt without ~ard to ra~. rell11ion, col01, natlonBI origin, HX, age, ot dlublllty. (J) To detennlne J)flrtonnel quallncatlona the S:ratary con,lden1 experfenClll and training In fleld11 mlated to the ob)octlvet or the proftd, Including the by p!!nionnel'a knowledge of a.nd e~rl11n0t In turTiculum development and d11111gN111otlon ,tniteglH. (c) Quality of prof Pel derlgn. (35 points) (l) Th Sectelary revi- 111th 1pplieetlon to detmnln8 the quality or the proJect de.lgn, (2) The Secretary determinee the extent to whleh each m11gnet llchool for which fundlnK le 110ught will- (il f'oslor lntftl'K'tlon among iltudnnts of diffeMtnt ,()(\"Jal, economic, ethnic, Alld rftclnl background~ In cla~~mom actlv1tt1111, ntrecurrlr.ulu 1ctJvltle1, or other actlvitlo, In the magnet sr.hools (or, if 1ppropri1te, In the achoola In which tho megn11t school programs operate): (ill Addren the educallon1I Meda or th11 Rtudenls who will bo ontol111d In the mo~nol schools\n(Iii) fJ1rry out a high quality educatlonlll ptognm th.i will substanllelly ,treniithen 11tud1n11J' k.nowledgo o! mathemallet, ldenCA, hltto,y, English, fo\"'lgn lanRUt11t111, art, mu1h:, or vocttlon1I kill,: (Iv) f!nco\\1111ge gn,otnr ptirtntll declAlonmnltlng and lnvolvemflnt: and (v) Improve the racla I bol11J101t or 1tudents In the rpllc.nnt' echoob by r11duclng, ellmlnetlng, or preventing r,, inorlty gmup tsolntic,n In II tchool~. i1510 Fedenl llegister I Vol. 57, No.. 2-ta I Tbmsd\u0026amp;.y. December 24, 19~ I Rllles and Jtegvla\u0026amp;na l d) Bud~I aod .resoun:es. ~ points) (i) Applications based on plans er assistnnet, is aooght affords promise of The Secretary re~ each-applicatioe: momfication.s-of plans with achieving the purposes of-this program to determip lhe adequacy 0. the implementation dates not mor\u0026amp; tlia as listed in  280.1. resources. and tle cost-effedivuness. of five, Jll\u0026amp;n bemre the- Ju.fr l that fi:JJJmn (2} h determining the degree to which the budget form. project, including- the de\u0026amp;dliM date fi:ir applicatiofts. (5 the magnet scbool affon:ls- promise of ( H The. adequacy ol lhe facHities lhat pohm} achieving the purposes stated in -280.1, the applicant plans to use\n(ii) Applit\na\u0026amp;ns based on plans ~ the Secretary will evaluate the (2) The adequacy of the equipment. modifications. ol plans with likelihood that the applicant'\u0026amp; plaa t\u0026amp; and supplies that the applicant pl:a:nsto implementation~ moJ8. than- 5 yeus, achien desegmgaticm tlzmuglt the,use, o{ use\nand but uot more. than 10 yeara-before tlw a mapat school prognm will ha (3) The adequacy and reasonabl-eness July 1 that follows the deadlina dat\u0026amp; for successful in nidaciD8, ellininating. or of the budget i\u0026gt;r the project ht relation applications. fl point's) pnventillfJ minarity gmup isolation in to the ob~ of tlHJ ject.  liiH Applications based OD pbma or li\u0026amp;}lt of Its overall strategy. Factota the. (e)E-rtilttatiort plan.~ pcuts} Tl JllOdificati,w,a Qf plans with Secretary wiR consider include, out are- Secretaq determines the extent to implementation dates mo:a than 18 not limited to-which the evaluation plan for the! years bat not mare thane 15 yeanJ,ef\u0026amp;llle (i) The needs assessment conducted pni\nia- the ~J.y 1 lhat iellows the deadline da(8 by !he-~   ( 1) Indndes methods that ant- for applationa.. ,,. pomtJ)  (ii) Toe sm, ,elec6on b eed1, -et approprime for the project\n6i) ~~based m plans-as school\n' --.,.- (2) Will determine-bow aua:essful the modifications= 'Wilk. (iii} n. special CUJ\"Fk:\\H1!1m sel'eded project is ht meet.Ing.Im iDteaded implementation' mom than U for eaca JINl!IMlldiool\namt outco-. inclndmg its goals for years belmr\u0026amp; Ila Jul.r i tfiat follows_ tt. (iv) ll appropriaw, it11upplica:nl's. past  desegrepung ita atudant.s and dead.lme data m .,. ticatioas to points) performam ill ~lsrils ~a\u0026amp;. increasmgahldlllt achievamem\naad. (c) In-roln:ment'f1JIUllOl'ityg,r,up throoRlnse ob map sir:hooL   (3) Includes methods that ara cbiJdre.1t. (5 pmnta). (0 Co//obomtive ti/forts. 15 points) The-objective and that will prodtte6'data that (1) The Secretary gives special Sea:etary detennins the ex11111Uo are quanrifiabut. consideration to tll8 proportion of which the protect tbrwbidi lll8istaJN:\u0026amp; (f} Commibnf?flt alHl capacity. (10 mi.norily ~\"'P children iDYc\u0026gt;l-ved. I\u0026amp; the- is sought mvolvff ti- collabmati~ point\u0026amp;) (1} The-Seaeta,y ~-each approved~ pmt. efforts of institwmi. efbigtieir application '6 determin\u0026amp; whether 1b\u0026amp; (2) Toe Secretuy det.muJllll\u0026amp; ilia education, COIJHllunily-bMed applicant is likely to C\u0026amp;ftlif:we the percentage that represents a comparison o,ganizations, lh\u0026amp;appropriate-Stat'\u0026amp; , - magnet schoohwvities 1tft1tr.usistam:e ofthe-mnnberolminoritygroup educational agenq', or\u0026amp;Jt-, ether under iliia pen.is ROclengeu,wilable. children involved in the applicants organization. {:l.} The. Secretary delermme\u0026amp; the  -.l ,l 4 ~~ft~n~...] L- extent to which lhe applicant- a~ov..., _.._ ..,..m lo u- (Apprmzed by !ha Office ofManaaemenf and (i) Is committed to ilia magnet schools number of minority group dilld- B'udget under control number 18to-ost6J project: 8Dd enrolled in the applicant's schools. (Authorify~ 20 u.s.c. 30281 (ii} Has identified other resou:cea \\.o (3) The-Sec19tary awmv one- point for each 28 pescerlfage points-fhtt applicmt Appendix.-~ ef o.rmaeac. ..t caoctnitviintiuees .sw uhpepno rats fsoirs ttmhecme augnndeetrs iclihfso. o_l receives un d er paragrap h (c l ' }-6'thi Changes {2 111 s  ln~nft \"fable section. (Note:Thlsappendlx will not be codlfted program 1$ no ~t av8l  (d} Need fortn8isttmce-. (15 points} ft) in the Code of l\"edetaf ltegwationa.J (Appmred hy the Offiat of Mu.agemmi.t and Th\u0026amp; Secremy evaluates the applicant's ,. ' Budget under control nundm-Wo--0516} n88d for assistance-under this part, by I 2tlD.2. Vlllo llullgl..._ to apply b  '.: ' (Aulllerifr-20U.S.C. 3021~3032} considering- grant? '  ,,,  6. Section 280.32 is revised to read. as (i) The costs of:fil11y implementing tbe Comment: On COIBffleRter suggested-\". follows: magnet schools project as~ that urban~ be granted men,'.,,-.:. -- (ii) The reSfflln:etf ffl!l'labl\u0026amp; to the than two y~ ID show that a newly\n-   280.3:l How lupaclal. conaideratlon applicant to etm\"1 oot the proiecf if creatacl magnet pmsram hn reduaNI\n, .. t- ~ glvert to appllc:a? funds under the- progR!IR\u0026gt; went not eliminaeed, Ill' prevented minorify group fa) How special consideration is gjven. f.vided\nisolation. The cemmenter indicated rhit In addition to di\u0026amp; poiutaawmted under 'ii) The-9tentto-whidi the costs of . the two-yea,time frame f9 unreelistic:fe '.   280.31 , the-Secretary givesspecia} e pro\nect ~ tll\u0026amp;applicant's light ofthelienier!Jfhese districtsm'tlSt   consideration to the facloa. lisfild i-R resources: and  overcome to fflfflJC\u0026amp; PIICiaf isolation ancf   - paragraphs (b} through (f) of this fiv)' The-dif\u0026amp;ltlty el effedi'l'efy suggested that a three- or funr--year timSc., ,_ section-. 1118 maxiRMHll number of carrying out the approved plan and thtt frame for.reporting progress or 1t ~ .. _- ' poinls aWIHded for each factor is s1ated project forwhicli assistanc\u0026amp; fs sought, grant period would be mont realistic., \n.,__ in parentheses.  including consideration of how the Disc\u0026amp;ssian:Tbe Seaet\u0026amp;rJ belt  -t:.i.\n,\n~ lb) RecentAe:1\u0026amp;:of 1/te implementalion design of the magnet sdlool project- interpre(ed the Magnet Schools  ~\"X:\n.-, of the approved desegregtrtum plan. (5 . e-.g., th\u0026amp; type-el p!Og1111ft pn,posed, the Asslstam::e Act (MSAAJ to require-\u0026amp;~~ G- points} -location of the-magnet adtool within thtt year limit on graBf BWIH\"M under ' -- (1) TheSecretuy nvie.wseach LEA-fmpeds mtfm! applicant's aMlity program. See-20 U.S.C. 30:n. In ,\n: application tndeta,mme.the.nicentneu to-!1Ua:85Sfttlly amyout thnppro-,ed addfflOII, theSecretary\u0026amp;eliffes1tc of the lmplemeat.ati:oa date of the plan.  reasona1-te expecU\u0026amp;at witflin tl approved~ plan or (2) Th.e-appliantrecefves-\\!l)!c\u0026gt;lS two-year grant periodm l.EACll'l't ~-- modificati-. of tile l)lan. poinls, depen\u0026lt;lmg on tk ~ of ifs dmnonstrate a positm, change~~  .:.,. (2) The SeaefaryGetNJRine\u0026amp; che. n88d for assistance\nminority group isolation- in its\n/  recentnsss. of ta plan 'h,- assi8Jlmg ea (e) ~ of acMe,,e,nenf. (t-5- points} as a r8S1!lt of !he implemenfatfon ~IF:? fi. application fo 0118 oftl'le- foltowintf (1) The~ defmnines tlle-eldent magnet school Thtt Secretary .,.~~' . r.ategories:  to which !be ......:-. for wmch at .... _ di\"\"-\" that dJ ~ - rv,vv, apprea e8 URf Hn..-uny _ -~ - . .... Federal R.egister / Vol. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 61511 districts face in implementing voluntary desegregation plans and, accordingly, has not established numerical benchmarks to measure how well an LEA has performed under a MSAP grant. However, the Secretary seeks to award MSAP grants to those LEAs that best demonstrate promise of achieving the purposes of this program. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter suggested that the Secretary introduce some flexibility into the requirement that magnet schools not result in increases in minority enrollments in the magnet or feeder schools above the relevant districtwide average. The commenter suggested that a margin of five percent be permitted, because in many urban school districts the non-minority enrollment is very small and therefore districts struggle to enroll and maintain \u0026amp; critical mass of non-minority students in their schools. Thus, the movement of a single non-minority student may have a significant impact on the percentage of minority group students in a particular school. Discussion: Use ofan LEA's districtwide average as the standard for evaluating the effect of a magnet school on other schools in an LEA provides a school district with sufficient flexibility to tailor a desegregation plan to its needs so that the district can maximize its opportunities to promote desegregation. It also provides the Secretary with a standard that can be applied uniformly to all school districts when determining the eligibility of their voluntary desegregation plans, and that can be used as a reasonable gauge to measure if an applicant Is attempting to reduce, eliminate, or prevent minority group Isolation. Clianges: None. t 280.20 How does one apply for a grant? Comment: One commenter explained that neither the old regulations nor these revised regulations address the difficulty that districts with open enrollment plans bave, when see.king approval of a voluntary desegregation plan, in demonstrating the effect of the magnet school on surrounding schools, because the traditional concept of a \"magnet feeder school\" does not apply to these districts. The commenter suggested that districts with open enrollment plans be permitted to demonstrate the effectiveness of a magnet school by providing data on student assignment patterns for neighboring schools, that would have been applicable had the districts not had open emollment. Discussion: The Secretary believes that the regulations address this concern. Under, 280.20(g) of the regulations, an LEA that demonstrates that it cannot provide reliable data on magnet feeder schools may provide other information to the Secretary in support of its desegregation plan. This section provides an applicant flexibility in demonstrating the potential effectiveness of its magnet school if, because of the design of its desegregation plan, an applicant does not have data on feeder schools as required under  280.20(0. Therefore, districts with open enrollment plans may provide other information to demonstrate that creation or operation of their magnet schools complies with the eligibility requirements of this program. Changes: None. . Comment: One commenter suggested that  280.20(0(4)(iii) be clarified to indicate-(1) when the applicant would be required to submit \"other information that the Secretary determines is necessary\n\" (2) whether the information would be required of all or only some applicants\nand (3) whether the example provided is used for illustrative purposes only. If additional information will be required of all applicants, the commenter suggested that the regulations Indicate how applicants will be notified of the additional requirements. Discussion: The Secretary recognizes that there may be limited circumstances when an LEA may not be able to provide the information requested under 280.20(0(4) or (5) in the manner required by the regulations, or may not provide enough Information ~th its application to allow the Secretary to fairly evaluate its desegregation plan. The Secretary does not expect that every applicant will be asked to provide additional information In support of its desegregation plan. However, the Secretary wants to ensure that each applicant is given a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate its eligibility for this program. Therefore, if, after review of enrollment data provided with an application, or other information provided by an LEA to demonstrate its eligibility, the Secretary does not have sufficient information to approve a desegregation plan, the Secretary will request that an LEA provide additional information. Reference to providing the Secretary with demographic data to support a desegregation plan is included in this discussion for illustrative purposes only. Changes: The Secretary has deleted  280.20(0(4)(iii) and (S)(iii) and added a new section (h) to explain that, after reviewing the enrollment information provided with an LEA's application, or other information provided by the LEA under paragraph (g), the Secretary may request additional information necessary to evaluate the LEA's desegregation plan. Comment: One commenter suggested that the regulations indicate where in the application the applicant should provide desegregation plan data (e.g., enrollment numbers and percentages). Discussion: Instructions for submitting enrollment numbers and percentages, and any other information to support an application, will be provided in the application package. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter recommended that the regulations require applicants to submit in their application the data needed to ascertain their compliance with civil rights laws. The commenter expressed concern that some districts seeking MSAP funds maintain racially identifiable classes as a result of ability grouping and assign faculty and staff in a manner to identify ii$ schools for a particular race of students. Discussion: Under  280.20, an LEA must provide assurances of its compliance with civil rights laws in its application and upon request, must provide the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights with any information the Assistant Secretary finds is necessary to determine whether the assurances will be met. This provision of the regulations was not changed by the NPRM. Changes: None. 280.31 What Mlection criteria does the Secretary UN? Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed reduction of points for the quality of project personnel under  280.31(b), because it believes the success of each project depends on experienced key personnel who are knowledgeable about desegregation and magnet schools. Discussion: The Secretary agrees that a project must have qualified staff if it is to be successful and therefore has assigned significant points for this criterion. However, the Secretary has found that almost all applicants propose to use personnel who are qualified to conduct the project activities. In assigning the relative weights for the selection criteria, the Secretary determined that the criteria for project design and implementation, i.e., \"quality of project design\" and \"plan of operation,\" provide a more meaningful indication of the likelihood of an applicant's success In meeting the purposes of the MSAP. Changes: None. 61512 Fe4eral ltegi,ter / Vol. 51, No. Z48 I n.msd2y, December %4, 1992 / Rules and ReBulations Comment: One commenter feh that the regulations soould address perceived deficienciea in !h progmm. Specifically, the commenter recommended that the regulations be amended to limit funding to only magnet schools that serv\u0026amp; the school's entire student population and that operat\u0026amp; throughout the regular school day, to allow expendituJeS oo}y for the operation of the magnet school, and to disallow expenditures for a yeM of planning. DiSC11ssion:Th.MSAA de6nesa magnet school as \"a school or educational center that offen a special curriculum capable of attracting students of different racial backgrounds.\" The MSM does oot limit eligibility for MSAP funding to a magJ1et school that only involves an entin, student population and that onty opentes throughoot the.regular school day. However, under 280.ll[c), the Secretary evaluates how well an LEA's magnet school will assist an LEA to desegNgat\u0026amp; its schools. In this way, the Secn,taJ')' selects for awards tJiose applicants that best demonstrate promise of echieving the purpos\u0026amp; of the program. In addition, although the  MSAA permits funds to be used for planning and promotional activities, planning activities 819 limited to no more thaR 10 pen:ent of a grant award in any given year. Changes\nNODB. Comment: One com,-111..- felt that assigning paints Wider 280.31(c)(2)(iiil for a project's confonnanoa,with the President's AMERI~ 2000 strategy goes beyond the purpose of the law and therefore the existing regulations should not be changed. .DfSCTJsmm: Poin1t are- not assigned for a project's conformance with the President's AMERICA:2000 strategy. The selection factor evaluating thtt typ\u0026amp; of educational pn,gram that an LEA wm prrmde is based on the requirement in the MSAA that the magnet school pn:mde courses of instmcti{)n ro substmrtnrfty strengthen a student's knowfedge of academic subjects and marlcetabJe vocational sJciHs. The subjects that are identffi\u0026amp;d under-this factor a,e specifically induded in thi, MS.AA In desail\u0026gt;ing fh1I \"Uses of funds.\" Chtmges. None. CommeJJt7-0ne ronH1'1e!JteF fek that the points assigned to \"commitment and capacity\" under 230.31 ff) sooutd be im:reesed, to mah con4hmetioo of projects after Federal fund.1'1g ends a stronger requirement. TM cOlmJl8Jder indicated that ifdl\u0026amp; magJl8t programs are reducing minority 8\"l\"'P' isol\u0026amp;tNJII and are improving academic achievemeat they shoold be cootinuad. The commenter notad that u11der the current point assignment, programs are sometimes decnasecl or eliminated after the Federal funding ends. Discuss:ioA: n. 5ecretary believes that the criterion \"Commitment and capacity\" has t-n assigned significant points relative to the other selection factors, to ensure that applicants Jor, MSAP funds will continutt magnet schools programs. Data from previoosly funded magnet IICOO\u0026lt;\u0026gt;Js granu confinn that mast MSAJ\u0026gt;.funded programs are continued after Fedellll funding ends. In addition, an applicant must demonstrate under other selection fitdors, e.g., \"Collabonitive efforts,\" that U has sought other resources through which funds needed to contintte a project could be acquired. . . Changes: None. 280.32 Howlupacr.t can  llferMlon given to appicanla? Comment:Two cmmmm1ers fall the 10 points awuded for ''-recmtness, of implementation of ~roYed desegregation phm\" be retained. One comme11ts explained that reducing the points for this factor reduces th. advantage b newly desegregating districts that attempt to wiu puhlic acceptaoca of plans throogh th. use of new magnet schools. Another commenter- tel1 that districts that amtimraily revise desegn,geUon plans to adapt to changing cin:umstances and student needs shouM be rewanled. IAscussion:Tbe regulations contlmie to proYide am advantap to school districts that are implementing new or recently nmsed plans, bm reduce the relative Mrigbt of this special considenition factor. The Secrete?)' hM found that this criterion hH not resulted in 1t meeningft!l distinction among applicants since most 1tppliamts have received maximum points for it. For example, in the fiscal yeer 1991 g?Mlt competition, 85 percent of the appJicants received the maximum score-. Thi, alStricf's '1iesire to meet theeducational needs of its student's amf its desire to retain the support ofthecommmrlty mould bit sufficient incentmt fur implementing new plans or for ~ existing pfitM. Chan~: Hone,, Commfflt: Om, commenter said that n,duciug the pmits awarded b \"involv~ of minority 1fOOP students\"' front lrJ to S ,educes Ula competitiw ad1fllllt.age rw districts that are truly striving to meet the purpoS6'S of the-MSAP by tl'fldemking e,assiV9', drstrictwidG c:klsegfflglttion. Discr,SS(Jll: Tha pmnls for th1t proportion of minority group children involved in the applicant's desegregation plan was 111duced because most applicants }lava received the maximum points fm this criterioo and therefore it has not helped to detannine the Nllative lll8rit or applications. Also, the Secretary found that appli.ca:nts who had made progress in desegregating some schoola in their districts wore being penalized for their success. Tb. reduction in poirits for this criteri-On is intended to ensme that the weight given is rea90nably consistent with its value in determining the Ukely ~ of the applicant' plan to achieV\u0026amp; the pUJl)Ose oftheMSAP. Changes: None. Comment: One commenter stau,d that the lanS(U8ge oitae regulations under \"need for uai:stance\" is inmiequate to pnm!Dt wealthy diatricts from reaming ftm.ds while poor dismcts are left uniunded. Another mmmenwsoggest. ed that. the factors used to enluata an applicant's need for 8S$ist11Da be eoq,end\u0026amp;d to g,ive applicants further gaidance on what information should be provided to address this criterion fe.g~ how will the Secretary asseS\u0026amp; m applicant's ability to finance the pmjecl). The commenter also noted that dus aiterion now refers ollly to the difficulty of carrying out the project for which assistance is s\u0026gt;ught and not the diffic:ulty of carrying out the applicant's desegn,ptiilln plan and the project for which ~nee is~ Discu.ssion:\"Need for assisuDC\u0026amp;  i.s an iJRportaDl aitarion for fwiding under the MSAP md, ac.coniingly, is a rewitively heavily weighted factor. Th\u0026amp; Secretary agrees laat additional guidance ou the flCUl3 that the Secretary will consider in evaluating this criterion will assist BA app\u0026amp;am in demonstrating its need for MSistaRE:e and will provide the Secretary with information to bettM distinguish lffllong applicants seeking funding. Information provided in an application in respcmse to this criterioa may induda (l) a budget for ti.Illy implementing the magnet schools p,ojed or a nanative discussion of msts for fuUy implementing tbe project that includes a breakdown of aU of the resouices that will be needed to fund the. project\n(2J a descri ptic,n of any special costs that, because of th. desii,, of the project. would be incaJnd in ~de, t~ implemnl the pn,jecl fully\nand (3:) a description of why die appli.caol does not bava lllf\u0026amp;:ienl fun\u0026lt;k without assistanc. under tbis Pfll8RDl to fully implement die~- Changes: Tbi Secretary .-.s nrvisaci this section to explain farthsr the factms used lo-evaluece au appliC811C'~ need fi:\u0026gt;r assistance. n. Seaetuy wilt nalxiate Federal R.egmer / Vol. 57, No. 248 I Thwsday,-December 24, 1992 / Rules and Regulstions 11513 an applicant's-need for assistance based on how much it will cost the applicant to fully implement the magnet schools project proposed in the application and the resources available to the applicant to implement the project if funds under the MSAP were not provioed. The Secretary will also consider how the design of the project impacts on the applicant's ability to successfully implement the desegregation plan as proposed. Commffit: One commenter suggestac1 that if the Secretary wants to reduce the collective weight of the special consideration facton, the points assigned to \"collaborative efforts\" could be reduced because the commenter felt that this factor does not de11Brve equal weight with \"quality of personnel\" and \"commitment and capacity,\" and does not merit more weight than \"budget and resources.\" Discussion: The NPRM did not propose a change in the points uaigned for this criterion. Currently, five points are awarded under S 280.32(f) fur this criterion. Changes: None. (FR Doc. 92-31222 Piled 12-23-92\n8:45 am) aUNGCOO!- II 61514 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [CFDA No.: 84.165A] Magnet Schools Asalatance Program\nNotice Inviting Appllcatlona for New Awards for Aacal Year (FY) 1993 Purpose of Program: Provides grants to eligible local educational agencies to support magnet schools that are part of approved desegregation plans. Eligible Applicants: Local educational agencies. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: February 19, 1993. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: April 20, 1993. Applications Available: January 4, 1993. Available Funds: $107,532,800. Estimated Range of Awards: $200,000-$4,000,000. Estimated Average Size of Awards: $1,792,000. Estimated Number of Awards: 60. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Project Period: Up to 24 months. Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 - and 86\nand (b) the regulations in 34 CFR part 280 as amended. (Please note that amendments to 34 CFR parts 75 and 77 of EDGAR were published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, July 8, 1992, (57 FR 30328). Final regulations tt-. MM 19 amending 34 CFR part 280 are published in this issue of the Federal Register. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATlOH! Applicants must submit with their applications one of the following types of desegregation plans (1) a plan required by a court order\n(2) a plan required by a State agency or official of competent jurisdiction\n(3) a plan required by the Office for Qvil Rights (OCR), United States Department of Education (ED), under Title V1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title V1 plan)\nor (4) a voluntary plan adopted by tl!e applicant. An applicant that submits a plan required by a court, State agency or official of competent jurisdiction, must obtain approval for any modification to the plan from the court, agency, or official that originally approved the plan. A previously approved desegregation plan that does not include the magnet school or program for which an applicant is now seeking assistance under this program must be modified to include the magnet school component, and the modification to the plan must be approved by a court, agency or official, as appropriate. An applicant should indicate in its application if it is seeking to modify its previously approved plan. However, all applicants must submit proof to ED to approval of all modifications to their plans by March 26, 1993. If an applicant submits a modification to a previously approved s ~ \\ w J l \u0026amp;.-u..e.. ~@Mi\u0026amp;a~ Title V1 plan, the proposed modification will be reviewed by OCR for approval as part of this magnet schools application process. An applicant submitting a desegregation plan as described in 1, 2, or 3 above, must provide an assurance that the plan is being implemented as approved. An applicant submitting a voluntary plan or a modification to a Title V1 plan for approval by the Secretary must provide a copy of a school board resolution or other evidence of final official action adopting and implementing the plan, or agreeing to adopt and implement it if Magnet Schools Assistance Program funds are made available. FOR APPLICATIONS OR INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven L Brockhouse, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 2059, Washington, DC 20202-6246. Telephone (202) 401- 0358. Deaf and hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (in the Washington, DC 202 area code, telephone 708-9300) between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern time. Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 3021-3032. Dat_ed: December 18, 1992. John T. MacDonald, Assistant Secretory, Elementary and Secondary Education. (FR Doc. 92-31223 Piled 12- 23-92\n8:45 am! ~ CODE 40CICH1-II  - .E.=n,- : GILIALI TY CON ECT IIJN '\nERIJ I CES PHDNE No. -r o \\ 'Pl c.K \\-\\-o \\ b-. rT fi1:,1'V\\ ', C-o. \\ \\ Q 1J. I f\\ f\\ \"310 59:::: 6773 Jan. 22 1993 8: 20AM P01 61514 Federal R~ater I Vol. 57, No. 248 I Thursday, Decembor 24, 1Qi\n12 / No!IC1!1 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ICl'OA Mo.: M,16SAJ Mtgr-..t ~hool, AHl t n~ ProgrM\nNqtlce Inviting Appllcatton, for New Award for F1cal v .. r (FY) 1993 l'urposc r,f Prusrom: Prov Id~~ gr11nts to t1llRlhl11 loi:~l educ11llonal \"W\"'d'\" lu ~ \\pport rnogne! r.hool, Iha! ~ttt pai1 of e1lprovlld dosogregotlon plsn~. f.ll8ible llppliconts: Lor.RI Rrh1c-.11tlC1nal 11:endo,, Deadline for Transmittal of Applicntinns: Fnbrunry 19, 1993. ~nd/lne for Jnltrgo\\'P.rnmrntal R!l1ew: J.ptil 20, 1993. Applications Available: January 4, 1!)93. Availab/11 Funds: $107,532.800. Estimated Range of A word,: $ 200 ,OOo-$4 ,000 ,000. Estimated ll~rage Siu of Awarth: si,192,000. Estim11ted Number of ,A.wordi\n: 60. Noe: The Oqpartment l not bound by an)' er.llmalea In lh 11 notice. Project Period: Up to 24 months. Applicah/11 Regulations: (B) The Education Depertment Gonoral Adminlmat!vo Regulations (EDGAR) In 34 CF1t p11ru 75, 71, 79, RO, 8\\, !12, 8!1 and 116\nand (b) the N!lfl.llstlon, In 34 CFR part 280 11 amendod. (PleHe note that amendment to 34 CFR pattA 'r!I and ,, ,,, E'OCAR Wllll'II puhlleh n In the 1.deral Rlgl.ater on WP\u0026lt;!nead1y, July 6, HIM, (51 FR 30328), Final rogulollona amending H Cf'f\u0026lt; part Zf10 ere puhl i~hod In thl8 im1e ol tho Fedrl RP.r.iih,r. SUPPL[MCNTAAY INP:OAMAnotl! Appliconts mu11t gubmll with thftlr ~ppli\u0026lt;:11tions OM of the followlnR typt19 of do~oi,:re?,otlon plans (1 l I plan re9ult\u0026lt;1d by II co\\lrt urdor: (2) a plan ro,,uirud by a ~!RIO eg!lncy ur o(lklftl or r.ompfftRnl jurl..Jir:11,.n: (3) e r,!11n r11quirod by the Offlce lot Civil Rights (OCI\u0026lt;), United States O(,partment of Ecluca1ion (F:D), undor Till11 VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title V1 plan)\nor (4) a voluntary plBn ndupluJ Ly tl,11 nppllcent. An applicant that ubmltt1 a plan requirod by a court, State agency or orficial of c\u0026lt;lmpetent Juriadictlon, must obtain 11ppronl [or any modification tp\nt~i:n from tlui couu agency, or lnat originally approved the ~Ian: A prevlou~ly approved ~fflRAtlon plan that does not Include 1h11 n1n14net school or progr,m for which an ftppllcant 11 now seeking u,lstance ~rnh1r thlLDrogr~: mu~rc=~'::\"to mclude th\u0026amp; . .!Dftil tchoo nt, abrei d the mo~r!!\n:.': ~~ ~ha o\n!t!\"ust agproved..lf I lleri n lficial ro rlete  It 1pproved  Tllio V1 plan, the pmpoM\u0026gt;d mi,tilnr.Allon wil1 l\u0026gt;\u0026lt;l r-ovinw11d hy OCR for approvAI n~ porl of thi~ rtiegnM ~ch0ola application process. An 11ppll(\nllol submitting ft dn~\"8rosntlon plan n, dMc:ribod In 1, 2, or J abuv~, must pmvlJI! an a,sur~nr.n that thu plan ls b.ilng lmploniorilnrl A~ eppr0vod. Au HJ)pll\u0026lt;:,ml 1uhmilllnR ~ volonlary plAn n, 11 modlricMl(')n lo II Tltle Vl plan for approval by the Se('.retary rnuat provldo  copy of a 11\u0026lt;:hool b\u0026lt;u\\J'd re!ll'\u0026gt;lutlon or nlhor evidence of final official action 11doptlng and lmplenuu,tln~ th11 pl11n, or ogl'0(1!r1R to adopt end lmplament It ifM~gnot Schools A~slstance Program funds ere made available. ~ AJ\u0026gt;PUCAn()HS Of' INl'ORltlATION C~ACT: StllVen l... Brodhouse. U.S. Oclp111'1mt1nt ofEduca!lon, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW .. room 2059, We~hlng1on, DC Z0202...{1248. Tal(lphona (202) 40t- 03S8. Denf and hearin~ lmpelre\u0026lt;l tndlvlduals may call the Fllderal Dual Party Reley Service t 1-8()()-877-8339 (in the Wuhlng1on, DC 202 ares coda. telephone 708-9300) 1,etwoen II a.m. and 7 p.m., Eastern time. Pr-ovam A111horlty: 20 U.S.C. 3021 - 3032. 0~1.,d: l.'lecetmt- 18, 1002. John 't. MacDo11tld, llss/,t(lnl SIICT'f'fO,Y, BJlmontary 011d St1COt1dary td1.1001/ort , (Flt Doc. 03-31223 ,11..i U-2\u0026gt;--92: 8:0 am! '8LUHQ~~ ... ' ,, 1992 Guide to U.S. Department of Education Programs CONTENTS Introduction ii Glossary iii National Education Goals Offices: 1 Elementary and Secondary Education 14 Postsecondary Education 34 Educational Research and Improvement 44 Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs 48 Vocational and Adult Education 63 Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 75 Regional Representatives 76 Index or Programs INTRODUCTION This annual guide provides, in compact form, information necessary to begin the process of applying for funding from individual federal education programs. How to use this guide In the alphabetical index on page 76 programs are listed by both popular name and by descriptive words. The number after each index entry is the number that appears before each program title, not the page number. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (0MB) assigns most funded programs a number, shown in parentheses after each program title. The 0MB nwnbers are keyed to a more detailed description of each program in 0MB  s current Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (see glossary). The numbers in parentheses following each program narrative description refer to the National Education Goals addressed by the program. The six National Education Goals are listed on page iii. Block grants The Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendents of 1988 reauthorized and amended a number of elementary and secondary education programs, among them Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Chapter 1 gives states and local education agencies primary responsibility for conducting the largest federal program in suppon of education for the disadvantaged. Chapter 1 targets almost $5 billion to meet the special needs of disadvantaged children. Chapter 2 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, is designed to fund promising educational programs that state and local sources can suppon after their effectiveness is demonstrated\nto provide fllllds to purchase library and instructional materials\nto meet the special educational n~ of at-risk and high cost students\nto initiate and expand effective school programs\nand to allow state education agencies and local education agencies to meet their educational needs and priorities for targeted assistance. State education agencies are responsible for administering Chapter 2, while local education agencies design and implement Chapter 1 programs. How to apply for funding . While the federal government administers and distributes most fllllds allocated by Congress, some programs call for both state and federal administration. Under several programs, states administer federal grants under federal guidelines. In these state grant programs, individuals and organizations must apply directly to state agencies, as indicated in the column beaded \"Who May Apply.\" Under other programs, federal funds are distributed through grants or contracts directly to individuals, schools and school districts, libraries, museums, and organizations. Annollllcements of all competitions for federal grants are published in the Federal Register, and requests for proposals (RFPs) for all contract~ appear in the Commerce Business Daily (see glossary). Application information for federal grants or contracts can be obtained by contacting the administering office listed under the cohnnn beaded \"Contact.\" Written inquiries should be addressed to (name of administering office), U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202, unless another address is given. Telephone numbers of all contact offices are in area code 202 llllless otherwise indicated. Participation of private school students Programs that require that eligible private elementary and secondary school students and teachers be provided with services comparable to those afforded public schools have an asterisk () before the program description. Under these programs, the public agency generally is required to consult with appropriate representatives of private schools. The precise requirements for serving these students are contained in the panicular program regulations. In certain cases, further reference to the Department of Education General Administrative Regulations may be necessary. Some programs also authorize the implementation of a bypass (see glossary) to provide services dir~tly to eligible private school students and teachers when a public agency has failed to do so. These programs are indicated by a dagger (t ) before the program description. For more information on the opportunities available for private school students, contact the Office of Private Education (202) 401-1365. --Compiled by Alyce Jackson Office of Public Affairs GLOSSARY Bypass: When a public education agency fails to provide services authorized by federal law, the Secretary of Education may withhold fimds from that agency and may contract with a third pany to provide such scivices directly. This procedure is referred to as \"bypassing\" the public education agency. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA.): Published by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (0MB) and updated with looseleaf additions, this catalog dcscn\"bes all federal programs that distribute funds to states, organizations, and individuals. Toe numbers in parentheses after each program title in this guide correspond to 0MB numbers in the CFDA. For more details about any program listed in this guide, use its 0MB number to locate it in the CFDA. The CFDA is available in most major libraries or by subscription from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington. DC 20402, telephone (202) 783-3238. The domestic subscription price is $38 annually ($47.50 foreign), which includes periodic updated materials. Checks should be made payable to the Superintendent of Documents. VISA, MasterCard, CHOICE, and GPO deposit account orders accepted. Commerce Business Daily: A publication issued every weekday by the U.S. Department of Commerce listing all federal procurement invitations, including the Department of Education's requests for proposals (RFPs) for contracts. This publication is available in most major libraries or by subscription from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, telephone (202) 783-3238. The domestic subscription price is $261 annually, by first-class priority mail or $208 annually by regular second-class mail (six-month subscription $130 by first-class pricxity mail, $104 by regular second-class mail\nsix-month foreign subscription $130 pl!JS airmail postage). Checks should be made payable to the Superintendent of Documents. VISA, MasterCard, CHOICE, and GPO deposit account orders accepted. Contract: An award of money to carry out a specific task for a government agency, as described in a request for proposal (RFP) published in the Commerce Business Daily. Contracts are awarded to bidders submitting proposals that best meet the requirements of the announced work, within a competitive budget range. Currently unfunded programs: Once Congress bas authorized legislation, funds must be appropriated in order for legislation to be carried out However, appropriations are not always forthcoming following .the passage of legislation, and previously authorized or funded prcgrams are sometimes dropped from annual appropriation acts. Some programs authorized by Congress are never funded\nsometimes they are not refunded. In this Guide, the words \"Currently unfunded\" appear in parentheses under such programs. Federal Register: A publication issued every weekday by the National Archives and Records Administration listing all federal agency regulations and legal notices, including details of all federal grants competitions. Available in most major libraries and by subscription from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, telephone (202) 783-3238. The domestic subscription price is $340 annually, by regular second-class mail ($916 for firstclass priority mail)\n$170 for six months by regular second-class mail. Foreign subscriptions are $425 annually, $212.50 for six months. Checks should be made payable to the Superintendent of Documents. VISA, MasterCard, CHOICE, and GPO deposit account orders accepted. Grants: In direct grant or discretionary programs, awards are granted directly to those whose applications best meet the criteria for the work, as set out in the regulations of the federal agency published in the Federal Register. State formula grants or entitlement grants are made to the states in accordance with a formula based on the number of children or students to be served or on the amount of federal or state money available. In state-administered grants, the state itself is the grantee and may award grants to subgrantees on either a discretionary or formula basis. Local education agenc:y (LEA): An agency that exercises control over the public schools in a specific area within a state or territory, usually called a school district. Postsecondary school: Any public or private education institution of higher education beyond the secondary level, including two- and four-year colleges, technical schools, and universities. State education agency (SEA): An agency that oversees all public education within a state or territory, usually called a state department of education. 11 NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS 1. Readiness for School By the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn. 2. High School Completion By the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent 3. Student Achievement and Citizenship By the year 2000, American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography\nand every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning. and productive employment in our modem economy. 4. Science and Mathematics By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. 5. Adult Uuracy and Lifelong Learning By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. 6. Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-free Schools By the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. iii Office of Elementary and Secondary Education COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY t 1. Education for the Disad- Local education agencies (must vantaged-Grants to Local apply to state education agencies). Educational Agencies (84.010). Formula grants. Provides assistance to improve the educational opportunities of educationally deprived elemen-tary and secondary students who reside in low-income areas by helping those children succeed in the regular program, attain grade-level proficiency, and improve achievement in basic and more advanced skills. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 2. Education for the Disadvan- Local education agencies (must taged-Capital Expenses apply to state education agencies). (84.216). Provides payments Formula grants to states\ndiscretionary for capital expenses incurred as grants to local agencies. a result of implementing alternative delivery systems to provide Chapter 1 instructional services to eligible private school children in compliance with the requirements of Aquilar v. Felton.  3 . Even Start Family Literacy Local education agencies applying in Programs-Grants to Local collaboration with community-based Education Agencies, Commu organizations, public agencies, nity-Based Organizations, institutions of higher education, or and Other Nonprofit Organi- other nonprofit organizations\ncommu-zations (84.213). Improves the nity-based organizations or other education opportunities of nonprofit organizations applying in children in low-income areas collaboration with local education by integrating early childhood agencies (must apply to state education education and adult education agencies). Insular areas receive for parents into a unified formula grants. Indian tribes and tribal program. National Education organizations apply to U.S. Depart- Goals: 1, 3 and 5 ment of Education directly. Discre-tionary grants. *Elementary and secondary private school students and/or teachers entitled to services. tBypass available. CONTACT Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1682 Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1682 Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1692 Office or Elementary and Secondary Education COMPENSATORY EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued t  PROGRAM 4. Neglected and Delinquent Chllclren (84.013). Improves the educatioo of children up to age 21 in state-operated or supported schools for neglected or delinquent children\nadult cmectional facilities and cooununity day programs for neglected or delinquent children by providing supplementary education services to meet the special needs of these children. National Education Goals: 2, 3 and 5 5. Education for the Disadvan-taged- State Administntion (84.012). Provides for the administration of Chapter 1 programs. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3 and 5 6. Education for the Disadvan taged-State Program Im provement Grants (84.218). Provides funds to state eduai-tion agencies for direct education services in schools implementing Chapter 1 pro-gram improvement plans. 7. Follow Through (84.014) . Provides comprehensive services to children from lowincome families, who are in kindergarten and primary grades and who have had Head Stan or a similar quality preschoolexperience,and provides resources to develop effective practices for educating such children. National Education Goals: 2 and 3 WHO MAY APPLY State agencies providing free public education for children in institutioos for neglected or delinquent children, adult oorrectional facilities and for children attending community day programs foc neglected or delinquent children(must apply to state education agencies). Formula grants. State education agencies. Formula grants. State education agencies. Formula grants. Local education agencies (may apply to state education agen-cies). Local education agencies or other public and nonprofit private agencies, organizations, and institutions. Discretionary grants. *Elementary and secondary pivale school students and/or teac:bers entitled to~- 1B~ available CONTACT Compensatory Education Programs, 401-2699 Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1682 Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1682 Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1692 Office or Elementary and Secondary Educadaa SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS PROGRAM 8. Education for Homeless Children and Youth-State Programs (84,196). Provides assistance to establish an office in eacb state to coordinate education for homeless children and youth and to provide services to children in local education agencies. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3,4 and 5  t 9. Federal, State, and Local Partnership for Educational Improvement., (Chapter 2 ) (84.151). Assists state and local education agencies in improving quality and promoting innovation in elementary and secondary education.  10. Law-Related Education Program (83,123). Suppons projects in state and local education agencies and educates the public about the American legal system and the principles on which it is based so that students and adults may become well-informed and effective citizens. National Education Goals: 3 and 6  11. Arts In Education Program (84.084). Stimulates the integration of the arts into the education system by bringing together school and community an resources. National Education Goal: 3 WHO MAY APPLY State education agencies and local education agencies (must apply to state education agencies). State education agencies and local education agencies (must apply to state education agencies). Formula grants. State and local education agencies\ninstitutions of higher education\npublic and nonprofit private agencies, organizations or institutions. Discretionary grants. Very Special Arts, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Washington, D.C. *Elementary and secondary private school students and/or teachers entitled to services. tBypass available CONTACT Compensatory Education Programs, 401-1692 School Effectiveness Division, 401-1333 E.quity and Educational Excellence Division, 401-1342 E.quity and Educational Excellence Division, 401-1342 3 Offlce of Elementary 1111d Secondary EduaUon SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 12. Drug-Free Schools and Com- State education agencies\nGovernor's\nDivision of Drug-Free Schools and munities-State and Local and local or intermediate education Communities, 401-1599 Progra~ (84.186). Provides agencies or consortia (must apply to assistance to states for grants state education agency). Formula to establish, operate, and grants. Local education agencies and improve local pograms of drug other public entities and private abuse prevention, early inter- nonprofit entities (must apply to vention, rehabilitation referral, Governor's office). and education in elementary and secondary schools. Also provides assistance to states for services to high-risk youth and for develop-ment, training, technical assis-tance, and coordination activities. National Education Goal: 6 13. Drug-Free Schools and Com- Public or private organii.ations, Division of Drug-Free Schools and munlties-Regional Centers institutions, agencies, or individuals. Communities, 401-1599 Program (84.188). Establishes five regional centers to provide training and technical assistance to develop and strengthen drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention\nand to evaluate and disseminate information. National Education Goal: 6 14. Drug-Free Schools and Com- Any organi:zation primarily serving Division of Drug-Free Schools and munlties--Hawalian Natives and representing Hawaiian Natives Communities, 401-1599 Program (84.199). Provides that is recognized by the Governor assistance to organi:zations that of Hawaii. primarily serve and represent Hawaiian natives for drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention programs. National Education Goal: 6 4 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 15. Drug-Free Schools and Communities-- Demonstration Grants to Institutions of Higher Education (84.184A). Awards grants for model demonstration programs coordinated with local elementary and secondary schools for the development and implementation of quality drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention projects that demonstrate the practical application of the findings of educational research and evaluation and the integration of that research into drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention programs. National Education Goal: 6 16. Drug-Free Schools and Communities-Federal Activities Grants Program (84.184B). Awards grants to support drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention activities. National Education Goal: 6 17. Drug-Free Schools and Communities-School Personnel Training Program (84.207A). Awards grants to establish, expand, or enhance programs and activities for the training of elementary and secondary school teachers, administrators, and other school personnel concerning drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention. National Education Goal: 6 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education. Discretionary grants. State and local education agencies\ninstitutions of higher education\nand other nonprofit agencies, organizations and institutions. Discretionary grants. State education agencies\nlocal education agencies\ninstitutions of higher education\nor a consortia of those agencies or instutions. Discretionary grants. CONTACT Division of Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 401-1258 Division of Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 401-1258 Division of Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 401-1258 5 Office or Elementary and Secondary Education SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 18. Drug-Free Schools and Communities-Emergency Grants (84.233A). Awards grants to combat drug and alcohol abuse by students. National Education Goal: 6 19. Drug-Free Schools and Communlties--Counselor Training Grants Program (84.l41A). Awards grants to establish, expand, or enhance proi\nrams and activities for the training of counselors, social workers, psychologists, or nurses who are providing or will provide drug abuse prevention, counseling, or referral services in elementary and secondary schools. National Education Goal: 6 20. Training Program for Educators- Innovative Alcohol Abuse Education Programs (84.238). Awards grants to train educators on problems associated with alcoholism in the family. National Education Goal: 6 21. General Assistance for the Virgin Islands. Provides general assistance to improv.:: public education in the Virgin Islands. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6  22. Inexpensive Book Distribution Program. SupportS the  distribution of inexpensive books to students age 3 through high school to provide motivation for learning to read. National Education Goals: 1 and 5 WHO MAY APPLY Local education agencies. Discretionary grants. State education agencies\nlocal education agencies\ninstitutions of higher education\nand consortia of those agencies or institutions. Grants may also be awarded to private nonprofit agencies that have an agreement with a local education agency to provide training in drug abuse counseling for individuals who will provide counseling in the schools of that local education agency. Discretionary grants. State education agencies\nlocal education agencies\ninstitutions of higher education\nand public or private organization agencies, and institutions. Discretionary grants. Note: Only noncompeting continuation grants will be funded in FY 1992. Government of the Virgin Islands. Reading is Fundamental, Inc. *Elementary and secondary private school students and/or teachers entitled to services. 6 CONTACT Division of Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 401-1258 Division of Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 401-1258 Division of Drug-Free Schools and Communities, 401-1258 School Effectiveness Division, 401-1333 F.quity and Educational Excellence Division, 401-1342 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 23. Ellender Fellowships (84.148). Assists the Close-Up Foundation of Washington, D.C., in promoting knowledge and understanding of the federal government to secondary school students and their teachers, and to older Americans and recent immigrants. (Closing dates vary with geographic location.) National Education Goals: 3 and 5 24. Consolidated Grants Applications for Insular Areas. Permits an insular area to consolidate two or more programs under one application to provide simplified reporting procedures and flexibility in allocating the funds to meet educational needs. 25. Desegregation AssistanceCivil Rights Training and Advisory Services (84.004). Provides technical assistance, training, and advisory services to school districts in the preparation, adoption, and implementation of desegregation plans and of effective methods of coping with the special education problems caused by the desegregation of school districts based on race, sex, and national origin. Assistance is provided by state education agencies and regional desegregation assistance centers. National Educastion Goals: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 WHO MAY APPLY Economically disadvantaged secondary school students\nsecondary school teachers\neconomically disadvantaged older Americans\nand recent immigrants. American Samoa\nVirgin Islands\nGuam\nthe Republic of Palau\nand the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. State education agencies\npublic agencies and private nonprofit organizations. Discretionary grants. CONTACT Close-Up Foundation, 1235 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Suite 1500, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 892-5400 School Effectiveness Division, 401-1334 Equity and Educational Excellence Division, 401-0358 7 Office or Elementary and Secondary Education SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 26. Women's Educational Equity Public agencies\nprivate nonprofit Equity and Educational Excellence Act Program (84.083). organizations\nand individuals. Division, 401-1342 Promotes educational equity Discretionary grants. for women and girls through development and dissemination of model educational programs and materials. National Education Goal: 2 27. Dwight D. Eisenhower State education agencies and state School Effectiveness Division, Mathematics and Science agencies for higher education. 401-0841 Education Program (84.164). Improves the skills of teachers and quality of instruction in mathematics and science and increases the access of all students to this instruction. National Education Goals: 3and4 28. Magnet Schools Assistance Local education agencies. Equity and Educational Excellence Program (84.165). Assists Division, 401-0358 eligible local education agencies in planning, establishing, and operating magnet schools that are part of an approved desegregation plan. National Education Goals: l,2,3and4 29. Christa McAuliffe Fellowship Public and private school teachers Equity and Educational Excellence Program (84.190). Provides apply to their state. Division, 401-1342 fellowships for outstanding teachers to engage in activities to improve their knowledge and skills and the education of their students. National Educsation Goals: 1, 2, 3 4, 5 and 6 8 Office or Elementary and Secondary Education SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 30. Native Hawaiian Gined and University of Hawaii at Hilo. Equity and Educational Excellence Talented Demomtration Division, 401-1342 Program (84.210). Provides financial assistance to the University of Hawaii at Hilo (1) to establish a Native Hawaiian Gifted and Talented Center at the University of Hawaii at Hilo\nand (2) to develop a series of demonstration projects for gifted and talented elementary and secondary school students, including identification of special needs, conduct of educational services, research, evaluation, and dissemination. 31. Native Hawaiian Model University of Hawaii\nKamehameha Equity and Educational Excellence Curriculum Implementation Schools\nand Hawaii State Education Division, 401-1342 (84.208). Provides financial Agency. assistance to implement, in public school.$, a curriculum developed by the Kamehameha schools. National Education Goals: 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 32. Native Hawaiian Family- Native Hawaiian organizations. Equity and Educational Excellence Based Education Centers Division, 401-1342 (84.209). Provides financial assistance to operate 11 family-based education centers for native Hawaiian children. National Education Goal: 33. School Dropout Demonstra- Local education agencies\ncommu- Equity and Educational Excellence lion Assistance Program nity-based organizations\nand educa- Division, 401-1342 (84.201). Provides financial tional partnerships. assistance to demonstrate effective programs to reduce the number of children who do not complete their elementary and secondary education. National Education Goal: 2 9 Office or Elementary and Secondary Education PROGRAM 34. Foreign Languages Assistance Program (84.249). Provides financial assistance to states, on a matching basis, to improve the quantity and quality of instruction at the elementary and secondary levels in foreign languages that are identified by the Secretary as critical to the economic and security interests of the United States. IMPACT AID PROGRAMS WHO MAY APPLY State education agencies. 35. School Assistance in Feder- Local education agencies. ally Affected Areas- Comtruction, Impact Aid (84.040). Provides assistance for the construction of urgently needed minimum school facilities in school districts that have bad substantial increases in school membership as a . result of new or increased federal activities\nthat serve children residing on Indian lands\nor that are substantially comprised of federal property. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 36. School Assistance in Federally Local education agencies. Affected Areas-Maintenance and Operatiom, Impact AiJ (84.041). Provides fmancial assistance to local education agencies where the tax base of a school district is reduced through the federal acquisition of real property\nor where a local education agency provides education for children who reside on or whose parents are employed on federal property, including Indian lands, or who are on active duty in the unifonned services. CONTACT School Effectiveness Division, 401-1062 Division of Program Operations, 401..()()43 Division of School Assistance, 401-3637 or 401-2651 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education INDIAN EDUCATION PROGRAMS PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 37. Indian Education-Adult Indian tribes, Indian organizations, Office of Indian Education, 401-1943 Education (84.062). Provides and Indian institutions. financial assistance, on a discretionary basis, for educa-tional services projects to improve educational opportuni-ties for Indian adults. National Education Goal: 5 38. Indian Educatioi-Formula Local education agencies\ntribal Office of Indian Education, 401-1907 Grants to Local Educational schools\nand schools operated by the Agencies and Tribal Schools U.S. Department of the Interior, (84.060). Provides financial Bureau oflndian Affairs. assistance for elementary and secondary school projects meeting the special educational and culturally- related academic needs of Indian children. 39. Indian Education-Fellow- Individuals who are \"Indian\" as Office of Indian Education, 401-1916 ships for Indian Students defined under the authorizing statute (84.087). Provides assistance, and regulation. on a discretionary basis, for Indian students to pursue post-baccalaureate degrees in medicine, clinical psychology, psychology, law, education, and related fields\nor postbaccalaureate or undergradu-ate degrees in engineering, business administration, natural resources, and related fields. 40. Indian Education-Grants Indian tribes\nIndian organizations\nor Office oflndian Education, 401-1943 to Indian-Controlled Schools local education agencies in existence (84.072). Provides assistance, no more than three years, and which on a discretionary basis, to operate a school for Indian children support enrichment projects to that is located on or geographically meet the special educational near one or more reservations. The and culturally- related academic requirement that a school be on or needs of Indian children in local near a reservation does not apply to education agencies estab- any school serving Indian children in lished no more than three years Alaska, California, or Oklahoma. and in Indian-controlled elementary and secondary schools. 11 Office or Elementary and Secondary Education INDIAN EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM  41. Indian Education-Special Programs and Projects (84.061). Provides assistance on a discretionary basis for planning, pilot, and demonstl'a tion projects and educational services for Indian children. This program also supports educational personnel development (EPD) programs preparing persons to serve, improve the qualifications of persons serving or provide in-service training to persons serving Indian students as educational personnel or ancillary educational personnel. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and6 WHO MAY APPLY Planning, Pilot, and Demonstration Projects. SEAs\nLEAs\nand Indian tribes, Indian organizations, Indian institutions, and federally supponed elementary and secondary schools for Indian children. Education Services Projects. SEAs\nLEAs\nand Indian tribes, Indian organizations, Indian institutions, and for certain projects, consortia of Indian organizations, LEAs, and instutiond of higher education. EPD Section S32l(d). Institutions of higher education, and LEAs and SEAs in combination with institutions of higher education. EPD Section S322. Institutions of higher education\nIndian tribes\nand organizations. MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAMS PROGRAM 42. Migrant Education-College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) (84.149). Provides special academic and suppon services to migrant and seasonal farm workers or their chiidren who are enrolled in college or university to enable them to eoo1plete their freshman year. National Education Goals: 2, 3 and 5 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education or  other public or nonprofit private agencies in cooperation with an institution of higher education. . Discretionary grants. *Elementary and secondary private school students and/or teachers entitled to services. 12 CONTACT Office of Indian Education, 401-1943 CONTACT Office of Migrant Education, 401-0740 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 43. Migrant Education-Coordl- State education agencies. Discretion- Office of Migrant E.ducation, nation (84.144). Improves ary grants and contracts. 401-0742 interstate and intrastate coordi-nation of Migrant E.ducation program activities. National Education Goal: 1 44. Migrant Education-High Institutions of higher education or Office of Migrant E.ducation, School Equlvalency Program other public or nonprofit private 401-0740 (HEP) (84.141). Provides agencies in cooperation with an academic and supporting institution of higher education. services to enable migrant and Discretionary grants. seasonal farmworkers or their children age 17 or older who have dropped out of high school to obtain a high school diploma or its equivalent and subsequent employment or further education at a postsecondary school. National Education Goals: 2, 3 and 4  45. Migrant Education-State State education agencies. Formula Office of Migrant E.ducation, Formula Grant Program grants. 401-0740 or 401-0742 (84.011). Establishes and improves programs to meet the special educational needs of children of migratory agricul-tural workers and migratory fishermen. 46. Migrant Education-Even State education agencies. Discretion- Office of Migrant E.ducation, Start Program (84.214). To ary grants. 401-0744 establish and improve programs to meet the special educational needs of migratory preschool children and their parents by integrating early childhood education and adult education into a unified program. National Education Goals: and 5 *Elementary and secondary private school students and/or teachers entitled to services. 13 Office of Postsecondary Education FEDERAL STUDENT AID PROGRAMS For information about loans, grants, and work-study programs to help students attend postsecondary schools, follow this procedure: First, contact the financial aid administrator at a postsecondary school. Second, write to Federal Student Information Center, P.O. Box 84, Washington, DC 20044, and ask for The Student Guide: Financial Aid from the U.S. Depanment of Education, 1992-93. For specific information about bow the Pell Grant eligibility is calculated, write to Federal Student Aid Programs, P.O. Box 84, Washington, DC 20044, and ask for the latest edition of the Pell Grant Formula. For further information call l-800-4FED-AID (433-3243), or contact the administering office of the Department ofF.ducation listed under \"Contact.\" 14 PROGRAM 47. Pell Grant Program (84.063). Provides grants to eligible first-time undergraduate students to help them meet the costs of postsecondary education. National Education Goal: 5 48. Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (84.007). Provides supplemental grants to assist students (who show exceptional financial need) who have not received first undergraduate degree in acquiring a postsecondary education. Priority is given to Pell Grant recipients. National Education Goal: 5 49. State Student Incentive Grants (84.069). Assists states in providing grant programs for postsecondary students and awards to eligible students for campus-based community service workinglearning study. The maximum grant is $2,500 per year. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Undergraduate and vocational students enrolled or accepted for enrollment in participating schools. Students must be enrolled at least half-time. First-time undergraduates and vocational students accepted for enrollment at participating schools. Grants can be awarded to students enrolled less than half-time. The recipient states can give awards to undergraduate and graduate students having substantial financial need. CONTACT Federal Student Aid Programs, 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) Federal Student Aid Programs, 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) Federal Student Aid Programs, 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) Office or Postsemndary Education FEDERAL STUDENT AID PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 50. Robert C. Byrd Honors The recipient states can give scholar- Federal Student Aid Programs, Scholarship Program (84.185). ships to academically meritorious 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) Makes grants to states to enable students who are graduating from them to award scholarships to high school and are accepted for promote student excellence and enrollment at public or private achievement and to recognize nonprofit institutions of higher exceptionally able students who education. show promise of continued excellence. Students may receive $1,500 for their first year of postsecondary education. National Education Goal: 5 51. Stafford Loan Program Undergraduate, vocational, and Federal Student Aid Programs, (84.032). Low-interest graduate students accepted for 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) loans made by a lender such as a enrollment at least half-time in bank, credit union, or savings participating schools. and loan association. Loans are insured by a guarantee agency and reinsured by the federal government. National Educa-tion Goal: 5 52. Supplemental Loans for Graduate, professional, and indepen- Federal Student Aid Programs, Students (84.032). Graduate, dent undergraduate students accepted 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) professional, and independent for enrollment at least half-time in undergraduate students are participating schools. eligible for loans of up to $4,000 per academic year. Interest rates are variable. For the 1991-92 award year, the interest rate was 9.34 percent. National Education Goal: 5 53. PLUS Loan Program Parents of dependent students who are Federal Student Aid Programs, (84.032). Provides loans of up accepted for enrollment at least 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) to $4,000 per academic year for half-time in participating schools. parents of dependent students for student education expenses. National Education Goal: 5 15 Office or POIUKOndary Education FEDERAL STUDENT AID PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 54. College Work-Study Program Students who have not received first Fedc:ral Student Aid Programs. (84.033). Provides part-time undergraduate degree and vocatiooal 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) employment for postseCOndary and graduate students accepted for students who need the money to enrollment in participating scbools. help meet the costs of their education. National Education Goals: 5 55. Perklm Loan Program Students who have not received first Federal Student Aid Programs, (84.038). Provides low-interest undergraduate degree and vocational 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) (5 percent) loans to first-tim.: and graduate students accepted for undergraduates and vocational enrollment in participating schools. and graduate students to help them acquire a postsee0ndary education. The school is the lender. National Education Goal: 5 56. Income Contingent Loan Limited to undergraduate students Federal Student Aid Programs, Program (84.226). Implements enrolled or accepted for enrollment 708-4690 a five-year demonstration at least half-time in one of the ten project starting with the 1987-88 participating institutions. award year. The project is being conducted with ten participating institutions to explore the feasibility of a direct loan program that use$ an income-contingent repay-ment plan as an approach to student debt manageability. National Education Goal: 5 57. Paul Douglas Teacher The recipient states can give scholar Federal Student Aid Programs, Scholarships (84.176). ships to undergraduate students to 1-800-4FED-AID (433-3243) Awards grants to states for attend an eligible institute of higher scholarships to outstanding high education to pursue courses of study school graduates who demon-  leading to initial teacher certification. strate an interest in teaching, to Students must be full-time students encourage and enable them to and maintain satisfactory progress in pursue teaching careers. order to continue receiving scholar- Students must have graduated ship payments. from high school in the top 10 percent of their class. Students may receive up to $5,000 a year. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 16 Office of Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 58. National Science Scholars Scholars are nominated by state Office of Student Financial Program (84.242). Provides nominating committees. Assistance, 7084607 scholarships to graduating high school students who have excelled in the sciences, mathematics, or engineering. The scholarships recognize the academic achievement of these students and encourage them to continue their education in these academic areas at the post secondary level. National Education Goals: 4 and 5 59. Student Literacy Corps Institutions of higher education. Division of Higher Education, (84.219). Makes available Incentive Programs, 708-8394 two-year grants to institutions of higher education to promote and operate literacy corps programs in public community agencies in communities where such institutions are located. National Education Goal: 5 60. Strengthening Program Postsecondary schools that meet Division of Institutional Develop- (84.031). Provides funds to certain eligibility requirements. ment, 708-8839 eligible institutions to improve their academic quality, institu-tional management, and fiscal stability in order to increase institutional self-sufficiency and strengthen their capacity to make a substantial contribution to the higher education re-sources of the nation. National Education Goal: 5 61. Historically Black Colleges Historically black colleges and Di vision of Institutional Develop-and Universities (RBCUs) universities. ment, 708-9926 Prognm (84.031). Provides support to strengthen various aspects of the schools through a formula grant program to accredited, legally authorized HBCUs. National Education Goal: 5 17 Offlcie of PClltlec:ondary Education  ffiGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued 18 PROGRAM 62. Challenge Grant Program (84.031). Provides funds to eligible institutions on a matching basis as incentive to seek alternative sources of funding to assist the institution to achieve financial indepen-dcnce. National Education Goal: 5 63. Endowment Challenge Grant Program (84.031). Provides matching funds to eligible institutions of higher education in order to establish or increase endowment funds\nprovide additional incentives to promote fund-raising activities\nand foster increased independence and self-sufficiency at such institutions. National Educa-tion Goal: 5 64. Talent Search Program (84.044). Helps identify and counsel eligible persons age 12 to 27 years, usually high school students, to complete high school and pursue and complete postsecondary education. National Education Goals: 2, 3and5 65. Student Support Services (84.042). Provides federal financial assistance to projects designed to assist qualified postsecondary students, at least two-thirds of whom are physically handicapped or lowincome individuals who are first-generation college students. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Postsecondary schools, including certain graduate and medical schools, that meet certain eligibility require-ments. Postsecondary schools, including cena,in graduate and medical schools, meeting certain eligibility require ments. Institutions of higher education\npublic and private agencies and organizations\nand, in exceptional circumstances, secondary schools if there are no other applicants capable of providing this program in the target areas to be served by the proposed projects. Institutions of higher education. CONTACT Division of Institutional Develop-ment, 708-8866 Division of Institutional Develop ment, 708-8866 Division of Student Services, 708-4804 Division of Student Services, 708-4804 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 66. Training Program for Institutions of higher education and Division of Student Services, Special Progra~ Staff and other public and nonprofit private 708-4804 Leadership Personnel agencies and organizations. (84.103). Provides grants for short-term training for leader ship personnel and other staff employed or preparing for employment in programs funded under the Special Programs for Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds. National Education Goals: 2, 3, 4, and 5 67. Veteran's Education Outreach Institutions of higher education that Division of Higher Education Program (84,064). Encour enroll at least 100 veterans with Incentive Programs, 708-7861 ages recruitment, special honarble discharges. education, and counseling of veterans by postsecondary schools. National Education Goal: 5 68. Upward Bound (84.047). Institutions of higher education\nDivision of Student Services, Provides financial assistance to public and private agencies and 708-4804 projects designed to generate in organizations\nand, in exceptional participants skills and motiva- circumstances, secondary schools if tion necessary for success in there are no other applicants capable education beyond high of providing this program in the target school. National Education areas to be served by the proposed Goals: 2, 3, 4 and 5 projects. 69. Educational Opportunity Institutions of higher education\nDivision of Student Services, Centers (84.066). Provides public and private agencies and 708-4804 grants to operate centers to organizations\nand, in exceptional provide financial and academic circumstances, secondary schools, if information about higher there are no other applic~ts capable education opportunities and of providing this program in the target assistance in applying for areas to be served by the proposed admission to residents of the projects. target area who are at least 19 years of age, with exception. National Education Goal: :'i 19 Office or Postsecondary Education IDGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 70. Payments to Institutions or Institutions of higher education. Division of Student Services, Higher Education. Makes 7084900 cost-of-education payments to institutions of higher education. (Currently unfunded) National Education Goal: 5 71. Spedal Child Care Services Institutions of higher education. Division of Student Services, for Di.sadvantaged College 7084804 Students. Provides grants to institutions of higher education to provide special child care services for disadvantaged students. (Currently unfunded) National Education Goal: 5 72. School, College and University Institutions of higher education and Division of Student Services, Partnerships (84.204). Makes local education agencies that enter 7084804 grants to encourage partnerships into a wriuen partnership agreement between institutions of higher which can include businesses, labor education and secondary organizations, professional organiza-schools serving low-income tions, community-based organiza-students to support programs lions, or other private or public that improve the academic skills agencies or associations. of public and private nonprofit secondary school students\nto increase their opportunities to continue education after secondary school\nand to improve their prospects for employment after secondary school. National Education Goals: 2, 3 and 5 73. Ronald E. McNalr Post- Institutions of higher education. Division of Student Services, Baccalaureate Achievement 7084804 Program (84.217). Identifies low-income, first-generation college students, and student~ from a group that is underrepresented in graduate education who are enrolled in a degree program at an eligible institution of higher education, and provides them with neces-sary support services to effec-lively prepare them for graduate programs. National Education Goal: 5 20 Office or Postsecondary Education ffiGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 74. NatJonal Resource Centers Institutions of higher education or Center for International \u0026amp;lucation, (84.015). Promotes instruction combinations of such institutions. Advanced Training and Research in modem foreign languages Branch, 708-7283 and area and international studies critical to national needs by supporting the establishment, strengthening, and operation of such centers at colleges and universities. 75. Language Resource Centers Institutions of higher education or Center for International \u0026amp;lucation, (84.229). Establishes and combinations of such institutions. Advanced Training and Research operates language training Branch, 708-6280 centers which shall serve as resources to improve the Nations capacity to teach and learn foreign languages. 76. Undergraduate International Institutions of higher education\nCenter for International \u0026amp;lucation, Studies and Foreign Lan- combinations of such institutions\nInternational Studies Branch, guage Program (84.016). public and private nonprofit agencies 708-9293 Awards grants to institutions and organizations. to assist in planning and carrying out programs to strengthen and improve undergraduate instruc-lion in international studies and foreign languages\nalso awards grants for model programs\nalso awards grants to nonprofit agencies and organi-zations for irojects that will significantly contribute to the undergradaute instruction. 77. Intensive Summer Language Institutions of higher education or Center for International F.ducation, l.mtitutes. Awards grants to ccmbinations of such institutions. International Studies Branch, institutions to establish and 708-8747 conduct intensive summer language institutes. (Currently unfunded) 21 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued 22 PROGRAM 78. Research Studies Annual Report (84.017). Awards grants to instinuions of higher education for research and studies to determine the need for increased or improved modem foreign languages and to re.search more effective methods of providing instruction, administering proficiency tests, and developing and publishing specialized materials for such instruction. 79. Periodicals Published Outside the U.S. (84.251). Awards grants toinstitutions and libraries to provide assistance for the acquisition of, and provision of access to, periodicals published outside the  United States. 80. Business and International Education Program (84.153). Awards grants and contracts to institutions of higher education to promote linkages between such institutions and the American business community engaged in international economic activity. National Education Goal: 5 81. Centers for International Business Education (84.220). Awards grants to institutions of higher education to pay the federal share of the cost of planning, establishing, and operating centers for international business education which promote linkages between such institutions and the American business community engaged in international economic activity. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Postsecondary schools. Higher education institutions\npublic or nonprofit library institutions\nconsortia of such institutions. Institutions of higher education that have entered into agreements with business enterprises, trade organizations or associations engaged in international economic activity. (Federal assistance cannot exceed 50 percent of the cost. ) Institutions of higher education. CONTACT Center for International F.ducation, International Studies Branch, 708-9297 Center for International F.ducation, 708-9290 Center for International F.ducation, International Studies Branch, 708-7283 Center for International F.ducation, 708-8764 Office or Postsemndary Edacatioll ffiGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 82. Gnnts for the Construction, States and cenain territories that have Di vision of Higher Educalim, Reconstruction, and Renova- an agreement with the Secretary Incentive Programs, 708-9401 tion of Undergraduate pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1143. Academic Facilities (84.001). Provides grants for the con-struction, renovation, and re-construction of imdergraduate academic facilities and com-bined graduate and imdergradu-ate facilities. (Currently unfunded) National Education Goal: 5 83. Gnnts for the Construction, Graduate institutions of higher Division of Higher Education, Reconstruction, and Renova- education. Incentive Programs, 708-9401 tion of Gnduate Academic Faclllties (84.172). Provides grants for the construction, renovation, and reconstruction of graduate academic facilities. Grants not to exceed 50 percent of the development cost 84. Loans for Construction, Institutions of higher education and Division of Higher Educaticm, Reconstruction, and Renova- higher education building agencies. Incentive Programs, 708-9401 tion of Academic Facilities. Provides loans for the construe-tion, reconstruction, or renova-tion of academic facilities. Loans not to exceed 80 percent of the development cost (Currently unfunded). 85. College Construction Loan Institutions of higher education. College Construction Loan Insurance Association. The Insurance Association, 2445 M St.. association provides direct NW, Washington, DC 20037, guarantees insurance and 835-0090 reinsurance on obligations issued for education facilities purposes, including construe-tion, reconstruction, renovation, acquisition, or purchase of education, training, research, facilities or housing (including furniture, fixtures, and equip-ment), and underlying real propeny, and instructional equipment and research instru-mentation. 23 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 86. Grants to Pay Interest on Institutions of higher education and Division of Higher Education, Debts. Awards interest grants higher education building agencies. Inccntive Programs, 708-9401 to assist institutions of higher education and higher education building agencies in reducing the cost of borrowing from other sources. (Funds currently appropriated are used only to pay interest and subsidies on prior grants made under this program.) National Education Goal: 5 87. Housing and Other Educa- Undergraduate postsecondary Division of Higher Education, tional Facilities Loans education institutions. Incentive Programs, 708-9401 (84.142). Makes loans to undergraduate postsecondary education institutions to assist in the construction, reconstruc-lion, or renovation of housing, undergraduate academic facilities, and other educational facilities for students and faculties. National Education Goal: 5 88. Cooperative Education Institutions of higher education and Division of Higher Education, Program (84.055). A wards combinations thereof and other public Incentive Programs, 708-9407 grants to institutions of higher and private nonprofit agencies or education to support planning organizations. and implementing programs integrating periods of academic study with public or private employment\nand for adminis-tration, training, and resource centers, research and demonsua-lion/ innovation projects. National Education Goal: 5 24 Office of Postsecondary Educatloa HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 89. Minority Participation in Graduate Education Programs (84.202). Awards grants to institutions of higher education for identifying talented undergraduate students who demonstrate financial need and are from minority groups underrepresented in graduate education, and for providing those students with opportunities to prepare for graduate study. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education. CONTACT Division of Higher Education, Incentive Programs, 708-9393 25 Office or Postsea\u0026gt;ndary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 90. Patricia Roberts Harris Institutions of higher education. Division of Higher Education, Fellowship Program (84.094). (Graduate students apply to participat- Incentive Programs, 708-8395 Provides grants to graduate and ing schools.) professional students who demonstrate financial need\nalso provides fellowship and instillltional support in academic and pofessional areas to assist minorities and women in undertaking graduate and professional study in academic fields in which they have been historically underrepresented. National Education Goals: 4 and5 91. Jacob K. Javits Fellowship Graduate students at doctoral level. Division of Higher Education, Program (84.170). Provides Incentive Programs, 708-8394 fellowships to doctoral candi-dales pursuing graduate study in the arts, humanities, and social sciences for periods not to exceed 48 months. A board establishes the general policies for the program, selects the fields in which fellowships are to be awarded, and determines the number of fellowships each year for designated fields. National Education Goal: 5 92. Graduate Assistance in Areas Academic departments and programs Division of Higher Education, or National Need (84.200). and other institutions of higher Incentive Programs, 708-9419 Provides fellowships to assist education. graduate students of superior quality who demonstrate fmancial need. Grants are awarded to academic departments and programs of instiwtions of higher education to sustain and enhance the capacity for teaching and research in areas of national need. National Education Goals: 4 and 5 26 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 93. Assistance for Training In the Public and private agencies and Division of Higher Education, Legal Profes.slon (84,136). organizations other than institutions Incentive Programs, 708-9393 Provides opportunities for of higher education. students from disadvantaged backgrounds to undertake training for the legal profession. National Education Goal: 5 94. Law School Clinical Experi- Accredited Jaw schools or a combina- Division of Higher Education, ence Program (84.097). lion or consortiwn of accredited law Incentive Programs, 708-7863 Provides grants and contract~ schools. to accredited law schools to help fund (up to 90 percent of the cost) the establishment and expansion of programs to provide clinical experience for Jaw students. National Educa-tion Goal: 5 95. Minority Science Improve- Public and private, nonprofit minority Division of Higher Education, ment Program (84.120). institutions, nonprofit science-oriented Incentive Programs, 708-4662 Makes grants designed to effect organizations, professional scientific long-range improvement in societies, and all nonprofit accredited science and engineering colleges and universities providing education at predominantly service to a group of eligible minority minority institutions of higher institutions or providing in-service education and to increase the training for project directors, scien-participation of under- lists, engineers from eligible minority represented ethnic minorities institutions. in scientific and technological careers. National Education Goals: 4 and 5 96. Minority Support in Science Institutions of higher education with Division of Higher Education, and Engineering Program significant minority enrollment (at Incentive Programs, 708-4662 (84.120). Makes grants to least 10 percent). provide or improve support programs for minority students enrolled in science and engi-neering programs at institutions of higher education with a significant minority enrollment (at least 10 percent). (Currently unfunded). National Educa-tion Goals: 4 and 5 27 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 97. Special Service Projects Program. Makes grants to institutions of higher education to provide or improve support to accredited colleges and lllliversities and professional scientific societies for activities designed to eliminate and reduce specific barriers to the entry of minorities into careers in science and technology. (Currently unfunded). National Education Goals: 4 and 5 98. Native Hawaiian Higher Education Demonstration Program. Provides scholarships and fellowships to native Hawai ian postsecondary students at both the undergraduate and gradual~ levels of study. National Education Goal: 5 99. Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary EducationComprehensive Program (Preapplication and Applications) (84.116). Awards grants to assist education institutions and agencies in improving postsecondary educational opportunities. National Education Goal: 5 100. Innovative Projects for Student Community Service (84.116F). Makes grants to support innovative projects 28 that encourage srudent participation in community service projects in exchange for educational services or financial assistance, thereby helping to reduce the debt acquired by students in the course of completing postsecondary education programs. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education. Kamehameha schools. Institutions of post.secondary education\na combination of institutions of postsecondary education\nand other public and private nopnprofit education institutions and agencies. Institutions of postsecondary education\ncombinations of such institutions\nand other public and private nonprofit education agencies and organizations. CONTACT Division of Higher Education, Incentive Programs, 708-4662 Division of Higher Education, Incentive Programs, 708-9393 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 708-5750 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 708-5750 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 101. Practitioner Scholars: Lecture Series (84.116G). Awards grants to support efforts by postsecondary education practitioners to contribute to knowledge about postsecondary education by producing a document or other product or by engaging in an activity designed to share the postsecondary educational practitioner's knowledge with others. National Education Goal: 5 102. Special Focus Competition: College-School Partnerships to Improve Learning of Essential Academic Subjects, Kindergarten through College (84.116H). Awards grants for projects addressing a particular problem area or improvement approach in postsecondary education. Invitational priority: the improvement of teaching and sequencing of curricula across grade levels of disciplines, including English, history, foreign languages, geography, mathematics, and natural science. National Education Goals: 3 and 5 103. Special Focus Competition: Projects In Science and the Humanities (84.116K). Awards grants for projects addressing a particular problem area or improvement approach in postsecondary education. Invitational priority: the development of courses or curricula that link science, social science, and the humanities. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of postsecondary education\na combination of institutions of postsecondary education\nand other public and private nonprofit education institutions and agencies. Institutions of postsecondary education\na combination of institutions of postsecondary education\nand other public and private nonprofit education institutions and agencies. Institutions of postsecondary education\na combination of institutions of postsecondary education\nand other public and private nonprofit education institutions and agencies. CONTACT Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 708-5750 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 708-5750 Fund for the Improvement of Postsec ondary Education, 708-5750 29 Office or Postsecondary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 104. Partnerships for Economic Development. Awards grants for more comprehensive efforts to link postsecondary education institutions with state and local governments, labor, business, industry, and community organizations in order to meet local problems and to plan, maintain, and attract lasting economic improvement. (Currently unfunded). National Education Goal: 5 105. Urban Community Service. Awards grants to urban universities to support cooperative projects that provide urban areas with applied research, planning services, specialized training, technical assistance, or other services to address the high priority needs of such areas. National Education Goal: 5 106. Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Program in Foreign Language and Area Studies (84.022). Provides opportunities for graduate students to do full-time dissertation research abroad in modem foreign languages and 30 area studies in order to develop research knowledge and capability in world areas not commonly taught in U.S. institutions. National Education Goal: 5 WHO MAY APPLY Postsecondary institutions, or a consortia of such institutions that involve state and local governments, labor, business, industry, labor unions, and community nonprofit organizations. Urban universities or a consortium of such institutions. Institutions of higher education (graduate students must apply through their universities). CONTACT Office of Postsecondary Education, 708-5547 Division of Higher Education Incentive Programs, 708-4662 Center for International Education, Advanced Training and Research Branch, 708-9298 Office or Postsemndary Education HIGHER AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 107. Fulbright-Hays Faculty Institutions of higher education Center for International Education, Research Abroad Program in (faculty members must apply through Advanced Training and Research Foreign Language and Area their employing schools). Branch, 708-8763 Studies (84.019). Strengthens programs of international studie~ at universities and colleges by providing opportunities for faculty members to conduct research and study abroad in foreign languages and area studies. National Education Goal: 5 108. Group Projects Abroad for State education agencies\npostsecond- Center for International E.ducation, Language and Area Studies ary schools\nprivate nonprofit educa- International Studies Branch, (84.021). Helps education lion organizations\na consortium of 708-8294 institutions to improve their these institutions, agencies and programs in modern foreign organizations. languages and area studies. National Education Goal: 5 109. Fulbright-Hays Seminars Undergraduate faculty members from Center for International E.ducation, Abroad Program (84.018). postsecondary institutions whose International Studies Branch, Increases mutual understanding professional activities primarily 708-7292 between people of the United include teaching introductory courses States and other countries by in the humanities or the social offering qualified American sciences\nsecondary schoolteachers of educators opportunities to social studies subjects\nadministrators participate in shon-term and curriculum specialists of state or seminars abroad. National local education agencies with direct Education Goal: 5 responsibility for curriculum develop-ment in social studies. 31 Office or Posuecondary Education DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAMS PROGRAM 110. Imtitution-Wide Program (84.183A). Provides assistance to institutions of higher cduca tion to develop, implement, operate, and improve drug abu~e education and prevention programs. Projects must be ccmprehensive, institution-wide programs designed to prevent or eliminate student use of illegal drugs and abuse of other drugs and alcohol, including programs whose direct or indirect purpoSt: is to train students, faculty, and staff in drug abuse education and prevention. National Educsation Goal: 6 111. National College Student Organizational Network Program (84.183B). Provides assistance to develop, implement, operate, and improve drug abuse education and prevention programs for students enrolled in institutions of higher education. For fiscal 32 year 1992, the Secretary supports only the development and implementation of projects (a) conducted in conjunction with national student networks or organizations\nand (b) addressing one or more specific approaches or problem areas related to drug abuse education and prevention for students enrolled in institutions of higher education. National Education Goal: 6 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education and coosortia of institutions of higher education. Institutions of higher education and consortia of institutions of higher education. CONTACT Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 708-5750 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 708-5750 Office of Pmtsecondary Education DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAMS-Continued PROGRAM 112. Speclrac Approaches to Prevention Projects (84.183D). Provides assistance to develop, implement, operate, and improve drug abuse education and prevention programs for students enrolled in institutions of higher education. Project must include specific approaches to ~e prevention of drug or alcohol abuse. For fiscal year 1992, the Secretary supports only the development, implementation, operation, or improvement of higher education consortia for drug prevention. Consortia may assist in institutions of higher education either (a) drug abuse prevention professionals\nor (b) chief executive officers and other senior administrators. National Education Goal: 6 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education and consortia of institutions of higher education. CONTACT Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary F.ducation, 708-5750 33 Office of Educational Research and Improvement The Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) suppons and conducts research on education, collects and analyzes education statistics, disseminates information, and supports and improves library education and service. OERI may carry out these activities directly, or through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements. Written inquiries should be addressed to the appropriate programs in the .Office of Educational Research and Improvement, . 555 New Jersey Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20208. PROGRAM 113. Educational Research Grant Program: Field-Initiated Competition (84.117). Supports research and development activities designed to advance educational theory and practice. Applicants are invited to select the topics to be addressed in the grants. 114. Research and Development . Centers Program (84.117). Provides grants and cooperative agreements to institutions seeking to advance knowledge about education policy and practice through the planning, institutional operations, and special activities of research and development centers. No new competitions are anticipated in FY 1992. 115. Regional Educational Laborato ries (84.117). Provides contracts 34 to institutions seeking to improve education policy and practice through assistance, applied research and development, dissemination, and special activities of regional educational laboratories. Office of Research WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education\npublic or private institutions, agencies, organizations or individuals. Institutions of higher education\ninstitutions of higher education in consort with public agencies\nor private nonprofit organizations or interstate agencies established to conduct postsecondary education research and development. Public agencies or private nonprofit organizations. CONTACT Office of Research, 219-2223 Office of Research, 219-2079 Educational Networks Division, 219-2116 Office of EducaUonal Research and Improvement OFFICE OF RESEARCH-Continued PROGRAM 116. Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program (84.206R). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented conducts research on methods of identifying and teaching gifted and talented students, and undertakes program evaluations, surveys, and the collection, analysis, and development of information about gifted and talented programs. The program focuses on snidents who may not be identified through traditional assessment methods, including economically disadvantaged individuals, individuals of limited English proficiency and individuals with disabilities. In FY 1992 only the continuation application for the current center will be solicited. (See program 121 on page 37, for infonnation about demonstration grants awarded under this program.) National Education Goals: 3 and 4 117. Star Schools Program (84.203). Provides grants to eligible telecommunication partnerships to encourage improved instruction in mathematics, science, and foreign language, adult literacy, vocational education and training of child care workers through the development, construction, and acquisition of telecommunications facilities, equipment, and instructional programming. National Education Goals: 3, 4 and 5 WHO MAY APPLY Institutions of higher education\nstate education agencies\nor a combination or consortium of institutions of higher education or state education agencies or both. Telecommunication partnerships, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 4083, organized on a statewide or multistate basis. CONTACT Office of Research, 219-2223 Educational Networks Division, 219-2200 35 Office or Educational Research and Improvement PROGRAMS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PRACTICE (PIP) PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 118. Leadership in Educational Aclmlnbtration Development Local education agencies\nintermcdi- Educational Netw\u0026lt;Xks Division, (LEAD) Program (84.178). ate school districts\nstate education 219-2116 ~tablishes and operates a techni- agencies\ninstitutions of higher cal assistance center in each state education\nprivate management to promote leadership skills for organizations\nand nonprofit organiza-school administrators. Only tions, or consortia of those entities. continuation applications will be accepted in FY 1992. National Education Goals: 2, 3 and 4 119. National Diffusion Network Slate and local education agencies\nRecognition Division, 219-2134 Program (84.073). Promotes institutions of higher education\nnationwide dissemination and public and nonprofit education adoption of exemplary educational institutions and organizations. programs, products, and practices that have received program effectiveness panel approval by the Department of Education. Awards are made in the form of 1) developer demonstrator grants\n2) state facilitator grants\n3) dissemination process grants\nand 4) private school facilitator grants. National Education Goals: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and6 120. Territorial Teacher Training Stale education agencies of each Educational Networks Division, Assistance Program (84.124). territory or a joint application from a 219-2186 Provides assistance for training stale education agency and an school teachers in American institution of higher education. Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam, Palau, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Only continuation applications will be accepted in FY 1992. Na-tional Education Goals: 3 and 4 36 Office of Educational Research and Improvement PROGRAMS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PRACTICE-Continued PROGRAM WHO MAY APPLY CONTACT 121. Jacob K. Javits Gifted and State and local education agencies\nResearch Applications Division, Talented Students Education institutions of higher education\n219-2187 Program (84.206A). Provides public and private agencies\nIndian demonstration grants for training tribes and tribal organizations as and other activities to build a defined by the Indian Self-Determina-nationwide capacity to meet the tion and Education Assistance Act\nspecial educational needs of gifted and native Hawaiian organizations. and talented students in elementary and secondary schools. (See program 116 on page 35, for information about research conducted under this program.) National Education Goals: 3 and4 122. Educational Partnerships An eligible partnership which must Educational Networks Division, Program (84.228). Provides include a local education agency or an 219-2116 grants to encourage the creation institution of higher education, or of alliances between public both, and one or more organizations elementary and secondary schools from the private sector or appropriate or institutions of higher education state agencies. and the private sector to (1) apply the resources of the private and nonprofit sectors of the community to the needs of elementary and secondary schools or institu-tions of higher education to encourage excellence in education\n(2) encourage businesses to work with educationally disadvantaged students and with gifted students\nand (3) enrich the career awareness of secondary or postsecondary students and provide exposure to the work of the private sector. National Education Goal: 5 123. Mid-Career Teacher Training Institutions of higher education with Research Applications Division, Program (84.232). Provides schools or departments of education. 219-2187 grants to encourage institutions of higher education with schools or departments of education to establish and maintain program). that will provide teacher training to individuals who are moving to a career in education from another occupation. National Education Goal: 5 37 Office or Educational Research and Improvement PROGRAM 124. Public Library Servkes-State Grant Program (84.034). Provides grants designed to plan for, establish, extend or improve public library services ,these projects may include services, to unserved or underserved groups and geographical areas, including state instirutional library services and library services for the physically disabled, the disadvantaged, the illiterate, the elderly, and those of limited English proficiency\ndeveloping public libraries as community centers for information and referral\nstrengthening state library administrative agencies to meet the needs of the people of the states, metropolitan public libraries that serve as national or regional resource centers, and major urban resource libraries\nand assisting libraries to provide intergenerational library programs as well as to display materials and to conduct programs aimed at drug abuse prevention. National Education Goal: 1 125. Interlibrary Cooperation and Resource Sharing-State Grant Program (84.035). Provides grants to assist the states in 38 projects to enable the various types of libraries to share resources and materials mandated activities include cooperative library networks developing the technological cap\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_865","title":"Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School facilities","School buildings","School employees","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Budget: ''North Little Rock School District Budget''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/865"],"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.\nI NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET 1993-94 I I I I I I SEP 1 3 1993 om'0 01 0~ g eg. .r.,  i i Monito: 1g REVENUE tomt Um ROCsKa m. DISTRICT ROEii SUltARY JU, 1993 RESTRitmF\u0026gt;1 IGlS JIUDtET LOOI. REVBIE tfflJfT MTillf-SUKR 50m. 60,000 199'2- l99J '1T StJIER LUST 16,500 sam.A CTMTSYi t.ES 50,000 11:SIRJCfIUOl8 amr 1DR1 DIA1E llJSTtl\u0026gt;ItSt. ERVICES 24,000 UEMl.l WJIE ... IIIStEl.1.AtelJS 9,000 NIDT TOTrLt. lrA. l\u0026amp;lRICm\u0026gt;l eDI 1'9,500 IDm.M:mllTM.D 50,000 S6,6U.18 amma. DUD 31,000 a,000.00 STATERa'EJIE PQ!IEIMERB 25,000 12P,17l.J2 TRANSP(RTATIIII 494,317 1DTMU. DL IUIRICIOm  99,000 213,\"111.S, VOCATIBOlJWIP.I EfT 22,002 STAlEII D9I VOCATIIISWTA. RT-lP 2,600 KINIO\u0026amp;ARMTETMER irt.S 8,460 llhB !llm1mll m,a m,om.oo tw\nfET/IHlHtllW\u0026amp;'On'. 300,000 \\'IDTDllfl. 80,436 80,415.96 IEiE\u0026amp;RE\u0026amp;AATmIDt 780,000 IDIIBUnBI M'IBWU 7,180 6,209.08 CDfEMSATAIJInD' 234,439 11GE111-111HI1M I mu. JD0,000 JD0,000.00 D'EP/ACT 18,:s:38 MCPRES\u0026gt;m. Y.AiaTJIII AD 400,000 IM4,39J.8l 234,116 mFEllii\\TlmA D 248,056 Zli,557.04 MCS lllERE JIUDlHT 0 MCF IEDIII. 229,ffl 229,51:S.OO SPECirEt. D.P RESDm.. 314,325 MCU IIR BlmHIJfr 31,603 D,60.1.00 SPECirtE. D.R ESJEfl'Irt. 25,000 MCP IEDlll. EIIDMJff U,407 U,407.00 SPEClrt.EDP.I ElDDl. 0 fFECIMEl.. PIEDlll. 1G,71J w,202.00 !HCitL Ellll'ATirJmt\n0 \u0026amp;PfCIMEJI..I DTJII(m : 5,000 5,000.00 LEVsIn w\u0026amp;\n25,000 \u0026amp;PfCIME.l.. IIIDEN1'UL 12,000 26,957.82 IEl1ttltRDliGRMT 7,900 IQ!IE I #fllB CillMIB 20,000 Q,392.95 lllml.NEU WMTS 2,000 TOT,tS. TATREE STRICTREEDV E1l 2,468,597 1DTMS.T AlEIU IRICIOIB 9I 2,221,256 2,55.6,7!5-'6 TDTMU.D L \u0026amp; BTAlE TDTrUt. l'lt. \u0026amp; STTAE 11:SIRJCtIEOV EII 2,322,256 2,1JD,m.u IOTRICTEDREVE1l 2,628,097 = meRIGIEWJIE FOOSDE RVIaR: EVEJlE ... RMW 3,714,:IIO 3,710,7 10.' llt. REVEME 636,000.00 llt. aua:TI!Hi .oo F'EDEJIWEt.l U5EJDT 1,300,000.00 STATIEIE itllUmEfT zs,000.00 IHTmST 5,000.00 01llR 3,000.00 TDTrftl.D I SERVIa: 1,969,000.00 1 IOml UTTLRO CsKam . DISTRICT REVEJSI.ElH fARY 1993 - 1994 leTRICTEDFl NlS BUl)f',[f lro1.REVEM AIUM MTIIIHUKR SDm. 60,000 199'i-1993 '1f S\\ltER Ill.EST 16,500 sam.A CTIVI\u0026amp;TUYS 50,000 11:SIRICIFElJl l8 am:r 1DITDM1E llJSllmll(. SERVICES 24,000 UDl.llWIIE MUff MUff IUSCEJ.1.AIElS 9,000 mrrt.L irA. RESTRICTED fDID.M:mITfSM.EI S\u0026gt;,000 56,616.18 ~ 159,500 asrm,w. IDVmS 24,000 21,000.00 STATREE VEllE IO!DWJEIIB 25,000 129,1''1.32 TIMH5PlRTATillf 494,317 TOTMU.D i. 11:SIRICI1O1 .'VB1 99,oao 213,'1 813 VOCATICEIlWlU. IMHT 22,002 Sl'AlEIB BI 1, VOCATICSITWM. T-lP 2,600 KIIIIB\u0026amp;MTEMlfA TERitt.S 8,460 IMll'URllffllll S2,226 513,002.00 WQ1'/K-TO-TftR MiP(RT. 300,000 VIDTllllll. 80,G6 ao,.m.96 llESEQE\nATAIIIDJt 780,000 IDIBUnBIMTBWU 7,180 6,209.08 mFENSATIJArfI D 234,439 D'EP/ACT IKIEf,1t-11H( 'RW\u0026amp;Ulf. 300,000 300,000.00 18,538 lflli'aATllll AD 400,oao 844,393.81 fFRE!Dm. 234,116 CDHJliA'itRAYD 248,5 25S,:J57.04 Alt S\\ltER EJltIOKNT 0 MC FIEIHll. :ra,515 :ra,m.oo SPEtIM.E D.P RE:SODl. 314,325 MC lllllR EllmHEff 33,603 D,60.1.00 SPEtirtE. D.l elllEMTift. 25,000 MCF lllDIII. EIIJD'fEfT 11,407 U,407.00 SPECirEt.D .P RE9lm. 0 \u0026amp;FmM.E J. fllEDIII. 1a,m w,202.00 lffCIM. EDll'ATICElEf t 0 lfB:W.DlDTJIIIECI: s,oao 5,000.00 LEVSI TRAlS 25,000 !fftlll El. llmENi1M. 32,000 26,957.82 IETI9:llRitr\nGRMT 7,900 tmUJl#flllQWOI 20,000 63,112.95 IUlUl.LNE16 ~ 2,000 TDTrSt.T ATREE STRICl9TEE1DlE 2,468,597 TOTMSi.' All1 1:BIRICImEIE 2,223,256 2,:SU,7.15.66 TOTMU.D l. \u0026amp; ITAlE JOTrlt1.r /t. \u0026amp;S TATE N:SIRICIEIEJ D 2,322,256 2,7,523.16 16TRICTElDV EllE 2,628,097 = 2 0TH LITl1.R OCsKa m.D ISTRICT REV9lESUMY 1993 - 1994 1992-1993 rnlM. REV9lE-f61RICTED llJDGET FEDl1. II.WIIE-fElnm:I DIE 1fM 1D MlE NO.NT Mllfr Mllfr SPECIAELD lATilmlf : 36,704 IHPIERJ 1,93,860 l,691,112.00 CJW'TtRI 1,561,000 IHP1ERn 7J,:stS 7J,:stS.OO DWTERII ~.593 tlDilliM., 011. PEIIIDII lZS,672 lZS,67l.OO VOCATillCfAALRP, LE RKINS 148,411 \u0026amp; PEIIIDIIID  a: 5,000 1,906.12 Till VI-B 320,286 TI1l Vl-1 310,000 3119,a.oo Pl 89-313 18,3:58 PL 8'-313 21,050 21,104.00 IEDICAID 29,000 IEID:m JB,000 26,431.95 IIIE.ESS ttSSISTNl:E 21,ffl IDJCAD, PIEIHD.. 1,600 13,187.81 IEDICAIDfl,E iCtm. 12,000 fft'CIII. a. PIEIHD.. n,a 2116,3115.00 SPECIAELD . PIIESOIIL 420,000 fft'CIIIE. L EJ:C 61,200 a,200.00 lM START 12,646 lliD ffllT .,644 .,646.00 .Im HIPPY 17,:SOO EB SfllT DB,154 101,090.44 JTPAlU T(Jt 9,612 EWJSI fllT QllfflMJt 18,564 18,564.00 JIPAA L'TEllNAPTRMO\nRM ~.ooo JIN HDfY 21,000 20,984.05 JTPA Pf!E-JROYIDT 30,000 JIN 1Ul1lt 9,612 14,738.10 JTPA-tlfl)AL EARH+l.lVK 19,000 JIN \u0026amp;.lBIMTMP 111M1 34,810 3D,l3B.84 JTPA EDlAllllf/llmocY 110,455 JIN fllE-8RlfflEIT s,m ...... MU\nEDlATlllf 92,900 IS EJIIDTDII 92,B 92,818.00 ltATW9:IBa, EISE1f00 42,000 MlMEISl:E,EISEIIIIIR G,740 42,740.00 CH II llRUllllll FIWIOIK 0 IIIEl.EIB 21,000 21,000.00 ASJOTilAi BATEJNT 0 at ll CUPID1 MF 1WE1111r 6,250 6,250.00 at I fllBilWDI FIIMJENr 52,790 52,790.00 TUTttm. ew.R EVEJIE 3,062,340 emY, E0IIII l0,159 39,1VS.OO MillESTAIMB tEJENr 1,186 .oo tN'ITtt. WTLARYE VEii: 1UTMfU. BW. IE8tE 3,21115,108 3,1\",1'6.7J llllREHTA llES 200,100 Ptl.l.BACI(T AllES 100,000 DIPITMll.f fl.AYIB EJI.E: Ptl.l.BACI( - ACCRlO 72,500 DEl.DaEHTTA llES 25,000 alllJfr TMEB 250,000 198,118.91 EXIDS CDIIISSillf 1,000 flU.1111 TAXES 120,000 101,497.21 DfTEREST 1,400 PILlJIO - MIIID 40,000 '2,970.05 IEI.DIIEllr TAXES 3D,OOO 26,731.JO TDTttr.l tPITALW TLAY 400,000 DIDI tDiWBilli l,000 1186.CS Df1EIE'BT 3,000 1,446.83 aJllDIN(f\n1Jfl)I BEM.: TOrMD. IPITMC.I IIUY 444,000 J91,!0.7S PflfERTYstt.ES 600 DfTEREST 92,000 JlllllK F1II lf.'t'BIE: IWMll SETTUIENT 7,400 ASll:STIUEW f '40,000 f'IOUrY au:s 95,000 95,767.00 F\\N) l1WISF'ER 60,000 JNIEIUI S,,000 136,014.31 IWIVIU.IEE 1lEIENT , .. 9,431.00 TOTARLll lItt\nFtMD 200,000 MIEi1IBL DMI 40,000 .oo FIJI, lMiftk 40,000 40,543.G.1 TOrMIU. D.DK FIii 254,SIO lDl,7:!15.34 TOTARLE VEN.( 39,914,8-40.00 lUTM.IEVEIIE 40,611,'61.00 41,111,036.32 3 I II II II II I BUDGETSU MMARRYE PORTS N1m1U 11l m IDOi. IISTRICI' um IIIMrf lff.1- l9M INi:BIRll!IO\"1 118 1111:Slkll!IFOU ii um MIUff I lnllE 31,QB,C,I I EDE JI DPmI11IEB II DPBlll11IB aM.. l,199,IO liEIIII. DlmU:mll 25,5'1,m DlfflU:l1III MDl'IEIIIIIiE I H.MTIIII J,\u0026amp;,6'0 MDl19IU ' IFEM11III IElllH 90,920 11L11t INDIDT i,176,700 DIDIEIT lM\u0026amp;IRl'ATIIJt 345,463 llWB'IRTATIIII FUellWIHRS \u0026amp;0,000 F1II) 1MlfERS 1H TDTM. 32,B,318 IN TDTM. Ill IIIIWff 07/0t/9J Projected F1ll8 Projected M.Na IBtll #MILMlE DFmmlES um 1111111T JD,\"6,497 l,Ol2.CIZS 2',ZM,291 J,SZ,240 11,'IZ 1,213,257 164,900 \u0026amp;0,000 J0,414,639 Projected IMAl:E l99'l - lff.1 1911D Im: MIUff 31, .. ,229.74 l,OP.5,911.49 a,454,a.s J,8B\n324.49 86,~.63 71P,841.l5 3D8,654.19 \u0026amp;0,000.00 a,a, 719.40 i,026,S86.18+ 31,655,403 =32,681,989.18-32,358,318 = 323,671.18 4 ..... STATE/UrAR.E STRICTAEmDW tS I IEVEJlE II EXPEJIDll\\HS TIWtSPfRTATIIJt IISEQE\nATIIJt aJf'EH!iAllREf JIIDTIIJt IDl)n\nAa:r.MRYOVER MC EWD'tEfT/Slffl.IES RESTlR:TtJUP~R a\nRM Alt SlMR mliRM AOCP RESOID.. Sf'Et:lrt.E D.m :som. SP. ED. RESIIIHTift. VWITIIIW. som.A CTIVSITfi.YES CUSTOD!IiRllY ICES IIISE.lAEIJS WtHTS SlJIERs om. ~IT SlllD lllST II LEVliI1 WtUSS MIC lllltATIIJtS III5al.1NWSQ Wfl'S ... TOTft. III 9.tlNY r---- tamf UTitE ROCSKC fDl.D ISTRICT llKET !llNRY 1993 - 1994 IMlGET AIOJfT 2,628,097 1,139,79\u0026gt; 1,150,230 243,230 31,890 2J,767 11,407 7,900 31,~6 234,116 314,325 25,000 24,602 44,727 24,000 31,046 88,500 18,~ l3,390 J,000 2,979 3,-183,615 7-1-93 Balance 689,414.17 STAlEIUDILE SIRJCIOF ROaU I II DIE MllfT IBfJI 2,a,m DFBm1UEB lMlflRTA'TIIII ffl,2DO ltii:UIMTIIII 760,065 IDFEIIM11E1JrrI IDTDII 2\",364 EMDE a.au MC CMlfflMR 211,e MCAEDIII. 229,515 9'ECIME..l . PIEDlll. 148,773 IP. El. IUDl:Jlf UL 32,000 VIDTIIIML 81,415 mm.a cTM1YS IUB 51,830 llli111UMf. lRVJCES LVl 81MIIS lmlJ'll#fllBQWffl IN TDTM. Projected Revenue 2,628,097 24,000 25,000 64,766 2,74.1,:!04 Projected Expenditures 3,483,615 Transfer from unrestricted revenue 19'2 -19'1 19RMMTE AIIUfl' 2,6\",9:111.0, l,12t,656.l9 673,463.61 2'4,Ul.15 18,225.90 28,'85.25 21115,807.48 f:56,202.00 26,200.33 B'l,'7.99 J2,SJ8.'4 7,270.48 U,'9.62 ll,'96.22 2,695,102.86 Projected Ending Balance 166,103.83CR 345,463.00 179,359.17 5 1, IQTH LITll.ER OCsKa m DISTRICT IIUl)(\nT SMWn FmM.PRO\nRMS 1993 - 1994 llJlltET AIOMT I ~ 3,214,736 II EXPEJfDIT\\16 DWTERI 1,561,000 CJWTEIRI 70,437 VOCATIIJW. 148,411 TITLEV I-B 323,000 Pl 89-313 19,006 1DICAID 30,000 1DICAIFDm DDl. 12,000 SP. ED. PIISODl. 442,429 5P. ED. Ea: 43,210 lADS TART 16,661 DWTERI 911B PRO\nRM 254,400 EVEMST ART 122,396 JTPAE ru:ATIOfll.ITER/Y 110.~ JTPAP IJER 17,500 JTPA1 UTIR 9,612 JTPtl ft.TERMTIVE ~.ooo JTPtl I.EMN-A-l.IVIIG 30,000 JIPA-CN'l)A I.EMN-A-l.IVK 19,000 le ED. CARRYOVER 26,1~ ED. 92,900 EISEJfOOM TH/s:IEM:E9 'J 30,864 EI!EtOD MTH/SCIEJ9a4 42,000 11111m 21,B'r.i IOll.SSr .ARRYOVER 11,m DW7TEIIR-m E.ERATED 1,914 Of II llllRICWlFt RitlIOK 4,683 BUCY 0 Ill TUTrt. 3,562,841 IUSJNRY 7-1-93 Balance 370,170.43 FElall. FIIIIWcl I EDE II EJIIBIII1IIIES DWTERI OIPIERII \\o1DT1lllll VIDTIIIK. ID EC lI1lE VI-I R.8'-313 IEDIOOI IEDIOOI PIEDDl.   El. PIEDIII. IP. El. Ett fDDSTMT l\\USTMT l\\91 STMT CMlfflMI J1PAP IIER J1PA MtR J1N rt.lEIIMTM Jl'PI\\PfE-fJfl.lfflEI JIU ED 111KE D.S M: El!EIIIER M1Ml9:IEJIE flJE.BB DWTERU -muMlD at II allWlLlll RWEIR at I fllliAMI DfflMJEJf1' ~ fl!llli11BMll\\1DllfT HI TDrft. Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures 3,214,736 3,562,841 199'2- 1993 UCiET 1111D MlE Mlllfr Mlllfr 3,199,B 3,W,91'.7J 1,\"6,e 1,471,500.10 11,198 16,m.85 m,m 124,'80.,0 8,906 a,m.u 364,at 1\",554.32 l2,229 l2,225.5 49,375 ,0,864.08 2,SIO 14,366.03 402,UI 316, 90!5.12 '8,200 61,918.24 51,390 53,047.94 138,154 107,090.44 30,41' 30,41'.18 21,000 20,984.~ 9,612 14,738.70 34,870 30,152.17 50,823 41,289.80 U.,,8\" 129,442.72 S,108 5,108.10 62,370 31,193.69 21,000 2,792.78 23,776 21,361.SJ 12,SIO 4,11511.U SZ,790 SZ,790.00 42,5.12 61,097.32 CS,671 44,ffl.68 3,875,625 3,172,911.79 Projected F.nding Balance 21,565.43 6 II 11 11 II -11 lllt1H LlT1lI m mm. m,ltlC\"I \u0026amp;IIETSIMIY CAPITALO UTLAY I. REVENUE II. EXPENDITURES III. SUMMARY 7-1-93 BALANCE 1993-94 BUDGET AMOUNT 400,000 420,000 PROJECTED REVENUE 34,828.03 + 400,000.00 * * * * * * BUILDING RESERVE I. REVENUE 235,000 II. EXPENDITURES 200,000 III. SUMMARY 1,246,774.84 + 235,000 * * * * * * BONDFU ND I. REVENUE -0- II. EXPENDITURES 2,031,025 III. SUMMARY 2,031,026.60 + 0 * * * * 1992-93 BUDGET AIDUNT 444,000 620,245 PROJECTED EXPENDITURES 420,000.00 * * 254,500 720,000 200,000 * * 3,714,500 3,710,000 2,031,025 * = * = 1992-93 ACTUAL AMOUNT 391,650.75 542,286.34 PROJECTED BALANCE 14,828.03 * * 301,755.34 81,994.00 1,281,774.84 * * 3,710,710.60 1,679,684.00 1.60 * * 7 .... Ii II - STATE/LOCAL FUNDED PROGRAMS EXPENDITURE REPORTS lllfflf UTll 11D IDlll. D1l'IRICT STATEIUDNIe. DPEJelllllEE CRT 1992- 1993 1993 -1994 DEE' 1M1 11M l[ um MIIIT MIIIT Nlllfl' 1. liEIEM. t.mlM. NiiwSIMl'JIISI IURJEB 2'1,000 291,419.12 MIIDIISIRATSUMIJIR IEB 315,'50 wtllf:WllD 8IURlB 44,000 44,964.48 wtnnr.AlEI 8IURlB 47,600 OABIFlDMIIDIMJRJEI 91,SDO lOl,192.S aJ8IJF1EIM IIDSIM .MJB 89,ts\u0026gt; aJIIDF1D \u0026amp;IIURIEI 23,600 Xl,381.07 aJEF1EI 8IUIJEI 244,410 SETI1U1E\u0026amp; IIURIEI 0 .oo STifElll8 0 SIIW 0 .oo IEIIFIT8 98,6l0 Wili .... 67,431.20 flllDWD IElVJID m,1,0 PIIOWESIE RVDD 140,720 10,,718.15 QIRI DATlllfa ar I0,000 mmD ATDIaI m 80,000 TI,1153.IS l.Ea. lBVIID 40,000 UULIEMID 2111,000 42,489.33 laBIKATilll lllmtR \u0026amp;0,000 EGIHATilll lllmtR \u0026amp;0,000 41,211.61 NMilERTE 'VIEiDI iu i IEE 25,000 IKIET illYJBIi Diul IEE 25,000 50,000.00 UR.JES l MlERIM.S 36,180 llfFUES l MTERIM.S 24,315 16,169.60 l'#Illt. IIJMY 3,400 C#Illt. lllllAY 1,800 .00 una 4,JOO IJ1lER 4,840 3,026.50 lUTM. 1,199,50 TDTll. l,CIB2,az5 1,or.5,917.49 2. Dll1iU:rml 2. DBTlll:TIIII AIIIINISJMTMSI URIES 2,25'2,57:5 MflDIJSlMTMS URIES 2,149,010 2,143,B.9\u0026amp; CERflflDIJOM .MJEB 17,691,000 URllfIDltEI 9URJEB u,m,a 16,1 .15,190.46 11.aIFJD 8MJIUEB 1,2118,900 llMIDFlOM IIDMI AmS 0 .oo UBm1nE1 00l1IS KZ,m a.MBIF1D8 'URIEI 1,161,990 1,181,329.24 aamutE l1\u0026amp;lf1EI 22,SOO umnnE 1900B m,'Z!II 341,43:2.73 STIF8ll8 J,000 llllJTI1U1EaM i6IFIEJI 20,000 22,a.10 STIPEJll6 U,671 9,773.00 l\u0026amp;EFITS 2,150,1?5 EEHIS 2,126,576 2,120,145.95 PllDWDBVDD 259,189 11IITlllf-faa 130,000 NDWDSEJMCD JIM,B XJ,614.32 l1ITITmHIGET 950,000 11JITIJJHICIB 140,000 122,087.84 1UmUIHIMilE 950,000 923,298.32 UPl.JEB l Mmwt8 Sll,655 SFfUEB l MlEWILS 573,084 513,'72.lJ \"\"1TM. IIIMY 40,341 r.wITMr.l lMY 76,265 10,449.44 ana 15,263 IJ1lER 18,598 211212,2 9. \u0026amp; 111TM. 25,97,135 TOTM. 24,224,297 24,454,285.45 8 tamf Lim.E 11D IDlll. JJIIRICT STAltll.lDl. Ra DPEIGiltllE IIEPmr 1991-1994 1ffl - 1991 um llllliET YEM1 DM TE IIIIUfT ... ... J. lli\\Dl1DWa, IHJIATIIII 3. MDnEME, IHMTJIII .uJ1611MTIIISI flURIB 9,000 -a.\n1111111 8URJB SJ,111\u0026gt; 51,920.111 aJJISIFJEMDI IINI IURIEB 41,250 aJSBIFlOM IIDIl ill.MJEB 3',000 3P,6C5.J6 a.\u0026amp;IFJEI 9URIEI 1,723,000 l1AISJFIEJIURJEB l,lllS,000 l,610,IDB.7' Ef.FI1S 236,950 EEF1lS 210,Q) 226,862.33 PIIDWDravm 219,800 PIIDIIEI flERVJID 319,940 211,'11L42 Ul1IJTJEI 1,084,100 unLITJEB l,IOl,000 1,0067, 10.12 llfflIB , MTERIU 349,950 UPIJEI ' M1Bml.l m,mo CD,567.0'l one 0 rRITM.IIJtl.AY 5,000 D,040.29 DBIWIE 175,000 0110 0 .oo TOTM. 3,IIB,650 DII.IWa 200,000 160,0:ZS.'8 TDl'M. 3,Zl,240 3,893,324.49 4. IE/UH 0.MBIFIDSIURJES 80,000 4. ID.TH ea:ns 9,200 D.MBIFJ9 SIURIES 77,000 1,,om.~ PIIDWDIBYIID 720 EEHIB 8,99\u0026gt; 8,697.76 llffllEB,MlmliS l,000 fUIIHlfD ElYim 910 1,o5.00 rlf\u0026gt;ITMI.I Jtl.AY 0 SFPUEB, MTERIM.S 1,000 f.1).63 rmo 0 rRITM. llffl.AY 0 .oo TIITM. 90,920 0110 0 .00 lOTM. 87,920 86.~.63 9 IQ1H LITTlER OC6K0 ID.. DISTRICT STA'IE/LCFrIliti. )E XPEHDilR\\lmE RT JLY, 1m 1992-1993 BUIUT um mR 10 JIAlE AIW{f NlllfT 1111111T 5. JOIE) JOT 5. IIIIIEIJDT DISTIUCBTO fD6 DIIIRICT1 11118 PRitcIPf4. 412,150 fRIJCDW. 610,100 185,100.00 INTEREST 704,575 Df1BBT 521.860 m.m.:w FEES 1,530 ffD 1.140 731.20 TOTlt. 1,118,25:S TDTM. 1.m.100 711.5.79 PCSSIDO IDS\u0026lt; MEXATICIO PCB - (MIEIATIIIO PROCIPlt. 16,320 PRill:lM. 13.312 a.185.46 INTEREST 7,030 DIIBUT 1.:su 15,G4.3J FEES 0 ms 0 .oo TOTlt. 23,l\\50 TDTM. 2D.B2B G,619.74 L R BOND(IVSQ T SDm.\u0026gt; L R 11111C6 tw\nlfJ! DID.) PRitcIP'4. 11,~ fRIJCDW. 11,000 11,000.00 INTEREST 23,380 INTEREST .. ,219 24,139.62 ms 30 ms :ID ZS.GO TOTlt. 35,095 TDTIL :,P,329 JS,164.62 TUTlItO. CDID T ...1...17 6,700 TDTMm. e ror 1.213,257 119,841.15 6 ~ATIIJI 6. l\"RlfllBllln'ATUII TiWEParrATIIJI 345,463 11WlflltTATDII 164,900 308,654.19 TUTlt. 345,463 TDTM. 164.900 3118.6:54.19 = 7. F1IID11 Wf5FIR 7. FUii 11WIHR F111DTIW\u0026amp;ER 60,000 F1III 1JWlfER ',000 ',000.00 I lDTAL 60,000 TDTM. '000 ',000.00 :-:::r:::c STATEIUrlJlRt. STRICTED STAlEIUrJtL. IIEIIRICIED fUGl\u0026gt;D Tlt. 32.397,074 FIie TDTM. 30,414.639 J0.\u0026amp;,719.40 -- 10 L REPORTS OF STATE RESTRICTED PROGRAMS tom! Um ROCSKc tm.. DISTRICT STATREE STRICTPEfOD\" .IW6R mm JU, 1993 ~ATillf TIIMfllfrATillf lMltfJ tWll(T I ft'E1.(E2 - 73140) 794,317 ( IEVDI (2-731-40) II EXPEM\u0026gt;Illl6 II EXFEIDilt.lEB SltMIES SIURlE5 AlltfIHISTRATillf 0 MIIDIIll'IMTltll ll.J\\$IFIED AlltfIN 43,700 llJaIF1ED AlllUN NIKERTIFil:ATED 74'5,000 IIIHDl1fll'ATED STIPENDS 0 STIPEJll8 IEEFITS 9:\u0026gt;,000 ElfilS PlRJWiESDE RVICES 54,730 PIIDIMEII EMID SlffUES la HATERIM.S 136,000 SfPlIES I IIATBUU OTIR 65,350 OT1ER --- t11 TOTll. III SllMff 7-1-93 Balance -0- 1,139,790 Projected Revenue 794,317 1H TDTll. Projected Expenditures 1,139,780 u 1992 - 1993 am:r 1MTOM1E NOJfT MIUfT 812,226 813,002.00 0 .oo 41,000 41,998.32 611,000 717,8.17 0 .oo 87,600 9'3,3837.8 :18,100 .,,18'l.27 131,500 1:54,048.65 48,000 65,6:54.00 rn,200 1,121,6:V.19 Projected Ending Balance 345,463 CR Transfer from Unrestricted Revenue345,463 -0- 11 tomt LITTlR OCrKo m_ DISTRICT STATREE STRICPTREtmD1 IS~ JU, 1993 1992 - 19'3 DESEJ\nRB\nATIOf JllDtT NDJfT um YIITRO I IAlE AIIIJfl' Mlllff I fODI (2-73291\u0026gt; 780,000 600,000 844,393.81 rm II EXPEHDITUU Sil.MIES ADttlNISTRATIOf 0 a.ASSIFIEADD ttIN 40,000 39,000 40,203.84 CERTIFir.ATED 107,170 31,910 40,412.18 tOHDTinr.ATED 374,992 31,,00 275,928.71 SUBSUME 52,000 35,000 2,368.10 STIPENDS U,600 48,~ 15,1:B.JB IEEFITS 75,696 :1:5,311 46,482.74 PllOWD SERVICES 288,900 172,710 175,861.17 lffl.IES \u0026amp; IIATERIILS 114,362 51,3\u0026gt;0 36,793.52 CWITft. llJll.AY 49,760 45,710 38,267.34 DT1fR s,~ :S,3\u0026gt;0 2,557.00 1H TOTft. 1,1:10,230 760,06.'5 674,027.98 III SlJIWrf Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $371,797.32 + 780,000.00 1,150,630.00 = $1,167.32 12 IG1llU TTLREO O6t0 ID. DISTRICT STATRE ESTRICTPERlDx\nfWtS REPOO .ILY, 1993 1992 - 1993 aJI\u0026gt; ED UXiET AtWfT um 1EMTDM1E NOIIT MIUn' I IDEM (2- 73293) 240,080. 248,(156 m,SSJ.04 II EXPEHDITUlES sttARIES AlllffNIS'IRATillf 0 aJtSSifIED ADtlIN 0 0 .oo CERTIFICATED 109,000 0 .oo tDHDTIFICATED 82,000 99,0'9 99,928.24 SlllSTinm: 0 111,600 119,ZD.78 STIPOtlS 0 0 .oo IEIFITS 22,600 211,m 24,BSZ.06 PlKHASEDSERVICES 24,330 34,860 30,900.16 SlFPLI\u0026amp;EK S AlERIM.S 5,300 22,100 19,254.61 rRITALC lffi.AY 0 0 .oo D1llR 0 296,364 294,168.115 ... TOTAL 243,230 III SllW4RY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $5,695.68 + 234,479.00 - 240,080.00 = $54.68 13 tOmf Lint ROCsKo m.D ISTRICT STATIEE JRICTEDPt D\nRMS RmRT .ll.Y, 1993 RADKm a\nrwt BUDGET AtOMT 1992 - 1993 I IEVDt (2 - 73221) 0 IODI\u0026amp; PlllilWI um YEIIRTOIATE II EXPEMDITlRS NlllfT NlllfT !W.MIES I REEIE\u0026lt;2-7ml\u0026gt; 0 .oo ADtllNISTRATIOf 0 Q.ASSIFIE]) AlltlIN 0 II DFEJIII111EB CDTIFirATED 0 toHDTIFirATED 0 MJIES SlllSTIME 0 STIPEHDS 0 SfIPENIB 0 .oo BEllFITS 0 19EFITB 0 .oo PtlOWD SERVICES 22,780 PIIDWDIDIID U,860 17,Zf?.!5 Slffl..IES Ii tlATERW.S 7,110 UPUEB l MTERIU ll,151 968.J:S C#ITAL OOTlAY 0 ono 800 .oo l1T1fR 2,000 Ht TIJTM. 23,811 18,225.90 ... TOT,t. 31,890 III !llfNY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $31,893.77 + -0- 31,890.00 = $ 3.77 14 Alt r.tftYOVER I lVElE II EXFENDIT\\HS Sil.ARIES ADNIHISnTmRA. Cl./tSSIFIAElll)t tIN CERTIFir.AlD QHEUIFir.Am\u0026gt; Sl.QISTilUl[ STIPENll6 IEIFITS ftlDtASESEDR VIID SlffUES \u0026amp; MTERilt.S C'ltPITllrltT. LAY one 1H TOTlt. III~ tRTHU TltEO :Xs am.D ISTRICT STATIB l'RICTEPDR CXM6fE \u0026gt;\\RT IIUIIGT NDffl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 S,267 0 3,:500 ZJ,767 7-1-93 Balance $23,767.52 + .U.Y, 1993 Projected Revenue -0- 199'1- 1993 DriET 1FM TO IIAlE 111111' Nlllfl' 0 .oo 1,404 1,404.00 0 J99.00 9,020 9,020.00 0 .oo 792 827.94 2,811 2,u.2., 7,429 7,ffl.9'l J,m 3,511.,P 3,5)() 3,472.21 28,615 28,615.Z Projected Expenditures - 23,767.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ .52 15 IOml UTTLR OOSCO Dl. DISTRICT STATREE STRICPRT(EX\nDRf ft\n~ ,ll.Y, 1993 Aa: ELlUIPIEfT/Slffl.IES BUDr.ET NOMT 0 II EXFEHDITtRS SM.MIES ADttINISTRATI!i. 0 llASSIFIE]A) DltIH 0 CERTIFICATED 0 111+-CERTIFICATED 0 SIIISTITIITE 0 SJIPOl)S 0 IEEFITS 0 lilfPlIES \u0026amp; MlERilt.S 2,587 rN\u0026gt;ITtt. llffi.AY 8,820 OTIR 0 11,407 i III SlJtWrt Projected 07/01/93 YEMT OD ATE FlN)S Projected Ending JW..a REYE1lE AVAD.All. Expenditures Balance I 11,407.00 + .00. 11,407.00 - 11,407.00 = $ -0- II 16 .I tmfH lITTl ROCSKO Dl. DISTRICT STAlER ESTRicmP\u0026gt;l9\nIWtS REPIRT .ll.Y, 1993 Al[ 5lJlR PlmWI urn Nil.NT I REVEllE\u0026lt;2 - 731:51\u0026gt; 0 II EXfEMDITl.1S Sit.MIES AlltlIHISTRATICW 0 ClASSIFIEADD ttIN 1,625 llRTIFICATED 3,606 IOHDTIFICATED 15,450 SUBSTIME 0 STIPEMDS 0 IEEFITS 2,187 PllDWDSERVICES :5,785 stffl.IES\u0026amp; K ATERil'LS 2,923 CAPITfCt. llll.AY 0 DT1fR 0 1H TDTrt. 31,576 I III~ Projected 07/011'13 YEATROD AlE FllfDS Projected Ending BIUtl:E R6t)I AVAILAll Expenditures Balance I I 31,576.19 + .00 .. 31,576.19 - 31,576.00 = $ .19 I I I 17 Nlmf UTTtER OCsKo m.D. ISTRICT STATER ESTRICTPERDO IMISR Ef1JlT ,11.Y, 1993 Alt PRESDm. 1992 - 1993 JIUDGET MC PIEDID. AtDlfT um YEM TO MlE I RE't'EN(.2E - 73150) 234,116 NIUfT NIUfT I IEEI (2-731:11)) m,sr.s m,sr.s.oo II ElffMDITlllES Sit.MIES II DPEJIIITllU ADHINISTRATI\u0026lt;lf 0 SIUm.B ll.ASSinEDA IIIIIN 0 CDTinCATE]) 0 a.MliIFlEJ MIIIN 0 .oo IOHDTIFICATE]) 157,847 IIIHD11Flr.A1ED 146,157 140,228.77 USTITUTE 0 STJfEJll8 700 .oo STIPENDS 0 JIEJEFITS 32,llP 17,998.65 IEffllS 27,C'/57 PlRJWIESI ERVIaB 23,:529 3,365.74 PlRJWiESDE RVICES 24,612 flFPUESl MtmU 20,900 31,297.35 UfUS Ii MTERIALS 20,600 r.N\u0026gt;IT1M11. 11.AY 2,600 12,794.22 r.tf'ITtt. llJTl.AY :500 011ER 3,:500 122.75 IJTlR J,:500 HI TOTM. 'm,5'1S :m,807.41 HI TUTtt. 234,116 I III aJt1My Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 234,116.00 234,116.00 = $ -0- I 18 ,J lffl:IM. ED. fllEiDID. I II lWJl (2- 73235) EXPEM\u0026gt;Il\\JIES SfURIES AllltIHISlRATICII llJISSIFJEAl)J lltIM CDTIFICATED fOHDTIFICATED SUBSTITUTE STIPENDS BEJIFITS PlRJWiESDE RVICES Slffl.IES \u0026amp; MTERIM.S CAPITMllJ.T. l.AY OT1D 1H TUTrt. 07/01/93 MAa IG11f Um. IUlC !DOI.. DISTRICT STATREE STRICTPmED\nR MSR EPIRT .l.l.Y, 1993 IIUIX\n[J AID.NT 314,325 8PCIME.D .P IEilJll1. amr MIUfT I IIE'8I (2 - 73ZIS) - 1411,773 19,000 0 II DF81\u0026gt;ITIIEI 263,810 0 SMJRlEB 0 0 a.MSiflEI MIIDI ,,ooo lJ:RII f IDlrt'.D B\u0026gt;,403 31,515 STIFEJll8 0 0 IEJIFITS 13,310 0 HI lUTM. 1411,773 0 0 314,325 AMIS RED AVAILAlU EXPEMDITt.llEB IW.Ata .00 + 31432~00  314325.00 - 314325 .oo \" .oo 1992 -1993 YEM TO IIAlI MIUfT f.S6,202.00 :s,000.00 136,210.16 .oo 14,931.84 f.S6,202.00 19 ffl:Itt. ED. RESUEHTIAI. I II.VEIi (2-73233) II EXPEHDITIRS !W.ARIES AlltlINISTRATIIJf ll.ASSIFIEADD IIIN CERTIFir.ATED IOHERTinCATED SlSSTITUTE snmms IEFITS NDIASEDSERYICES StffLIE\u0026amp;SK AltRIM.S cwmtI.IJ Jl.AY OT1R ... TOTAL III~ 7-1-93 Balance $757.49 tlRTlfU m ROCsXa m. DISTRICT STA'!1 6TRicm\u0026gt;P R!x\nRNIS~ amw AlfUfT 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 ,..... + .ll.Y, 1993 SFWl El. 11:SIIEIUt#.. I II Projected Revenue 25,000.00 IEEI (2-7m1) ElffNDI111\u0026amp; SM.MIES NDWD tlR'fltU 1H 101M. Projected Expenditures 25,000.00 1992 -1993 um 1EM1 1JD ATE MIUff MIUff 32,000 26,ffl.82 32,000 26,200.33 32,000 26,200.33 Projected Ending Balance = $ 757.49 20 !DOI.. M:TIVITSYtU S I REml (2 - 71730) II EXPENDil\\lS SAl.ARIES ADHIHISTRArim. Q.ASSifIEJ) ADHIH CEITTFICATED tOHIRTIFICATEJI St.llSTITUTE STIPENDS IEEFITS P\\R:HASEDSERYICES SlffUES\u0026amp; lfATERIILS CAPITIrItJ. Tl.AY D1lR ffl TOTM. III SlJl1My 7-1-93 Balance IOITTUf TTlER OCSKD m. DISTRICT STATREE STRICTPER(DUA flS REPCRT JllD(\nT NDM 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U,000 20,202 13,45\u0026lt;1 75 44,727 .ll.Y, 1993 .. Projected Revenue 1992-1993 um YEMTDIIA'IE AIOlfl' AIOlfl' so,ooo 56,616.18 ts,'67 12,2'.11.14 22,983 15,184.83 12,800 4,836.'7 80 249.00 51,830 32,:508.94 Projected Expenditures Projected Ending Balance $33,493.09 + 50,000.00 59,092.00 = $24,401.09 21 IDmf LITTLREO C!ieD OI. DISTRICT STATREE STRicmP\u0026gt;R OilWISR EPm'T .I.LY, 1993 llSTIDIWS.E RVICIS llUDGT NOJfT QB111111St.E RVIID I Rn4EJ( (2-71752) 24,000 II EXPENDil\\RS SIURIES AIJIIINISTMTIIJI ll.ASSIFIEADll ttlN CERTIFir.ATED tO+-aRTIFir.ATED 9.IBSTmm: STIPENDS IEIFITS PllOWBSERYICIS stffl.IES\u0026amp; 111\\TERitt.S rRITrtl. lm.AY llT1U 1H TOTrt. III~ 7-1-93 Balance $20,729.52 0 0 5,000 14,400 0 0 1,675 900 725 0 1,300 24,000 + I II Projected Revenue 24,000.00 IDEJI (2 - 71752) 8PmI1IIU SM.MIES IIIHDTIFB'.ATEI Silri:lilB IEIFI1S fllllWD 1DV11D llfPllES l 111\\lERIU IJPITM1.1 111.AY one 1H TOTM. Projected Expenditures 24,000.00 ,.... 1992 - 1993 UliET YEM TO DATE NIUfT 24,000 16,100 0 1,400 l,SDO l,SDO 2,400 1,100 24,000 Projected Ending Balance NlllfT 211,000.00 5,391.51 .oo 440.66 m.w ffl.'11 .oo .oo 6,706.U = $20,729.52 22 lMSTMIIS I REVEN(2-7 1941) II EXPENDITlllES SALARIES ADttlNISTRATI~ IUSSIFIEDA DNIN CDTIFICATED tDHDrlFICATm SlJBSTITUJ[ STIPEM\u0026gt;S EIFITS PU1JWSaE RVICES Slffl.JE\u0026amp;SI IATERIALS rRITlt.. llJTI.AY l1nQ III~ lJ!THL ITllER OCSKD m. DISTRICT !rrAtr: RFR'JRICTPERDaM ISR mRT .ll.Y, 1993 lllllGET AIOJff LMSTMIIB Z5,000 I REDE (2 - 71941\u0026gt; II EHNDI11JU 0 SIURJES 0 S,900 AIININIS1T'IMIII 15,000 IDIIFIDnED 0 IIIHDTlfir.Am 0 ITlPEJll8 2,715 IEJEFITS 4,750 flRJWD SERYICES 965 IFPlIEB i MlBWU 4,000 twlTM. lllllAY 0 HI TOTM. JJ,390 7-1-93 Balance Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures $8,390.38 + 25,00UOO 33,390.00 1992 - 1993 um 1M TO Ml NlllfT NlllfT 25,000 zs,000.00 0 .oo 4,800 :S,280.00 12,:SOO 6,7J1.:W 0 .oo 2,205 1,191.84 7:50 66.1:S :500 994.34 4,245 2,34:5.70 25,000 16,609.62 Projected Ending Balance = $ .38 23 !UlfR sam. II EXfflfDil\\HS SURIES ADNINISTRATI[J4 IDTIFICATED IOH:ERTlFICATED STIPENDS IEIFilS PlllDfA!E) SERVICES UPllES \u0026amp; NATERIM.S 111 !U1Wrf 7-1-93 Balance $43,763.64 IGTH Um ROC!KD OL DISTRICT STATREE STRICPTRE(lD\nR AflSR EPmT .ll.Y, 1993 ur.o AtllM 60,000 8,460 66,060 2,210 0 6,026 2,320 3,424 88,~ Projected Revenue + 60,000.00 Projected Expenditures 88,500.00 Projected \u0026amp;iding Balance = $15,263.64 24 RESTRUCWRINGGR ANT I REVENUE II EXPEJl)ITI.16 SALARIES ADIUNISTRATIIJt 11/tSSIFIAE1D1 1tIN IDTIFICATED IO+-CERTIFICATED SIIISTIME STIPHDS IEIFITS PtJIOWD!I RVICES Slffl.IES l ttATERIN.S CltPITrtW. TLAY OTIER III !lttWrf  7-1-93 Balance $ -0- tG1Hu m ROCSKO ID.D ISTRICT STATREE STRICPTfflEr.DlW ISR EP11rr .ll.Y, 1993 IIUll\u0026amp;ET Atllffl 7,800 0 0 0 0 0 1,600 125 4,100 1,975 0 0 7,800 + Projected Projected Revenue Expenditures 7,800.00 7,800.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 25 REPORTS OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS tR1HL ITTLR OCSKO ID..D ISTRICT FElEW.F m\".IWtSR EPIRT .11.Y, 199'3 OrfTER I 199'l - 1993 amr atPIBt I AID.HT am:r YM TO DA1 I REVEii(6 - 74411) 1,561,000 MIUf1' MIUf1' l IQ8I (6-74411) 1,93,860 1,691,172.00 II EXPENDIMES SttMIES II DFNDIT\\IU AllttlNISlRATIIJf 70,~ BMMIES AllttlNN, IHDTIFICAl'ED 0 CDTIFICATED 416,195 HIIDIISIRATDII 1u,m 112, 104.89 tOH'ERTIFICATED 418,268 IDIIFIDIIED 517,SIO 3\u0026amp;M46.68 SUBSTITU1TEEfQ ER 0 IIIHDTJFltAlED 436,010 JIM,424.00 STifEHD 4,900 S1lP8lt S,SIO 4,200.00 IEFITS 334,335 IIE\u0026amp;ITS 1111,1:IO 2:58,560.83 ftR\u0026gt;WiED!I RVICES 1'30,422 PIIDIMIJ IIRVI1D 14t,964 49,969.4:5 Slffl.IES\u0026amp; t lATERirt.S 136,495 IIFPllEBI MlERIM.S 216,930 197,!5.61 CttPITlItI.J Tl.AY 2,500 Dl'ITIL1 1111AY 76,190 67,024.12 l1TlR 46,931 011ER '9,526 JB,714.52 --- Hf TOTAL 1,561,000 HI TDflL 1,966,685 1,478,SI0.10 Projected 7-1-93 Projected Balance Projected Ending Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 1,561,000.00 - 1,561,000.00 = $ -0- 26 DWTEIIR I RE\\91 (6- 74413) II EXPENDI11JS stUIUES ADltINISTRIUI(Jt AIIIIIINO, HDTIFICATED CERTIFICATED tOHDTIFICATED 9JISTI1U1[ 100R STifOfD IEIFITS PIJDWiESDE RVICES Slffl.IES \u0026amp; ttATERiltS l:APITAllJLT LAY ono lff TDTAL III !UtWff 7-1-93 Balance lOOHL ITllER OCslo m.D ISTRICT fEIDlt.fR(UMSREPOn' llJDGET MU(T 65,593 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 45,676 20,761 0 70,437 ,llY, 1993 awrER II I u Projected Revenue IDBI (6 - 74413) DFmIT\\IU SM.Mm IEJf.FITB NDWDIEMaB aFPUESI MTEIWlS DIPITMIII. MY Hf TDTM. Projected Expenditures $4,844.47 + 65,593.00 70,437.00 .... - 1992- 1993 um YIM TO DAlI AlllNT MIUfl' 73,'15 73,515.00 l,ISO 4,053.28 20,115 19,782.04 50,443 47,733.03 6,190 4, 78:5.SO Bl,198 1,,m.m Projected Ending Balance = $ .47 27 IG11IU TTl.R OCSXC IDl.D ISTRICT FElEM. PfmWtS REPCRT .ll.Y, 1993 mTIIM. - CIR. PEH\u0026lt;IHS 1992 -1993 BUDGET AIDlfT WEI\\TJDIM- D. R. PAICDII ' I IDEH. (6-744321 148,411 DIE 1fM TO MTE MIUfT NIUfT II EXFEMDll\\R'S I IEEJl(6-74432) 125,672 125,672.00 91.Mil'S II DfEJeI1111.B ADHINISTRIITIIJf 3,564 AllltINI,O HDTIFICATED 0 liM.AtJEB CERTIFICATED 38,210 JOH:ERTIFICATED 26,200 tDIJFDlED 36,364 36,918.00 !USTITU1T00E R 1,000 t11HDTlF1011EI 7.6,200 27,7 90.7.6 STIPEMD 900 samuTE 100B 2,178 .oo SJDIEJI\u0026gt; 0 318.40 BEIEFITS 18,803 EEmS 18,360 17,856.:111 PlRJtASE6DE RVIID 17,231 PIJIJWD ll1MID 10,318 U,774.03 !iffl.IES Ii MTERitt.S 25,689 IIFFUES Ii MTERIU 20,465 24,5.15.10 CAPITMlll.l.l .AY 16,914 DIPITMII.J TUY u,m :s,a.13 01llR 0 one 0 .oo 1H TOTAL 148,411 HI TDTM. 125,672 1246, 80.:IO III SllltARY 7-1-93 Projected Projected Projected Balance Fnding Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 148,411.00 - 148,411.00 = $ -0- 28 IDTHL ITllElo :lt sam.D ISTRICT FEJJEM.PRmW1SREP(RT Jl.Y, 199'3 TITLEV l-B lllllGET NO.NT TITI. VI-I I IDEM (6 - 74416) 320,286 II EXPENDillHS I leEII (6-74416) SIORIES AllftIHISrlIRCAlf 0 II EJHNDilllU AlllmfI, OHDTIFICATED 0 9URIE3 CERTIFir.AlED 0 IOH:ERTIFir.ATEI) 185,000 JIIHDJJFir.AlO SlDISTIT1UJ/0EE R 0 flEfI1UIE 180B STIPEND 0 smm IEEFITS 52,350 l8EFITS PlRH\u0026amp;]) SER'i!CES 42,200 PIRHIIEI IIJlVIID Slffl.IES\u0026amp; M TERIU 43,450 Ufl.lB \u0026amp;M mtIM.B CAPITftw. n.AY 0 CflPI1JIlI IIUY ono 0 RI TDTM. 1H 10Tft. 323,000 III SlJNRY 7-1-93 Projected Projected Balance Revenue Expenditures $2,779.95 + 320,286.00 323,000.00 tffl - tffl um YEMTOMTE Nlllf1' MIUf1' 310,000 309,2311.00 19',000 194,118.80 0 .oo 0 .oo 64,000 63,ffl.99 80,68:S 82,125.73 25,539 19,254.94 60 76.86 364,2114 J!9,:i54.32 Projected Ending Balance = $ 65.95 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I ' tOmt LITTLRE OCsKa m. DISTRICT FEJEW.PR(l\nIW61E'(JO' .ILY, 1993 PIB.ICL /tW1 19-313 llmr.ET AIDJ(f PIil.IC lM a,-313 I l8E1U (6 - 74417) 18,D DICE' MIIIIT II EXPE.Nl\u0026gt;Il\\HS I IE\u0026amp; (6-74417) 21,060 SM.MIES AllttINISTIROAt 0 ll EJFBalltlEB ADtllNto, KERT1f'ICA1ED 0 (D'TIFICAlED 9M.MIES roHDTIFICAlED SlllSTITUI[ TADD STIPEND IE\u0026amp;ITS PlR:HA5EIIDR VICES SlffUES ,. lfATERilt.S CWITArLu n.AY OT1R ... TUTM. III !illltARY 0 12,100 0 0 4,600 0 2,306 0 0 19,006 7-1-93 Balance $648.11 + tOHERTIFDTD 2S,B STIPEND 0 IENEFI1I 6,679 PIRJWDIIRVIID 0 llffllEB t. MTDWill 0 ... lUfM. 3'2,229 Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures 18,358.00 19,006.00 lffl - 1993 YEllOMlE MIUIT 21,104.00 25,'14.23 .oo 6,7ll.22 .oo .00 3'2,22:5.5 Projected Ending Balance $ .11 30 IEIIr.AID I 1VEM(6 -744U\u0026gt; II EXPENDIMES SM.MIES AlUHISTRATillf AIIIIIN,f llHDTIFir.ttm\u0026gt; aRTIFir.ttm\u0026gt; IOHDTIFil:AlED BJBSTIM1E0 0ER STIPEJI) IElfITS P\\RJWiEDSE RVICES SlFflIES\u0026amp; MlERIU r.APITMll.J. Tl.AY 0110 HI lOTM.. III SlllWff 7-1-93 Balance $1,001.76 hUmf LITTlER OCSKC IDl.D ISTRICT FEJEM.PmMtSIE'1RT amT IVIU{J' 29,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,400 600 0 0 30,000 + .ILY, 1993 ' IDIOOI I REWJI(6 -74414) n muDITIIEB Projected Revenue 29,000.00 MJiRIES PIIQWDEM(D SfPlIES Ii MTEJWlS ClfITM. llm.AY 1H lOTM. Projected Expenditures 30,000.00 1992 - 1993 UC\n[J YAR10 DAlE AIIUfT AIIUfT JB,000 2.6,431.95 47,700 47,409.5.l l,615 3,454.:115 0 .oo 4',m :I0,864.08 Projected Ending Balance = $ 1. 76 31 IEIIr.m PIIESDID. I ~ (6 - 74415) II EXPENDll\\lES SM.MIES ADIUNISTRATICW AllltINI,D HDTIFIC'.ATED IDTlFir.ATED IOf-CERTlflr.ATED SlllSTIME1 EltlHR STIPDII IEFITS PIIOWD SERYI(D SlffllES \u0026amp; MlERIALS CAPITltltJ. Tl.AY OTlR 1H TOTIL III !UWtRY 7-1-93 Balance $205.09 IOffll LITil ROCSKO ID. DIS'TRICT FElEW. fR(l\nRMS fEl(RT amT NllM' 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 1,000 0 12,000 + .11.Y, 1993 IEDIWI PIEDIIL I ADEii (6 - 74415) II EXPEJl\u0026gt;IlllD Projected Revenue 12,000.00 M.MIEI PIRJWD SERVIID SFPUEI I M1EIWILS CWITil IIJ'IUY HI TDTM. Projected Expenditures 12,000.00 = 1992 -1993 UliET YEM TO MTE MlllfT NllJfT t,600 13,187.83 0 13,490.40 l,000 ffl.63 l,500 .oo 2,500 14,366.03 Projected Ending Balance $205.09 32 tm1ll UTTLREO CSKD IXLD ISTRICT FEDEJW.Pfi[J\nRMSREP[RT .11.Y, 1993 lfECIALE JU:ATitlPfI EDDL klllGET 9'ECW.E IIIDTDfIlEI DOI. NOJfT \\ I REEU C6 - 74418\u0026gt; 410,620.00 I EDE (6-74418) II EXPENDillm 5't.MIES n EJPENIIt111B ADNINISTRATia. 0 BM.MIEI AIJIIINtD, H:ERTIFICttrn\u0026gt; 0 CDTIFICATED tDH:ERTIFICATED SUBSTIMrEu oR STIPEND IEEFITS P\\R:HA!DS ERVICES Slffl.IES \u0026amp; tlATERilt.S CAPITACLlf TLAY IJTlR tu TaTAL III 5lNtMY 252,000 0 470 0 M,459 90,200 14,000 16,000 4,300 442,429 7-1-93 Balance IDllfluud IIIHDTIFDlEI 9E1l1U1E 1'E/alR S11PfJII IIBEFITS PIRJWD!IRVIID UPUEB ' 111\\lEJWLS CIIPIT1M11. 11.AY one HI fflll. Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures DIE' NIUfT 359,lSO 216,780 7,SO 1,000 0 61,2115 fM,478 10,400 16,?ZS 4,000 402,161 $12,309.40 + 410,620.00 422,929.00 = 1992 - 1993 YEM 10 MTE MlllfT 286,3115.00 186,207.67 10,ffl.20 417.90 .oo 46,892.,1 44,112.90 8,509.67 16,54:1.37 3,239.90 31',905.12 Projected Ending Balance $.40 33 NOmtU rn ROCSKO ID. DISTRICT rnERft.f'R(l\nIWtSREPIRf Jl.Y, 1993 !fftIM. EIU:ATICEl tC C IIUllW AtOJ(T !FECII'-ElllDTllll E C C' I IEENE \u0026lt;6- 74419\u0026gt; 36,704 UCiET illUff II EXPEHDI1\\E [ IBBI (6 - 74419) '8,200 SALARIES w AlltllNISTRl(lA4 19,000 II meerruo A1ltlINt,D HDTIFICAlED 0 CERTIFICATED IOHEUIFICATED !USTilUTET EIOER STIPM\u0026gt; IEEFITS PllDWE) fDVJaS Slffl.IES Ir MTERI\"-5 CN\u0026gt;ITlMlJ.T I.AY one Hf TOTM. III S1JWm 0 6,900 0 0 6,835 8,700 1,600 0 0 43,03'5 7-1-93 Balance $6,281.76 + SIUIRlEB MNDIISTMTJIJI 32,42!5 IIIHDOFDTEI 7,000 BJIPEIID 0 11:.ii:FIIS 9,800 PllOWD IIERVIID 18,67:5 IFPllES Ir M1BUU 300 ... TDTM. '8,200 Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures 36,704.00 43,035.00 1992 - 1993 YEM TO DAlE MIUf1' '8,200.00 33,298.96 7,318.08 .oo 10,:564.63 10,i2l.33 613.24 61,918.24 Projected Ending Balance $49.24CR 34 IOTHL ITTLRO CsKo m.D ISTRICT FEJEW..~~ JLY, 1993 lAD STMT amGET 1992 - 1993 NIUfT \\ lAI STMT I ID9l (6 - 74421) 72,646 um YEM TO MlE NIIJfT AtlUfT II EXFEM\u0026gt;IllRS I IEVEJI (6-74421\u0026gt; 48,644 48,646.00 \u0026amp;rt.MIES ADKINISTRATlllf 0 II DPEIEt\\lD AIJIIIMI,O HDTIFICAlED 0 CDTIFICAlED 30,000 8MMIES tDHEIITTnCAlED 0 gJ!SfllUJE ~ 0 lDllflOllO 17,000 16,677.12 STIPEND 0 STlfND 0 .oo JIEJFITB 1,661 IEIEFl1I 4,760 3,300.65 PllDWD!OVICES 29,000 flRHISEI IER'fflD 28,000 25,357.(7 SlffUES lo IIATERIIU 10,000 SfllUEB I MTERIU 8,630 7,712.70 ctf\u0026gt;IT#.C. IJTlAY 0 CIIPITIIILJ MY 0 .oo IJ1lR 0 1H 11JTIL 91,390 '3,047.94 w Hf TOT#.. 76,667 III SlllWrf Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $5,343.19 + 71,324.00 76,667.00 $ .19 35 ' IIRTMLI Tn.E1 1D sam.D. ISTRICT f'EOl1.PRIJ\nRMSREPIRT JLY, 1993 Ft'EHS TMT 1992 -1993 llllr.ET AIIUfT fl1DIS TMT I l\\fJI (6-74420) 122,396 lllCiET WM 10 IWilE Nlllf1' Nlllf1' II DPBl)ITlJU I EDIE (6-74GO\u0026gt; fll,154 101,090.44 SM.MIES n EHMII11III AIMINISTRI\\TIIM 10,900 AIIIIIN, IDHDTIFICATED 0 MJm9 (DTJfJCATED 0 toHDTJFICAlD 69,5:50 MIWiiBIMfllll 10,000 ,,m.20 SlllSTI1U1TEE fOER 0 IIJHBTJFDlO 67,000 :11,11,. STifEtl) 0 mPEJID 0 .oo IEf.FITS 20,917 Elfli9 21,154 20,748.17 PllDWD SERVICES 12,000 PIIIJWD IEMID 17,800 11,008.14 llfPUB l MTEllltS 8,229 UfUEI l MlDWU 13,SIO s,,rz.a CWITMW. ILAY 0 DIP1Ti1l1l 111.AY 2,SIO .oo IJl1D 800 D1IB 0 855.00 1H TIJTM. 122,396 NI TDTM. llll,154 107,090.44 III !lltlMY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Fnding Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 122,396.00 - 122,396.00 = $ -0- 1, 36 J tRTHL ITllR OCsXo m.D ISTRICT FEJIEM.PR[J\nRMSIE'(RT J T PA EDUCATION/LITERACY lllD\u0026amp;ET Nil.NT I. REVENUE 110,ffi II EXFEM)lllR.S Sit.MIES ADttIMISTRATIIII 42,630 AlltlJNM, JHDTIFICIITED 0 CDTiflr.AlED 35,030 IDHDTIFICATED 0 !UISTITU1J0E0 R 0 SUPEMD 0 DFITS 18,615 PlliOMSESDE RVICES 6,000 !lfPLIES \u0026amp; MTERI/t.S 0 rlnrrt. (lJll.AY 0 OTlR 8,180 UO,ffl III SlltlARY 7-1-93 Balance $ -0- + .U.Y, 1993 Projected Projected Revenue Expenditures 110,455.00 110,455.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 37 I I I IGlll Um ROCsKam .D ISTRICT fDEM.PR(J\nRMSREP(RI' I .ll.Y, 1993 I Jffll HIPPY I UGET AIIUfT 1992 - lffl I IDEJI (6-74429) 17,500 JIPA HIPPY (6 - 74430) llllliT 1M m MlE lltlll(J lltlll(J II EXPEMDITtHS I EWJIE (6-74429) 21,000 20,984.15 SM.ARIES (6 - 744.l\u0026gt;) AllltINISlRATillt 0 AllltlM, toHDTIFICATED 0 II DPDlITIIIB (DflfICATEJ) 0 IOH:ERTIFICAlED 12,250 SM.MIES 911STIMET E.ADD 0 STIPEND 0 IOHDDFitATEI 14,17:5 13,~.62 STIPEIII 0 .oo IEEFITS 3,350 IDEFITB J,BZS 2,ffl.13 ftKIWlED !DVICES 400 PIIIHIIEaIR 'WllD t,Ol:!O 276.37 SlfPLIE\u0026amp;S .t lATERIM.S 1,500 SlffUES I. MlERIU l,'-'O 4,445.93 ctfITrt. lllll.AY 0 ono 0 Ill TDTM. 21,000 20,984.15 - HI TOTft. 17,500 ProJectea Ill SllNRY 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 17,500.00 17,500.00 = $ -0- 38 .... IOmfL IT11R OCsKa m.D ISTRICT ~PR(gWtSIEP(RT .11.Y, 199'3 JTPA~ IlmT AIOlfT lffl - 1993 I REVEii(6 - 74428) 9,612 JIN MIit UCE YEM 10 IIAlt'. II EXml\u0026gt;mHS MOlff MOlff ~IES l EWJI (6 - 744.2B) 9,612 14,738.70 AllttINISTTIRCAlt 0 ADIUNt,o HDTIFir.ATED 0 IDl'IFir.ATED 7,:560 II DP911111JEB toHDTIFir.ATED 0 !lJBSTIT\\JT1[ EADR 0 IIMAIES STIPEND 0 Wilflull'Ell 1.~ il,8:56.00 IEIFITS 1,:512 STIP9ID 0 .oo PllDWD SERVICES 100 WIIB 1,512 2,347.14 SlFPlIESl IIATERIILS 440 PllDWD SERVICEB 0 95.JO C/f\"ITtILIJ TlAY 0 9ffUB  ttATBWl.S 540 440.26 Ol1R 0 1H TDTM. 9,612 14,738.70 HI TUTtL 9,612 Ill 5lltWrf Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ 287.16 + 9,612.00 9,612.00 = $287.16 39 IDmf I.ITTlER OCSICD DJ..D ISTRICT FEDERft.Pm\nRftl6RP(R'I' Jl.Y, 1993 JTPAtt. TERNATIVE IU)(\nET AIDJ(T 1992 - 1993 I REVEJ(6E- 74431\u0026gt; 35,000 JIN M.'IEIIIMTM DIE 1M TO DATE II EXPEMDITllD NlllfT NlllfJ' SALARIES I 1BB1E (6-74431\u0026gt; 34,870 30,138.84 ADttIHISTRATillf 0 ADttINtD, HlRTIFICAlE\u0026gt; 0 II motDillJEB aRTIFICATED 2:5,200 IOHDTIFICATED 0 SeURJES 911STI1U1T0E0 ER 0 STIPEND 0 lJ:RllflO.TED ZS,200 23,831.09 UBJIMETEMJD 0 'YI.BO IE6IT5 7,170 STIPEND 0 .oo PUDtASESDE RVICES 130 ElfI1B 7,170 5,741.40 SlffUES \u0026amp; MTERI/t.S 2,500 11.ffUEBl MlBUU 2,SOO SW.88 ~Iltt. llJTl.AY 0 ... mtt. 34,870 30,152.17 ono 0 1H TOTtt. ?S,000 III stJNRY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 35,000.00 35,000.00 = $ -0- 40 tamf UT11R OCsKa m. DISTRICT FEllEJWfR.( X\nRMS RfflRT .lLY, 1993 JTPAP RE-Jfl..O'flHT JUlGET AIUl(T 1992 -1993 I 10EME C6 - 744Z7) 30,000 J'l'N PE-EJFUmllfr UlliET YEM 10 DATE II EXfEJIDll\\16 AllllfT NlllfT StUIRIES I EWJI (6-74427) :S0,823 48,289.80 ADIIINIS'JRATl(J4 0 ADIIINtl,l HDTIFICATED 0 II EFENDITLID CERTIFICATED 20,531 toHIRTIFICATED 0 SM.MIES SUBSTllU1tE0 0D 0 STIPEND 0 IDTIFID\\1ED 34,098 32,476.20 S1'JPEJII 0 .oo \u0026amp;FITS 5,015 IEEFITS 8,331 7,957.02 PlR:tWE\u0026gt; SERVICES 1,866 fUilH\u0026amp;J IERVIID 2,600 2,793.43 UPl.lES \u0026amp; tlATERI\"-5 2,588 SffUES \u0026amp; MTERIU ,.m 4,962.15 CIIPITrtM. l.AY 0 CWITMIIJ. II.AY 0 101.00 OnER 0 .. TDTM. :so,m 411,289.80 1H TOTll. 30,000 III SlltWff Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 30,000.00 30,000.00 = $ -0- 41 JTPA-CAPDA I REVENUE II EXPEMDITIJU SM.ARIS ADtlINIS'JRATIU. AlltlINI,O KERTIFil:ATED (DTifltATED fOf-CERTIFir.ATED SUBSTmr1rEE ltOR STIPEND EIFITS PU!OWD SERVICES SlfflIES \u0026amp; IIATERlrt.S CAPITltliJ TlAY OTtfR III Slll'MY 07/01/93 MR:E .00 IIIITTt LITl1 RID sam. DISTRICT f'El1ERlPllR. tJ\nRMS ~ I .ll.Y, 1993 JlQ)f\nET AIDJfT 19,000 0 0 1S,470 0 0 0 3,530 0 0 0 0 19,000 == rums RE'VEN.E AVAILAlU EXPEHDITtm M.AN::E + 19,000-00  19 00000 - 19 000 ,00 C ' ' .oo 42 Dill AND1 t1DD.. CARRYOVER I IBEK (6 - 74461\u0026gt; II EXPENDillRS SN.ARIES ADttIHISTTIR04A AllltINI,O HDTIFICATED CIRTIFICATED IOHDTIFICATEJ\u0026gt; SUBSTIM1E0 0R STIPEND JEEFilS PIJDWE) SERVICES Slffl.IES I, HATERI\"-5 rltPITAWI. MY OTlR HI TOTAi. III SUMrr 7-1-93 Balance tGTHL ITTl.ER OCSKCI Ul.D ISTRICT FElEW. PR(x\nrwtS RmRT aJ1)(\nET AID.HT 00 S,900 6,~ 0 0 200 500 3,275 4,270 S,500 0 0 26,145 .11.Y, 1993 Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures $26,145.00 + -0- 26,145.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 43 DIU EllOCATICW I reElE (6- 74460) II EXPEHDIT\\IES kARIES AllHINISTRATIOf ADHINto, H:ERTIF'Ir.ATED Cf.RTIFir.ATED toH:ERTIFICATED SUBSTITU10T0ER STIPEND IEEFITS PlR:HASESDER VICES Slffl.IESIi lfATERiliS CN\u0026gt;ITMru. n.AV OTtER lff TUTlt. III SlltlARY 07/01/93 M.lla: tomf UTTLER OCsKo m..D ISTRICT FEDERfA'RLlJ\nRNtS RP1ET JJ.Y, 1993 lllS MD M.aHL BUDtT AlllJfT um NlllfT 92,900. I IEVBIE (6-74461\u0026gt; 92,9 II ElfflellllEB stUtRIES 17,700 0 MIIDIIS1MTIIII 0 0 AIIIDI, JIIHDTIFIQ\\TED 0 19,500 tDIIF.tblTED 38,?.,0 1,600 IIIHDTifltATEI 0 3,000 UBTl1U1Em a\u0026amp; g STIPEND 7,62D 10,095 lEEF1TS 10,660 26,085 PllDWD IIRVI1D 92,325 14,920 !lffLlES Ii IIATERilt.B 11,821 0 DPITII. IIIILAY 2,200 0 OTID 0 92,900 1H lUTM. 16:5,896 F1MDS AVAILAll.E EXPENDITIHS IWN:E .oo + 92,900.00 = 92, 90000 - 92,900 .oo = .00 1992 - 1993 mRmMTE NlllfT 92,818.00 23,m.14 .oo 13,732.74 .oo 1,615.'1.5 3,940.00 10,100.21 62,108.62 12,631.66 1,936.40 .oo 129,442.72 44 IGTHL I11l ROCSKCf Ol.D ISTRICT FEDERPARLm WtSR EPOrr EISENHOWMERA TH/SCIENCCAER RYOVER BUlltT NO.NT I REVENUE II EXPEMDiltllES SM.ARIES AlltlINISTRICAlf ADtlINto, H:ERTIFICltm\u0026gt; CERTIFICATED IOt-CERTIFICIITED Sl.llSTIMETE IOR snmm IEIFITS P1RlED SERVICES SlffUES a. tlATERitt.s cwmtW. TtAY 011R III SllNRY 7-1-93 Balance 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 7,300 1175 9,486 8,403 800 2,000 30,864 $30,864.00 + .ll.Y, 1993 Projected Revenue -0- Projected Expenditures 30,864.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 45 1BTHU m ROCsKa m.D ISTRICT FEJ\u0026gt;ERft.PR(X\nfWIS~ .U.Y, 1993 EISEtHJERlt ATIVSCIEta 1992- 1993 llJllGET EI1EHIER ltA'1HIIEIEIIE Nil.NT aa\n[T YEMto JIAlE I REVEll.(E6 - 74453) 42,000.00 MIIIIT AIIUfl' = I IED (6 - 74CS3) 42,740 42,740.00 II EXPEM)Illm ~ II DPfJIDilUEI ADHINISTRATIClf 0 BIURJES ADNINID, HIRTIFICAJED 0 CERTifICATED 0 iTED 0 .oo MIHIRTIFICATED 0 UB1l1U1ET l4HR 3,000 1,D\u0026gt;.80 SUBSTilllTE ACHR 4,000 STIPm 1?,000 6,994.23 STIPEND 12,000 JIJlfI1B l,510 67'.li \u0026amp;FITS 1,000 PIIIJWD flRVIID 26,5\u0026gt;0 18,46.1.14 PlmWiED SERVICES 17,000 SffUB Ii MTEJWU 8,710 2,446.42 Slffl.IE\u0026amp;S I IATERIALS 6,000 CWITMII.J IUT 1,600 'llB.99 CWITALll JTlAY 1,000 onD 2,000 .oo OTIIR 1,000 1H TOT#.. 62,370 31,193.69 Hf TOTAL 42,000 III SllNRY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 42,000.00 - 42,000.00 = $ -0- 46 HOMELESS lllffit UTTLREO CsKo m.D. ISTRICT fEDERlPt. RlUNISR EPtRT BUDGET ND.NT .11.Y, 1993 I REVENUE ,,_21.875 II EXPENDilllEi SAL.MIES ADtlINISTRATIIJI ADtlIHID, H:ERTIFICAl'ED CERTIFICATED IOH:ERTIFICA1ED SUBSTilUTTEE IOR STIPEND IEEFITS PlR:tWiESDE RVICES !lFPUES \u0026amp; WITERIM.S r.APITAIILJT I..AY 01lR III SUtWrf 7-1-93 Balance $ -0- 0 0 0 11,980 0 0 1,900 6,454 1,541 0 0 21,875 + I II Projected Revenue RE\\91 (6 - 7442'.l) DPBl)ITUU UIURIES IHI IFlDnD t11HD11FD:11ED STll'Ee IEJlfITS flRlWIEJ llJM(D llffllEB I MlBWU HI TIJTM. Projected Expenditures 21,875.00 - 21,875.00 1992 - 199'3 llmT lDRTOJlt\\TE NIUfT NIUfl' 21,000 21,000.00 6,190 468.00 2,230 l,:iot.:io 0 .oo t,710 390.'7 5,710 280.00 4,:IOO ~.31 21,000 2,792.78 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 47 CHAPTERI SUMMERP ROGRAM I REVENUE II DfEMDIT\\16 SIURIES ADIIIHISTRATIIII AIIIIIN, toHERTIFICATED lDTIFICATED IOHDTIFICAlED STIPEJID IEIFITS MOWD SERVICES SlfPlIS \u0026amp; tlAltRIALS 01lER III SlllWff 07/0t/93 IWlH:[ 254,480.69 + fRTLHI TTlR.EO CSKC IDLD ISTRICT ~PRO\nRNtS~ JlmT NlllfT 0 0 0 136,000 24,060 0 40,920 44,260 500 8,760 254,~ .ll.Y, 1993 FlN)6 REDE AVAilAll.EE XFENDll\\llES .00  254,\"80.69 - 254,400.00 = BAl.Na 80.69 48 tRTHU TTlER OC6KC tlD. DISTRICT FEllEJWP.f.O ifWtSR EP(RT .11.Y, 1993 atAPTEIRI ACCELERASOTEIDD. JIUD\u0026amp;ET NWfT 1992 -19'3 0 awmt lJ CB EMU IIHll I REVE1I(E6 - 7J262) 0 llllliET YM 10111\\lE MIUfT tVIUIT II EXPEHDITIJ6 I E\\91 (6 - 73262) 0 .00 SIURIES AllltINIS'JRATI(lf 0 II ElffJIDI111EB AllttIH, IDKERTIFICMED 0 CERTIFICATED 0 SMMJEI tIHIRTIFICATED 0 SUBSTllU1T00ED 0 fllHD'1JFit11EI 6,SIO 4,981.86 mPEND 100 S11PEID 12,a, 11,783.34 IEEFITS 8 MFliS 2,'?m 2,794.61 PlRJWiE!DD VICES 1,806 PIIOWDfDVICEB 1,621 1,719.72 QfPLIES \u0026amp; ttATERIAI.S 0 llffUEB Ii MlBUM.S 0 82.00 C'IIPITMlll.T LAY 0 HI TOTM. ZJ,276 21,361.SJ ono 0 HI TaTM. 1,914 III SllWtRY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $1,914.47 + -0- 1,914.00 = $ .47 49 OW'1IR II ~Illlllt FlWElR I REDE C6 - 74331\u0026gt; II EXPENDntm !W.ARIES AlUNISTfIRIJAf AmtINI,O HDTIFICATED IDTIFICATED IOHDTIFir.ATED SlJBSTIM[ TE/OD STIPEM\u0026gt; IEEFITS PlRJWD SERVICES Slffl.IES \u0026amp; MTERitU CAPITtlLll Tl.AY 01lR III \u0026amp;INRY 07/0t/93 MRa 4,8:18.16 + tlRTllL im ROCsKo m.D ISTRICT FEllERfFt.t UIWtS IIP(RT . .ll.Y, 1993 aJJX\nET AtDJfT awmt n llllWll.lFlIlW Elm 0 m I IBBI (6 - 74311) .0 II DFENDilllEB 0 0 SMJlEB 3,000 0 BErmnElF/OElt 1,000 STIF8II 533 E\u0026amp;IIS m PIIIH\u0026amp;I IERVDlS 0 llfflUD \u0026amp; MlERilt.S 0 0 JS 4,e:i8 F\\JIDS AVAI1.All EXPENDIT\\HS .oo s 4,e:i8.16 - 4,858.oo. lllRT NlllfT 6,250 4,000 1,400 :m CID 175 6,250 WWW IW.Nl:E .16 1m - 1m YEM TO 111\\lI NlllfT 6,250.00 34.'2 1,258.00 98.'2 .oo .oo 1,Jft.84 50 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET FOR_ . FOOD SERVICES 1993-94 ' rRTLHim  ROCsKo m DISTRICT FOOSDE RVICE 1993 - 1994 1992 - 1993 BUDGET MlM BUDGEVT EMT OD ATE I REYEM(Fl.N D 08 ) I, 959,000.00 AtOMT AtW4T 1,983,110.00 I, 971, 947.4-4 wnn= II E\u0026gt;ffNDITtm AmIN SIURIES 100,000.00 a.ASSIFIE!DW .MIES BIIS,000.00 94,000.00 96,221.82 820,000.00 902,2 '462. 1 IEEFITS 121,825.00 128,560.00 110,232.46 1UCW15SEEDR I/ICES 25,700.00 UTILITIES 9,700.00 4,787.05 8, S0.00 5,250.00 6,381.00 SlFPLIES tlATERirts -M,525.00 FOOD 749,000.00 44,350.00 38,383.07 tlAINTBW: 26,000.00 765,000.00 685,249.75 23,500.00 17,895.02 EWiftNT 25,000.00 22,000.00 11,781.10 OTIR 5,000.00 1,850.00 5,723.19 ... TOTlt. 1,990,500.00 1,914,210.00 1,779,900.67 == 07/01/133 FlNDS III 9JMri BtUKE R\\9U AYAILAILEEX PENDITIJ!ES BtVltil n, 79. a + 1,959,000 = 2,431,479.40 - 1,990,500 = 440,979.40 Student Rates Elementary Lunch 1.20 Elementary Lunch 1.20 Secondary Lunch 1.25 Secondary Lunch 1.25 Breakfast .90 Breakfast .90 Adult Rates 1.60 Lunch 1.60 1.10 Lunch Breakfast 1.10 Breakfast 51\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_266","title":"Business cases","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":["1993/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"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/266"],"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\nSTCASE02 REVISED 21 APR 93 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SHORT TERM PROJECT BUSINESS CASE GUIDELINES AND FORMAT FOR BUSINESS CASE I. BACKGROUND. A business case is a written presentation which identifies and describes the main features supporting the decision-making process on an issue facing the organization. The purpose is to put forth in a logical order all the facts surrounding the situation, all the steps in the decision process, impact of the decision. and a general implementation plan for the decision. In addition to being called a business case, this type of document is sometimes referred to as an issue paper, a staff paper. a decision analysis, and a program analysis. While each of these types of presentations may vary slightly in content, the purpose remains essentially the same...decision support. The format and guidelines provided below give a most inclusive outline for a complex business case. While all of the guidelines should be considered when developing the business case, the nature of the particular situation will, of necessity, dictate a possible modification of these guidelines. However, you must remember the objective....present your process and case in a logical order, providing strong rationale...SELL YOUR IDEA. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary should be a one to three page overview of the business case. It should highlight only the key points within each of the outline topics in the business case format, is also advisable that the Executive Summary follow the formatting as the actual presentation. It same detailed data supporting the topic. It should not contain the Keep it at a high level...what would you want them to know if they were running after a departing flight. II. BUSINESS CASE FORMAT AND GUIDELINES A. Background. 1) Current situation. This section should include a clear statement of the current situation, and should be based onfacts. You should consider that the reader may know nothing about the situation at hand. 2) Background information. Background information should include conditions leading up to the situation, and why the situation is now being considered. Previous attempts to solve the situation should be noted along with their results and short comings. B. Problem Definition. 1) Problem statement. The problem section should be a concise statement which defines and describes the problem situation. --- --- \" problem exists. There may be a need to convince the reader that or a Only one problem should be addressed at a time\navoid letting multiple problems confuse the situation. 2) Considerations. problem? What are the causes of the problem? What seems to be the real they known? Who is affected? To what extent are What is the magnitude of the problem? Who are the primary actors in the situation? C. Analysis of Alternatives. 1) Process. you generated and analyzed your alternatives, the participants. Provide a written description of how Be sure to include 2) Identification. Identify all of the alternative programs or activities which you considered in your decision-making process. factual terms. Be sure to describe the characteristics of each in REMEMBER... the \"do nothing It alternative should always be analyzed as a possibility. 3) Analysis. Each alternative should be discussed in terms of impact: impact on objective, impact on legal obligations, impact on requirements, finances. impact on personnel. impact on The section should include a statement as to why the alternative was rejected. should clearly make its point. Each analysis should be brief, but While you should have supporting information in your files, each analysis should not be to the level of detail as that in the selected alternative. D. Recommendation. 1) Action recommended. from the analysis of alternatives. The recommendation follows be written in brief, clear, positive statements. The action recommended should 2) Rationale. This section should provide the rationale for selecting a particular alternative, including a summary of the primary factors supporting the decision. E. Obj active. 1) Objective of the recommendation. objective of the recommended action, outputs. Define the not the immediate physical 2) Goal support. This section should includestatements and examples of how this program recommendation will support specific, stated goals of the district, establish a direct relationship. It is important to 3) Evaluation criteria. In this section, you are going to define how you will know if you are meeting the specified objectives. plan. These will become a major component of your future There must be at least one evaluation criteria for each objective, and there are usually several. a) How can estimates of progress against these objectives be made? b) Identify the appropriate measures of effectiveness. c) Both quantitative and qualitative criteria may be used. d) Be sure to consider what data you are going to need to prove the criteria, and how you are going to get the data. Is the criteria an going to cost more than it will yield? 4) Expected benefits. This analysis should include explanation of the anticipated benefits and when they expected to be realized, the expected benefits. are It should also identify the recipients of F. Impact Analysis. 1) Program, both positive and negative. Describe the impact of the program, If you execute this recommendation. Call in the \"Expected Benefits how will it above. programs...will something fall off the table, primary actors impacted? impact other Who will be the 2) Desegregation Plan. How will this recommendation impact the Desegregation Plan? 3) Court Orders. impact court orders? 4) Political factors. How will this recommendation Are there major political factors that seem to affect the situation, and how will you address them? Are your strategies in the implementation plan? 5) Risks. This section should include a discussion of the risks of doing this program, and the risks of not doing this program. 6) Timing. how will you deal with them? What are the major timing issues, and G. Resources Analysis. 1) Personnel analysis. What is the projected impact on the head count and type of position before and after the recommendation? Include an estimate of support staff required in both numbers and types of positions. Is there a recruiting pool from which to hire the needed personnel? should be included. Training requirements 2) Financial analysis. All of the financial considerations should be examined at this point. a) All operating costs, including personnelH. and benefits, fiscal years for each of the next 1-5 should be outlined. An estimate of equipment required should be prepared and should include all hardware and support equipment. Both capital b) expenditures and a monthly cost over the life of this equipment should be detailed. The source of revenue funding should be identified, along with any requirements. c) The cost savings forecast for the first year and years 2-5 (if appropriate) should be projected. A discussion of total cost savings potential should also be included. Force Field Analysis. 1) Forces For. Who will be the primary supporters of the recommendation? Why will they support the recommendation? How can you maximize the influence of these forces? 2) Forces Against. detractors of the recommendation? Who will be the primary recommendation? over? Why will they oppose the How can you minimize their influence or win them 3) Confidentiality. You should determine if you want to include this section in material for public release. I. General Implementation Plan. 1) Milestones. The general implementation plan should include the milestone events for monitoring. not be a detailed project plan. This should 2) Timelines, timeline associated with it. 3) Tasking. Each milestone event should have a Each milestone event should have a specific person, identified by name, tasked with ensuring the event is completed on time. A single overall project/program leader should be clearly identified. 4) Reporting. Regular status reporting procedures on the implementation plan should be identified in terms of who. what, when, and where. Status reports should be in the format of the implementation plan or an established standard reporting format. quarterly basis. Status reports are usually submitted on a monthly orSTCASE02 REVISED 21 APR 93 SHORT TERM PROJECT BUSINESS CASE GUIDELINES AND FORMAT FOR BUSINESS CASE I . BACKGROUND. A business case Is a written presentation which Identifies and describes the main features supporting the decision-making on an issue facing the organization. process The purpose is to put forth in a logical order all the facts surrounding the situation, all the steps in the decision process, impact of the decision, and a general implementation plan for the decision. In addition to being called a business case, document is sometimes referred to as an issue paper, a decision analysis, and a program analysis. this type of a staff paper. Qecision While each of these types of presentations may vary slightly in content, remains essentially the same...decision support. The format and guidelines provided below give a most inclusive outline for a complex business case. While all of the guidelines should be considered when developing the business case, the nature of the particular situation will, of necessity, dictate a possible modification of these guidelines. However, you must remember the objective....present your process and case in a logical order, providing strong rationale... SELL YOUR IDEA. the purpose I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary should be a one to three page overview of the business case. it should highlight only the key points within each of the outline topics in the business case format. is that the Executive Summary follow the formatting as the actual presentation. also advisable It same detailed data supporting the topic. It should not contain the -- . Keep it at a high level...what fl'^^h '^snt them to know if they were running after a departing II . BUSINESS CASE FORMAT AND GUIDELINES A. Background. 1) Current situation. This section should include a clear statement of the current situation, and should be based on facts. YOU should consider that the reader may know nothing about the situation at hand. , 2) Background information. Background information should Include conditions leading up to the situation, and why the now being considered. Previous attempts to solve the be noted along with situation situation comings. should their results and short a B. Problem 1) Definition. Problem statement. The concise statement which defines and problem section should be situation. problem e.xlsts. describes the problem There may be a need to convince the or reader that a Only one problem should be addressed at a time\navoid letting multiple problems confuse the situation. 2) Considerations. What seems problem? What are the causes of the problem? they known? who  ' to be the real is problem? Who are the affected? To what extent What is the magnitude primary actors in the situation? of are the C. Analysis of Alternatives. 1) Process. Provide a written description you generated and analyzed your alternatives. the participants. Be sure to of how include 2) Identification. Identify all of the alternative programs or activities which you considered in your decision-making process. Be sure to describe the character1st' factual terms. REMEMBER... the \"do nothing\" always be analyzed as a possibility. ics of each in alternative should terms of impact: 3) Analysis. Each alternative should be discussed in impact on legal impact on objective, impact on requirements, obligations, impact on personnel, impact on The section should Include a statement as to why the should be finances. alternative was rejected. Each analysis should clearly make its point, while you should have supporting Information in your files, each analysis should not be to the level of detail as that In the selected alternative. brief, but D. Recommendation. 1) Action recommended. from the analysis of alternatives. The recommendation follows The action recommended should be written In brief, clear, positive statements. 2) This Rationale. section should provide the for selecting a particular alternative, including a summary of the primary factors supporting the decision. rationale E. Objective. 1) Objective of the objective of the recommended action, outputs. recommendation. Define the not the immediate physical 2) Goal statement support. This section should include and examples of how this program recommendation willsupport specific, stated goals of the district, establish a direct relationship. It is important to 3) Evaluation criteria. In this section, you are going to define how you will know if you are meeting the specified objectives. plan. These will become a major component of your future There must be at least one evaluation criteria for each objective, and there are usually several. a) How can estimates of progress against these objectives be made? b) Identify the appropriate measures of effectiveness. c) Both quantitative and qualitative criteria may be used. d) Be sure to consider what data you are going to need to prove the criteria, and how you are going to get the data. Is the criteria explanation going to cost more than it will yield? 4) Expected benefits. This analysis should include an of the anticipated benefits and when they expected to be realized. ........................... '   are the expected benefits. It should also identify the recipients of F. Impact Analysis. 1) Program, both positive and negative. If you execute programs...will this Describe the impact of the program. Call in the \"Expected Benefits\" above. recommendation, something fall off the table. how will it impact other primary actors impacted? 2) Desegregation Plan. Who will be the impact the Desegregation Plan? 3) Court Orders. How will this recommendation impact court orders? 4) Political factors. How will this recommendation Are there major political factors that seem to affect the situation, and how will you address th.? Are your strategies in the implementation plan? them? 5) Risks. This section should Include a discussion of the risks of doing this program, and the risks of not doing this program. 6) Timing. T how will you deal with them? What are the major timing issues, and G. on the head Resources Analysis. 1) Personnel analysis. recommendation? count and type of What is the projected impact position before and after the Include an estimate of support staff required in both numbers and types of positions. Is there a recruiting pool from which to hire the needed personnel? should be included. Training requirements 2) Financial analysis. All considerations should be examined at this point. a) All operating costs. and benefits. of the financial including personnel for each of the next 1-5fiscal years should be outlined. An estimate of equipment required should be prepared and should include all hardware and support equipment. Both capital b) c) expenditures and a monthly cost over the life of this equipment should be detailed. The source of revenue funding should be identified, along with any requirements. The cost savings forecast for the first year and years 2-5 (if appropriate) should be projected. A discussion of total cost savings potential should also be included. ur*** H. Force Field Analysis. 1) Forces For. of the recommendation? Who will be the primary supporters Why will they support the recommendation? How can you maximize the influence of these forces? detractors of 2) the recommendation? over? 3) Forces Against, recommendation? Who will be the Why will they oppose primary the How can you minimize their influence or win them Confidentiality. J .*. * vx M A J. X u J  XVU DIUJUIU UCI fltfT 'want to Include this section in material for public You should determine if you release. I, General Implementation Plan. 1) Milestones. The general implementation plan should Include the milestone events for monitoring, not be a detailed project plan. This should 2) Timelines, timeline associated with it. 3) Tasking. Each milestone event should have a Each milestone event should have a specific person, identified by name, tasked with ensuring the event is completed on time. - - A single overall project/program leader should be clearly identified. 4) Reporting. Regular status reporting procedures on the Implementation plan should be identified in terms of who, what, when, and where. Status reports should be in the format of the Implementation plan format. Status quarterly basis. reports or are an established standard usually submitted on a reporting monthly or I z 7. y. TAiKOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 October 29, 1993 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Last spring, the Uttle Rock School District began a practice of preparing business cases on all budgetary decisions. The purpose of this business procedure was to help the district make prudent financial and programmatic decisions. The intent was for business cases to become a systemic process, and not just a temporary effort to get through the budget crisis. During the LRSD budget hearing on July 8,1993, Judge Wright stated: 1 am glad to see that the board is using the business case approach for the district to justify its expenditures. That is a smart thing to do. That is a prudent business thing to do and a good management tool, and its very much part of the budget process that Ive been asking them to instill as part of their system, as part of their school system.\" At the conclusion of the same hearing, the Judge told the LRSD representatives that \"you have made a lot of progress in terms of having a budget process. The business cases are part of this budget process. Youve made a lot of progress in your budget document itself in terms of putting it in such a form that we can monitor it. You are to be commended for that, but you have a long, long way to go. Youve just started. This is just the beginning of the process\". Throughout the spring and early summer, district personnel regularly prepared business cases on all major decisions. The LRSD Board of Directors even required employees to prepare business cases when considering financial and programmatic decisions for the tentative budget (Board of Directors, Regular Meeting Minutes, May 27, 1993). During testimony in the July 8, 1993 budget hearing, Mark Milhollen pointed out that requirement: The Board felt that it needed to have an adequate and working knowledge of the changes to the budget and they felt that the business case approach was the best way to handle this.\"October 29, 1993 Page Two As you well know, many critical financial decisions have been made during the last several months, and a tough new budget cycle is rapidly approaching. The Court expects the district to continue the practice of constructing business cases as part of a systematic decision-making process throughout the district. Therefore, please forward to me copies of the supporting business cases prepared prior to October 28, 1993 (the date of the last Board meeting) on the Truancy Program, the Romine Interdistrict School Communications Station, and the Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research theme. Also, please provide a list of all new positions which have been added to the current fiscal year budget after those considered in the July 8, 1993 hearing and subsequently approved by the Court. Please append to that list the supporting business cases that were prepared prior to October 28, 1993 for the new positions. If no business cases exist, please explain why this critical support process has been abandoned, and how you intend to proceed during this fiscal year. Please forward this information by next Thursday, November 4, 1993. It appears to me that the district is continuing to incur expenditures over and above those approved in the regular budget cycle. The business case process has served the district well in budget planning and management during this past year. I sincerely hope you will continue, and even further develop, this beneficial practice. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, m S. BrownExhibit 1-C Revised LITTIJ3 ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) BASE SALARY (1993-94 Schedule) tn O 20,000-25,000 25,001-30,000 30,001-35,000 35,001-40,000 40,001-45,000 45,001-50,000 50,001-55,000 55,001-60,000 60,001-65,000 65,001-70,000 ____(B)____ NUMBER OF CERTIFIED POSITIONS 301.50 433.30 470.90 411.50 216.00 20.00 (C) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY 1992-93 21,320.10 26,148.75 30,702.44 35,010.48 39,430.38 44,607.72 (D) ACTUAL AVERAGE STEP INCREASE 804.37 805.44 806.53 809.77 824.31 947.95 (E) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY RAISE 671.10 ___837.56 947.47 1,085.23 1,307.76 1,382.95 (F) AVERAGE TOTAL INCREASE (D^E) 1,475.47 1,643.00 1,754.00 1,895.00 2,212.07 2,330.90 ___(G)___ REVISED AVERAGE SALARY (C+F) 22,795.57 27,791.75 32,456.44 36,905.48 41,642.45 46,930.62 (H) IMPACT ON BUDGET (B-F) 444,854.21 711,911.90 825,958.60 779,792.50 477,807.12 46,618.00 (I) TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT (B-G) 6,072,064.36 12,042,165.20 15,203,737.60 15,106,605.02 8,994,769.20 938,772.40 TOTAL 1993-94 AVG SAL 1,853.20 32,008.91 3,286,942.33 59,310,913.85 NoIe: The base salary ranges in (A) are determined using the 1993-94 salary schedule: therefore, average salaries (or the personnel shown in (C) for 1992-93 may fall below the ranges defined in (A) for 1993-94.BUSINESS CASE SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Superintendent of the Little Rock School District is dedicated and committed to developing for this state and for this community,  -J ^2 , X.  . He is also committed the finest educational system in the nation. to a strong leadership team and believes the Little Rock School District has organization, all with of the elements accomplish that goal. the exception of present in its a few individuals, current to However, to accomplish the desegregation goals there are needs within the organization that cannot be met by individuals who are currently employed by the system. Therefore, at this point, after having been Superintendent for approximately two months, he has found it necessary to add a person to the administrative team with skills not identified in members of the current leadership team. In this business case, the Superintendent is establishing the need for a Special Assistant to the Superintendent that would be engaged to carry out specific responsibilities related to planning, grant writing, district advocacy and governmental relations. iL.i_ position would allow the District to reach into other areas that This have not been explored or developed to the fullest extent. One such area is that of governmental relations. Federal grant writing to a more extensive degree needs to be explored and we must expand our relationships with state legislators, and those who work for them. This person could also assist in meeting the District's commitments increasing parent involvement and community support. for A. BACKGROUND Little Rock School District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school districts, including safety and security, urban flight, racial and financial issues and aging buildings. The District's implementation of a very costly desegregation plan and escalating non-desegregation costs presents an accepted challenge of securing additional revenues. Prior to the 1989-90 school year, the previous administration and Board of Directors negotiated settlement with the parties. This settlement included a a financial settlement with the state of Arkansas. Several essential issues are apparent, i financial settlement and present local/state fundings sufficient to implement the Concerns regarding the perception of inequities of resources in our area schools and the first the plan. are not use of non-recurring revenue to balance our budget must also be addressed.B. PROBLEM DEFINITION To give a piece of background on why this position is important, I would have to reflect on the current organization chart which addresses basic areas of the District's operations, but does not address the need of the District to be more actively involved in securing additional federal and state funds. The organizational chart does not address the need for the District to become more heavily involved with governmental agencies or other funding sources. It should be pointed out that while some of these functions were performed, they were not performed to the extent they will need to be in the future as we grow and restructure the District to meet the needs of the 21st Century. As we look at the potential budget crisis in the District, the need for new dollars at the state level and the community is extremely essential to school district funding. It becomes incumbent on the school district to look at ways of securing funding for additional programs and services that are currently required by District students, parents and the community served by the school system. While the District has been engaged in securing some of these federal fundings, the background seems to suggest to me we have not been as proactively involved in this area, and we need to be more attentive to these areas if we are to get beyond the criticisms that are heaped on school systems across the country. Some criticism seems to suggest that educators are insensitive to the fact that there is a limit to which individuals in our community are to be taxed for education services. Therefore, we need to have in place a process that will allow us to find other revenue streams to meet our operational costs. In response to these concerns and perceptions, the Superintendent is proposing that we employ an individual to work with the District to explore the possibilities of expanding this vital area. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES After a careful evaluation of the current staff by the Superintendent, those individuals who are in the District who have some responsibility associated with this area cannot take on any more duties without losing effectiveness in their present areas of responsibility. This analysis seems to suggest that while we have capable people on staff, the scope of their responsibility in meeting the day to day operational needs of their departments and schools does not suggest sufficient flexibility to add to their positions. However, it does suggest that another position should be added to the District to take on these responsibilities. D. RECOMMENDATION It is the Superintendent's recommendation that we employ an individual to work with the District: 1. To have primary responsibility for formulatinggrant proposals in such areas as narrative applications, budget formulation and programmatic implementation. 2. To have the responsibility for the implementation of the school district's commitment desegregation, parental involvement, community support, etc. regarding 3. To assist in the development of schools as the center for enriching the social, recreational, and educational life of the community. E. OBJECTIVE The objectives for this person will be to work in an advocacy position for the District to secure federal funding and increase the revenue from federal sources and also identify other areas at the state and federal level where resources may be obtained to aide in the fiscal abilities and strengths of the District to deliver a quality educational plan to the citizens of Little Rock. Evaluation The effectiveness of the position will be determined by the amount of additional revenue generated as well as successful implementation of LRSD's strategy regarding parental involvement and community support. Expected Benefits Additional funding secured by the District will allow the District to meet obligations identified in our Desegregation Plan and other court approved documents. The District will also work to enhance parent and community involvement in decision making and communication. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS It is anticipated that the addition of this position will assist the District in remaining solvent and is to be considered a strategy for addressing our shortfall of funding. Desegrecation Additional funding will assist the District in meeting its commitment to our children and patrons. '/ involvement components are supported by the efforts of this staff The parent/community member. Court Order The District would be afforded greater opportunity to meet its obligations.G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS The necessary resources for this position are generated from several positions that have not been filled by the District. The grant writer position has been combined with the duties of the Special Assistant to the Superintendent. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the Board, central office staff, some principals, teachers and parents. This recommendation can assist the District to provide needed resources in our area schools. The primary detractors will be persons concerned with our ability to remain solvent as well as the addition of other top level administratorsecef:': t'f , /TA e-e/ LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 22, 1993 NOV ii 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mrs. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: Provided per your request are copies of the requested business cases. These business cases will be presented to the Board of Directors for their approval during the special meeting that follows our December Agenda Meeting. It is extremely important that we move forward with the Romine project as the new program can be an excellent recruitment tool. Please contact me if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Henry P. . Q lliams Superintendent of Schools HPW:nr 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 BUSINESS CASE GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY THEME EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The LRSD is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. The incentive schools are an integral part of that plan, and their success is directly related to the success of the District's long-term desegregation plan. Each incentive school, was required to develop and implement a school theme. In support of the desegregation plan and a commitment to total quality learning, Garland Incentive School identified a multimedia technology theme. Realizing the cost of technology and especially technology that is on the cutting edge, the multimedia technology theme implementation is to be phased in over a period of 3-5 years. A plan of action is required to implement the theme in a way that supports the desegregation plan and provides quality training and learning for students and teachers. This business case is for the first phase of implementation of the total plan for Garland Incentive School. A. BACKGROUND Garland Incentive School serves a minority community with students being challenged outside of the school by drugs, violence, gangs and many other problems plaguing today's urban school districts. The school is considered a safe zone and its students are proud and secure within its walls. The school's theme has been historically centered on communication and basic skills\nhowever, with the revision of the desegregation plan, the school's theme was changed to Multimedia Technology and Educational Research. Multimedia Technology combines text, graphics, sound, animation and video to convey information. Educational Research deals with using this new technology to locate, evaluate, and use information with excitement, motivation, and creativity. Prior to 1992-93 school year, the school maintained a Mass Media theme though the theme concept was not being fulfilled. When the desegregation plan reintroduced the theme concept, the school's Mass Media theme evolved into Multimedia Technology and Educational Research. A new theme specialist has been hired with the responsibility of developing and creating the excitement necessary to recapture the minds of students and to create interest in desegregating the school. Parents, community members, teachers, and the school's principal, established the goals and objectives for the theme based on technology. The school's Total Quality Learning (TQL) team worked after the regular school year to provide the basis for the program. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The myriad societal problems within the local community and the projection of societal norms are concrete issues that must be addressed in the educational arena. To combatthese problems Garland must implement a plan that is dynamic and capable of capturing , I-------- Viitu, IO the young minds and preparing them for a future which is constantly moving in technological leaps and bounds. To accomplish this task wiZZuc.! desegregation budget, phases of implementation have been developed. constraints of the These phases can be accelerated provided additional ! budge. cos.rain.s. revenue is made available. will provide students and staff with the minimum hardware, software and training n?fn .r multimedia technology. This phase will include installation of four computers in each 1st grade classroom, one teacher workstation in each classroom 5 y K and 2nd grades and A fi iTi on 511 oiv _1  \u0026gt;. Of additional six station lab for 3rd through 6th grades. an Phase II will install 4 . computers in each 2nd, 6th, and CBI classroom with network capability mstaUed for all computers throughout the school. This phase will also include ------------ ovuuui. lUli UlliUsC win ai5 ardware software and installation of an audio/video lab with satellite capabilities. A software library will also be established during this phase. D computers in each 3rd and Sth grade classroom and 3 computers in ead ng, Mat^h, and Resource. This phase will also include hardware, software and inct51 5Jfir\\ri  : - 11.  installation of an electronic library. installation for Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and 4th grade classes. This phase will also include additions to the software library and the construction of a new media center or the expansion and remodeling of the existing one. The cost of full implementation in the first year would be prohibitive\ntherefore this business case is written only to address Phase I of the Multimedia The current task before Implementation Plan.  IS to determine the best way to implement the theme in a way most effective for our students and staff. C. analysis of ALTERNATIVES The Garland community considered several alternatives prior to developing this plan for implementing multimedia technology into the school: Laser Disc players, CD-ROM drives for current computer systems, networked drives, and portable drives. Though all are a V\"\" to provide the students with multimedia nX tlior creativity. In addition, the computer hardware presently at Garland ranges in age from three to seven years and will not support multimedia technology. It was decided multimedia computer systems which could stand alone or be networked would provide the best solution. 2D. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the District implement Phase I of the Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Plan during the 1993-94 school year. The rationale for this recommendation is that this phase of multimedia technology provides: * Software for grades K-2 that supports the LRSD revised curriculum. The software directly addresses the key concepts of reading, writing, listening, and speaking that are emphasized in the curriculum. An additional feature of the software is the use of thematic units to make connections between the various subject areas, making learning more relevant, \"^ematic units are a focus of the District's revised curriculum. This software will be av^lablein all first grade classrooms with four computers each and in a lab setting for Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and 2nd grade. * Software for teachers of grades 3-6 that provides administrative assistance. The software has desktop publishing capability, but most importantly it provides portfolio assessment tools that allow teachers to collect, organize, and present student portfolio information. Portfolio assessment is encouraged by the District and this tool will enable teachers at Garland to implement this form of assessment. This software will be available through one station in each classroom. * A multisensory approach to learning that meets the auditory, visual and kinesthetic styles of students. * Presentation software for teachers 3-6. This software enables the teachers to produce multimedia presentations integrating video, audio, graphics, and text into classroom instructional units. * Software for students in grades 3-6 that provides opportunities for developing creativity and critical thinking skills through productions levied around the existing curriculum. This software will be delivered through a six station lab setting. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of this recommendation is to better support the LRSD's desegregation plan by partially implementing multimedia technology into the Garland Incentive School. The district as well as the school needs this technology in preparing our students and teachers for the future. The technology used appropriately can recapture the minds of our young people, save the staff many hours of manual labor and provide exciting presentations to the students which will encourage and motivate students to learn and master the curriculum. 3Evaluation Criteria * Monitoring of student progress through technology and Portfolio Assessment. * Increased teacher use of technology which will also increase teacher proficiency in instructional and administrative tasks, including increased use of ABACUS. * Increased use of Cooperative Learning and thematic teaching concepts. * Increased student interest in multimedia technology and learning. * Increased parental involvement due to increased student interest. * Timely, detailed reports for conferences, administration. Board of Directors, and the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring. * Achievement results will positively impact recruitment to Garland. * Peer and parent/teacher evaluations of student portfolios. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS Multimedia technology can open new doors for the students. It has the potential for assisting Garland and the District in stimulating this minority community as well as improving the goals of desegregation. Multimedia technology not only motivates students to learn but it also supports the District curriculum in ways exciting to students and teachers. Though the initial cost of technology is always high it is not always an object when it comes to educating and motivating a disadvantaged population and creating an environment conducive to desegregation. Desegregation This plan totally supports the requirements set forth in the desegregation plan referencing theme implementation. Court Order Implementation of this plan would allow the school and District to demonstrate compliance of court order to develop a new theme which does not duplicate any existing incentive school theme. 4Political Factors The District can receive favorable responses from the court and schools if resources are provided to implement this theme. Risk The equipment and software provided by implementing this phase of the plan is versatile and can be transferred if necessary with the exception of minimal installation cost. The additional funds requested for this phase and future phases will be viewed as a wise investment. Should the District decide not to support this system, the results can be very damaging and regarded as inefScient use of desegregation funds. . G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS Provided is a listing of hardware and software that must be purchased to implement this phase of the multimedia theme into the Garland School. Included is the projected budget for staff development of teachers. 5PROJECTED BUDGET FOR 1993-94 FOR MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE/SOFTWARE I. Pre-Kindergarten - 2nd Grade A. 1 st Grade Classrooms (3 computers per classroom) B. Pre-K, Kindergarten, and 2nd Grade (use of a 3 station Lab) $29,299.00 Recommended Package: Apple Early Language Connections School Bundle. Designed for use among three classrooms at same school site. Contains three Teacher Stations (Macintosh LC 520 8/160MB w/CD-ROM and standard keyboard), six Student Stations (Macintosh LC 520 5/80MB w/CD-ROM and standard keyboard), three ImageWriter 11 network printers, three Apple Color OneScanners, one Scholastic Inc. Kit, three Early Language Connections Learning Kits, and two days of training. II. 3rd to 6th grade. A. Teacher Stations ( 1 per classroom) $3,025.00 X8= $24,200.00 Recommended Package\nMacintosh Quadra 660AV Teacher Solution. Quadra 660AV 8MB Hard Disk 230MB w/CD-ROM, Audio Vision 14-inch Display, Audio Vision 14 Display Adapter Kit, Apple Keyboard II, ClarisWorks 2.0, Claris Works for Teachers 2.0, and Teacher Productivity Kit (Kit includes 4 CDs\nI) Apple Teacher Productivity CD w/Calendar Creator, ClassMaster, Correct Grammar, Make Test, \u0026amp; School Font, 2) Grolier's Multimedia Encyclopedia CD, 3) World Atlas CD, 3) US Atlas CD.) B. Lab for students and teacher training. Recommended Solution: 1. 2. 3. Temporary Lab Server (1 each) Recommend Quadra 660AV Student Stations (5 each) Recommend Mac LC 520s Printers $ 3,025.00 4. $1,765.00 X5= $ 8,825.00 Laser Printer (1 each) (Laser Pro 630) Color Dot Matrix (1 each) (Apple Color Printer) Color Scanner (1 each) (AppleOne Color Scanner) $ 1,786.00 $ 638.00 $ 936.00 TOTAL PRE-K TO 6TH TAXES (5.5%) TOTAL $68,709.00 $ 3.779.00 $72,488.00 CABLING AND INSTALLATION (EST) GRAND TOTAL $ 2,500.00 $75,000.00 NOTE: Inservice will be done by IRC Curriculum Specialist and Garland Incentive School's Multimedia Theme Specialist in addition to training included in bundle above. 6H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Primary supporters will be students and patrons in the Garland community. Other supporters will be those in the community who want to see successful themes implemented in the incentive schools and those who feel that it is important for students to have access to technology that is on the cutting edge. Primary detractors will be limited to those who feel that the expense of the multimedia theme may not be justified. Information should be provided to them that will allow them to see the advantages of multimedia and to see the progress Garland students make after implementation. ___ I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TIMELINE Date 11/93 11/93 12/93 1/94 Activity Plan presented to Board of Directors for Approval Bid for Hardware/Software Opened Hardware/Software Ordered Hardware/Software Installed Person(s) Responsible Superintendent 1/94 1/94 Additional material/supplies ordered Staff Development begins Purchasing Purchasing Vendor Theme Specialist Theme Specialist Vendor Theme Specialist 2/94-6/94 On-going monitoring/assistance provided Principal 5/94 Evaluation of current theme implementation Theme Specialist Curriculum Supervisors Principal Theme Specialist Teachers Curriculum Supervisors 7BUSINESS CASE TRUANCY REDUCTION PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on providing a learning environment that meets the academic, social and emotional needs of It all students. is further committed to ensuring that adj. students receive a quality education in a desegregated environment. Over the years, the District has begun to recognize a growing truancy problem which has an adverse effect oh the student's academic achievement and emotional and social development, thereby frustrating the District's ability to carry out its educational mission in the community. To address this problem, the Little Rock School District has joined in a partnership with community leaders, youth servicing agencies and the Little Rock Police Department to develop and implement a truancy pick-up program that should have a significant impact on reducing truancy in the Little Rock School District. A. BACKGROUND In the spring of the 1992-93 school year, a group of concerned citizens composed of community leaders, youth servicing agency representatives and Little Rock School District officials formed a collaborative to explore an effective response to the alarming number of school aged children and youth who are truant from school onany During school hours, school aged youngsters were being observed standing on street corners, in malls and other The number of calls on any given day. shopping centers or roaming in neighborhoods. from concerned business proprietors and parents to District offices to report truant students had become more frequent and added to the growing concern. citizens, In response to the problem, the collaborative developed a proposal that would take advantage of permissive legislation (Act 867) passed by the Arkansas Legislature in 1989, which authorizes school districts to partner with the local police department in implementing a joint truancy reduction plan, of this Act, '  ..................... Using the provisions the collaborative developed a truancy reduction proposal called Project STAY (Support Truancy Alternatives for Youth) and presented it to the LRSD Board of Directors for their review and approval on October 28, 1993. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION and In the 1992-93 school year. Little Rock School District elementary and secondary students logged 227,414 (full day) unexcused absences. School absences are excused only when a child is ill\nwhen a family emergency exists, i.e., death in the family, seriousfamily member or other extenuating circumstances in the immediate family of the student exist, or if the student is participating in a school sponsored activity that has been approved in advance by an appropriate school district official. School absences that are not excused violate Act 292 passed by the Arkansas legislature in 1991. This act requires that \"a child between the ages of five years and seventeen years, both inclusive, who has not been officially excluded from school must be in attendance. II The District also believes that it is necessary to require students to be punctual and in attendance for instructional purposes each school day. C. _ ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES To address the truancy problem the Little Rock School District has attempted a number of strategies over the years. ___ __________ revised its attendance policy at the beginning of the 1989-90 school year providing for increased parental contacts, clearly defined court referral procedures and more strict consequences for unexcused school absences as a way to discourage school truancy. However, the problem continues and appears to be used included court referrals The District alternatives have worsening. Other establishment of a Truancy Review Committee. and the COURT REFERRALS The parents of students covered under the state compulsory school attendance laws (5 years through 17 inclusive) ___ referred by school administrators to the Little Rock Municipal Court. Parents/guardians who are found to be negligent in their responsibility to ensure the daily school attendance of their child/children may be fined up to $ 50.00 per day as provided for through Act 473 of 1989. This intervention's effectiveness is limited to those truancy cases in which the parent is clearly shown to be at fault for the child's non are attendance. In those cases where the minor child refuses to attend school in spite of the parents efforts arrena efforts, the Municipal Court does not deem it appropriate to fine the parent. cases have been referred to the Pulaski County Juvenile Court on a FINS (Families in Need of Services) petition. These Because of the overwhelming number of serious juvenile cases the Pulaski County Juvenile Court has to deal with, truancy cases are a low priority and are not heard in a timely manner, structure for filing a FINS petition '\"/h ths tint -J also a barrier because many parents are financially unable to pay the filing fee. Unfortunately, very little support for truancy problems is available through the Juvenile Court. with the Court is Unfortunately, veryD. truancy review committee (TRO Committee in the four in the 1990-91 cases for students restructured es Famili schools es. Families were referred to the TRC Municipal Court referral. HowevS S2!?a PPohlem supported by New Futures, as an alternative to because so few schools i committee has not been IS , . 3t bGst activated for the 1993-94 school The year. Ss2%\"ou?a'\\^iv\"ea - the abdication Of thS DisSat^s rSSon.i^^^^^ as- an- institution. Moreover the Distileducational of ---------District recoanizes __ this magnitude cannot be support and involvement - recognizes that a problem of thr^oJA? the LRSD without the or tne total community. RECOMMENDATIONS Through a collaborative a truancy reduction proposal was developed.  ~ ~~'-J youth concerned community citizens Its goals are to: Reduce the truancy District. Identify non-enrolled rate in the Little Rock School school-age children/youth. support to truant ensure regular school attendance. between the school parents of truants. stuaents to district and Promote broad-based sohool/oommunity oon=eS\ns?^^ involvement in addressing This proposal unites the Little Rock School District and the Little Rook Police Department in a unique SrtnersMo\" . _ *  During school vonfh T.7ho~W~\" stop and question school- determine why they are not in  area to provide documentation that their ateenr ^f students cannot legitimate reason, the wtrolSIi wi 11 center designated bv the t-i n V ^^^^^port the student to 4800 West 26th Streit. School District located age children and are not in school. in a public If the students . , their absence from school the patrolman will transport a a qfnHom-t- 'll District located at or by LRSD personnel. staff to ensure that the been resolved. . sihher by a parent/guardian All cases will be followed up by center issues that precipitated the truancj have\" Our recommendation is cost-effective because human suocort of tho _____ oecause J of the fiscal and It provides a high support of parents, the business community leaders\nand it will Prese^^^^onsisteni support of the partners\nstrategy which has the and other will present visibility communitymessage to students and parents that school truancy will not be tolerated in the District. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of the Truancy Reduction Program is to reduce the truancy rate of LRSD students K4.4. J T ---------- covered by the Arkansas Compulsory School Attendance Law (ages 5 through 17 years, inclusive). inclusive). EVALUATION CRITERIA The LRSD will evaluate the program to effectiveness by using the following criteria: determine its F. decrease in truancy rate of targeted students when compared with 1992-93 attendance data\nimproved communication between parents and the school district as measured through parent contacts and structured feedback\nincreased support and involvement of the community in addressing school/community issues and concerns. IMPACT ANALYSIS expected that the implementation of XU xs. ejipeccea mat me a collaborative truancy will have a positive impact on both the school and community. The community will be reassured of ths n T chr -1 /-\u0026lt;- / o - The community will be reassured of the District's commitment to the education of all children. project will open the door for other collaborative between the District and The success of this future. opportunities community groups as they arise in the Desegregation Plan The education of all students in the LRSD cornerstones desegregation plan. of the implementation of this is one of the Successful program will support this commitment. Court Orders No negative impact is noted. Political Factors Failure to act aggressively to address  ^^g^^ssively to address the truancy problem would be perceived negatively by the community. Risks Inability to sustain funding for the may be an issue that will need addressing. program in future years Timing The truancy program is  - X.' -- currently being implemented with excellent support from the Little Rock Police and other community partners. Department Failure to continue the programG. would cause the District to loose valuable community support in resolving response. a problem that requires RESOURCE ANALYSIS united community a The District share of the costs for implementing this program through the end of the 1993-94 school year are projected to be $58,943 to cover personnel, transportation, utilities, equipment and supplies. Our community partners have pledged $63,840 to support the program financially and are also assisting in the recruitment and training of the volunteer staff. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this project are church leaders, the Little Rock Police Department, youth servicing agencies. New concerned Futures and other citizens. These supporters recognize the need for a total community response to the education of all children and youth in the city of Little Rock. Detractors to the program may be parents or other citizens who have misinformation regarding the programs goals and a lack of understanding of the role to be played by the Little Rock Police Department. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The assistant superintendent for secondary schools and the director of pupil services have primary responsibility for program implementation and monitoring and to ensure that objectives are accomplished as outlined in the proposal. Monthly status and written quarterly reports will be presented to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors.BUSINESS CASE ROMINE INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMMUNICATION STATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Information Age of today and the future requires new approaches to education and classroom environment. The amount of factual information available to us increases at a more rapid rate than we can\npossibly learn and retain by using traditional educational methods. Students today need to know where and how to obtain information, evaluate which pieces of information are relevant to the problem they are trying to solve, and be able to apply the problem-solving processes necessary to guide their group to a successful conclusion. The Communication Station proposal seeks to create opportunities for teachers and students that are aimed at bringing information and technology together. A. Background The success of Romine Interdistrict School hinges upon student opportunities and staff competence and preparation. The Communication Station proposal that engages in new ideas and approaches actually provides profitable learning experiences for students, teachers, and administrators of Romine. In a very unique way, the Communication Station allows video and audio capabilities in the classroom via satellite technology. The importance of keeping up with the latest technological advances benefits all, but also allows us to applaud the efforts of the Little Rock School District, especially Romine Interdistrict Elementary School. The effectiveness of this proposal will certainly help parents of the greater Little Rock metropolitan area to realize just how attractive Romine is. This is definitely the answer to one aspect of interdistrict schools in the Little Rock School District. It simply has to lead to more success. B. Analysis of Alternatives The present and future benefits of a program rich in staff development opportunities and authentic student achievement experiences cannot be served by traditional educational methods. We are convinced that we must sustain and improve upon the difference that is now the perception of our work with students. The chance of doing so only happens through a willingness to totally and completely ready our students for the 21st century. This is virtually impossible without this significant change.C. Objective The objective of the preceding recommendations is to adequately support and enhance the critical aspects of the Communication Station and make other curricula efforts easier for students, teachers, and administrators of Romine. D. Expected Benefits The positive effects of the Communication Station fit the goals and objectives of our school theme: \"Computer Science and Basic Skills.\"  Problem Solving processes tied to familiar skills in math, language arts, science, and social studies\n Regular opportunities for childrens optimum learning (higher-order thinking skills, communication, leadership, and study skills)\n Interactive instructional software/hardware technology (satellite communications)\n Cooperative learning ventures/projects\n Staff development and training\nand  Technical support for students, teachers, and administrators E. Impact Analysis The Communication Station is designed to provide the instructional staff with tools to enhance their positions as instructional leaders. Teachers will use a state-of-the-art delivery system to conference with field experts, to participate in thematic instruction, and to share materials and ideas with each other. Teachers are likely to explore many more opportunities for students because of credible leadership coming from on-site specialists, field experts, and other teachers across the nation. The proposal also allows the technology to become a tool for students, as well. Finally, it should be noted that the promise of Romine Interdistrict Elementary School can be significantly increased by this effort. 2F. Resources Analysis Existing staff members with an understanding of the schools theme, curricula expectations, computer technology, and the principles of the Communication Station are willing to take on the challenges basic to new staff positions. G. Force Field Analysis Support for the Communication Station and other recommendations will be nothing less than great. Clearly, anticipated excitement will be widespread, enabling all teachers, students, parents, district administrative staff, school board members, and members of the community to support and share in what will be accomplished by full participation in this proposal. Again, we are convinced that this is the best professional decision to be made on behalf of the students of the 21st century\nfortunately, we are talking about the students of Romine. Educational researchers all over the country acknowledge that such programs are highly valued. For this reason, school districts are sufficiently applying and devoting dollars to this kind of refinement and development. We do not want to bypass this opportunity. 3BUSINESS CASE SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Superintendent of the Little Rock School District is dedicated and committed to developing for this state and for this community. the finest educational system in the nation. He is also committed to a strong leadership team and believes the Little Rock School District has organization, all with of the accomplish that goal. the exception elements present in its of a few individuals, current to However, to accomplish the desegregation goals there are needs within the organization that cannot be met by individuals who are currently employed by the system. Therefore, at this point, after having been Superintendent for approximately two months, he has found it necessary to add a person to the administrative team with skills not identified in members of the current leadership team. In this business case, the Superintendent is establishing the need for a Special Assistant to the Superintendent that would be engaged to carry out specific responsibilities related to planning, grant writing. district advocacy and governmental relations. This position would allow the District to reach into other areas that have not been explored or developed to the fullest extent. One such area is that of governmental relations. Federal grant writing to a more extensive degree needs to be explored and we must expand our relationships with state legislators, and those who work for them. commitments support. This person could also assist in meeting the District's for increasing parent involvement and community A. BACKGROUND Little Rock School District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school districts, including safety and security, urban flight, racial and financial issues and aging buildings. The District's implementation of a very costly desegregation plan and escalating non-desegregation costs presents an accepted challenge of securing additional revenues. Prior to the 1989-90 school year, the previous administration and Board of Directors negotiated settlement included a a settlement with the parties. financial settlement with the This Arkansas. Several essential issues are apparent, financial settlement and present local/state fundings state of first the to implement the are not the sufficient plan. Concerns regarding perception of inequities of resources in our area schools and the use of non-recurring revenue to balance our budget must also be addressed.B. PROBLEM DEFINITION To give a piece of background on why this position is important, I would have to reflect on the current organization chart which addresses basic areas of the District's operations, but does not address the need of the District to be more actively involved in securing additional federal and state funds. The organizational chart does not address the need for the District to become more heavily involved with governmental agencies or other funding sources. It should be pointed out that while some of these functions were performed, they were not performed to the extent they will need to be in the future as we grow and restructure the District to meet the needs of the 21st Century. As we look at the potential budget crisis in the District, the need for new dollars at the state level and the community is extremely essential to school district funding. It becomes incumbent on the school district to look at ways of securing funding for additional programs and services that are currently required by District students, parents and the community served by the school system. While the District has been engaged in securing some of these federal fundings, the background seems to suggest to me we have not been as proactively involved in this area, and we need to be more attentive to these areas if we are to get beyond the criticisms that are heaped on school systems across the country. Some criticism seems to suggest that educators are insensitive to the fact that there is a limit to which individuals in our community are to be taxed for education services. Therefore, we need to have in place a process that will allow us to find other revenue streams to meet our operational costs. In response to these concerns and perceptions, the Superintendent is proposing that we employ an individual to work with the District to explore the possibilities of expanding this vital area. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES After a careful evaluation of the current staff by the Superintendent, those individuals who are in the District who have some responsibility associated with this area cannot take on any more duties without losing effectiveness in their present areas of responsibility. This analysis seems to suggest that while we have capable people on staff, the scope of their responsibility in meeting the day to day operational needs of their departments and schools does not suggest sufficient flexibility to add to their positions. However, it does suggest that another position should be added to the District to take on these responsibilities. D. RECOMMENDATION It is the Superintendent's recommendation that we employ an individual to work with the District: 1. To have primary responsibility for formulatinggrant proposals in such areas as narrative applications, budget formulation and programmatic implementation. 2. To have the responsibility for the implementation of the school district's commitment desegregation, parental involvement, community support, etc. regarding 3. To assist in the development of schools as the center for enriching the social, recreational, and educational life of the community. E. OBJECTIVE The objectives for this person will be to work in an advocacy position for the District to secure federal funding and increase the revenue from federal sources and also identify other areas at the state and federal level where resources may be obtained to aide in the fiscal abilities and strengths of the District to deliver a quality educational plan to the citizens of Little Rock. Evaluation The effectiveness of the position will be determined by the amount of additional revenue generated as well as successful implementation of LRSD's strategy regarding parental involvement and community support. Expected Benefits Additional funding secured by the District will allow the District to meet obligations identified in our Desegregation Plan and other court approved documents. The District will also work to enhance parent and community involvement in decision making and communication. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS It is anticipated that the addition of this position will assist the District in remaining solvent and is to be considered a strategy for addressing our shortfall of funding. Desegregation Additional funding will assist the District in meeting its commitment to our children and patrons. / 1\n^ involvement components are supported by the efforts of this staff The parent/community member. Court Order The District would be afforded greater opportunity to meet its obligations.G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS The necessary resources for this position are generated from several positions that have not been filled by the District. The grant writer position has been combined with the duties of the Special Assistant to the Superintendent. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the Board, central office staff, some principals, teachers and parents. This recommendation can assist the District to provide needed resources in our area schools. The primary detractors will be persons concerned with our ability to remain solvent as well as the addition of other top level administratorsODM @1002/002 CKCBBBS I Little Rock School District RELEASE December 2,1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;SB\u0026gt;jiUilji The Little Rock School District has nieetingtobeheldi scheduled a special board agenda meeting at 5 ^mediately foUovrfng e regularly scheduled includes the following topics: agenda 1. Discussion of e new LRSD Organizational Chart 2. Nurses Agreement Koudue to the Superintendent) ' position for the assistant 4-Format for agenda meetings. ^rTTiT 810 West Markham Street Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor December 3, 1993 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: At last Augusts hearing on the LRSD 1993-94 budget, the Court reviewed the budget and numerous related business cases. The Court closely questioned LRSD about the business case that reduced the districts Communication Assistant to a part-time position. Judge Wright advised the district that the Court would particularly watch this staff reduction because it appeared to be a retreat from the Interdistrict Plan which requires the districts to search for ways to increase the number of staff responsible for public relations programs. In its August 26, 1993 order, the Court expressed strong concerns about the Communications staffing change because it represented a reduction that created the potential for negatively affecting desegregation progress: \"The Court questions the effect that losing a full-time Communications Assistant will have on the districts ability to meet its plan obligations.\" I understand that, although it was approved by both your Board of Directors and judge Wright several months ago, the Communications Assistant position still remains open. Even though you have been in the process of reorganizing your staff, leaving this half-time position vacant for so long a time (the fiscal year is now half gone) is particularly troubling in light of the Courts pointed concern that a part-time position may not be enough to help the district meet its desegregation obligations. I also understand that the Communications director recently has been charged with coordinating the districts recruitment efforts, a new responsibility that inevitably leaves her less time to spend on regular communication duties and creates yet another void in the Communications office. Please let me know the date by which the Court can expect the Communication Assistants position to be filled. Also, will this position still be part-time or will it be full-time in light of the directors increased responsibilities? Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown 04-04-1994 11:ISAM FROM TO 3710100 P.05 1 I1 i i i I i i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1 March 31, 1994 ! II TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ke nr intendent II SUBJECT: Proposal Funding of Business Cases I ji j I1 Per your request, attached are itemized listings of costs for implementing business cases as submitted for your review on March 29, 1994. I I I I I I I 1i I II 04-04-1994 11:ISAM FROM TO 3710100 P.02 1 I I I ! 1 BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY I  INCENTIVE SCHOOLS (Required - Double Funding) 1. 2. SCHOOL Franklin ITEM AMOUNT I ! 1 i Rockefeller 3. . Rightsell 4. Mitchell 5, Garland 6. Stephens Theme 1.0 Spanish teacher $40,000 25,000 1.0 Aide - Alternative Classroom Specialist 1.0 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher Teciinology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher No impact on Incentive School Budget. 12,000 25,000 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 O' J I I I I I I I i i04-04-1994 11:17AM FROM TO 3710100 P.03 BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY II  DESEGREGATION PLAN/ADE (Required - Need Funding) t I 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. department English Math/Lang. Arts Science/Voc. Ed. Science English/For. Lang. Science ITEM English as a Second Language Math/Lang Arts Revision Applied Biology/Chemistry Science Revision For. Language Revision Hands-on Science amount S 75,880 21,100 93,000* 10,000 7,500 25,000 o. Total $139,480 * Fund source - Carl Perkins (No LRSD funds) I I04-04-1994 11:17AM FROM TO 3710100 P.04 [ \u0026lt; i i j i i 1 BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY III - RELATED DESEGREGATION/ADE I i i (Not Required'But Essential) DEPARTMENT/SCHOOT. ITEM AMOUNT L Science/Math (K-3) Science/Math Readin g S 18,000 2. t I 1 o. 4. 5. Foreign Language Social Studies Romine Foreign Language { I I Foreign Lang. K-12 Revision (UALR) Secretary Theme Specialist For. Lang. Immersion Total 15,000 18,000 (use existing position in District) 3,000 S 54,000 GRAND TOTAL $193,480 i I i i I I 1 f I04-04-1994 11:15AM FROM TO 3710100 P.01 Arkansas Democrat^^azette FAX NUMBER: NEWS ROOM: (501) 372-3908 DATE: TO: FAX NUMBER: NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: H pgge-S MESSAGE: 2lka_6jvLin2j4L_:OLe lArrAhUrin Xu\u0026lt; rrnijgi CAPiTOLAIMD SCOTT  P.O. BOX 2221  little rock, ARKANSAS 72203-2221  (501) 378-3400 SUPERINTENDENTS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1994-95 PROGRAM ADDITIONS/DELETIONS/MODIFICATIONS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASES - 1993-94 STATUS REPORT SCHOOL AND/OR PROGRAM MANAGER Dennis Glasaow/Carol Green BUSIINESS CASE Applied Biology and Chemistry/VocationaI Education PROGRAM STATUS\nX Addition Deletion Modification REQUIRED OR SUPPORTS DESEGREGATION PLAN: Q Yes No REQUIRED OR SUPPORTS STATE REQUIREMENTS: Q Yes No  NOT REQUIRED BUT ESSENTIAL TO DISTRICT: Q Yes No REQUESTED LEVEL OF FUNDING $93,000 (Carl Perkins Funds) RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF FUNDING $93,000 Submitted by Superintendent HPWnkiySTARPT.BC 105BUSINESS CASE APPLIED BIOLOGY AND CHEmSTRY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Act 980 of 1991 passed by the Arkansas General Assembly creates state statutory requirements for the establishment of a Tech Prep By regulation the State core curriculum for high school pT-ngr-ams. Board of Education identified the minimum core of courses for technical preparation. Three units of science are required. One or two of these units can be earned by taking applied science courses that are the equivalent of college preparatory courses. Applied Biology and Chemistry I and II (a two year sequence) are the equivalent of biology. Act 969 of 1993 mandates that students who graduate from high school after May 1, 1997, shall have successfully completed either the college preparatory core curriculum or the technical core curriculum institutions for public four-year unconditional to . of higher education. Act establishes qualifications for valedictorian and salutatorian and distinction admission 1117 as an honor graduate of a high school. These qualification include successful completion of either the college preparation core curriculxan or the technical preparation core curriculum. The Little Rock School District must have in place a technical preparation core curriculum for ninth grade students in the 1993-94 Applied Math I was implemented for ninth grade students this school year (1993-94). Applied Math II and Applied Biology and Chemistry I will need to be implemented beginning in Finally, Applied Biology and school year. 1994-95 for tenth grade students. Chemistry II will need to be implemented in 1995-96 for eleventh grade students to complete the State mandated applied math and science sequence. A. BACKGROUND Tech Prep is a national movement to better prepare students for the complexities of life in the 21st century. The Tech Prep program was first conceived to better prepare students for the dememds of our increasingly complex economy and workplace by delivering stronger mathematics, skills. science, communication, and technology It has since been funded through the federal Carl Perkins Act and endorsed by employer communities around the country. Tech Prep/Applied Academics is consistent with the type of educational reform advocated by the SCANS Report (Secretary's Council on Achieving Necessary Skills): skills is 'in context'. . n \"The most effective way of teaching At the same time that the federal government was advocating restructuring in vocational, mathematics and science education, the Arkansas General Assembly was also mandated restructuring. Act 980 of 1991 requires that schools establish a Tech Prep core 106curriculum. The Tech Prep program was adopted to eliminate the artificial division between \"academic\" and \"vocational.\" The competencies of all students in math, communication, science and technology must be raised regardless of whether students are college-bound or work-bound according to the Tech Prep pyngr-am philosophy. Tech Prep is considered a \"dual-purpose program of study,\" meaning that upon completion of the Tech Prep core, students are prepared to enter a vocational or technical program, a college preparatory program or a combination of the two. The regulations that accompany Arkansas Act 980 of 1991 identified the math and science courses that comprise the College Prep and Technical Prep core curriculum. - -  ... - - In both Math and Science, an applied academics course sequence can substitute for traditional college prepeuratory courses in the Tech Prep core curriculum For instance Applied Math I and Applied Math II are the equivalent of Algebra I and may be taken to meet the Algebra I graduation requirement. Likewise, Applied Biology and Chemistry I and II are the equivalent of biology and can be taken to meet the biology graduation requirement. courses Applied Math and Applied Biology and Chemistry are developed by the Center for Occupational Research and Development Forty four states, including Arkansas, have participated The CORD (CORD). in the consortium to implement these two courses. curricula are the only ones accepted by the State of Arkansas ^d ?funded through the Carl Perkins Act. The Applied Math and Applied 'Biology and Chemistry curricula developed by CORD are competencybased, occupationally related, and have the materials packaged in modular form. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION An applied science course must be implemented in 1994-95 to conform Currently, Applied Math I is offered at the ninth   (Applied Math II) will be There is no approved applied science to State Law. grade level and the second year implemented in 1994-95. course that is part of the LRSD Program of Studies. c. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 4 The acceptable alternative is to begin an applied science sequence The second year of the sequence can be  If applied science sequence is not implemented, the District will lose federal and state fxinds and lose State accreditation. In offering the applied science sequence, two approved courses are available\nApplied Biology and Chemistry (ABC) I and II and Principles of Technology (PT) I and II. ABC I and II cire the equivalent of and substitute for biology. PT I and II are the equivalent of and sxxbstitute for physics. beginning in 1994-95. implemented in 1995-96. ABC I and II can be offered either in grades 9-10 or grades 10-11. A grades 9-10 implementation would require almost twice as much equipment and supplies since grade 9 is in junior high and grade 10 107Much of the ABC I equipment and supplies and ABC II equipment and supplies are the same. is in senior high. The duplication of equipment and supplies could be eliminated if ABC I and II are both offered at the high school level. The high schools already have much of the equipment for ABC I and II (e.g., microscopes, safety The remainder of the equipment and supplies can be equipment). purchased with Carl Perkins start-up funds during the 1993-94 school year. Carl Perkins funds cannot be used after 1993-94. Many certified biology teachers are available to teach ABC I and II after they receive special training the summer. PT I and II can be offered either in grades 10-11 or grades 11-12. Neither arrangement would be more expensive than the other. All five high schools have some PT equipment and supplies since Unified Physics, an existing District course, uses some of the PT units. The PT component of Unified Physics has not been supported by the majority of the physics teachers in the District. Physics teachers are in short supply and numerous extra sections would necessitate additional staff. Carl Perkins The equipment and supplies for PT I and II can be purchased with Carl Perkins fxinds during 1993-94. fiinds cannot be used after 1993-94 for this purpose. D. RECO ATTON The Little Rock School District administration recommends that Applied Biology and Chemistry I be offered in the tenth grade beginning with the 1994-95 school year with Applied Biology and Chemistry II to follow in the eleventh grade in 1995-96. Current year Carl Perkins (1993-94) fluids will be used to purchase start-up materials and equipment for both courses. E. OBJECTIVE Applied Biology and Chemistry I and II will be implemented in 1994- 95 and 1995-96 respectively to meet State and Federal requirements and to provide students with the academic skills to have several career and/or training options upon graduation. The objective supports District goals #1,2,3, and 4. The applied science program will help students grow academically (goal #1) while teaching skills in the context of real life situations. The Tech Prep concept is that all students must be prepared as contributors to society (goal #3) by providing them with a rigorous program of study that will give them career and training options upon graduation. Outside funding will be used to support the program (goal #4) through the Carl Perkins Act. Finally, teachers of the applied science program will receive special training during the summer of 1994 (goal #2). 108F. evaluation criteria Implementation of the Applied Biology and Chemistry program will be evaluated by: 1. 2. 3. Students will enroll in ABC I during the 1994-95 school year and ABC II during the 1995-96 school year. ABC teachers will receive summer training. ABC students will also take a unit of chemistry or physics. Post graduation surveys by Pupil Services will indicate that the number of students who go to college or technical school after graduation has increased. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1.) Progreim The Applied Science program will allow the District to comply with State and Federal requirements. It will give students a relevant, hands-on science course that will prepare . graduation. them to take advantage of options after 4. The Applied Science Program will infuse tens of thousands of dollars of science equipment auid supplied into our The high schools using federal Carl Perkins funds, program will likely negatively impact a science course currently offered called \"Science Technology.\" \"Science Technology\" is an applied course but is not sanctioned by the State or Federal Government as a Tech Prep course. \"Science Technology\" will probably suffer from sparse enrollment and be deleted from the District's science curriculum.after ABC becomes fully operational. 2.) Desegregation Plan The Applied Science program will not negatively impact the Desegregation Plan. The Applied Science curriculum will support the vocational education goal found on page 104 of the Desegregation Plan: \"Upgrade courses, equipment and instructional methodology to reflect current and projected technology for job market needs.\" Tech Prep, of which applied science is a component, is designed to better prepare students for the demands of our increasingly complex economy and workplace by delivering stronger mathematics, science, communications. This certainly supports the goal and technology skills. in the Desegregation Plan. 109G. 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) Court Order No negative impact is noted. Political Factors Failure to implement the applied science curriculum would be a violation of State and Federal Requirements. Some parents and students may complain because students in the Tech Prep core curriculum must complete 4 units of science in contrast to 3 units in the College Prep core ctirriculum {2 units of applied biology and chemistry = 1 unit of biology thus accounting for the extra unit). Risk Risks of not implementing would be loss of federal funds and State accreditation. Risks of implementing include a possible negative reaction from some parents and students about 4 units of science being needed to meet Tech Prep core curriculum requirements. They may complain that 4 units of science decrease the opportunity to take elective courses. Timing Applied science must be implemented in 1994-95 to meet State and federal requirements, RESOURCES ANALYSIS Training 2 Teachers per school X 5 Schools X $100/day X 10 days = Textbooks, Equipment, Supplies, Manipulatives = Total H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS $10,000 $?2.QQQ $92,000 The primary supporters of this project are the business and industrial community who want to see graduates who are better prepared to assume jobs in the marketplace. Detractors may include some parents and students difficulty meeting graduation requirement for Tech Prep. who have I.  SAL IXFL' NATION PLAN The Supei^risor of Science has responsibility for the curriculum aspects of the Applied Science proposal. The Director of Vocational Education has responsibility for the financial and preparing the Carl Perkins reporting aspects of the proposal: grant, ordering equipment and supplies, filing required reports, etc. The Director of Staff Development will help coordinate the training aspect of the proposal. 110Carl Perkins grant submitted 6/1/94 Dir. of Voc Ed. Principals and counselors notified 11/1/93 - 11/31/93 of Tech Prep Requirements and Textbooks Dir. of Voc Ed. Materials, Supplies, and Textbooks Ordered 1/3/94 - 2/28/94 Dir. of Voc. Ed. Supv. of Science Details of Program is Discussed with Counselors 2/17/94 Supv. of Science Teachers to be trained identified 2/1/94 - 5/1/94 Supv. of Science Principals Program is Discussed with Students 3/1/94 - 5/29/94 Counselors Students Registration 3/14/94 -5/20/94 Principals Counselors Teacher Training Occurs 6/1/94 - 8/15/94 Supv. of Science Dir. of Staff Dev. Program Implementation 8/ /94 - 6/5/95 Principals Teachers Reporting on the implementation of Applied Biology and Chemist^ will be done by the Director of Vocational Education as part or me  Carl Perkins grant requirements. \u0026lt; ./ 111BUSINESS CASE ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (ESL) PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently, the district is operating an ESL progreim which provides tutorial services for identified non-English speaking/limited English proficient students. The progreim was established in 1991 in an effort to achieve compliance with federal laws and state regulations. The primary goal of toe LRSD ESL Progreim is to assist non-English speaking or limited English proficient students in acquiring toe level of English language skill necesseiry for parity of participation in the standard instructional progreim. The ESL students are identified by the local schools through a referral process that links them with the ESL program. The program is managed through the office of communications, English, ESL, and foreign languages, which supervises the six part-time tutors who staff the program. assigned to the referred students for a minimian of one hour These tutors are of pull-out language instruction each week. The tutors travel to the students' schools and assist the principals, teachers, and coxinselors in devising a support plan for each student assigned to them. The district proposes to continue the ZSL program for the 1994-95 school year and to continue to develop it so that full compliance with federal laws and state regulations is, ult^ately, achieved. The 1994-95 program will serve a minimum of 100 students through the services of eight tutors. Additional program components will include the provision of adequate materials and supplies\ndevelopment program\na comprehensive staff and identified/referral/assessment/evaluation process. revised A. BACKGROUND a In late April, 1993, the district conducted a Home Language Survey at the request of the Arkansas Department of Education (AUE) . All 50 of the district's (regular) schools were asked to administer the survey to all students in all classrooms at all grade levels, K-12. The district succeeded in obtaining a 50% to 60% average response rate from the 50 involved schools. The Home Language Survey results revealed 400+ students who were potentially eligible for English as a Second Language (ESL) services because a language other than English was identified as the primary language used in their homes. 1 90These 400 students represented 66 distinct language groups, other than English. The results of the 1993 Home Language Survey confirm sizeable ESL eligible population in the district. a Federal laws, which have been enacted to support and protect civil rights, require the district to provide whatever services are necessary to ensure that ESL identified students can succeed in mainstreamed classrooms. Because the laws do not recognize a language barrier as a handicapping condition or as the district cannot provide such a skills deficit, services for these students through existing Chapter One or Compensatory Education programs. B, PROBLEM DEFINITION The district is not in full compliance with federal laws and state regulations regarding the provision of services to nonEnglish speaking and English limited proficient students necessary for parity of participation in the standard instructional program. Failure to comply with state regulations as outlined in the revised Arkansas Public Schools Standards for Accreditation may result in loss of state aid and district accreditation. Failure to realize the full intent of federal legislation may result in a lawsuit Failure to against the district on behalf of ESL students. respond to the needs of ESL students will results in education deprivation which will become a life-long handicap for these students. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES There is no other alternative available to the district. Provision of special ESL services is a local responsibility and it cannot be supplemented through special education or compensatory education programs. D. KECOy ATIONS The district administration recommends to fully fund the ESL progrcim-, for the 1994-95 school year and to continue to develop it so that full compliance with federal laws and state regulations is, ultimately, achieved. The 1994-95 progrcim should serve a minimum of 100 students through the services of eight tutors. Additional program components should include the provision of adequate materials and supplies\na comprehensive staff development program\nand a identification/referral/assessment/evaluation revised process. 2 91. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of the continuation of the ESL program is to achieve parity for participation in the standard instructional program for all ESL identified students. EVALUATION CRITERIA F. The evaluation criteria for the 1994-95 LRSD ESL Program will include family/parent, patron, principal, guidance counselor, tutor, and student satisfaction with the ESL program\ntutor, teacher, principal, guidance counselor, and family satisfaction with ESL staff parent/fanily development\nexcunples of student work demonstrating achievement of program ooal/obiectives\nresults of goal/objectives\nteacher-made tests\nobservations in classrooms that identify teaching/leaming\n____________ reflecting appropriate materials and supplies\nand total number students exiting the program into the mainstreamed learning setting. quality inventories of IMPACT ANALYSIS The continuation of the LRSD ESL Program will have a positive impact on the schools, the district's learning achievement, district persoimel, parents/families, patrons and students. The result will be increased community and state support. DESEGREGATION PLAN The LRSD ESL Program personifies the desegregation plan It clearly demonstrates multiculturalism intent. infusion. COURT ORDER No negative impact is noted. POLITICAL FACTORS/RISKS Failure to continue the ESL progreun at the proposed level of funding will result in great risk to the district, the prospect of loss of accreditation, loss of state aid, and probable lawsuits. including TIMING Continued implementation of the ESL progreim during the 1994-95 school year is critical to the district and its clients. 3 q9G. RESOUHCE ANALYSIS The following allocations will be necessary to adequately fund the LRSD ESL Program for the 1994-95 school year: 1. Salaries 8 tutors X $1,500 per week X 36 weeks = $54,000 ($15 per hour X 100 hours per week) 8 tutors X $45 per month X 9 months ($15 per hour X 3 hours per month for prep) Total salary cost 3,240 - $57,240 2. Materials and supplies $10 per student X 100 students $50 per school X 50 schools Total materials and supplies cost = $ 1,000 = 2,500 = $ 3,500 3. Staff development * $45 per day X 2 days X 100 teachers (Substitute teacher pay) $90 per day X 5 days X 8 tutors (Tutor stipends) $5 X 108 participants (Training packets) Total staff development cost - $ 9,000 3,600 540 = $13,140 4. Assessment/Evaluation , $20 X 100 students \" 3 Total Assessment/Evaluation cost $ 2.000 $ 2,000 ' Total program cost - $75,880 '8 H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of the LRSD ESL Program are the tutors, classroom teachers, guidance counselors, administrators, parents, students, patrons, and government. There are no known detractors. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The supervisor of commtmications, English, ESL, and foreign languages will have the primary responsibility for organizing and implementing the ESL program. The supervisor will hire the tutors and coordinate the referral process with building principals. The supervisor will also oversee the procurement of materials and supplies and will plan staff development. 4 93LEGAL ggQWRgMgnS Summery Of ^edercl mondates tor th* Pfoygiop p/ Cqugi Ediirrrrionrri O^nort' jnitv tn Mctionel Onoin Mmorffv Students  1. No discrimination or exclusion from benefits on the ground of roce. color or national ongtn. Title VI. CrvO Rights Act of 1964 (1964) 20 U.S.C. sec. 20CDd. 2. No denial of access to porticioction in sctiool programs because of language. No segregation by tracking, ability grouping end assignment to special education. No exclusion of parents from school infonmarion. Pottinger. J.^(Director. OCR/DHEW) (1570) Memorandum to School Districts With More Than nve Percent National Origin-Minority Group Children regarding Identificotion of Discrimination and Denial of Services on the of Notional Origin. 35 Federal Register 11595. 3. No discrimination of exclusion from benefits solely on the basis of o handicapping condition. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1973) sec. 504.29 U3.C. sec.794 4. Take affirmotive steps to provide LP students special instruction designed to overcome their sngfish language deficiency. There is no ecuaSty of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, text books, teachers, end Curriculum' for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meoningfui education. Leu V. Nicnois (1574) 414 U.S. 563. 5. No uniowtui denial of equol educational opportunity to NOM individuois. A Districts must take appropriate action to eaual porticipotion. overcome languoge barriers that impede Eduol Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (1974) 20 U3.C. sec.l7C3(n. 6. Use the home language os needed for home school communication and parent mvolvement. IE? may provide thot instruction be corned out bSinguolty. Education for AH Handicapped Children Act (1975120 U.S.C. sec. 1401. 'pP exceptional students hove a rightto receive bilingual services Jose P. V. Amboph (1979) EHLR 3 551: 245 (P n N y.) Y.S.. et oL. V. School Distrief of Philadelphia (1986) CA. 85-6924 (LD. PA) 8. An appropriate program is based on a sound theory, allocates sufficient resources to the program to implement the theory, and can demonstrate effectiveness in  teaching English end other subject areas, leading to parity of participation in the sroncord instructionol program Ccstoneac v. Pckcrd (1961) 648 F.2d 989 (Sth Ci.). 9. States must estabfish stondords and guidefines for service to NOM students end monitor school disnicts for compfiance with those standards. Idaho MigrOTt CouncS v. Board of Education G981) 647 F2nd 69 (9th Ci). Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education (1967) 811 F. 2nd 1C30 (7th Ci). 10. Foreign-bom NOM students hove constitutional Flyer v. Doe (1952) 457 U3. TfT? protection. 11. staff members serving LS? students must be trained and Bngusticclly ouaCfied. Both oral end wntten skills of LE. students ms be assessed for exit pu.'pcses. program entry end Districts must monitorttie progress of students offer exit. An eppropnete program enables L=? students to uttimetety compete cccdemiccliy witn inglis-n speaking peers. Keyes v. School Distnet No. 1 (1983) 576 F. Supp 1533 (D. Colorado) vv 94SmrmgY Sf Mcigf HgagnlhWIea d. pmet^ to Ng^one^ origin Minority Students. 1. Identity NOM Jtudents. 2. Assen NOM rucents to identify L? riudents. J. Estcaisn enteric for entry into, ejot from, end recicssifiddtion into trie oftemetive progrom for L students. Oid^ncse instrudtiondi needs ond Dfcvide on driemotiye progran whidfi meets L Students specioi needs for Engiisft Icnguoge instruction, for undetsrondoOle ^CTon ,n otner content orecs. one for positive seif concept end idenrificdtion Witt) meir cuiturci tientoges.\n. Previce oopropridte end compdroOle insrtuctionol 6. oocoftunrties. Provide dudiified tedoners. mdteridls dftd srctf troining a. 9. IC. 11. Provide ecud cccess to other district progrems end senrices. Provide for pcrentcl involvement. Mentfor the progress of students offer progrem eat end reciessify students os needed. cvciudte tne e/temetrve progrem ond revise os needed. Moinroin student records. a\n? n\ngTUC7 mmv Amoen. A. N. cne Maianeai. S. E (1987) SSngue Eeucatiorr A Souceoooa. Naw Yonc Taecnen Caaaga Prao. ^ur**. f S. (1981) SiSngucawTi/BicuSureSun in Amencan Eaucstion: An Aevantira in Woneencne. Ihe Annes or me Amencan Acaaemy e Pgiitica one Soc:e Soer8 154.164-177 CCSSO Bjotirc cnff en ecucswnol ScaKV (IW05 Scnool Sueses lor Umtfta ^nqpn PreAocnr Stueann: tha Cncllanga ona Stora Besoorua. WeainQTon: CdSSO CiaTT!.ClW)fnBO\u0026gt;anna.'HnonryStuoano. Sccxmanro: CA8E. ^monaei. A. T. ena Pet S.WJ. (1989) Iha Rignt lo Sacawe BBnguel Saaciol catcanon. WaiTi Eaucanon Lew Beoonar. Augisr. 1989.1067-1091. Pemeneat a_ Menrr-Saine. t. ana Peirovien. J. (1989) Rwa Ctiei Hign Senool Orooour Stuey: Cherearetsne: at lsoar\u0026lt;c Hign Senool Stueann. Wemrigron: A5B1BA Asoociion. me. msButa lor Poiey Beiaraen. ffar. J. M.. ena Cairefe. J. W. (1938) Naw veieat: Ifwiiijmy Sluaans h tSl. Pusie Senoos. Bonon: Nenone CocMon e Aevoesrai tor Sluaaras. Aonee ScA/META (5/22/90) Proooiaa ESCt. Agreement tcaonosae: Deuui ii i lai e et Eoucanon. Soractai. P. (1988) taenraeet Aiarenca Moaula: Netlonot Origin OasagrageOon: Paeare Sreiurai ena Oiraenyai Bagoreing Nerione Oiigrt Stueans. Son Antonio: DSAJOaC-SCC. Lew. J. (tB85) BBneuoSan. BaeafCt Poiey on Banguet Eaucerton end Intaiciitieel Baicnoni. mramenenesJoune al inrarcunm Beienani 9.2.11G-iSQ. MBar. S_ Niccleu. S_ Oit. AA. Veieiviaio. S_ onaV/oSeer. S. (1990) too Lera to Batea: Becansieanng Saeano-Chenea Caaortuntiei tar HSacnc ana Omar Otoooun. wemeigton: Hoocnic PoPcv 0aeBment Ptotact in oaocicnon wdn ma Acaeamy tor Eaueanoncl Oeveiocmanr. nalEO Eaucation Puna (1990) EnglSn Plus LagSletive Bessat lor School Boera Memoen. waningron: NALEO Bcoi. P.O.. Baras. C. one Eiesoaeo. 0. (c.1988) tha Biam at Limitaa EnaBtft Broficienr Stueann: A Heneaooa tor Poretm ena ComrrBjruty AevoearaiAoi Saraenei ea lei Eirueienras con Conwao Limteea oat leome ir^qlas Merue oeie Poarei ca rcmae y Oalemorai ea le Camuniaaa. Sen rrencoea: META, wrm tna ceorcnca or CXAP. ScnBcga. B.. cne Canto Paeioerg. B. (1981) tha Stena or Eauaation lor Maseniei. Eaucaocnei Laceerme Jan.. 1981. Wonj. S. CT387) Tha Langucae Lacmna Stuctfcn at Alien ln\"i i i!cn Stueann in tna Unfee Stcrec A 'x^ra cne Pivcnoa^ausie PanoaerNc. na3 joune) 11.22-!34. 95SUPERINTENDENTS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1994-95 PROGRAM ADDITIONS/DELETIONS/MODIFICATIONS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASES - 1993-94 STATUS REPORT SCHOOL AND/OR PROGRAM MANAGER Rightsell Incentive - Sharon Davis BUSINESS CASE Technology Theme Implementation PROGRAM STATUS: Q Addition Deletion Modification REQUIRED OR SUPPORTS DESEGREGATION PLAN: Q Yes No REQUIRED OR SUPPORTS STATE REQUIREMENTS\nQ Yes No NOT REQUIRED BUT ESSENTIAL TO DISTRICT\nQ Yes No REQUESTED LEVEL OF FUNDING $125,732 RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF FUNDING $ 75,000 (maximum) Submitted by Superintendent HPW/Ua/STARiT.BC 45BUSINESS CASE RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL CAREER AWARENESS AND MASS MEDIA THEME EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The LRSD is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the local learning environment for all students, incentive schools are an integral part of that plan, and success is directly related to the success of the District's longterm desegregation plan. Each incentive school was required to develop and implement a school theme. Rightsell Incentive School Identified a theme of Career Awareness and Hass Hedia Technology. The Career Awareness component has been in place since the beginning of the 1993-1994 school year. This business case addresses the first phase of implementation of the Mass Media component. in place The and their This business case A. BACKGROUND Parents, teachers, administrators and community volunteers selected the \"Career Awareness and Hass Media Technology Awareness\" theme to provide learning opportunities that would foster positive social growth and produce responsible and productive citizens. building level theme development team reviewed the four core areas the Little Rock School District Curriculum and decided that Language Arts and Social Studies were areas that would support both the  Career Awareness and Hass Hedia Technology. TL_1_11_1..^ activities have been developed to implement the Career Awareness Component of the theme as follows: The The following L^S-^uer Outcomes for the Career Awareness Theme component were developed. Career Clusters were identified at each grade level. The cluster areas selected will create readiness for the Academics Program or Occupational/Technical Specialty Area. Our program, like the Arkansas Tech Prep Plan Establishes Higher Expectations of All Students by Integrating Academic and Vocational (Career) Education. Secondary-Level Applied The Rightsell Career Awareness curriculum offers a sequential program of study for all students. for low-level Our thrust is to eliminate the need unconnected academic coxirses. and vocational Social Skills Training, a skill development program, was designed to target behaviors that students need to be successful in solving, areas such as responsibility, problem goal setting, decision making. The and 465 counselor, classroom teachers, specialist, speakers teach the skills on a daily basis and reinforce them continually throughout the and resource year.  Industry site Visits, trips x.u.o.x, aice visits, field trips. Industry Adoption Pro^ams, and Youth leadership organizations/clubs xmpiementea. were related programs to support the Mass Media T chnology component were implemented - Closed Circuit Television, Rightsell Channel 36, Cable in the Classroom rogram-Storer Cable, Extended Day Newspaper-Using Aldus Pagem^er and Children's Writing and Publishing Center, and the Newspaper-In-Education Program. Closed Circuit  Career Planning/Educational Opportunity Research Activities were encouraged through campus site visits and mentorinterviews to empower students to become active participants in their academic planning and career preparation process. and Advanced Mass Media Technology is the future. .. ., , , ---------------sj  luuuxc, and usually not readily available to urban children in the home setting. A Laptop Computer Parent Loan Program is in place at Rightsell. We presently nave 3 laptop computers. They library/media loan program to classes, program and a 3-day Parent Loan Progr-am. school children the They are in constant use through the the Extended Day Class loan We must offer inner city . opportunity to learn about and become comfortable with this equipment and technology. The technological system we choose must be both state-of-the-art and capable of Rowing as new advancement become available. The Mass Media Technology Awareness component of the theme will be implemented throughout the Language Arts Curriculum. Teachers will integrate specific media communication activities at each grade level with key basic skills in the Language Arts Curriculum, components of the theme will\nThe Mass Media Teachers will integrate Specific Show the relationship between basic skills taught in the classrooms and used in every day mass media communication in the \"real world.\" Teach how technology enhances the communication process between people, businesses, and countries\nand teach how \"messages\" influence our lives. * Establish a student production studio (Rightsell Channel 36) and teach students how to communicate their ideas using communication technology, teacher transmissions student and controlled by the can play automatically or be teacher via a remote unit. Rightsell Channel 36 programs can be presented to selected classrooms or displayed throughout the school. 47* Challenge students to explore communication possibilities that e^end beyond their immediate family, friends, and community. Some of the existing communication systems include The Information Highway, FrEdMail, Internet and Distance Learning. Introduce students to career opportxinities related to Mass Media Communication. Learner Outcome for the Hass Media Technology Program Learner Outcomes for Mass Media Technology are linked directly to the LRSD Language Arts Program Outcomes. They are: Ability to communicate effectively using appropriate standards of grammar. Using writing thoughts/ideas/information. the process to convey Using tools of technology at an effective, efficient, flexible and adaptable level. Model effective listening and speaking skills to communicate and to succeed academically, socially, and economically. around Exhxbiting a better understanding of self, others, the world them through positive listening, speaking, reading and writing. and Ability to read with fluency attend to meaning of what is read. A theme specialist has been employed to assist in all phases of theme implementation, working with all staff, student and parents at the school. B. PROBLEM DEFIKITION In order to fully implement Rightsell's theme a plan has been developed to facilitate learning through the use of technology. Our theme requires that students advance to a higher level of through technology by becoming proficient in communication skills and interpersonal skills. Technology is an integral part of our theme that will be used to improve literacy skills, to motivate students to achieve and to adequately prepare them for the twenty-first century. 48district's To fully implement the Mass Media Technology Theme within the budgetary constraints, a fivephase process is recommended. Phase 1 Applied Communication Technology Basic Skills Program Enhancement Language Arts Skills that support the Mass Media Technology Theme will be identified. The Extended Day Program will be restructured and Enrichment Activities developed. enhance the Mass Media Technology Theme will be An interactive learning environment that promotes reading, writing learning across the curriculum will be established. Using the distributive method, five computer stations will be installed in each primary classroom. An Integrated Language Arts Program at the P^iary Level will be installed in each unit. This software will help students develop their emerging literacy and acquire the interconnected skills of reading and writing. Grades 4 6 will use the existing computer lab to assist in developing student proficiency in language, communication and self- directed research skills. A laser-printer and appropriate software will be added to allow student work to be printed. Intermediate Writing Process Model that guides students through pre-writing, drafting, revising, editing and publishing will be implemented. The components of that model are as follows: Literature-Based Writing Program is designed to help students master the interconnected activities of reading, writing and thinking. The Writing Program integrates reading and writing instruction in.realistic literacy tasks that encourage students to use language in meaningful contexts. Keys to Adventure (Keyboarding)teaches proper finger placement, and demonstrates correct reaches to the keys, shift keys and punctuation marks within the context of \"around the world\" activities. The Writing Processor combines the student-oriented word-processor with instruction in the five steps of the writing process. Phase 2 Computer Stations in the Fourth Grade Classrooms Five computer stations will be added to each fourth grade classroom, allowing for more integration of technology into the 49curricultm. Building on the foundation skills established at the grades, software at this level will be an updated version tne ath and reading software presently in use. The new software will also allow for increased connections the curriculum, presently in use. ------------- between areas of supporting the district's emphasis on thematic units and the holistic approach to teaching, assessment capabilities that will allow individualized lesson plans based on student deficiencies. The updated software for Phase 3 Computer Stations in Kindergarten Classrooms and Fifth Grade Classrooms Five Computers Stations will be placed in each fifth grade and At the fifth grade level students will use updated reading/math software with the capability of making , -------- Kindergarten students will use integrated language arts software in the classroom. kindergarten classroom. curriculum connections. j t in the classroom. Emerging literacy skills win  literature-based, thematic approach that Will no Ir^ ________________ will help build a strong foundation in critical language skills. Phase 4 Computer Stations in Sixth Grade and Pre-K Classrooms computer stations will be placed in each sixth grade classroom and three stations will be placed in the four-year-old (Pre-K) this phase of implementation all students will utilize technology within the classroom setting. classroom. sixth grade is an extension of the reading/math software in place for fourth and fifth grade. continue to be emphasized. Thematic units will Software for fouryearold will provide developmentally appropriate experiences for the young child. It will be built around a variety of multi-ethnic literature, science, and mathematics units. This early childhood and emerging literacy language program stresses that children grow into reading and writing with no real beginning ending point, that reading and writing develop concurrently and interrelatedly and according to no one right sequence or order. This Many of our students come to us deficient in language readiness skills. Students in early childhood programs must be immersed in skills. literacy experiences. in order to meet the first national educational goal set by the President and 50 governors in 1990: the year 2000 all children shall start school ready to learn.\" In \"By 50given the is inevitable. Technology provides ,. -  vehicle that will motivate engage the pre-school child. motivate, captivate and Phase S Career Demonstration Lab Teacher Resource Lab/Interactive Development Center. Media Oesigu and Telecommunications Product Parent Training/conference Training/Production Center Canter Due to the budgetary constraints LI _ 7.. S iinan'Sr for implem'entin^'phale inance this Career Demonstration LaL i, sponsorships and public donations. student work stations that of the LRSD, Rightsell School will 5. We will work I^b through grant writing, computer scanner retail The lab will include allow hands-on career experiences. center will be established to control A inventoT-v eauaoxisnea to conuroi Sto?r 7siltiatsd  in the Rightsell Roadrunner Student SSonkitVon^ installed with monthly ArkaSS\nCos.etoloqy, and Hair Care Pr'4ct ,etc ... The Career Demonstration Ta. a.  ------------ Lab will also house Interactive Training Lab for provide a state-of-the art Multimedia, video. a Computer Based parents and teachers. The Lab will computer lab featuring integrated and presentation hardware as well as classroom ___J  ' ------------------------------iiaiuwait: Classroom Sihigh-tech instructional labs. Computer Based Interactive Training Lab will allow parents ^eS!SSs^tnUV\"V a classroom that bring remo?\nnetworks university libraries, as well as math and their desktoos. This allows to desktops Communications/Telecommunications, This science -.-^wAxx^auioiis/iexecommunications, Distance Learning. Teleconferencing and a Computer Command Center that puts COmnutpr. mniieo an/A ----------- puuo MultiMedia computer, mouse and monitor in the instructors control . Video- every recommend that the Computer Lab Attendant position be eliminated. With the inservice rreininrr rhat- 11 With the inservice training that will be teaching staff and the instructional aides . ---------------------over , . a.a. J a. years, toere will not be a need for a computer lab in addition to the regular training, instructional aides will receive all of the   the district computer lab attendants the course of four attendant. addition to two Specialist, who also has a technology technical assistance.  ' ' as training provided for a back up. Our Theme background will provide The elimination of this part-time position will save approximately $7,346.60 yearly including salary fringe benefits. and 51C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Several alternatives were implementation at Rightsell. considered in planning for theme One alternative is to provide a television production studio by adding eguipment to a closed- circuit television system already in place. K_______ production skills must be built on the foundation of sound reading, writing, and oral communication skills. However, television thoroughly developed first, production phase. These skills should be before students move into the I ! i Another alternative considered was use of the existing computer lab for teaching and reinforcing literacy skills, five years old and slow by current standards. state-of-the-art The existing lab is - ___________ It will not support the software needed for Rightsell students. However, continued use of this software for grades four through six will provide sufficient literacy reinforcement for another year or two. The Language Arts software in the existing progrim is designed to remediate and reinforce specific reading skills rather than iMerse beginning readers in the interrelated elements of listening, speaking, reading and writing. i third alternative is to provide computers in the classroom for the primary grades as the first phase of the Mass Media Technology Theme. Every primary student will then have access to technology every day of the week as an integral part of instruction and learning. D. RECOMMENDATION It is our recommendation that the district implement Phase I of the Rightsell Incentive School Mass Media Technology Theme during the 1993-1994 school year. The rationale for this recommendation is that this phase of the theme provides\nFive computers in each classroom and software for grades 1~3 that supports the LRSD revised curriculum and the school's theme. The software provides for a thematic approach to learning, while emphasizing the skills of reading, writing, and speaking. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of this recommendation is to support the LRSD's Desegregation Plan by implementing Phase I of Rightsell Incentive School's Mass Media Technology Theme. Students at Rightsell need this technology to improve their literacy skills. , including communication skills providing appropriate software and hardware in the classrooms will ensure that students have the tools they need to develop a sound foundation. 52Evaluation Criteria Student progress will be monitored through the following methods: ABACUS - Mastery of the Language Arts Curriculum will be measured through the ABACUS using 1994 individual student mastery as a baseline. Stanford 8 , ~ Student performance and grade performance will be measured using 1994 test scores as a baseline. Student Education Plans (SEP'S) will be developed based on Language Arts needs of individual students. Each _ will demonstrate 85% mastery of Language Arts identified skills listed in his/her SEP. Teacher observable checklist will be used to evaluate oral communication skills. Student work portfolios will be utilized to demonstrate progress of written communication skills. Increased use of thematic teaching units and concepts measured. Using the number of thematic units taught in grades 1-3 in 1993-94 school as a baseline. Increased teacher use of instructional effectiveness curriculum will be measured. technology to in integrating the enhance core Current use of the computer lab, teacher inservice related to technology will sex^e as a baseline. Also an instrument will be in place in fall to measure teacher attitude toward the use of Technology in the Classroom, will serve as a baseline. The fall of 1994 results Increased student interest and attitude in learning related to technology and Language Arts will be measured. An instrument will be in place this fall. Parental attitude and interest toward the use of technology will be surveyed. Using Spring 1995 as a baseline. r. IMPACT Using a literature-based curriculum that is supported by technology will motivate and stimulate students as they progress through the in understanding developmental stages language. A strong foundation in literacy skills at the primary level is essential. 53Desegregation This plan totally supports the requirements set forth in the desegregation plan referencing theme implementation, academic programs (Reading Across the Curriculum, Oral Expressions Across the Curriculum and Instructional Technology) and the purpose of incentive schools. Court Order Implementation of this plan would allow the school and District to demonstrate compliance with the court order to develop a theme. \"On The 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report states that: May 1, 1992, the Court ordered the LRSD to restore and fully implement themes at all incentive schools, but the district took nearly a full year to select themes and hire program Specialist for the six of the seven incentive schools. Thus, denying students the level of theme enhancement that the desegregation plan promised and the Court required.\" At Rightsell, we have developed a theme that will enhance the core curriculum. The program will provide students with foundational skills that acre required to be a successful student as well as skills that will allow them to compete with their peers in the future. The implementation of the theme will also help Rightsell in its recruitment efforts. Political Factors The district can receive favorable responses from the coxirt and schools if resoxirces are provided to implement this theme. Risk The equipment and software provided by implementing Phase I of this plan can be transferred if necessary. The additional funds requested for this phase and future phases will be viewed as a wise investment in technology. Should the district decide not to support this system, ah alternative plan will need to be developed for the Mass Media Technology component of Rightsell's theme. Timing In order for the Mass Media Communication component of Rightsell's theme to be in place by the beginning of the 1994-95 school year. the purchasing process must begin as soon as possible. Installation of equipment, wiring, and staff training in the use of the software will take several months. If primary students are to be positively impacted from the beginning of the school year, it is critical that the procurement of hardware and software be begun at once. 546. RESOnRCSS ANALYSIS i  of hardware and software that must be implement Phase I of Rightsell's Mass Media Technology Theme. All costs are estimates and are subject to change. 55Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Cabling $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 wiring $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 56Glossary of Terms Distance Learning Distance Learning increases instructional effectiveness through the use of interactive two way television  1  Students can receive standard curriculum and special courses the individual attention that distance with active response. with learning can provide. Teachers and staff members can actively product training sessions delivered by the most qualified presenters and instructors. Distance Learning can significantly reduce travel cost, extend the traditional classroom or training center to students at remote locations. FrEdMail - The FrEDMail Network is a growing, distributed and low- cost telecommunications network that helps teachers and students pa^'ticipate' in a wide variety of learning experiences and exchange information freely and simply, become better learners, readers, FrEDMail motivates student to and writers. It also lets teachers share experiences with student assignments, distribute teaching materials, and curriculum ideas. Implementation of this program at Rightsell would allow our students to communicate with student at Franklin Incentive School, Garland Incentive, Crystal Hill Interdistrict Magnet School, and over 150 member school districts nation-wide. IMTBRNBT - The INTERNET is a global communications network that connects computers all over the world. Education, government, business, and academic organizations participate in the network. Electronic mail between all users can be accessed, providing communications capabilities with a wide variety of people, to libraries around the world and forums for discussions about a Access variety of subjects are available. Thematic Approach - A thematic approach is a framework based on a particular topic, idea, author, or genre. Each unit has outcomes or goals that specify what you want students to accomplish as a result of the unit experiences and lessons. These themes involve a number of curricular areas, such as science, art, music, or math, even though-the focus of the unit is developing the ability to read and write. 57RIGETSEIJ, INCENTIVE SCEOOL Business Case ADDENDUM TO PEASE I We have closely reviewed the implemetation of hardware and software at each Phase of our Business Case. We believe that Phasing in the Theme over a period of six years is not the best process for implementation. However, we do understand the financial crisis of the School District and recommend further reducing our cost as illustrated below. We recommend deferring the following items in Phase I to a later phase. PEASE I Estimated Pre-Tax Total $151,578.00 OPTION #1 Phase I Pricing Only with note that placed in later phases. many of the cuts are being Reduce Printers to two $1,600.00 Reduce Teacher First Stations to one $6,000.00 Reduce Softweire to $53,732.00 Phase I Pre-tax total $125,732.00 Saving Approximately $25,846.00 OPTION #2 Same as above except eliminate final Teacher First Station Phase I Pre-tax total $115,943.00 Saving Approximately $35,635.00 58 r /-t7- I SEQ # 14 03 04 24/230 223 231 13 02 213 215 01 15 21 08/204 25/225 BUSINESS CASES Program Name TENTATIVE RECESWD JAN 1 7 1995 Office Of Desegregafion h/i^nnyiiitg Academic Progress Incentive Grant/Margaret Gremillion, Sadie Mitchell Academic Support Program/Dennis Glasgow, Gene Parker, Leon Adams Data Processing/David Beason Districtwide Facilities Study (School Closings)/Dr. Mayo Pupil Transportation Services/Mary Jane Cheatham Family Life Education/Linda Young, Rene Carson New Futures/Linda Young Four-Year-Old-Program/Pat Price Guidance Services/Jo Evelyn Elston Health Services/Gwen Efird HIPPY/Marion Shead McClellan Community School/Jodie Carter Staff Development/Marion Woods Substitute Teachers/Brady Gadberry, Dick Hurley Vocational Education/Carol Green Safety and Security/Bobby Jones Discipline Management/Sadie Mitchell, Larry Robertson, Walter Marshaleck Alternative Education/Jo Evelyn Elston, Vic Anderson, Randy Glenn/ * ^Wce 0/ oes^.- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation BUSINESS CASES FOR PROPOSED BUDGET FY 1996-97 FEBRUARY 1996EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BUSINESS CASE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION 1996 If our youth are to be afforded the best possible chance for success in the workplace, systematic and collaborative change in our educational system is imperative. Employers continue to express the fact that they want more than just the traditional academic and technical preparation. They want workers who possess general workplace competencies, can communicate effectively, solve complex problems, work in a team, understand the underlying scientific principles of technology and understand the valve of lifelong learning. Recent federal legislation, particularly the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990, and the School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 have provided the impetus for the systematic and collaborative efforts needed to meet the challenge of this change. Under the Carl D. program is funded. Perkins legislation, the Tech Prep Education Tech Prep in the State of Arkansas is mandated The Tech Prep curriculum was initially put by Act 980 by 1991. into place in the Little Rock School District during the 1993-94 The purpose of Tech Prep is to better prepare school year. students for the changing demands of the workplace through a combination of strong academic and technical skills training program for entry-mid level employment. To do so means having a strong curriculum as well as high tech equipment to\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_341","title":"Correspondence","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"],"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":["Correspondence"],"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/341"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"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-zZ, \u0026gt;1,//-/.,,) EIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 SOUTH BRYANT STREET JUL t 1 1993 TO: FROM: SUB J: DATE: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (501) 570-4020 72204 Offics n. :g3\nicn '3 Ms. Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent, LRSD Mr. Chris Heller, Attorney, Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Douglas C. Eaton, Director, Plant Services Attached After Action Report - Site Selection Process for Stephens Elementary School June 25, 1993 I am forwarding to you a copy of an informal After Action Report that I wrote concerning the Site Selection Process for Stephens Elementary School. As stated in my After Action Report, I am, of course, disappointed that the site that we recommended was not selected, but fully understand that this school must tie in to our desegregation efforts. I express to you my disappointment for a ninety-day delay in selecting a new site, or another site, to be presented to the Court. The delay of the Stephens Elementary School for the sole fact that all parties could not agree 100% on the site serves no purpose whatsoever in furthering desegregation within the Little Rock School District. Our Motion to the Court closely paralleled the concerns of the Pulaski County Special School District in tying together recruitment on the part of the Pulaski County Special School District and the inter-district school concept. Pulaski County's inabilities to successfully recruit to Romine Elementary School, their concern and apparent difficulty in recruiting to King Elementary School, and their stated further concerns about having to recruit to a third inter-district school should have been sufficient evidence for the parties to realize that we should not continue with a third inter-district school in the inner city for which recruitment strategies have evaluated, or appraised. not been clearly defined. I know that the matters expressed here are not directly related to my responsibilities to the District as a Director for Plant Services and Engineering  but when I assumed the responsibility, for what it's worth, to assist in long-range planning, it brought into light matters for which I am concerned. I don't know what procedure or policies will be followed by the It parties It finding a new site, but as long as the misconception persists that the exact siting of that school is the sole factorPage Two Continued that leads to desegregation difficult time in success, we are selling our education programs. going to have a There are countless examples where site is not the determining factor, but that the education process is. I refuse to believe that Mann is a successful junior high because it is built next to an interstate in an industrial area. We must give credit to the academic program. If we don't, then how do we explain Carver Elementary or Williams Elementary? I feel that the County is running scared because they have no program from which to recruit, they've never been forced to provide a program to recruit, and now, when they may be held to task and there will be three (3) schools laid out in front of them and the Court to which they must recruit white children. other hand, On the our success in recruiting black children to County inter-district schools is a matter of record with regard to Crystal Hill. Whatever procedures we followed, I am sure we will follow again for the new elementary school. I don't know if my concerns will ever be surfaced officially, such that those that are making decisions will take these comments in the context in which they are offered. But anyway, I wrote this After Action Report to forward to you, and as may be noted below, I have forwarded a copy to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring for information purposes only. DCE/rlh/mpch Info, cc: Ann Brown, Chairman, Office of Desegregation MonitoringMEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUB J: DATE: Stephens Site Selection Committee After Action Report June 25, 1993 I am writing this as a follow-up after the Court appearance on 24 June regarding the Stephens site selection process. It is unfortunate in a way that the Federal Court has extended the construction of the Stephens School after such a tremendously diligent effort was exerted to find the best possible site for this school. However, I understand that the construction of this school must lead to, and assist, the Desegregation Plan if it is to be successful. With regard to the site selection process, I feel that the process used by the Little Rock School District, even though I was a major part in drafting the plan, was as fair and as unbiased a procedure as could be, and allowed the greatest opportunity for input from all parties in the final recommendation. To clarify unasked questions, but possible concerns on the part of the Federal Judge, I must commit to writing that the selection and nomination of members by name to the Site Selection Committee was done by the various parties. When the Strategic Plan was drafted, there were nine (9) parties which would comprise the Site Selection Committee, each party having one (1) vote. When one looks at the number of persons on the Committee, when it was first formed, you will notice a large number of persons assigned from the Little Rock School District. It was made known to all members of the Committee that their presence was not as a voting member, but to provide technical assistance and answers to any Committee Member regarding the multiplicity of operations in the Little Rock School District. Those members included representatives from operations, curriculum. communications, desegregation and school administration. It was made clear to all parties up front that each organization as represented from the original nine (9) had one (1) vote. The Little Rock School District had two (2) official representatives\nmyself as Technical Advisor, and Ms. Marie Parker, as the Little Rock School District Representative. V,__1 ________ '1 , ___ -- mine was to be as objective a teclinical different reasons We each got one (1) vote for evaluation as I can render based on my construction and planning background, and Ms. Parker's was to be with the consult of the Little Rock School District Administration as the School District's vote as to the site selection. As the process advanced, certain parties refused to participate, most notable were the Joshua Intervenors. After repeatedly being notified of the meetings, telephonically and in writing, they failed to participate in any way in the selection process. The final vote that was taken on 23 February was taken by those persons that actually visited the sites and cast votes. It is unfortunate that all parties were not represented, nor did all parties vote.Page 2 Continued In the final vote, the Pulaski County School District did not submit recommended site locations. Additionally, in the final vote, the Joshua Intervenors (who had not attended any meetings) failed to vote on any of the prescribed sites. Needless to say, those two (2) critical, missing votes could have very easily changed the final recommendation to the Board of Education and the critical. Court with regard to the site. I blame myself for failing to consider party apathy with regard to siting this school. Although it was clear and evident that certain members of the Site Selection Committee were predisposed, preferred sites before all were evaluated, the process had to or continue as objectively as possible, and without outside influence. If I am involved again the site selection process, I will have no other course of action but to follow the procedures established during the first process. that 1 and equitable, and to I believe these to be fair include the widest range of concerns. aspects, and points which must be considered in the location of such a vital element in today's community. DCE/rlh/aare/e^. Attn. Ann A Brown JUL 2 1993 Little Rock School District Desegregation Office O.*\no Dei i'ega^on Mcni 201 E. Markham Heritage West Building Suite 510 Little Rock, AR. 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am writing this correspondence in behalf of the Chicot Elementary P.T.A. (representing staff and parents) We have monitored capital needs to our school for the past few years. We have tried to the best of our ability to maintain the upkeep of our facility. However it is impossible to prevent the wear and tear on certain items when serving a large number of pupils daily. Our carpet throughout the school is in desperate need of repair. We are requesting your assistance school is in desperate need of repair. We are requesting your assistance on a special project of work toward recarpeting on our entire building. We appreciate the financial commitment you have given us throughout the years. Please let us know at what capacity you can help us. We will be eagerly awaiting your ponse. ir.cerely. Tina Gatson Chicot Elementary PTA Chairman d.o.Q-^r OOa/I Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: July 6, 1993 To: Mark Milhollen, Controller Little Rock School District Froin:/^^-^olly Ramer Throi nn Brown Subject: June Payroll Reimbursement Enclosed you will find check number 584 in the amount of $4439654, payroll reimbursement for the month of June. The breakdown follows: $40359.86 3,08756 949.12 Salaries Social Seciuity Insurance $4439654 Total12 F: Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: July 6, 1993 To: Mark Milhollen, Controller Little Rock School District Fromt/^^-^Polly Ramer Throi nn Brown Subject: June Payroll Reimbursement Enclosed you will find check number 584 in the amount of $4439654, payroll reimbursement for the month of June. The breakdown follows: $40359.86 3,08756 949.12 Salaries Social Security Insurance $4439654 Total \u0026amp; '! Little Rock School District * July 12, 1993 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 1st Commercial Bank, Suite 2000 Capitol and Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1993 0ffic3 of Desegregation Mciiitoring I am sending this as an interim status report to keep you abreast of our progress with regard to the Junior High Capacity Study. As you know, the Little Rock School District's Capacity Study was submitted in September of 1992, and a subsequent request made by the Court to expand on issues identified in the Study in particular, the effect of M to M Transfers and programmatic needs\nand. to add points of consideration regarding capacities and projections in both the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts. As of this consisting of date. myself\nI have put together a Capacity Committee Ms. Marie Parker, Office of Student Assignments\nMr. Ed Hogan\nand, Mr. Billy Boles from Pulaski County School District\nMr. Jerry Massey\nand, Ms. Mabel Bynum from North Little Rock. Our Committee has met three (3) times. Our first Committee Meeting was to lay down the basics of understanding with regard to how we interpreted the May Court Order with regard to the desires of the Court in the Capacity Study. Questions were raised as to whether or not the Capacity Study had implications with regard to North Little Rock and Pulaski County, and what those implications would- be. For our second meeting. we invited members of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring who brought together the thoughts of the Court with regard to how the Capacity Study should cross district lines to show inter-relationship and dependency on schools in order to support the desegregation effort. For our third meeting, at Pulaski County, we invited members of North Little Rock and Joshua Intervenors. The Joshua Intervenors failed to attend. During that meeting, we discussed the 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (SODST-t-sdei Page Two Continued We arrived at the fact that be, methodology of calculating capacity. capacity is not calculated the same through all Districts, nor need be. It was explained that the method of calculation of capacity by the District need only be used by that District, and be explainable within the context of the Capacity Study. There is no requirement for capacity to be computed identically, as long as a parallel can be drawn between capacity and projections among the Districts. Our next meeting is scheduled for 15 July. At that meeting, both North Little Rock and Pulaski County are to have their narratives complete, explaining the methodology of calculations, their projections, at least through the year 2000, a chart aligning their projections with the capacities, and a summary as to their plans to either increase junior highs, or to retain the status quo. their information, and that which I submitted in September, w wxxi put together a .final summary specifically addressing the areas of interdependency at the junior high level of the schools to support the desegregation effort. explaining the methodology of From we will I will keep you abreast of our progress once that meeting has been completed and, hopefully, we should have a Court submission within the next sixty (60) days. Sincerely, Ddu s C. Eaton RECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/rlh/ch cc: Ms. Ann Brown., Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Estelle Mathis, Acting Superintendent Mr. Ed Hogan, Pulaski County Special School District Mr. Jerry Massey, North Little Rock School DistrictS -f'-  To: From: Re: Date: Judge Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 0**^ '753 \" n \u0026gt;.i JUL 2 2 1993 Mr. John Walker, Attorney Mr. Stephen Jones, Attorney Mr. Richard Rochelle, Attorney Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorne ,'ro Stephen Interdistrict School Site Selection Process July 21, 1993 Wright recessed the hearings in June regarding the site selection process. Our instructions were to conduct another process whereby the parties, parents from the current Stephens area, parents from the Pulaski County School District and administrators from all school districts could be involved to see whether a consensus could be reached on a site for the Stephens Interdistrict School. The Board of Directors of the LRSD has met to discuss this process and has instructed me to communicate with you to ensure that full participation is achieved. The timeframe is short, therefore, we must start immediately. Please recall that the court has already scheduled a hearing for September 30, 1993, should the parties not reach a consensus. The task of the committee to be discussed below is simple, committee must receive wide-input regarding proposed sites for the The school\nassess and evaluate each of the proposed sites\nand make a recommendation to the LRSD Board of Directors. Board will Thereafter, the LRSD have the opportunity to either accept the recommendation, reject or make appropriate modification. the opportunity to The LRSD has deterained that the committee should consist of nine (9) individuals evenly split among representatives of PCSSD, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. Further, the committee should be composed of parents or patrons of the various districts who did not participate in the first site selection committee. The idea behind this criteria is that this committee should not be tainted with the determination reached by the prior committee. This is not to say that those persons who participated in the prior process should not be allowed to provide input and have appropriate involvement. Further, although the parties are free to select their own representatives as they see fit, it is strongly recommended that Attorneys July 21, 1993 Page 2 the PCSSD select parents from the target zones of recruitment and that the LRSD select at least two parents from the present Stephens School. John Riggs has agreed to serve as a non-voting chairperson of the His role will be to organize meetings, fcn_ili___ discussion and ensure that necessary resources are obtained. Mr. Billy Bowles of the PCSSD and Mr. Doug Eaton of the LRSD could committee. facilitate Mr. serve as consultants to the committee to answer questions relating to recruitment, facility construction or related areas within their fields of expertise. To allow the committee to complete its work, LRSD Board action and the a report to the court in time for the September 30 deadline, the committee must have its work completed and submitted to the LRSD Board in time for inclusion on a special agenda for a September 9 Board Meeting. Specifically, the order issued by Judge Wright on July 1, 1993, mandates that the parties must, in the event no consensus is reached, file their alternative proposals on a site no later than Wednesday, September 15, 1993. To accomplish its task under the scenario outlined above, it is suggested that the committee meet on at least three (and possibly four occasions). The tentative meeting dates and times are as follows: (1) Tuesday, July 27, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. (2) Tuesday, August 10, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. (3) Tuesday, August 24, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. (4) Tuesday, September 7, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. It is suggested that either the 10th committee could take or 24th of August, a tour of the suggested locations, meetings themselves would take place in the LRSD Board Room, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR. the The At the initial meeting of the committee (July 27), the attorneys for all of the parties (LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, Joshua Intervenors and Knight Intervenors) would be requested to present the committee withan explanation, either in person or by written communication, stating the pui^ose of the interdistrict school and outlining the agreed upon criteria to be used to select a site for the school. The remaining time could be used to discuss the criteria and, P^lllriarily, possible sites. Time at the second meeting could also be devoted to further refinement of the criteria and further development of the list of sites. At the second or third meeting.Attorney July 21, 1993 Page 3 a field trip could also be taken to all of the possible locations identified. The final meeting should involve further discussion of sites, ranking of the various sites identified and a vote on the recommendation to be made to the LRSD Board. in the interest of time, the above process has been outlined to facilitate timely completion of our task. However, all parties and committee members are free to voice any and all concerns, make any and all recommendations and develop any and all procedures deemed reasonable and appropriate to increase the likelihood that consensus will be reached. Accordingly, I am hereby requesting that all recipients of this letter notify me within three working days of receipt of your initial concerns regarding the process as outlined. Otherwise, we will deem this process acceptable and will expect to see each of you and your selected representatives at the meeting on July 27, 1993.  Sam Jones and Joy Springer.) (I have already spoken to Mr. Walker, By copy of this letter, I am notifying Mr. Sammy Mills and Mr. Foster Strong of our plans and request that they assist in securing two parents from the current Stephens School to the committee. I am also requesting that they stand ready to provide any and all assistance desired by the committee, there are others they feel should be a part of this process, I would request they provide notification to those persons. serve on If Thank each of you in advance for your kind attention to this matter, future. I look forward to hearing from you in the very near c: Mr. John Riggs Mrs. Estelle Matthis Ms. Joy Springer Mr. Billy Bowles Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Samuel Mills Mr. Foster Strong Mr. Charles Johnson Mr. Frank Baugh Mrs. Ann Brown / Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred UrseryTo: From: Re: Date: Judge .\u0026lt; \u0026gt;. t J /\n/ / Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5! W -J \" J t' JUL 2 2 J993 Mr. John Walker, Attorney Mr. Stephen Jones, Attorney Mr. Richard Rochelle, Attorney Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorne Stephen Interdistrict School Site Selection Process July 21, 1993 Wright recessed the hearings in June regarding the site selection process. Our instructions were to conduct another process whereby the parties, parents from the current Stephens area. parents from the Pulaski County School District administrators from all school districts could be involved and to see whether a consensus could be reached on a site for the Stephens Interdistrict School. The Board of Directors of the LRSD has met to discuss this process and has instructed me to communicate with you to ensure that full participation is achieved. The timeframe is short, therefore, we must start immediately. Please recall that the court has already scheduled a hearing for September 30, 1993, should the parties not reach a consensus. The task of the committee to be discussed below is simple, committee must receive wide-input regarding proposed sites for the The school\nassess and evaluate each of the proposed sites\nand make a recommendation to the LRSD Board of Directors. Board will Thereafter, the LRSD have the opportunity to either accept recommendation, reject or make appropriate modification. the The ^SD has determined that the committee should consist of nine (9) individuals evenly split among representatives of PCSSD, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. Further, the committee should be composed of parents or patrons of the various districts who did not participate in the first site selection committee. The idea behind this criteria is that this committee should not be tainted with the determination reached by the prior committee. This is not to say that those persons who participated in the prior process should not be allowed to provide input and have appropriate involvement. Further, although the parties are free to select their own representatives as they see fit, it is strongly recommended that Attorneys July 21, 1993 Page 2 the PCSSD select parents from the target zones of recruitment and that the LRSD select at least two parents from the present Stephens School. John Riggs has agreed to serve as a non-voting chairperson of the His role will be to organize meetings, fa\u0026gt;_il' discussion and ensure that necessary resources are obtained. Billy Bowles of the PCSSD and Mr. Doug Eaton of the LRSD could committee. facilitate Mr. serve as consultants to the committee to answer questions relating to recruitment, facility construction or related areas within their fields of expertise. To allow the committee to complete its work, LRSD Board action and a report to the court in time for the September 30 deadline, the committee must have its work completed and submitted to the LRSD the Board in time for inclusion on a special agenda for a September 9 Board Specifically, the order issued by Judge Wright on July 1, 1993, mandates that the parties must, in the event no consensus is reached, file their alternative proposals on a site no later than Wednesday, September 15, 1993. Meeting. To accomplish its task under the scenario outlined above, it is suggested that the committee meet on at least three (and possibly four occasions). The tentative meeting dates and times are as follows: The tentative meeting dates and times (1) (2) (3) (4) Tuesday, July 27, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, August 10, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, August 24, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, September 7, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. It is suggested that either the 10th committee could take or 24 th of August, the a tour of the suggested locations, meetings themselves would take place in the LRSD Board Room, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR. The At the initial meeting of the committee (July 27), the attorneys for all of the parties (LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, Joshua Intervenors and Knight Intervenors) would be requested to present the committee with an explanation, either in person or by written communication, stating the purpose of the interdistrict school and outlining the agreed upon criteria to be used to select a site for the school. The remaining time could be used to discuss the criteria and, preliminarily, possible sites. Time at the second meeting could also be devoted to further refinement of the criteria and further development of the list of sites. At the second or third meeting.Attorney July 21, 1993 Page 3 a field trip could also be taken to all of the possible locations identified. The final meeting should involve further discussion of sites, ranking of the various sites identified and a vote on the recommendation to be made to the LRSD Board. In the interest of time, the above process has been outlined to facilitate timely completion of our task. However, all parties and committee members are free to voice any and all concerns, make any and all recommendations and develop any and all procedures deemed reasonable and appropriate to increase consensus will be reached. the likelihood that Accordingly, I am hereby requesting that all recipients of this letter notify me within three working daysof receipt of your initial concerns regarding the process as Otherwise, we will deem this process acceptable and will outlined. expect to see each of you and your selected representatives at the meeting on July 27, 1993. ' . . . Sam Jones and Joy Springer.) (I have already spoken to Mr. Walker, By copy of this letter. I am notifying Mr. Sammy Mills and Mr. Foster Strong of our plans and request that they assist in securing two parents from the current Stephens School to serve on the committee. I am also requesting that they stand ready to provide any and all assistance desired by the committee. there are others they feel should be a part of this process, I would request they provide notification to those persons. If Thank each of you in advance for your kind attention to this matter, future. I look forward to hearing from you in the very near c: Mr. John Riggs Mrs. Estelle Matthis Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Joy Springer Billy Bowles Doug Eaton Samuel Mills Foster Strong Charles Johnson Frank Baugh Mrs. Ann Brown \u0026lt; Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred Ursery\u0026gt; Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 IF!?., ii D 1 11 2 3 1993 To: Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney From: Re: Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet School - Recruitment Date: July 21, 1993 This letter is written to you in your capacity as the attorney for the Pulaski County Special School District. The recruitment of white students from the PCSSD to the new King School is crucial to both districts. The obligations imposed on both parties under the interdistrict plan will, hopefully, enable us to be successful in that effort. I have been advised that the PCSSD is in the process of sending letters/brochures to the parents of the PCSSD. It is my understanding that those letters/brochures will only go to targeted parents. In consultation with representatives from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, it has been concluded that if the PCSSD mailing will be so limited, the PCSSD is not taking full advantage of the opportunity available to maximize the recruitment effort. Accordingly, this letter is written to encourage the PCSSD to consider sending those letters and brochures to the parents of all eligible white students in the PCSSD. This will probably only limit those attending Fuller Elementary School. Additionally, I have been advised that the principal at each elementary school in PCSSD make a referral to the next closest school when a student cannot be accepted in his/her closest school. By encouraging those principals to familiarize themselves with the offerings at the new King school, keeping sufficient brochures on hand and making referrals to that school when appropriate, it is believed that the PCSSD could significantly improve its current recruitment results.Mr. Sam Jones July 19, 1993 Page 2 The LRSD stands ready to play an appropriate role in this process. In fact, the LRSD has already scheduled activities and is well under way in its recruitment activities. your thoughts, comments or concerns. together to resolve any major stumbling blocks. Please let us know of Hopefully, we can work Please let me hear from you after you have had an opportunity to review this matter and discuss it with your client. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to and consideration of this matter. JLM:nr c: Mrs. Estelle Matthis / Mrs. Ann Brown Mrs. Sadie Mitchell Mr. Steve Jones Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Rochelle Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred Ursery^SCBsVSD AUS 4 1993 Office of u ^'QuuGii Mcniic'ing LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: July 22, 1993 To: Board of Directors From: Sterling Ingramy'Director Planning, Research^ and Evaluation Through: Estelle MatthisS Interim Superintendent Re: Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report As requested in the agenda meeting, I am providing a progress report relative to the Desegregation Plan Audit. I am available to answer your questions. bjgNashville Mailing Address P.O. Box 121114 Nashville. Tennessee 37212-1114 Telecopier (61S) 259-4668 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p.a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW *11 MUSIC CIRCLE SOUTH NASHVILLE. TENNESSEE 37203 (615) 259-4664 July 27, 1993 RECEJVED Little Rock Office 3400 TC BY Tower 425 West CapHol Avenue Linie flock. Arkansas 72201-3472 (501)375-1122 Jerry L. Malone, Esq. Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUL 2 9 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring RE: Stephens' Interdistrict School Site Selection Process Dear Jerry: I am in receipt of your memorandum of July 21, 1993 regarding the new site selection process for the Stephens' Interdistrict School. In your memo, you indicate that the site selection team should be limited to representatives of the PCSSD, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. to the Stephens School, While the NLRSD will not be sending students it is a party to the litigation, settlement agreement and the District's respective plans. the As a result, the NLRSD is vitally interested in the ultimate success of the new Stephens School as an interdistrict magnet. While we will defer to the LRSD's decision as to who should serve on the Site Selection Committee, we do want the parties to be aware of the NLRSD's position. Without belaboring the obvious, the overriding purpose of LRSD interdistrict schools, including Stephens, is to attract white students to inner city Little Rock areas in order to create an integrated educational environment. Given this overriding goal, the NLRSD believes that the ability to recruit white students to the new Stephens School is of paramount importance and is. in effect. a consideration of other site selection factors. condition precedent to the This did not appear to be the case with respect to the previous site selection process. and we are pleased that a new effort is being made. the result will be a site the District is able to support. Hopefully, SWJ:tc cc: James Smith Christopher J. Heller, Ann Brown John W. Walker, Esq. Samuel Jones, Esq. Very truly yours. Stephen W. Jones Esq. Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 29 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring MEMORANDUM FAX 376-9442 U.S. MAIL To: Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney From: erry L. Malone, Attorney Re: Stephens Interdistrict School Site Selection Process Date: July 27, 1993 On Friday, July 16, 1993, I spoke to you by telephone and informed you of the meeting which would be held on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, regarding the site selection process. 1993, By a memo dated July 21, I informed you and the other interested parties of the proposed process and the planned meeting schedule. I have now received word that Billy Bowles might not be able to attend because of a conflict with the special budget meeting being held tonight. It is also my understanding that the parent repre- sentatives of the PCSSD may not be able to attend tonight's meeting either. In light of the above, I would request that the PCSSD provide written comments which can be reviewed by all of the persons who received a copy of my initial memo. By doing so, it is my hope that we can remain on schedule and be prepared to discuss those comments at the August 10 meeting. written comments are received the better. Accordingly, the earlier those Please keep in mind that the above is merely a suggestion. If you and your client have a better procedure whereby subsequent comment can be provided between now and the second meeting, please act accordingly. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.Mr. Sam Jones July 27, 1993 Page 2 c: Mr. John Walker Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Rochelle Mr. John Riggs Mrs. Estelle Matthis Ms. Joy Springer Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Sammy Mills Mr. Foster Strong Mr. Charles Johnson Mr. Frank Baugh i/Mrs. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred UrseryTo: From: Re: Date: As per efrotStSr Little Rock School District Stephens School Site Selection Committee John Riggs, LRSD Board of Directors Site Selection Process July 28, 1993 the schedule of activities. RECBIV5D AUG 4 1993 OHice of Desegregation Monitoring the Stephens School Site Selection Committee met at the LRSD Administration Building on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, from 5:30 p.m. until 7 p.m. persons were in attendance: The following As 1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. John Riggs, LRSD Board Member Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Ms. Melanie Gibson, LRSD Parent (Rockefeller Incentive School) Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Sam Jones, PCSSD Attorney Paul Evans, PCSSD Administrator Debbie Parker, Joshua Intervenors Charles Johnson, LRSD - Stephens School Ms. Connie Hickman, Office of Desegregation Monitoring evident. the Committee is not yet Accordingly, the representatives from LRSD, fully PCSSD, formulated, and Joshua Inteirvenors were strongly encouraged to identify and recruit additional parents to serve on the committee. each party Please recall that IS requested to have three parents serve committee to allow for a total of nine (9) voting members. on the Upon opening the meeting, I served as non-voting chair, provided an overview on how this committee came to be. prior committee\nthe selection submitted I made reference to the to the court\nthe objections raised by PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua Intervenors\nand the formation of the current committee. It was clearly explained that the intent was for this committee to have as much leeway as possible and not to be improperly influenced by the work and decision of the prior committee. encouraged to avoid the tendency to think in a \"box.\" All present were Rather, each should bring his/her \"wild\" ideas so all available opportunities can be fully explored. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Stephens School Site Committee July 28, 1993 Page 2 Sam Jones and Jerry Malone both provided their thoughts concerning the interdistrict school concept and purpose. Mr. Jones stated that it was his belief that the sole purpose for the interdistrict schools was to allow for one district to send, over a period of time, close to 50 percent of the students needed to populate the interdistrict school. As such, LRSD interdistrict schools would remain slightly majority black and PCSSD interdistrict schools would remain slightly majority white. Mr. Malone commented that the interdistrict schools were also intended to be constructed in such a way to reduce the busing burden imposed on LRSD black students\ncompensate those students providing high-quality facilities\nin incentive schools by and allow incentive school children to experience desegregated educational opportunities. It was also pointed out that the busing burden on black students is of great concern to the court. Additionally, since the incentive school are far from being integrated, interdistrict schools would, hopefully, allow more incentive school students to attend the interdistrict schools, thereby, creating room for recruitment in the incentive schools. It was suggested that the committee structure this selection process whereby consensus could be gained regarding which location held the most promise for recruiting PCSSD white students. Thereafter, a determination could be made regarding the perceived impact on the present Stephen's attendance zone students. vigorous objection was raised to such a format. However, In particular, it was noted that the introduction to the interdistrict desegregation plan states that it the physical movement of bodies. \"is insufficient to establish as a single goal 11 It was also pointed out that location was not the only factor to consider when addressing recruitment strategies. highlighted as examples. Washington Magnet and Carver Magnet were The committee was also advised that the court had made very positive comments regarding the process used by the prior committee. That process took all of the critical factors into account by ranking them equally. That process took all of the critical factors A brief discussion was had regarding a vacant lot near 1-30 and Roosevelt Road (across from Mann Junior High). The PCSSD expressed its position that it would be easy to recruit to a school located at that site. However, it was pointed out that the Interdistrict Plan recognizes that both PCSSD and LRSD must engage in \"early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts.\" \"Easy\" recruitment II Easy II can not be the sole consideration, since both Carver and Washington serve as examples that people will come when the right packages are put in place. Ms. Gibson, thereafter, commented that vigorous recruitment and advertising would be of tremendous benefit in attracting parents toStephens Site Selection Committee July 28, 1993 Page 3 the school. She further noted that the \"magnet\" designation is an important draw for most parents. with quality programming, The term has become synonymous recruitment process. a very important variable in the She equated this with the quality programs available at Rockefeller Incentive School which served to recruit and retain families in the District. When asked what was the most important reason for her to remain after discovery of the school and its programs, Ms. Gibson responded that it was \"the attention given to my son.\" In other words, the staff/personnel at the school play the critical role in providing the type of environment (or package) parents are seeking. Since the interdistrict schools. like incentive schools. are to have quality programs and dedicated staff, it was suggested that marketing/recruitment would be the primary consideration once the programs and staff are put in place, becomes a secondary consideration. At that point, location Some mention was made of possible sites west of University Avenue. It was pointed out that this would bring another factor into play. Namely, there has been concern regarding the lack of adequate capacity for those black students living east of University Avenue. To build additional capacity west of University could exacerbate this concern. Prior to adjourning, those present were encouraged to consider possible sites to visit and to remember the need to fully compose the committee. As per the request, attached hereto are copies of the attendance zone for the current Stephens School. The next meeting of the committee is set for August 10, 1993, at 5:30 p.m. in the LRSD Administration Building (the Board Room may not be available). Please make every effort to attend and provide all available information and input. Those who will not be able to attend are encouraged to provide written comments and submit suggestions prior to the meeting dates. Any such comments can be sent to me for distribution to the committee members. Thanks. Enclosure - Stephens Attenda: c: Distribution List e ZoneStephens Site Selection Committee July 28, 1993 Page 4 Distribution List Ms. Debbie Parks Ms. Melanie Gibson Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Charles Johnson Ms. Connie Hickman Tanner Mr. Paul L. Evans Mr. Jerry L. Malone Mr. Billy Bowles Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Rochelle Ms. Joy Springer Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Sammy Mills Mr. Foster Strong Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Frank Baugh \u0026gt;^Mrs. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred Ursery122 P02 SEP 03 93 13:08 DATE\nTO\nFROM\nSUBJEC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 MEMORANDUM July 29, 1993 A k Estelle Mathis, Interim Superintendent, LRSD WtA^ilala Daggett, Community Education :T:^- 93-94 Budget Cuts Thank you for requesting my input and for your willingness to negotiate regarding the amount of cuts in the Community Education 93-94 budget. As I explained over the phone, wo have planned our 93-94 programs in relation to our originally budgeted amount of $220,000. For that reason, I wanted to talk with the CE staff to determine whether or not we would need to cut progreuns if we cut $50,000 as you requested. I reported to you that we could probably make it fine if the cuts ranged from $30,000-$40,000. However, we discovered just yesterday afternoon that about $14,000 worth of purchase orders approved in 92-93 have been charged to our 93-94 budget. I have spoken with Mark Milhollen regarding these charges, and he assured me as did you that you all would cover us on these shortfalls. I appreciate your support. cc: McClellan Community High School Advisory Council Jodie Carter, McClellan PrincipalCopy filed - LRSD -Budgeting Process Report filed in library LRSD - Report FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H, SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK 5. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM IM. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS.P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 July 29, 1993 received KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. CLYDE TAB' TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWEND, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H . MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M.GRAF PAMELA D. PERCEFULL CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. JUL 3 0 1993 COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. WHITER'S DIRECT NO. Office of Desegregation Monitoring (501) 370-1 553 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. .1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re : Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al\nU.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866 Gentlemen and Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of the long-range planning program and budgeting document being submitted to the Court pursuant to its June 15, 1993 Order.I Mr. John Walker, Mr. Sam Jones, Mr. Steve Jones, Mr. Richard Roachell, Ms. Ann Brown July 29, 1993 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Jerry L. Malone JLM/lwg Enclosures cc: Ms. Estelle Matthis Mr. Sterline Ingram Mr. Mark Milhollen Ms. Marie Parkert Mr. John Walker, Mr. Sam Jones, Mr. Steve Jones, Mr. Richard Roachell, Ms. Ann Brown July 29, 1993 Page 3 bcc: CJH FSU'B'J to\nFROM\nSUBJECT\nlittle rock SCHOOL DISTRICT MARKHAM LITTI^'^OCK, ARKANSAS January 4, 1993 All Building principals and Department Mac Bernd, Super new policies find two intendent of a Lf k.f, . JAN 1 2 159,5 -i'rejaron ill j-r- Heads Schools C new policies Note also relating to that the the manner _ in Board will S?ch\"Je conduct an agenda revi committee Meeting onth (at 5 p.m. )  meeting will continue of each conduct is now eliminated. to be a-i-  P  m. on Please dispose these two insert - . .  of the policies new policies they replace. in your policy manual andEPS CODE: BDDB ADOPTED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 12/18/92 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDB  SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools. The method used by the Superintendent to establish the Board agenda must provide an opportunity for the Board members to voice objections or add items. The agenda will contain only those items introduced by the Board members and Superintendent. Only items scheduled in the agenda will be acted upon in a regular Board meeting unless a suspension of the rules is agreed to in compliance with Policy BDDEB (Suspension of the Rules of Order). The order of business at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Call to Order Roll Call Minutes Presentations A. B. C. D. Superintendent Citizens Committees Board Members Partnerships Remarks From Citizens Action Agenda Report Agenda Consent Agenda Audience with Individuals or Groups Student and/or Employee Disciplinary Recommendations Adj ournment Persons wishing to address the Board during the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section of the agenda will be required to sign up and state the subject of their remarks prior to the convening of the meeting. The Board may vote to set time limitations or require representatives to speak for large groups whose interests are similar. Persons speaking about issues on the agenda for Board action will be given priority during the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section. If additional time is required for or employee remarks or if there is a large delegation wishing to address a single issue not on the agenda, the Board may vote to defer their comments to the \"Audience with Individuals or Groups\" complete the pending agenda in a timely manner. section in order toEPS CODE: BDDC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADOPTED: 12/18/92 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDC PREPARATION OF SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools in the following manner: On the second Thursday of each month the Board of Directors will meet to review the agenda topics proposed by the Superintendent of Schools for that month's regular Board meeting on the fourth Thursday During the agenda review meeting Board members will have the opportunity to place items on the agenda and will decide whether items will be on the action agenda, report agenda, or consent agenda. At the conclusion of the agenda review meeting, the agenda will contain only those topics introduced by either the Superintendent or members of the Board of Directors. The Board will strive to keep its regularly scheduled meetings on the second and fourth Thursday of each month\nhowever, for good cause, the Board may move any regularly scheduled date to another date agreed to by a majority vote of the Board. The Superintendent will have the agenda and the appropriate background materials printed and delivered to the Board members at least two days prior to the regular Board meeting.John w. walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 Si \u0026amp; FEB 2 1993 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER. JR. * Also admitted to Practice in Georgia Si the District of Columbia. =1 mg February 1, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Bernd: I would like to have the names, addresses, telephone numbers and race of all the members of the advisory committee on budget about which you spoke this afternoon. I would also like to have a copy of their minutes of each meeting held thus far along with their agenda and any reports they have made today. I would like to pick this information up by the end of business on February 2, 1993. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, John W. Walker JWW:Ip cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Richard Roachell /. . rOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brawn, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: February 3,1993 To: From: Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District  Bob Morgan, Associate Monitor Subject: Crystal Hill Chronology Attached is a chronology of PCSSD building Crystal Hill Elementary. I thought it might be informative. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to call. cc: Mac Bernd3/30/90 5/1/91 8/16/91 9/17/91 9/30/91 10/8/91 PCSSD CRYSTAL HILL SCHOOL MAJOR EVENT CHRONOLOGY Architects hired - Plans and specs developed May 1 revisions to plans - Biracial site selection committee formed Site selection made - Offer extended on property NLR Planning Commission recommends against site NLR City Board in special meeting approves site Board votes to issue second lien bonds for construction 11/21/91 Contractors bidding notified of time constraints and warned no customary \"act of god\" provision 12/5/91 Bids due in to PCSSD 12/9/91 Board reviewed bids - Voted to close by 12\\ 18 \u0026amp; let bid 12/18 12/18/92 Site purchase closed - Bids let for construction 1/16/92 Draft of letter on theme sent to committee 1/20/92 Committee meeting to discuss theme 2/04/92 Official public groundbreaking 2/13/92 Motion for magnet designation 2/17/92 Theme survey results compiled 2/18/92 Proposed attendance zones announced to parents at Oak Grove meeting 3/5/92 School 30 % complete - Bond sale in jeopardy because of bad credit - District court grants magnet designation 4/1/92 Principal for Crystal Hill hired 4/27/92 Asst principal hired 5/5/92 Successful millage election 5/7/92 Bonds successfully sold 5/14/92 Meeting of teachers for Crystal Hill 7/20/92 400 seats from Maumelle \u0026amp; Crystal Hill area filled 8/1/92 PCSSD assumes \"beneficial occupancy\" of buildingLittle Rock School District 7 4 S February 5, 1993 FEB 1 1 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 201 East Markham Suite 510 Office of Oessgr\nmg Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I have appreciated your help and support as all of us work hard to improve the Little Rock School District. I also am concerned about carrying out the orders of the desegregation plan. Court with regard to Because of my concern about this issue, our I would sincerely appreciate your sending me the instrumentation which you will be using for future monitoring activities. I am making this request so that the District can better follow the desegregation plan and maintain its focus on this vitally important issue. I would certainly appreciate receipt of these instruments as soon as possible so we may use them in conjunction with our own compliance efforts. We have appreciated your past cooperation in this regard and apologize for any possible duplication, but we would like to have a complete set of past instruments as well complete file of all of these documents. we may have a Sincerely, so Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220L  (501)324-2000 T ij e Ma r 0 2 11:54 1 = P . -s e CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A FARTNEaSHn OF INDIVIDUALS AND FHOFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAFITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Tcltphone (501) 376-2011 Fk No, (501) 375-2147 Diicet No. 370-1506 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR, MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a repon about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that\" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plais presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Court since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan, In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: \"(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations.\" On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2ue Mar 11 :  -i 1 : Court alsonotified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher 4^i.^u*AVt Wi4b T vv*x*-* uiau 111U.5XV UCaVAlVl positionsn^he seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3Mar 02 11:54 1 9 93 P a e There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review e effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 17, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mae Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1993, which I received on February 11, 1993. As you requested. Im enclosing copies of monitoring information 1 provided last fall. If you should need additional copies of any ODM monitoring reports, which I have routinely furnished all parties, please let me know. I share your concerns about the importance of the districts carrying out the desegregation plan and related court orders. Thats why I place such emphasis upon communication and understanding, and why my staff and 1 spend a great deal of time trying to promote both those processes in the spirit of helpfulness and support. As a matter of fact, since last July when you became superintendent, my staff and 1 have had more than 30 meetings with your administrators to discuss ODMs monitoring. The implications of the December 30, 1992 Court Order, which deals with the impact of the LRSD budget cuts, have been the subject of some of ose discussions. Over the months, weve also covered many other topics, including ODM monitoring priorities, instruments, methods, and findings\nthe incentive schools\nearly childhood programs\nthe Biracial Committees\nthe McClellan magnet program\nincentive school staffing needs assessment\nthe alternative school\nthe Academic Support Program\nthe Four- Year-Old Longterm Plan\ncounseling services and state counseling standards\nthe budget process and budgeting cuts\nthe aerospace magnet school and grant\nand the King assignment zones and theme selection process. In addition to the many in-person meetings, there have been countless phone calls exchanged between members of my staff and yours about these same topics and many others. You are also well aware of the numerous conversations that Chris Heller and I have engaged in, as have you and 1.Page Two February 17, 1993 Moreover, to promote accuracy and to minimize the chance of \"surprises,\" we routinely review our written monitoring reports with district administrators before filing them with the Court and releasing them to the press and the public, judge Wright has also taken steps to ensure the best use of the time and resources of us all, issuing a scheduling order prior to hearings so the parties and counsel can fully prepare for the subjects to be covered. I also try to help you and your colleagues anticipate what to expect at hearings. Prior to the last hearing, 1 repeatedly emphasized to you, Chris, and others that the Court would have many hard questions about the status of the LRSD budgeting process and junior high capacities. 1 also stressed that, since Judge Wright does not engage in ex parte communication, she would likely pose questions on other topics related to her Orders of May, November, and December 1992. There is no secret or mystery about how ODM monitors. My staff and 1 frequently discuss our monitoring priorities, methods, and findings in both formal and informal meetings with district personnel. Also, 1 recap the ODM monitoring approach in the introductory section of each ODM report. As 1 stated in my October 15, 1992 letter, which listed ODMs 1992-93 monitoring priorities, our monitoring is based on the desegregation plans, court orders and directives, and any \"unforeseen events\" related to ODMs charge. A recent order is one of those unforeseen events to which ODM is now responding. As you know from the last court date, judge Wrights December 30, 1992 Order will be the subject of a hearing to be scheduled soon. To explain ODMs response to that Order and what you can expect at the hearing, 1 will briefly summarize information that has appeared in my previous letters, memos, and reports about ODMs monitoring approach: All our monitoring relates to the districts settlement agreements, court orders, the judges directives, and state requirements. The monitoring instruments (or \"guides\" as we call them) used in long term monitoring are based directly on desegregation plan and order language. The introduction to ODMs June 5, 1992 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report details ODMs systematic approach to a long term monitoring project and the three main information sources we use: written information, interviews, and observation. In short term or \"status\" monitoring, which takes place within a short time period, we do not create a special monitoring instrument\ninstead, as explained in the introduction to the October 8,1992 McClellan Status Report, ODMs investigation is guided by plan provisions and court orders that pertain most directly to the subject being scrutinized. We also rely on the same three main information categories: written sources, interviews, and observation. (The distinction between a long term monitoring report and a short term status report is clearly defined in the McClellan report.) Given the short timeline we have for monitoring the December 30, 1992 Order, ODM is presently conducting a status type investigation, as we did with McClellan last fall, using the specific language of the Order, the desegregation plans, and state standards to guide our monitoring. Also because of the brief time period, instead of publishing a written report, we will present our findings during the hearing scheduled for that purpose.Page Three Februaiy 17, 1993 By analyzing the December 30, 1992 Order and reviewing our previous monitoring reports, you and your staff will be able to anticipate the focus of our current monitoring and how we are going about it. Heres an example that, while not exhaustive, illustrates how we are carrying out our present monitoring assignment: In the section of the Order entitled \"Counselor Positions and Elimination of the Pupil Personnel Department,\" the Court stated (on page 10) that \"if monitoring determines that the district is unable to provide the full range of required services, the Court may direct the district to restore eliminated positions.\" To monitor this part of the Order, we are looking at a variety of information that includes the requirements of the desegregation plans and state statutes\nreviewing documentation to determine the number and placement of counselors before and after the reductions\nexamining records to assess the extent of any caseload changes\nreviewing school records and interviewing counselors, principals, and other administrators to identify any changes in the number and types of counseling programs or services mandated by the plan and state standards, such as individual and group counseling, at-risk interventions, career development activities, test-taking assistance, etc. If you or your staff want to contact me or my associates for additional information about a particular aspect of our current monitoring, well be happy to answer any questions. Very truly yours. Ann S. Brown Enc. 7??^ ?'e3 Cp'J'/'** '=SX'a c Mar 1 I :5 ,/e ' CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNEMHI? OF INDIVIDUAL3 AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCLATIONS ATTCftNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 3LTLDING 400 .VEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72:01-34 Telephone (501) 376-2011 Fix No. (501) 376-2147 Direct No. 370-1506 1 MEMQRAiNDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a report about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that  Li]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V, Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistiict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Coutl since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation pl^. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: II (1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations.\" On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2P a ? Ef Court alsonotified e Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher . xxwxv x^ijuivu Uiat XU VYVUIU iqi^LUic UlUL UXUMv LcacncT positionsf^he seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregadon efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Coun and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared. all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3T u e Mar 11:54 0 2 199 P a e There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continning concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case.1 , Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 23, 1993 Mr. Larry Robertson Little Rock School district 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Robertson: This morning 1 received a fax copy of Ms. Joy Springers February 22, 1993 letter to you about a tour of proposed Stephens Interdistrict School sites. According to the letter, the tour is to take place this morning, February 23, 1993. The fax from Mr. Walkers office is the first information ODM has received about visits to potential school sites. Locating new schools is of such importance to the Court that Judge Wright herself participated in a well-publicized February 1992 tour of potential sights for the King Interdistrict School. The PCSSD has so closely involved ODM in the process being used to select its new interdistrict school site, the district requested that a member of my staff serve on their Site Selection Committee. While 1 am not asking you to place an ODM staff member on any LRSD committee, I do ask that you keep ODM informed of all developments in desegregation-related matters, particularly those having to do with the highly sensitive issue of locating new schools. Notification of events regarding new schools should be made to ODM and all parties well in advance. Keeping the Court and the parties amply informed will help build a positive reputation for LRSD good faith communication and cooperation. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Mac Bernd Marie Parker bcz'. JLittle Rock School District February, 25, 1993 i \u0026lt; Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FEB 2 0 1993 OS r.f :iing Dear Ann: I am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which I indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court. The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 I February 26, 1993 Hrs. Lucy Lyon Library Coordinator, LRSD Franklin School 2600 N. McKinley Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Dear Mrs. Lyon: RECEIVED MAR 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring The program, originally and funded by the desegregation plan. elementary library instruction, access to the materials greatly and research. concerned that and we library at the provided for small approved in group assistance to teachers. point of need for have been unable to We are meet the requirements of the desegregation plan ___ librarian has been required to do large group instruction as provision teacher-release time. During large group instruction, access to the library is limited. this year because the for a large large additional group hinders us time from instruction and hampers resources for our our meaningful to using hands-on support curriculum. that they these students. activities ability at-risk Furthermore, to and the The basal need and deserve in denies the which provide students, are more teachers the implementing the new new curriculum literature curriculum, textbooks materials. requires and more In order your utilization. less and less dependence and more on library on and the library program must to achieve success with this consideration of the library This revision will following be revised. plan require only for We request library the current staff (an elementary librarian and library clerk) and no additional funding. Lessons would be teacher input at each based on curriculum grade level. These objectives and emphasize literature appreciation, lessons which will skills class) will be taught to on alternate weeks. small research methods, and study heterogeneous groups (1/2 on activlties This will enable us to use hands- and to the needs of all of our With a small group in session, the library and its can remain continuously available to other students under the supervision of the clerk. students. materials better meet of These revisions are respectfully submitted in the belief they will enhance the that educational opportunities for all our students. We thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposal. students. Sincerely, Little Rock School District Elementary Librarians1 cc\nDr. C.M, \"Mac\" Bernd Dr. Katherine Mitchell Dorsey Jackson John Moore Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli John Riggs William Hamilton Honorable Susan Webber Wright Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor -'J Little Rock School District  -I March 3, 1993 MAR 3 1993 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Monitoring West Heritage Building 201 E. Markham St., Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Office of Dssogrcgaficn fvfon.i ing Dear Ms. Brown, Attached are several reports that have been requested by your office. The first report is a summary of the activities that will be facilitated by the Office of Organizational and Learning Equity/Recruitment. These activities will contribute toward recruiting for the district as a whole and for the specific types of schools which we seek to promote. The second report is submitted by the Communications Office and summarizes the activities that have been completed during the 1992-93 school year in support of the Office of Organizational and Learning Equity/Recruitment. These activities also support the LRSD recruiting effort for the district and specific schools. In addition, the Communications Office has supplied their Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline. Information you requested about New Futures For Little Rock Youth is also attached as the third report. Reports which your office requested concerning the 4-Year-Old Program and Academic Support are forthcoming. Sincerely, Marie Parker Associate Superintendent Organizational and Learning Equity 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000C.F. W in punis 'J \u0026gt;4 ROCK SCHOOL  DISTRICT MAR 8 1993 Office cf Dosegregsiicn Morthonny Pulaski Heights Junior High School 401 North Pine Street Phone 671-6250 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 February 2571^3 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 West Heritage Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I met with Dr. Bernd on February 24, 1993, and discussed my proposal to develop a \"University School\" specialty program for Pulaski Heights Junior High for the 1993-94 school year. Please send me all of the guidelines, rules, procedures, etc., required in order to gain approval of a specialty program. It is my opinion that Pulaski Heights is the only nonmagnet junior high school to successfully achieve the main integration goals of the desegregation order, continue that success. We want to Sincerely, Principal cc: Sam Stueart Assistant Superintendent \"WHERE EXCELLENCE IS A TRADITION\" Little Rock School District March 4, 1993 ajc3 ^3 MAR 4 1993 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Off'ce of D^isgrsg, :n McJ li-.Q 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: Enclosed for your review is a draft outline of the Little Rock School District budget process and a draft of the revised budget document. Please respond in writing if these documents meet your approval. We cannot proceed with budget development until we have your approval. Sipfcerely, Ga' E Jones Manager of Resources and School Support Enclosures cc: Ms. Ann Brown (w/enclosures) c:\\budget\\drafts.wpd 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 1-9  - - '  . y'  ''k': t ' \u0026gt;1 ,,, \u0026amp; 14 L ( \\ t 7)014cL Si 13 ^3 I n I ?Lt% SCkcQ I S HCxYrrT^^n Ss^VED  C!c7 f\\f i\u0026lt;a n s?._ I MAR 1 0 1955 Qj? skr 01\" ..b\u0026gt; i. 1^01'Ci Office of Desegrog. Ki j^'X, )q, IV 1'5. 'J half- .- \u0026lt; , O^Y f ttr-i c. A.\\jT5  SA 7. k /A I Vx'V4tu\u0026lt;t .stvx Kv\u0026lt;T ..A^q- rvA_^J'4 Ti A c, Cvru i m uc^t J 4, uTi't^... ,...o_fe..h..4 y ^Te.\u0026amp;.LLs _______________________ ...j'l^,.Sh\u0026amp;Ap ! CUlii Jf..'p'e.%I .Ra_____ :.ph-.Y s!M-eii'b a ll t,si,-h\u0026amp;^- ipor j)(yiT pe\u0026lt;j~-\u0026gt; fiT^AS-ki tt ff'(... .C9.ik^\u0026amp;Qi..j9k'i^sSc\u0026lt;^ l -S-c -1 ft s 7r j levy [MlYCk 5/ 1.33.3 b-Y A ' I3'!.)\\^ ..h'S.V'Sn'i-K'^i., Q.y^...'. .\\ \\ !i : I y - ...f -J iii 41 J iPk\u0026amp;ia. ppc,sA.U^-A'l^_L0(4'k [Tjci-hOeT. ^'' I  I K^, 6, L_J,  ._\\( c \u0026lt;X \\:2:S--ijT.sLL\u0026amp;J/. I I  I i 1'^ ,^(gxlCtfc- !l\u0026amp; II er / . 1'^ C-E'rEP SPRINGS PEC p.l I FAX from GEYER SPRINGS FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 5615 Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, AR 72209 Office (501) 565-3474 * FAX (501) 562-4189 FAX TO\nlOloAii'fea t ompany/Division\nFrom: 0 nr\\ 1-4\u0026gt;^k Number of Pages: (Including this cover page) Time Sent: Date Sent: IfAX Number: ST/'O/oo\n?/o/y3- COMMENTS: /)\u0026lt;/ iS, bJ U7e ,Q?n ' t^-t. u\u0026gt; UJ^siC 1 J. t/\"' \"bQ. lit Ct. \u0026gt;ZO r '1 ft jS/ oC 3 o r 3/\u0026lt; 1^^- p 'ZZ. (!. a 10 '93 09:57 GEYER SPRINGS EEC P.2 A LIST OF NEEDS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH as compiled by the staff HEALTH A health room that can accommodate wheelchairs, one that has more than one cot for 650 students. Areas separate from each other for waiting, counseling and health room cots, built-in storage cabinets, racks or tables as well as cheerful walls. Our ninth grade area needs the following\na vacuum pressure pump, a free fall tube, 2 bell jars, meter sticks, pulley demonstration kit, a gyroscope, an AC geiger counter, tuning forks, a wave motion apparatus, a c'nss set of magnets a Van De Graf generator, 10 triple beam balances, a class set of alcohol burners, ar-  nomica) telescope, a class set of each of the following\nwater buckets, safety goggles, electric motors (DC) kit, linear spring scales, graduated cylinders, funnels, scissors, large test tubes, plane glass mirrors magnifying glasses, spectroscopes, a general purpose hot plate, mortar and pestles, and a parabolic reflector set. Our eight grade area needs the following\na class set of lab tables, drain tables, meter sticks, AC Geiger Counter, Magnet Set for class, Van De Graf Generator, 10 triple beam balances, class set of Bunsen burners, safety goggles and safety gloves, graduated cylinders, general purpose hot plate, large set of test tubes and racks. Class set of thermometers, specimen slides (plant and animal), refrigerator, micro projector, money for supplies to do experiments, anemometer, sling psychrometer, wind vane. Our seventh grade area needs lab tables, light microscopes, a skeleton, electrical outlets for scopes. classroom sets of each of the following\ngraduated cylinders, test tubes, thermometers, specimen slides (plant and animal), blood pressure sets, scissors, metric rulers, beakers (100ml and 400ml). magnifying glasses, lab aprons, compasses, globes. They also need a hot plate, models (cell and mitosis), refrigerator, calipers, mtcroprojecfor safety glasses, peir, W- W8M. BUSINESS EDUCATION A seven period day to facilitate course requirements, 4 computer work centers which will serve 6 computers per station, software for business applications. SPECIAL EDUCATION A seven period school day is a must, real classrooms for the Resource teachers (who roam). This area enclosed an order form for approximately $1000.00 worth of supplies that are badly needed. Our CBI students need a toilet in their classroom, their teachers need access to a telephone, as well as a set of kitchen cabinets.rWR 10 '93 09:58 GEYER SPRINGS EBC P.3 PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND ATHLETICS Seven period days with the athletic period as the last period of the day, locker space - currently our students have to carry their P. E. clothes with them each day as there are only enough lockers for students to use during their class periods, girls are required to share lockers with as many as 3 others, a class set of Fit For Life books to be used in our physical fitness unit, an exhaust fan to remove heat from the avm during the hot months, insulation and soundproofing would help make the gym warm in the winter, an intercom that works, restroom facilities that work, water fountains that work, volleyball standards that meet AAA requirements, a multipurpose room to separate all three grades in P,E..sanding and refinishing of the basketball court, charts and teaching aids for first aid and physical fitness, a budget to allow the teachers to replace broken and unsafe equipment. HEALTH EDUCATION Classrooms not shared and big enough to hold a full class, more time to teach health (nine weeks is not enough for eighth graders), current videos, funds for field trips. AMERICAN HISTORY U. S, History projection maps, land acquisition map, erasable white chalkboard with markers on a easel, a set of current encyclopedias, and dictionaries, a U,S, flag as well as an Arkansas flag, construction paper, globes, various teaching video tapes a classroom set of newspapers, student desks. READING 20 more computers are needed so our english classes can attend and use them for writing and research, 2 more computers are needed in the library, computer language arts programs, In our reading classrooms we need weekly newspapers, tape recorders,. CAFETERIA Other cafeterias have salad bars as well as potato bars, a change in the menus would be appreciated. SPANisa First and foremost, one class room or one shared with the French teacher to allow ideas and plans to be implemented, and to eliminate roaming between 3 class rooms throughout the building. The class room would need the following: a working overhead projector, adequate blackboard space, maps of Hispanic countries, bulletin boards, VCR, TV, computer, language listening center to include  earphone sets, computer, VCR and TV, a quality tape recorder to project adequate sound to the class, two oblong tables, up to date textbooks (a request that was bypassed), additional tapes, computer software, videos, games, supplementary materials (i.e. activity materials published by Foreign Languages Publishing companies) to enhance visual/listening/oral learning, set of Spanish dictionaries, monthly Spanish publications such as Scholastic and funds to provide each student with his own copy. MAR 10 '93 09:59 GEYER SPRINGS EEC P.4 CHORAL MUSIC For their classroom\nseated risers, choir folios (100 at $3.95 each) piano repair this requires a cabinet maker to replace hinges on the keyboard cover, 50 music room chairs with table arms (since other courses are taught in our music room, and exploratory music requires extensive note taking), a piano cover, sight reading texts, audio-visual materials, a relatively new set of encyclopedias, and music filing boxes, gANQ Better scheduling (seventh graders only have one elective class) smaller classes (teaching 9 different instruments in one class at the same time doesn't work) instrument storage lockers, 7 field drum cases, 2 bass drum cases, sheet music, an instrument budget, new uniforms (not used handed down ones). MATH One class set of math explorer calculators, one overhead math explorer calculator, cabinets with locks to house $2000 of math manipulatives for three rooms, educational software these are all things that our teachers have asked for earlier but have not received. EmUSH One class set of Thesauruses (35 copies), a set of dictionaries for 5 classrooms, our current dictionaries are at least 20 years old, a subscription to Scholastic Press for 35 students, teaching packets for several current novels- We would have to buv 10 more sets of novels to be equal to magnet schools. COUNSELORS A conference room for support groups, parent conferences, locked storage rooms for tests (we are currently storing them on the floor of the counselors office) a small private room for testing, a direct telephone line, a long conference table. Posters, maps, work booklets, overhead transparencies, a set of current encyclopedias, a book rack.MAR 10 '93 09=59 GEYER SPRINGS EEC P.5 ART ROOM The art room needs: 8 new art desks with stools, a paper cutter, a drying rack COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND TECH PREP. because of the 7 period days at the New Futures schools, students are given the option to take Keytxjarding tn the 7th and 8th grades in preparation for Computer Tech in the Sth grade. This is a vita' prerequisite to the Sth grade course, as required by State Education Department but not availabie at MJHS, 2. The New Futures schools let students taking Computer Tech have a full year's course instead of one semester. As a result of the 7 period day, 80% of each of the 9th grade classes are taking Computer Tech in these schools versus only 30% of the 9th graders at MJHS. 3. The New Futures schools have television production studios purchased by New Futures money available to the students with video editors and computer graphics generators using Amega computers for invaluable experience in video production. 4. Mabelvale only received 9 new IBM computers when new computers were purchased for the 9th grade computer labs last year as opposed to at least 16 new IBM for all of the magnet schools and New Futures school labs. Students are not getting the hands on experience of using up-to-date computers with hard drives tike they are in all the other junior highs in the Little Rock School District. 5. The computer lab at MJHS is crammed into a 20' by 22' old classroom with no room for students to move around. The lab's cabinet doors are falling off their hinges, Work orders have been ignored or refused. The electricity is wired over the floor in raised boxes which students frequently trip over. The room frequently floods and has a leaky roof which endangers the welfare of the students. 6. All of the other computer labs in the district have direct on-line network access to the Colliers Encyclopedia in the Learning lab on CD/ROM except MJHS which has not ever had access. 7. Frequent request for software to fulfil curriculum requirements for Desktop publishing and Graphics have been ignored.MAR 10 93 10:00 GEYER SPRINGS EEC F.6- February 10. 1993 Dr, Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools UtUe Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Mac, c^rhAAi of f-ittle Rock School District which included funds to do r--------- High. We understand that this work was nut nn kaw eu\" . , = laucivaie uumor the new superintendent and his staff time to bfirnmafom-r resignation to allow date, we haVe not heard of ar!v 0^ \"bs. As of this patrons of the school district. The fSSvXuXXhpt a by the resolution that states: '^^^eivaie Junior High P.T,A. Executive Board has passed a passed a milage increase for the Little Rock ,H a! construction at Mabelvale Junior We urge the school district administration \"I and Board to proceed with capital improvements which are v^al to th^l^p^e^-ng year. The proposed restructuring model would the 1993-1994 academic in day or other innovative scheduling models such interdisciplinary team teaching. Under present r be left at a disadvantage by being \" as block scheduling and court orders and district plans, our We understand that stalos\nhowever, I. you lookaX as well as other parts of the District based draw from our neighborhood We feel that the term a magnet school. We on the needs of the students. leei mat me term maonet drhnni\" ie  siuoenis. junior high school that provides them with a oualitv eduratinn allowed to go to any High. Southwest Little Rock mixed community. can no longer be viewed as primarily one race or the other. We are a provide our students wi^h^e?ra^currTulJSiX^?dh'\" '^7^ buildings. - by neglecting physical improvements in favor of these magnet schools by failing to On numerous to our TOI then. ve7 dien. We want you  VvS are doing very well so^* j^ou^donn^o construction and restructuring. our concerns about We feel that the Board and the Administration is of the opinion that all of the problems that areMAR 10 '93 10:01 GEYER SPRINGS EEC p.7 occurring m the central office are more important than the education of ____ feel neglected by the Board and Administration and want them to know that many of us our students. H oh rJ ? 1^' to Mabelvale Junior  curriculum and it's teachers. However, if the Soard and Administration fail to act on the improvement of the facilities, we are prepared to once aoain no h.nk m n.iZ St?: we are prepared to once again go back to private schools. We fool fhr,* k,, ...K r a\"\"'ya'-''w povdie scnoois. the children. neglecting to provide the kind of education needed by all mrough ******\" **  'P  school 1. 2. our^Siool^ 3. 4. 5. 6. By directing the support services staff to perform much needed repairs remodelling, and construction at our school. By allowing us to have direct control of our heating and air conditioning (recently, the District came out and turned off heat pumps which provided air conditioning to our classrooms, and as a result when the weather turned cold our students did not have heat - several rooms were 45 degrees during the school day.) By providing our teachers with equipment necessary to provide our students with a quality education (we have one microscope for an entire class yet, magnet schools have one for eve^ student). By allowing us to have a seven course school day and more teachers to support the restructuring. By adding classroom space. We have no parent conference room, limited storage space, no room for the math assistants, inadequate special education classrooms, cramped cafeteria, roving teachers using other teachers Classrooms during prep time, inadequate in-school-suspension area, poor playground facilities, and a building falling apart around us. We know the district administrators are interested in the education of our students We are Sons Mtoe?'*\"  ***' * * P' I ciOiiyi iw muv'*qQ^\u0026amp;, We are anxiously awaiting a reply from you regarding our concerns. Sincerely, Tom Brock, President Mabelvale Junior High P.T.A.:-iR 10 -93 10:01 GEYER SPRINGS FBC LIULE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mabelvale Junior High School P.8 P.O. Box 187 Phone 455-2413 Mabelvale, Arkansas 72103 February 22, 1993 To Inborn It May Concern: the en on. I joined the faculty at Mabelvale Jr. High School, I cam aboard with My vision was and is to help those to have an interest in art to to their fullest potential and also to impress upon the uninterested ty of the arts. I still have that vision. a 'TH/ T use this medium to express my concern. The classroom designated for art class does not provide adequate space to effectively conduct my class. Jiie of the most important factors in an art class is the pleasure of displaying your art work. It lends an opportunity for each student to study their own art work in addition to review and appreciate the conversation expressed through the handiwork of others, I must report that limited space prohibits us from ' ---in. .able to do so. Further, this hinderance deprives other students who are interested in of the chance to enroll in the class. I would welcome the challenge to an additional class inorder to accommodate all of those students who are T humhl. appeal to you to allow me the opportunity to fulfill my vision. 1 am asking for more space and an additonal art class. It would please me greatly if you would give serious consideration to my request. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Edgar Porchia aCME OF TBS BED BJUSSBO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: jBoard THROUGH SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, AR March 11, 1993 of Directors 72201 fGary Jones, Manager of Resources and School Support 'C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Approval of Lease Agreement on Parkin Building Attached is an agreement to lease the second floor of the Parkin Building with adjoining parking space located at 6th and Ringo Streets. The annual cost of the lease is $84,672 plus utilities. The term of the lease is sixteen months. The purpose of the lease is to relocate the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) from the former Lee School and Franklin Elementary. The administration plans to pursue a lease/purchase of the entire building during the term of the lease. We recommend that the Board approve the lease as submitted. c:\\niemos\\parkin2.upd LEASE By this agreement of lease, dated By tnis agreement ot lease, dated_____________________________ 1993, Virginia B. Hodges, Louise Parkin Lynn Revocable Trust, Virginia L. Boyd Testamentary Trust, and Jack T. Lynn Testamentary Trust, all of Little Rock, Arkansas and for convenience herein collectively called \"Lessor,\" leases to Little Rock School District, herein called \"Lessee,\" the following described premises: Approximately 24,000 square feet, being all of the upper floor within the building located at 6th and Ringo, Little Rock, Arkansas, together with all of the parking area located on the east side of the building (legally described as part of Lots 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 12, Block 290, Original City of Little Rock) for use as ad^^^tr^tive offices and storage area for a term of seventeen (17) months, commencing 1993 and expiring July 31, 1994, at an annual rent of $84,672.(X) payable in monthly installments of $7,056.00 in advance on the first day of each month, commencing with the first month of the term, to The Hathaway Group, 3600 Cantrell Road^ Suite 301, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202\nall on the following terms: 1. UTILITIES AND SERVICES The parties agree that each shall pay for utilities and services as indicated below: (a) (b) (c) Lessee shall pay for the natural gas, water, sewer, and electric utilities used in connection with the occupancy of the leased premises, defined as 64% of the total utility usage for the building. Such payments shall be made by Lessee to Lessor upon Lessees receipt of periodic invoices for utility consumption. Lessee shall be responsible for its own janitorial service. Lessor shall pay real estate taxes and premiums for fire and extended casualty insurance. (d) Lessor shall maintain the premises as specified in Paragraph 11. QUIET POSSESSION 2. So long as Lessee performs its obligations. Lessor covenants to it quiet and peaceful possession of the leased space. D:\\WT51\\FILESURH\\LRSD.LEA3. LESSEES OBLIGATIONS Lessee agrees as follows: (a) (b) To pay rent as due and to deliver possession of the premises to Lessor upon termination of this lease in the same condition as received, ordinary wear and tear and damage by fire, the elements or other casualty excepted\nTo use the premises in an orderly fashion and not to suffer or permit any violations of laws or ordinances therein\n4. 5. (c) Not to assign or sublet without prior consent of Lessor, which Lessor agrees will not be unreasonably withheld. LESSORS REMEDIES Lessor may terminate this lease and enter and take possession of the premises from Lessee, all without waiving any rights which it may have at law hereunder, without further notice or demand (all such notices and demands being hereby waived) following any of these events: (a) (b) (c) That Lessee should fail to pay rent due hereunder within thirty (30) days following written notice of default therein\nThat Lessee shall fail to commence curing any other violation of its covenants within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, or, having commenced to cure the same as aforesaid, should fail to carry the same to conclusion with due diligence\nUpon the adjudication of Lessee as a bankrupt or the appointment of a receiver of its property. UNTENANTABILITY If the premises, or any portion thereof, are made untenantable by fire, the elements or other casualty, rent for the entire premises or affected portion thereof shall abate from the date of such casualty to restoration of tenantability. Lessor shall restore the same with all reasonable speed, and if Lessor does not restore the premises or the affected portion to tenantability within ninety (90) days thereafter. Lessee may then terminate this lease, retroactive to the date of casualty. If the premises are more than fifty percent (50%) destroyed by casualty, either Lessor or Lessee may terminate this lease, retroactive to such date, by notice delivered within thirty (30) days thereafter\nfailing D:\\WP5l\\nLESURH\\LRSD.LEA -2-Lessor shall restore the premises to tenantability within one hundred twenty (120) days of such casualty and rent shall abate as aforesaid. LESSEES ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS 6. (a) Lessee has inspected and accepts the demised premises in their present condition. I A mU * t I A. J* _ * Lessor shall grant permission for Lessee to make such alterations and improvements and install such identification signs, furniture, fixtures and equipment in the demised premises as may be necessary. Lessee agrees to pay for the same, to indemnify, save and hold Lessor harmless from any cost, expense or liens arising in connection therewith. Any such alterations and improvements shall be subject to Lessors approval, not to be unreasonably withheld, and shall comply with all applicable national, state and municipal laws or regulations. 7. 8. 9. (b) (c) Lessor shall not unreasonably withhold consent to Lessee making further alterattons during the term of the lease, which further alternations shall be on the conditions contained in (a) above. Except as provided in paragraph 7 or as otherwise stated in Lessors consent to the making thereof. Lessees alterations and improvements shall become Lessors property at the termination of this lease. REMOVAL OF LESSEES IMPROVEMENTS Upon termination. Lessee may at its option remove office equipment, business machines manufacturing equipment and machinery, trade fixtures, if any, and signs, plus such installations as Lessee may make and may be permitted to remove under this lease provided that it restores the premises to their original condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and repairs damage done by such removal. INSPECTION Lessor has the right to enter the premises for reasonable inspections at any time and to show the same to prospective tenants during the last six (6) months of the term. LIABILITY Unless caused by the negligence or willful act or failures to act of Lessor or its agent or employees. Lessee waives all claims against Lessor for damages to the property of Lessee, resulting from the building or its equipment being out of repair, or from act or neglect of any other tenant or occupant or any accident or theft in or about the building. D:\\WP51\\FILESURH\\LRSD.LEA - 3 -LIABILITY INSURANCE 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Lessee, at its expense, shall maintain in full force and effect a comprehensive public liability insurance policy, with respect to the Leased Premises and all activities conducted thereon, with both Lessor and Lessee as named insureds with a single combined limit of liability of $1,000,000.00, such policy to contain a provision that it cannot be canceled without at least ten (10) days prior written notice to Lessor. Lessee shall at all times provide Lessor with written evidence that such insurance policy is in effect. If the terms of the issuer of blanket policy do not reasonably satisfy Lessor, Lessee shall provide a supplemental policy as described above. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR The Lessor shall, at its own cost and expense, keep in good condition and repair during the term of this lease, sidewalks, sewers, gutters, drainpipes, downspouts, driveways, window sash and frames, parking lots, air conditioning and heating systems, stairways, foundations, exterior walls, roof and structural parts of, in or about the premises and the building of which the premises are a part including gas, water, and electric pipes and conduits within the foundations, floors, walls, and structural parts thereof and all other generally accepted areas of Lessors control or responsibility of said premises. SIGNS Lessor will not unreasonably withhold consent to Lessees lettering or windows or erection of signs as are reasonably necessary to Lessees business and are in keeping with the standards maintained in the building. PARKING FACILITIES Lessee, its employees, customers, and visitors shall have the exclusive right to use the parking lot and loading area on the east side of the building. HOLDING OVER BY LESSER If Lessee shall remain in the demised premises after the expiration of this lease without having executed a new written lease or extended this lease through a modification, then Lessees monthly rent shall immediately escalate to $8,820.00 per month and Lessor shall have the option to treat Lessee as one not lawfully entitled to possession of the premises, and shall thereupon be entitled to take all lawful action for Lessees immediate removal therefrom. D:\\W51 \\FILESURH\\LRSD.LEA - 4 -15. 16. 17. 18. 19. CONDEMNATION If ^y portion of the premises or the access thereto is condemned and if, in Lessees sole opinion, the remainder is inadequate, then Lessee shall have the option (to be exercised within ninety (90) days of written notice to Lessee of the area to be condemned) to cancel this lease as of the effective date of condemnation\nin such case, any portion of a condemnation award or settlement attributable to the Lessees leasehold (including options to extend the same) shall be paid to Lessee. Lessee shall have reasonable opportunity to participate in the condemnation proceedings. If any characteristics of the premises are made less desirable by condemnation, and Lessee elects not to cancel then there shall be an equitable adjustment of rent to reflect such fact for the balance of the term. SUBORDINATION This lease and Lessees rights hereunder shall at all times be subordinate to the liens of mortgages now or hereafter placed on the building or any underlying leasehold estate. So long as Lessee performs its covenants, its right to possession hereunder shall not be disturbed under the rights or powers granted in any such mortgage. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, neither Lessor nor Lessee shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage caused by fire or any other risk insured against by fire, standard extended coverage and malicious mischief and vandalism insurance, in force at the time of such loss or damage. AMENDMENTS There are no agreements between the parties except as stated in this lease, amendments hereof shall be effective unless in writing, signed by both parties. NOTICES No The delivery of notices provided for herein shall be effective only if delivered to Lessor at the address provided for payment of rent and to Lessee at Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 D:\\WP5I\\FILES\\JRH\\LRSD.LEA - 5 -20. 21. Mailing of same so addressed, by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, shall constitute delivery. No employee of Lessee at any other address has or shall have any authority to receive notices hereunder. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Lessor represents to the best of its knowledge and belief that no hazardous or toxic materials subject to regulation by State or Federal law or regulations have been manufactured, stored, or disposed of on or about the Leased Premises. Lessee hereby covenants that it will not manufacture at or install in the Leased Premises any such hazardous or toxic materials during the term of this Lease. BROKERAGE FEES Lessor agrees to pay The Hathaway Group (Agent) professional fees as outlined in Exhibit A which is attached to Lessors and Agents copies of this lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this lease to be executed on the date first above written, hereby binding their respective successors, assigns, heirs, executors and administrators. LESSOR: LESSEE: Little Rock School District Virginia P. Hodges (50% Owner) George Prange, Trustee Virginia L. Boyd Testamentary Trust (9.705% Owner) George Prange, Trustee Jack P. Lynn Testamentary Trust (9.705% Owner) Virginia L. Boyd, Co-Trustee and Louise Parkin Lynn, Co-Trustee Louise Parkin Lynn Revocable Trust (30.59% Owner) D:\\WP51\\F1LESURH\\LRSD.LEA -6- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI to be the person described Before me personally appeared Virginia P. Hodges to me well known and known to me who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to - - - -'O o **'^** '^**^**'^ MllU UVAJIk/ and before me that she executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. 1993. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of My Commission Expires\nNOTARY PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Before me personally appeared George Prange, Trustee for the Virginia L, Bovd Testamentary Tryst, to me well known and known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that he executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this 1993. day of My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC D.WPSnriLESURHXLRSD.LEA - 7 -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Before me personally appeared George Prange, Trustee for the Jack P, Lynn Testamentary Tryst, to me well known and known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that he executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. 1993. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Before me personally appeared Virginia L. Boyd and Louise Parkin Lynn Co-Trustees for the Louise Parkin Lynn Revocable Trust, to me well known and known to me to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that they executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of 1993. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC D:\\WP51\\F1LES\\JRH\\LRSD.LEA - 8 -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI On this day personally appeared before me the undersigned, a Notary Public within and for the County and State aforesaid, duly qualified, commissioned and acting, the within named ----------------------- \n----------------------------------being the ____________________________of Little Rock School District, and who has been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument, to me personally well known, who stated he is duly authorized in his capacity to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and on behalf of Little Rock School District, and further stated and acknowledged that he had so signed, executed and delivered said oregoing instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. this IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on day of 1993 My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC D:\\WP51\\FILES\\JRH\\LRSD.LEA -9-fip. Lett) Pa r^ VA fj :^=\n? :^2C X J- /] M 1 ' CIV,co 0* ^en t^oriWnr'S Williams Magnet Staff Williams Magnet School 7301 Evergreen Street Little Rock, AR 72207 March 9, 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown, Director Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The academic year of 1992-93 has seen many dramatic changes to the curriculum and educational process in the Little Rock of 1992-93 has seen many dramatic . - -  ----------- Public Schools. As the Magnet Review Committee meets to discuss, plan, and implement new changes, the staff at Williams Magnet School respectfully requests that you read, consider, and review our professional views before implementing the current changes, staff would like to address a few concerns about the future changes. the staff at you read, address changes for the academic year 1993-94. concerns about The Williams Magnet School, successful as North Little learning environment all records innovative idea. Rock, and for hundreds indicate, has been a Because Pulaski County students. of Little of its initial witnessed the growth of all the other Magnets. to the whole child. success We are It we Rock, was an have committed to generate We need all the components of the curriculum the same degree of success achieved in the past. is our opinion that no one part of the program should be removed. It It is diligence and teachers and all enthusiasm and creative energy of magnet program a success. the specialty area teachers classroom that makes this. With economic problems in many areas of that cutbacks are inevitable in L.R.S.D. is costly cutback choice. and unproductive. society. The new we recognize We feel that ABACUS ABACUS program should be the not the established successful program in place. In closing we would respectfully remind you, that Williams has an outstanding staff is reputation reputation. proud of the hard throughout the We believe that classroom teachers but art. special area their children teachers as magnet work we have done it is the area. Williams earning our solid effort not only of the music, physical education, and other well, that Parents brochures on expect the program waiting lists for motivate patrons to and disadvantageous videos. to the that is years to enter outlined and place our school, advertised in We children. feel The the change wou Id children are our be main concern and the whole child needs all, not parts, of the program.Thank you for taking time to consider these deep felt concerns. Professionally yours. i ! - t yytha^-yli ~nu. f bV .^U^X-x 'OAl^n . iM-L 'iTua. fna^'^^nUn^ 'Ijyt^. ^j!^ ^1  IA . A '} \\y. i L \"i f a. PivUUIm'i^I^ /VlzcMol^ 17/1993 17:11 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. JOHN \\LKER RV.PH \\S abHINGTON MARK BVKNRI^..^. WILEY A. RRANToN. -JR. AtSTIN PORTER. -JR. , .. ..  A5* a'Jn'ittr*- I J * I [*! h- 'J. TO 3710100 P . 02 JOHN w. Walker. p.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LiTFLE Rock. Akkansas Telephone (-501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-418 ( DELIVERED VIA FACglMII^ March 17, 1993 Chris Heller, Esq. Little Rock School District c/o _ 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Heller\nWould you plan to use at know who you plan to call as kindly provide me with_ anj_ new exhibits that you the budget hearing on Friday. - ----- witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Jo^n W. Walker-^^ Jo JWW: im r. (*1 / Mb TOTAL P.0203/17/1993 17:10 FROM JOHN W.WfiLKER P.P. TO 3710100 P . 0 1 JOHN W. Walker, p.a. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72zo6 Telephone (501) 374^58 FAX (601) 374-4187 JO. WlXER RAI- d WASHINGTON MARK BURNED WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. auetin porter, JR. , ...  Alm Kimittal  i\" 4 w Datnrt ot Columbia. TO: jv\nFAX NO.: FROM: DATE: ... RE: message: I THIS FAX CONSISTS OF '3^ PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE. OUR FAX NUMBER IS: (501) 374-4187 I I I u I.A 03 .' 17/1993 16! 44 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.ft. TO 3710100 'fr iS P . 0 1 March 17, 1993 D C. Mac Bemd, Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd: On March 12, the accompanying letter was faxed to you regarding the unprofessional conduct of employees at Little Rock Central High School. At the writing of this letter, 1 am still waiting for the response that has been requested. TUnfortunately, on Tuesday, March 16, conduct of a similar nature (harassment) was demonstrated by still another employee at the LRSD, this time a school bus driver. After several unsuccessful attempts to resolve this matter concerning the bus driver, I visited with the employee at the bus stop on the morning of March 17. The employee demonstrated an attitude and behavior that was very unprofessional in the presence of students. Additionally, support personnel at the LRSD bus terminal and in the office of Mr. Gary Jones also demonstrated very poor judgement and communication skills during my attempts to resolve this matter. 1 Dr, Bemd, I am responsible, much like you, to parents and students in this District, I would like very much to share with them the response that can only be provided by you, regarding the reported cases of student harassment and your efforts to resolve the matters. I I Please respond by letter at 2603 S. Brown St., Little Rock, AR 72204 or you can fax your letter to me at 374-4187. Respectfully, I i 1 I Hafeeza K Majeed Ad Hoc Committee for Fairness and Equity in Little Rock Public Schools 1 II cc: i^s. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Ms. Shirley Thomas, LRSD BAC Chairperson Mr. Brad Montgomery, Supervisor, LRSD Transportation Dept. Mr. Gary Jones, Associate Superintendent, School Support TOTAL P.ai s.-- .r \u0026lt; * P.Ol TRANSACTION REPORT NAR-17-93 WED 16:41 DATE START SENDER RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE MAR-17 16:39 501 374 4187 1'28^ 1 RECEIVE OK X )(( X  )K jSB1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 March 22, 1993 TO: Mr. Sterling Ingram FROM: THROUGH: Marie Parker SUBJECT: DESEGREGATION PLAN ISSUES The purpose of this memorandum is to direct you to address several priorities associated with the implementation of the Desegregation Plan as rapidly as possible so that we may be sure that we are making good faith effort to address the requirements of the Court with respect to these priorities. 1. Please report in writing any specific programatic assessment processes required by the Desegregation Plan and the status of the implementation of these processes. report please include any plans. As a part of this systems documents, or timelines that outline the assessment processes mentioned herein. 2. Please develop a plan and implementation schedule for any of the above assessments that have not been implemented. 3. Please develop a plan to meet the general requirement that we assess all aspects of the Desegregation plan. This assessment plan should specify each aspect of the Desegregation Plan in terms of two issues: (1) the purpose of the aspect of the plan being evaluated\nand (2) the measure which will ascertain the fulfillment of said purpose. . 4. Please prepare a report or \"audit\" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of programs outlined in the plan so that a document for the Federal Court can be developed as soon as possible. You may want to contact Diane Barksdale regarding this matter because she has done considerable work on this issue as a graduate school project. The information she has gathered may be quite useful to you as you prepare your report. In conclusion, please make an appointment with me to discuss the issues outlined in this memorandum. I believe all of them are important if we are to correctly implement o\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_363","title":"Correspondence","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"],"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":["Correspondence"],"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/363"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"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\nJohn w. Walker, p.^v. AT|(I\n|NKY At I .aw 17 B|!(),\\I)W,\\Y Liti'LE Ruck. Arkansas 722 TeI.EIIRiNE (5(11) .571-37.55 l'A.X (5111) 371-1157 MKi ED MJG i 1S93 JOHN W walker RAI.Pn WASIIINCTON MARK W'RNPITE AUSTIN IDRTEU. JR. August 3, 1993 Otiice ot Desegregation Mcnitoting Mr. John Moore President Little Rock Board of Directors 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 Re: John Hickman Dear Mr. Moore: I am in receipt of Mr. Spencer Robinson's opinion regarding continuation of the Hickman matter. Before the Board considers the matter, I wish to be heard by the full Board at a public meeting. At that time I would like to present arguments contrary to those presented by the District's counsel. I also wish to remind the Board that this matter is of great public interest, Mr. Hickman's hearing was discontinued by the Board during the school term largely due to the several month hospitalization of a board member and that Mr. Hickman has not had an opportunity to refute libelous and slanderous charges in public forum. a bias by the I also wish to remind the Board of our charges of administration, this perspective. hearing officer which favored the school Whether true or not, the opinion gives credence to Under the circumstances, to stop the hearing now and to deny further hearing on the request made pursuant to A.C.A. 6-17-1509, employer. a message is sent to other employees by allowing the hearing to be aborted. Moreover, the District's casts the District in a posture of being an unfair Moreover, stewardship of its economic resources will also be brought into issue before the District Court. more I am sending a copy of A.C.A. 6-17-1509 to you for each board member's consideration. Sincerely, dhn W. Walker Jdhn JWW:lpit. i Ij n 'll i5 Ji V fl J.' (M7-15t)9 EDUCATION with the reasons for. the reconiiiieiidal imi of tei inination in accordance wilh Ilie Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of I Dii). and the ucL rct|uired Hiat u lach(r he a slatfincul pi'nli.'il ji'unrv of ihc grounds for lenninalion hiU nul ho- ivoi- ruev.-al. lh\u0026lt;j inclusion ot Hu- v.diicli were made on the advice el Ii cni.nisel indicated that the leller .'.as .:d ill 5 \u0026lt; i 'i.' iej ijii il I. 1^' I 1 :,4  ! I ' 'I 1..1 !\nr I T r .li d 21 I- I i-J  1 id 21 ii\n'i ,1 294 ract, IIIIC III |.(.l ininadnn\nthercdoi e since dll' leller did \"\"I sdde that a henrinu was\niv iiilnhli- III dll nssist.'iiit principiil, ainl die isistanC principal did not loceive the tiiiielv hearing on I he facial ajjpearatice Ill' Ilie li'tli'i-. die aa.sislant principal did mil reci'ii'e dni' prncess. Rogers v. Maseiii, 7SS I''.2d I2.SH I,Sill Uir. 198.5) Idecision miller prim la'.vi. G-17-J.509. lleariiig. la' /\\ teacher who ri'ceivcs a iiolice ol rcconiinoiKled termination or nonrenewal may file a wrillcn request with the hoard of directors of the district for a hearing. (b) Written request for a hearing shall he sent l.iy certified or registered mail to the president of the hoard, with a copy to the supei iiiten- (leiiL, or may be dclivercti in peiKon to each of them hy Ute Lcaelier, v/ithin thirty (30) day.s alter the written notice ol prnposed termination r nonrenewal i.s received by the teacher. (c) Upon receipt of a reiiuest for a hearing, the hoard shall giant a hearing in accordance with the following provision.^\n(i) The hearing shall take place not les.s than live if.) than ten (10) days after the written rc'inest ha.s la.-en .'Served on the boaid, e.xcept that the teacher and l.ioard may, in writing, agree to a postpone- or five 15) nor more Llian ment of the hearing to a later date\n(2) The hearing shall be private unless the ti.acher or the boaid shall request that the hearing be public\n(3) The teacher and the boanl may be represented by represeiita- tives of their choosing\n(4) It shall not be necessary that a full record ol the proceedings a the hearing be made and preserved unless\n(A) The board shall elect to make and preserve a. hearing at its own expense, in which event a copy shall be furnished the teacher, upon requestj without cost to (he teacher, (B) A written request is filed with the board by the teacher at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the time set for the hearing, in which event the board shall make and preserve, at its own expense, a record of the hearing, and shall furnish a transcript to the teacher record of the I D I' R R l\n1\\ ti d c A ( t I ( I ! without cost. History. Acts 198.3, No. 936.  9\nA.S.A. 1947,  80-1266.8. IIESICARCII IIEFEIIENCES Ark. L. Kev. Watkins. Open Meetings Under the Arkansas Freednni of liiliirina- tion Act, 38 Ark. 1.. Rev. 268. 7.  S- .J l.-83 13\n00 0'01 324 2032 L R ScllC\"! Dlst ODM @001 \\ AGENDA status report - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING August 6, 1993 - 3 p.m. 1. Closing of Ish School Staff Qosing Procedures 2. L)esegregation Plan - Overview Work Sessions (LRSD Principals) Date Time Level ^15/^3 3/6/93 3/6/9f3 8/10/93 9 ann. 8 a.in. 10 amx 11:30 8:30 Jr. High Cluster Elenu Cluster (GremiUion) Sr. High Cluster Elem. Cluster (Robertson) Incentive Schools Financial Status - Hearing (August, 1993) - Mark MihoUen LRSD Staffing 5. Length of School Day - Revised ADE Standards 6. Desegregation Audit 7. Opening of School Activities 8. Other .-X 1 / Ail i J^-29-93 THU 10:32 US DisI Ct Little Rock FAX NO. 5013246096 P.Ol IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT FAX LINE (5O1J 324-6576 DATE: 7/29/93  Ann Brown . - Barry '-MBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET  6 isagc: Here is Walker's response to the motion to close Ish, I t/y/\u0026lt;- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. light. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M, EISEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE D. SELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. 8UTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T, LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. OAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL UI. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 August 11, 1993 KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. CLYDE 'TAB' TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES OAViO 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE OAVIO M.GRAF PAMELA D. PERCEFULL CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. a.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. WRITER'S OIRECT NO. (501) 370-1553 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue AUG I 6 !993 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Offisg of .n !. . j -TO! -y Re: Stephens' Interdistrict School Site Selection Process Dear Steve: This letter will acknowledge receipt of your letter to me dated July 27, 1993. In your letter, you acknowledge receipt of the memorandum from me to you, John Walker, Richard Roachelle, and Sam Jones outlining the \"suggested\" process for the new site selection committee, the memo, on page 3, states: In fact. In the interest of time, the above process has been outlined to facilitate the timely completion of our task. However, all parties . . . are free to voice any and all concerns, make any and all recommendations and develop any and all procedures deemed reasonable and appropriate to increase the likelihood that consensus will be reached. Accordingly, I am hereby requesting that all recipients of this letter notify me within three (3) working days of receipt of your initial concerns regarding the process as outlined. Otherwise, we will deem this process acceptable and will expect to see each of you and your selected representatives at the meeting on July 27, 1993. I received your letter on July 30, 1993. As the minutes from the first meeting will reflect, no one from the NLRSD appeared to voice any concerns or disagreements with the process as proposed. The minutes from that meeting were sent out by a memo dated July 28,Mr. Stephen Jones August 11, 1993 Page 2 1993, from John Riggs to the distribution list outlined on page 4. That memo, as had the first memo, reminded all recipients that the second meeting of the committee would occur on Tuesday, August 10, 1993. Again, no representative of the NLRSD appeared. Notwithstanding the lack of representation by NLRSD at the first two meetings. I take this opportunity to advise you that the PCSSD's representatives have voiced concerns on target with those raised in your July 27 letter. In addition, there are two meetings remaining on the original schedule proposed in the July 21 memo. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone JLM:nr cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Samuel Jones Mr. Chris Heller Mrs. Ann Brown Mrs. Estelle Matthis (Enclosed July 27, 1993 Letter) Mr. John Riggs (Enclosed July 27, 1993 Letter) Mr. Richard Roachelle (Enclosed July 27, 1993 Letter) Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 Date: August 16, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis From: n Brown Subject King Recruitment and Assignment When you and 1 last met on Friday, August 6, 1993, 1 inquired what policy the LRSD had developed regarding which and how many LRSD white children the district would allow into King. You stated that, although there was no policy at the time of our conversation, you were aware of the importance of such a policy, and that you expected to develop one within the next few days. It has been 10 days since our meeting, and it is now exactly one week before school opens to students. I still have not received any information about your policy on admitting LRSD white children to King. 1 understand that you plan to meet this afternoon with my associate, Connie Hickman Tanner, to discuss recruitment. At at time, please give the following written information to Mrs. Tanner: 1. The policy on admitting LRSD white children to King. 2. The names of LRSD administrators, other employees, or board members who were directly involved in formulating this policy. 3. The date this policy was put into effect. 4. The date the policy was communicated to the Student Assignment Office. 5. An explanation of the basis for this policy, citing relevant desegregation plan and court order provisions by date and page number, and including specific reference to any other written LRSD assignment policies and procedures that were factored into the King assignment policy. 6. The LRSD policy for recruiting and admitting private school children into the district. 08/19/93 16:00 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 0001*002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE: TO: FROM: SENDER'S PHONS 3AI/-P-C5/6 SUATECT: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 1 Number of Pages (include cover page Speed Dial _____________ Phone Number MMmu.  . AGREEMENT The parties met on Thursday, August 19, 1993, pursuant to the instructions of the Court, to discuss initial enrollment at Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* Elementary School (\"MLK\") for 1993-94 school year. The parties are in substantial disagreement about certain matters which relate to the plan and the manner in which assignments would be made under the plan to MLK. Joshua Intervenors strongly oppose the placement, assignment or enrollment of LRSD white students, who live outside the Martin Luther King Interdistrict School assignment zone, to MLK. The PCSSD is also concerned about future year's effect of LRSD white students being assigned, enrolled or allowed to attend Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* School. All parties are mindful of the admonitions of the Court regarding school district/parent cooperation and integrity as well as the other needs for both desegregation and certainty about school opening for this year at Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* School. Based on these concerns and considerations, and the encouragement of Court, the parties have agreed that for the 1993- 94 school term only, LRSD white students, who have received written assignment notices to MLK from the LRSD as of the date of this agreement, shall be allowed to attend or be enrolled or assigned to MLK. Once assigned to MLK, those children shall be afforded all the rights and privileges of other students who are being assignedOS-19.93 16:02 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002 002 Page 2 to the Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* School (i-e-, including continued enrollment). However, there shall be no sibling preference available to these students so assigned. The parties will seek Court approval of this Agreement. DATED THIS day of 1993. John W. Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Bobby Lester PCSSD Superintendent Dr. Henry Williams LRSD Superintendent James Smith NLRSD Superintendent Richard Roachell Knight Intervenors Attorney *ProvisionalTW?^^r^KaAU.^?C'. *   M I * )K * *  DATE START SENDER\nAUG-19 16:48 501 324 2032 I TRANSACTION REPORT RX TINE PAGES TYPE P.Ol AUG-19-93 THU 16:50 NOTE 1'50\" 2 RECEIVE OK )K X )l( :i( )K )K Little Rock School District RHCEiyEj5 To: Ms. Melissa Guldin, ODM Monitor AUG 2 0 1533 Office of Desegregaiicn Mcniionng From: telle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Re: King Interdistrict School Date: August 20, 1993 Per your request for information received at approximately 3:10 p.m. on Friday, August 20, 1993, I provide the following: 1. Total number of LRSD students enrolled in King: 432 . 2. Number by race, from the King assignment zone: 355 black\n14 white (in addition, 3 whites and 1 black received staff preferences\n2 whites received legal transfers\n2 blacks were successful on appeal of assignment\nand, we are still attempting to trace the origin of 2 blacks). 3. Number, by race, from LRSD outside King attendance zone and a list of the schools those out-of-zone students attended during the 1992-93 school year: 53 white (see attached list reflecting the 1992-93 assignments. A total of 59 students appear on the list, however, 6 of those have been transferred to other schools). 4. Total number of intra-district transfers, by race. to Romine and Washington: we are in the process of gathering this information and will provide it as soon as it becomes available. EM: nr 810 West MarRham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361To: From: Z/T?) 'T'cf -  OzM  / Little Rock School District RECEIVED AUG 2 \u0026gt;5 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor Csfca of Dsse^ \u0026gt;    -..VI Estelle Matthis, 'interim Superintendent Re: Request for Memoranda Date: August 23, 1993 I have been advised that ODM has requested copies of written directives from me to employees. In response, I enclose for your review copies of directives or memoranda regarding desegregation- related issues. Attached you will find memos dated July 14, 1993 and July 27, 1993 relating to the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program. 7 will note, the LRSD is in the process of making the evaluations required under the plan. As you You will also find a memorandum dated August 11, 1993, directive of the same date. After the hearings on June 24, ___, regarding the proposed site for the new Stephens Interdistrict 1993, and a 1993, School, Judge Wright advised Jerry Malone that the Court would not impose a requirement that ODM make requests for information only through designated channels. The Court, however, strongly encouraged the LRSD to develop some procedure to ensure that District administrators and attorneys know what infoinnation is being transmitted by the LRSD. This was discussed with you on Friday, July 9, 1993, when Jerry Malone and I met with you in your office. The attached directive attempts to put in place a process whereby ODM will get timely and accurate information, while at the same time, the District attempts to ensure that commitments, policies or procedures are not made, altered or otherwise affected by individuals without actual authority to do so. As you are aware, the LRSD has several thousand employees. Accordingly, there might be some initial growing pains as this directive becomes fully operational. Prompt notification of any concerns by your office to my office will ensure that any problems are handled expeditously. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 810 West Narkham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 11, 1993 1.# All Principals a: 72201 Central Administration Personnel Estelle Matthi's, Interim Superintendent Jerry Malone, Legal Advisor PROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) has been very helpful to the District by providing assistance as we implement our Plan. ODM will need accurate and up-to-date information from each of us as we begin the 1993-94 school year. _____ provide the requested infonnation in a timely manner. of Desegregation Monitoring will continue to contact appropriate staff members to secure the needed information and/or assistance. However, it is necessary for the District to establish some procedures for reviewing and responding to these requests in timely manner. -   The District has committed to The Office is a reports prior to our submission. Our attorneys will also need to review critical Your assistance is needed in following the procedures listed in the enclosed administrative directive.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 11, 1993 ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE NO: 93-04S TO: FROM: IV Central Administration Personnel elle Matthis, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT\nPROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION Beginning immediately, the following procedures are to be used in processing requests for information and/or assistance from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). 1. All staff members are to cooperate fully with requests from ODM manner. in a timely and cooperative 2. Upon receipt of pquests from ODM, all staff shall immediately review the request and notify the office of the Superintendent or his/her designee of the  content and scope of the request and to seek assistance in complying with the request if it is deemed appropriate by the principal or central office administrator. or 3. The requests for information are to be completed in a timely manner and forwarded to the Superintendent's Office for review. to 4. The Superintendent's Office will, in a timely review and refer this information to the manner, will. appropriate personnel in the ODM office. 5. The District's attorneys and/or other district staff who have responsibility for the area(s) will receive copies of this information from the Office of the Superintendent or his/her designee.Administrative Directive No\n93-04S Page 2 6. Following any additions and/or modifications in reports, the appropriate principal or central office administrator will be consulted and receive copies, in a timely manner, for their records of such changes and/or amendments in a timely manner. This directive is effective immediately so that all District personnel will be able to function more effectively as a team successfully implementing the Desegregation Plan. Since time is of the essence in providing prompt, accurate reports, each person in the loop must continue to monitor the status until the response is provided.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET To: From: Subj ect: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 14, 1993 72201 Ms. Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent Mr. Larry Robertson, Assistant Superintendent Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Academic Progress Incentive Grants The court approved Desegregation Plan describes the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the process for implementation. On Page 84, it states that the continuation of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program will be reviewed at the end of the 1992-93 school year. It is necessary for us to proceed with the final evaluation of this program in order to make a decision regarding future funding. You may wish to consult with Sterling Ingram regarding this matter.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 27, 1993 Ms. Margaret Gremillion Mr. Larry Robertson 72201 Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS Please review my requests dated July 14, 1993 and apprise me of the process as well as the date that I can expect to receive the evaluation report as stated in the Desegregation Plan, page 84. Your urgent attention to this matter is appreciated.3 Little Rock School District August 26, 1993 received AUG 2 6 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office cf Dessgrsgafion ivcniiCfing ~r Dear Mrs. Brown\nProvided is the additional information that addresses Items 15 and 16 in your request for information dated August 16, 1993, regarding King recruitment and assignment. Item 15 - Please see enclosed charts J ! Item 16 - The LRSD will adhere to the criteria established by the parties in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, as well as the latest filing to the Court, No. LR-C-82-866, Item 16, dated August 20, 1993. The District will finalize its criteria for placement of students in the Martin Luther King Interdistrict Elementary Magnet* School as soon as additional clarification is provided by the Court. See August 20, 1993, filing. Conferences were held with recruitment staff on August 13, 1993, and they have been directed to use the language in the interdistrict plan when recruiting students to the new King School. Staff activities are being closely supervised by appropriate administrator, Your assistance to and patience with the District in this sensitive matter are appreciated. Please contact me if additional clarification is needed\nSincerely, istelle Matthis Interim Superintendent EM/lks Provisional 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20000^ Little liock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RECSWo AUG 2 1 1993 To: Fromr Stephens Site Selection Committee of Deaegrosaiicn Imicring Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Re: Next Meeting Date Date: August 26, 1993 Please recall that Judge Susan Weber Wright offered to attend a second tour of the proposed sites. Tuesday, August 31, 1993, at 5:30 That tour will take place on p.m. Please be at the Administration Building at 810 West Markham Street to board the bus. All parties (Joshua Intervenors, NLRSD, PCSSD and Knight Intervenors) are requested to have representatives present if they desire to participate. By copy of this memo, I am requesting that Doug Eaton make the arrangements to have a larger bus available for this tour. To give the earliest possible notice, this memo is being faxed to John Walker, Steve Jones, Sam Jones and Richard Roachelle. JLM:nr Copy to Distribution ListMl'- ZA'fAi Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 August 30, 1993 Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Estelle: As a follow-up to some of our monitoring activities and reports last year, ODM niade informal visits to certain LRSD schools during the first days of this school year.,-We visited the two schools that had undergone new construction. King and Forest Heights, and two schools where we had previously expressed concerns about the condition of the facilities, Romine and McClellan. Because the impressions that students, staff, and parents gain during the first few days of school are so important and lasting, we paid close attention to the appearance, maintenance, and condition of the four buildings and their grounds. A short summary of our observations about each school is enclosed. Although we will not formally file or publish these observations at this time, we may eventually include them in a monitoring report. Our primary aim in this early and informal summary was to give you and the principals of the schools we visited the benefit of our first-of-school impressions. We were pleased to note many improvements at all the schools we visited. I hope the enclosed information will be helpful as the district continues to work toward making every LRSD school the best it can be. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Jodie Carter Richard Maple Sadie Mitchell Lionel WardLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 30, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: .Board of Directors FROM: 'Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Associate Superintendent Pay Rate Effective August 3, 1993, Dr. Henry Williams directed me to administratively assign Sterling Ingram to assume temporary responsibilities for the Desegregation offices. He is perforaing the responsibilities left vacant by the resignation of Marie Parker. By means of this memorandum. Sterling Ingram should be paid in accordance with the position of Superintendent for Desegregation. Associate Dr. Williams has approved the increased rate of pay for Sterling Ingram. /bjf cc: Mark Milhollen6G Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 2, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis From n Brown Subject: Enrollment figures for Romine and Washington Interdistrict Schools On the morning of August 20,1993, ODMs Office Manager, Polly Ramer, called Sue Pederson in the LRSD Student Assignment Office (SAO) to request the total number of intradistrict transfers, by race, to both Romine and Washington Interdistrict School for the last school year, 1992-93. An Associate Monitor, Melissa Guldin, followed up this initial phone contact later the same day when she drove to the SAO and talked with Sue Pederson about the information we needed. (Melissa made the personal visit because we were unable to get through to the Assignment Office due to SAOs busy phone lines.) During that visit, Melissa also requested King enrollment information and once again explained exactly which Romine and Washington data we were asking for. You provided the King figures by memo to Melissa Guldin that afternoon and promised to provide the data for Romine and King, saying that you were \"in the process of gathering this information and will provide it as soon as it becomes available.\" A copy of your August 20 memo is attached. Since August 20, Polly has again called SAO seeking the Romine and Washington information, because we still have not received it. During that third request for information, Polly reminded SAO personnel that ODM is only asking for 1992-93 figures, data which the district should have on file. 1 know that the beginning of school is a particularly hectic time for the SAO, but it seems that the 1992-93 information on Romine and Washington should be relatively easy to locate. It has now been almost two weeks since our initial request. Please forward the figures immediately or let me know how much additional delay 1 should expect. Thank you. Enc. cc: Sterling Ingram Jeriy Malone 2 To: Little Rock School District RSCEJVgp .*rw JI AUG 2 0 IS95 Ms. Melissa Guldin, ODM Monitor Offica of Dasegregahon Mcmtonr, '9 From: telle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Re: King Interdistrict School Date: August 20, 1993 Per your request for information received at approximately 3:10 p.m. on Friday, August 20, 1993, I provide the following: 1. Total number of LRSD students enrolled in King: 432 . 2. Number by race, from the King assignment zone: 355 black\n14 white (in addition, 3 whites and 1 black received staff preferences\n2 whites received legal transfers\n2 blacks were successful on appeal of assignment\nand, we are still attempting to trace the origin of 2 blacks). 3. Number, by race, from LRSD outside King attendance zone and a list of the schools those out-of-zone students attended during the 1992-93 school year: 53 white (see attached list reflecting the 1992-93 assignments. A total of 59 students appear on the list, however, 6 of those have been transferred to other schools). 4. Total number of intra-district transfers, by race. to Romine and Washington: we are in the process of gathering this information and will provide it as soon as it becomes available. EM: nr 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361\u0026lt;5 /-  e' Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 3,1993 From: Melissa Guldin To: Subject: Sterling Ingram, Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation School Assignments for Residents of the Battered Womens Shelter This memo is to confirm our phone conversation held this morning. As you will recall, we discussed enrollment figures and I inquired about the status of school assignments for the children living at the Battered Womens Shelter located at 12th and Battery Streets. The Shelter is in the King attendance zone, a fact confirmed by Sue Pederson on September 2, 1993, when she drove by the center. I do not quite understand what caused the district to question the right of these children to attend their assigned school, since the population at King is significantly below the capacity of the school. Despite the original misunderstanding, I am pleased that you have now agreed to abide by the districts assignment plan and assign all children residing in the King zone to that school. If you recall the August 19 meeting we attended to discuss King assignments, the fate of assignment zone students was never debated. The group even discussed the fact the students from within the zone, regardless of race, would always receive an assignment to King. This entire assignment issue has been a great concern for the staff at the Battered Womens Shelter. I plan to call the Shelter and report our conversation. Perhaps a district representative could also contact the Shelter and confirm the residents right to go to their assigned school. Im sure the staff there would really appreciate hearing from the district. Thank you for dealing with this issue promptly, and please thank Sue Pederson for working so diligently to help track down the correct zone assignment for the Shelter. cc: Ann Brown Estelle Matthis^8:49 LRSD 501 324 2146 P.002/002 KttBBBS J 'ilfHtak y Little Rock School District September 3, 1993 ^HCEfVso SEP 3 I9 Of Decegregstj.f, Woniioring To\nFrom: Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor /Stelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Subject: Enrollment Figures for Romine and Washington Interdistrict Schools Per your request, the following information is provided by the District's Student Assignment Office: INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS - 1992-93 School: Romine Interdistrict Elementary School Students: Black 144 White 59 Total Enrollment 203 School: VJashington Elementary Interdistrict School Students: Black 176 White 186 Total Enrollment 362 I regret the delay in responding to your request, an extra effort to be more timely. We will make information is needed. Please call if additional EM: nr 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)524-2000HF: /-^SO 09 'OS '93 13:08 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001 004 ( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE: TO: \u0026lt;3  FROM: SENDER'S PHONEff\n6 3^^ \" \u0026lt;2./3^^ SUBJECT: - 7- ^.3 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Number of Pages (include cover page Speed Dial__ ___________ Fax Phone Number S-7j\" F) IQO 09/08.-93 13:09 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date\nSeptember 8, 1993 To: Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor From\nSterling Ingramr^Director Planning, Research and Evaluation Re\nEnrollment Data Attached you will find the eleventh day enrollment data, as requested. Official October 1, 1993 information will be forwarded as soon as the report is completed. If additional information is needed, please let me know. bjg( 09 - 08 93 13:09 Q501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM bep 08,33 @003-004 11:05 Nc.'002 P.02 LRSD School Checklist ' [5] Grod., IQ.12 - Everett Howks - 1500 Park, 72202 - 376-4757 - 3om stueori  'sioi 'Oevid 6. Dadd, 722177 _Holl . Bill 8grnhouse_-_6700 'H'', 72205 - 'ZThTbob'  '^'-dolph Howard - 5417 Geyer 224*660? Porkview Hi A ----------\n- 555.0314 .ijyp.'g'-'i Bobbs - 2SQ1 fiarro7^?'7n4' 225-6440 aai Vocoiono|.Tchnict,| Center [ffGradw 1(^12 . \u0026gt;701' Scon Hom\nHo,, Junior High School fS} Gra'des ------ -------Booth . 6300~hfaiApn Rd., 7220? -?,63^ ----- 'l wb Wright Ave,, 72206\u0026gt;3^,75^  f.6S.8426 f\u0026amp;rsst Height\n. jornes Wisi iC 5?01 Evergreen, 72205 - 663-3391 Grodberry  401 Borrow R(i7^205  223-994^-------- ___Mobelvole  ae\n Wall\n.'I'gg\" ] Mabelvgle W., PO Sax 187, Mabelvale, 72103 . 455-2413 ~ .................. ............. .....- Pulcsxi rtsights - Dr, Jim |-|Q(ey . 401 'n. Pine,\u0026gt;2205 - dtJ^TzOTG ---------- Seylhwest - Gail McLougbiin -'3301 ,5. Bryoy, 7?2o7.\"565-44t6 '------------------------ EUmantory Srhoolt [gy] Gr'odes K.6 ' w it' . Uc j33WJ, 5vn' (oi-i ...1.:5| (.3 ts 'ill 'J 1 r-1 T, !-I yTXjW '/.a IM  i- A\u0026lt; I 0 J. L I n\nI I f I UJ5iy.'U :S:\u0026gt;...L.^l3',). , L/ .'27g\" Boagaii - Mgry .Gobton Bole-levonnci Wilson . 6900 Pc-con Rood, 72206  490.1 se?\" nsW\u0026gt;i3 'T^r 59%'! 6a 6501 W. 32nd, 722S4.56S66rf 4\n\u0026gt;rj\u0026lt; ___\n.Boseline  Anno Tqtum  3623\"Baseline Rd.. Booitei' Arli^Mognei - Williom 72209.565-5589 I __Qi Brady  Helen Thomas School Finn - 2016 Berber, 72206 - 37'6-3315 -7915 W. Markham. 72205  225-1815 CCii 7 '\u0026gt; --------------  800 Apperson, 72202 - 374'.'3783 , Chjcol- Olis'Praslcr - 11100 Chicot Rd., ~ ------------------------------- PO Box 405, Mabefvole. 72103.568-755, ,4 ------^gr^-':.S.l..:.{?4quo7\ne Dedman - dSOOHiTToirPrl. 72209 Sd'Tb?^ -------N^tban - 6423 Stagecoach Rd.. 72204 - 455.31 ig  - Colherine Gill - 616 N. T-iorrison, 72205 - 6670359 -------Ashley  1600 N. Tylar, 72207^^^^5415 --------------------------------------- 72204 . 455-3110 frrjnklin  Connie A\n-ton 1701 S. Ha,n\\ori. 722C4 - 666-0348 -------Huffmon . 30b\"Pieascnt Volley Dr. 722'{2 22f  Or. c'hfiTrTsTTTTAM^ ' Cox - S24b~M\u0026lt;^belvnfe r:. ::::. ------Gibb\nMagnet - Donna Davis - 11 IS W. - 372-02.81 iiTion\u0026lt;\n 3615 W, 2Sih. 72204 . 666-9436 Pike, 722C9 - 565-QT87 -------212 -.3001 5. Pulaski, 72206 - ......... -------- i^orgoret Gremillicn . -2600 N. MeKinlA^ASyr? . 663-9472 -------Goodwin - 4S0O W. 26th, 72204 - 663-6.397 ' -------A'^^!g.:..^'=.|-glhy Fou\"ikner-\"94b\"l Mobelvole Cul-o7f ______Box 207, Mobelvole, '72103.45.4.7727 ..................... 11 ynn Moor'c.' 1200 .....- . Meodowciiff  larry Warm'. 25 Sheroton Dr., 722Q9'G565.Q3\n4------ I -  OtJnilo .Hudspeth - 24~lb'Battery^^72206 - 37.5.69.31 ' ' Qner Crock - Pg'\npricc  16000 Oher Creek Pkwy 7?9nq 455-3320 77 .WJLjlLMa 7' -J-1 3.U,-f^S6 ! I I i J41 11 : r.-rs m ....i^\u0026lt;r? :7....|Sviri$ i -irA'/Zi- i C?4 ' ---------- 3H \u0026lt;3,73 Hjl AS i46'S H5 jsTo'\n\"6% j AM 1 6'4/ -k'i. 5'1 i -JU J..3H. -^ '7 i (f'[ ) i i3.S. --if -As,3.. ff, ?' iia-!?- A3.I ..S\" D .t5.' 'll09. 08. 93 15:10 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @004.'004 LRSD School Checklist Elementary Sehoot* (37) Gradel K-4 (contlnutd) Puloiki Heights - Eddie McCoy - flR N. fine, 72205  6639469 ~'~Rights8ll - Koy Lost - 911 W. 19th, 72206 - 374-7448_________ f Rockefeller - Anne Moogon  700 E. 17th, 72206  374-1226 Romine  Lionel Word - 340'o Romine Rd'., 72204 - 22S-8033  Stephens - Ston Stroust - 3700 W. 18th, 72204 - 663-8374 Terry - Noncy Volsen - 10800 Moro Lynn Dr., 72211 - 225-1215________ Wokatield - LToydei^k - 75 Westminster, 72209 - 568-3S74 Wothinglon - Lonnie Sue Deon - 115 W, 37th, 72206 375-_g275__ J'.J._ Wotton - Dr. Piano Glaze - 7000 Valley Dr., 72209 - 565-1577 Westarn Hills - Morgia Puckett - 4901 Western Hills, 72204 - 562-2247 Williams Mognet - Dr. Ed Jackson  7301 Evergreen, 72207 - 666-0346 Wilson  Seine Price ' 4015 Stonnus Rd.. 72204 - 565-0924 Woodrirff - Keren Suchonan - 3010 W. 7tli, 72205 663-4149 _ia_ . w... w An. m. _____ jsK tekiJU-. - y-D - ij. . .zJ. Am pm. A^ Aik 31 o _AA. .A\"?) _A jiiSIk I I I 4______ j______ I ' I 7 u- I i --- 315' .13.^. AIH ..:uL. -3^ ..hki.. 35 4 I I iMj u. 1 I r ! I I I i I I  I i 1 I i I I .. i I \u0026lt; I I i f T 4 1 I i' 1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date\nSeptember 9, 1993 To: Lionel Ward From: Connie Hickman Tanner Subject: Request for Romine Recruitment Information Thank you for sharing your ideas, plans, and concerns regarding Romines ability to recruit white students. As promised, I pulled together copies of relevant motions, briefs, and court orders regarding \"magnet\" designation for schools and programs. I will mail those to you, since the information is too lengthy to fax. The following is a list of the data I requested at our meeting on September 8,1993:  The school plan you received when you came to Romine  A copy of your board proposal on satellite technology  Copies of all the business cases you submitted to the LRSD  The Romine Recruitment Plan you referred to in our meeting and copies of any recruitment materials that you use  Recruitment committee and/or planning meeting(s) documentation, including a committee roster by race, gender, and position, agenda, minutes, and a list of recommended recruitment strategies developed and implemented  Speakers Bureau data, including a bureau roster by race, gender, and position and a list of speaking engagements including the time, location, and parent sign-in sheets. Please forward this information to me by Wednesday, September 15,1993. If you have any questions and/ or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me at 376-6200.Date: September 10, 1993 From: Connie Hickman Tanner To: Lionel Ward Subject: Magnet Information Enclosed you will find the following information you requested regarding magnet designation for schools and programs: February 11,1992: The district court order approving the LRSDs motion to establish magnet programs at Henderson Junior High School and McClellan Community High School February 13, 1992: The parties joint motion and supporting brief requesting that the term \"magnet\" be used in naming all future interdistrict schools March 5,1992: The district court order approving the designation of the Crystal Hill Interdistrict School as a magnet, but deferring a ruling for King and Stephens June 23, 1993: designate King as a magnet school The LRSDs motion and brief asking the court to July 9, 1993: The district court order granting the LRSD provisional magnet status for King Interdistrict School. If you have any questions and/or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 376-6200.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 9, 1993 To: Lionel Ward From: Connie Hickman Tanner Subject: Request for Romine Recruitment Information Thank you for sharing your ideas, plans, and concerns regarding Romines ability to recruit white students. As promised, I pulled together copies of relevant motions, briefs, and court orders regarding \"magnet\" designation for schools and programs. I will mail those to you, since the information is too lengthy to fax. The following is a list of the data I requested at our meeting on September 8,1993:  The school plan you received when you came to Romine  A copy of your board proposal on satellite technology  Copies of all the business cases you submitted to the LRSD  The Romine Recruitment Plan you referred to in our meeting and copies of any recruitment materials that you use  Recruitment committee and/or planning meeting(s) documentation, including a committee roster by race, gender, and position, agenda, minutes, and a list of recommended recruitment strategies developed and implemented  Speakers Bureau data, including a bureau roster by race, gender, and position and a list of speaking engagements including the time, location, and parent sign-in sheets. Please forward this information to me by Wednesday, September 15,1993. If you have any questions and/or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me at 376-6200.Date: September 10, 1993 From: Connie Hickman Tanner To: Lionel Ward Subject: Magnet Information Enclosed you will find the following information you requested regarding magnet designation for schools and programs: February 11,1992: The district court order approving the LRSDs motion to establish magnet programs at Henderson Junior High School and McClellan Community High School February 13, 1992: The parties joint motion and supporting brief requesting that the term \"magnet\" be used in naming all future interdistrict schools March 5,1992: The district court order approving the designation of the Crystal Hill Interdistrict School as a magnet, but deferring a ruling for King and Stephens June 23, 1993: designate King as a magnet school The LRSDs motion and brief asking the court to July 9, 1993\nThe district court order granting the LRSD provisional magnet status for King Interdistrict School. If you have any questions and/ or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 376-^200.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 9,1993 To: Lionel Ward From: Connie Hickman Tanner Subject: Request for Romine Recruitment Information Thank you for sharing your ideas, plans, and concerns regarding Romines ability to recruit white students. As promised, I pulled together copies of relevant motions, briefs, and court orders regarding \"magnet\" designation for schools and programs. I win mail those to you, since the information is too lengthy to fax. The following is a list of the data I requested at our meeting on September 8,1993:  The school plan you received when you came to Romine  A copy of your board proposal on satellite technology  Copies of all the business cases you submitted to the LRSD  The Romine Recruitment Plan you referred to in our meeting and copies of any recruitment materials that you use  Recruitment committee and/or planning meeting(s) documentation, including a committee roster by race, gender, and position, agenda, minutes, and a list of recommended recruitment strategies developed and implemented  Speakers Bureau data, including a bureau roster by race, gender, and position and a list of speaking engagements including the time, location, and parent sign-in sheets. Please forward this information to me by Wednesday, September 15,1993. If you have any questions and/or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me at 376-6200.Cr //t/t. e('- Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 9, 1993 Ms. Gayle Bradford Cloverdale Junior High School 6300 Hinkson Road Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Gayle: It was so good to hear from you. I applaud your efforts to promote your school and 1 cant think of a better promoter an you! I hope some of the ideas we discussed will be helpful as you develop a plan for marketing Cloverdale. As promised. Ive gone through my files but was unable to find an example of the sort of school brochure at had impressed me several years ago. So I called Debbie Milam at VIPS to ask her to go through the VIPS \"archives\" (since I never threw much away when I was there) to see if she could find the example, since Im sure I stashed it somewhere. She will look and send you the sample if she can locate it. Meanwhile 1 came across the enclosed information that is mostly from NSPRA (the National School Public Relations Association). 1 belong to our local NSPRA chapter here in Arkansas and have picked up lots of their stuff through the years. Some of this will be old hat to you but there may also be some new ideas here too. You are free to call on my associate, Connie Hickman Tanner, for suggestions. She is very energetic and creative and will be happy to brainstorm with you, as Im sure Jeanette Wagner would too. Best of luck in your endeavors. Please keep me posted on your progress and let me know how I can help. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc.FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T, LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. OAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BAHRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 September 10, 1993 RECEIVED Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway SEP 1 3 1993 Little Rock, AR 72206 Offico of Dossgragaucn iV.onitoring Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachelle First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR.. P.A. CLYDE TAB* TURNER, P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT 8. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES OAVIO 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M.GRAP PAMELA 0. PERCEFULL CARLA Q. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. PENDLEY. JR. couNsei WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (5011 370-1553 Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find the Notice of Filing regarding the LRSD Desegregation Plan audit submitted to the Court.Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney JLM:nr cc: Mrs. Estelle Matthis Dr. Henry P. Williams Sterling Ingram Mark Milhollen1992-93 LRSD Desegregation Audit Report filed in Library COMPLETED PRIOR TO 92-93 PROGRAM: COMMITMENT OF DESEGREGATION 1. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other staff with the skills needed to achieve quality desegregated education. Comment: From the Narrative-Si - acenes Little Rock School District September 10, 1993 9 SEP 1 5 1593 Ri^, \\  Pct .\nV n Mrs. Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office o! DosegregauC!'. f\n'.I Dear Ann: This communication is a response to your letter dated August 30, 1993, and received in my office on September 2, 1993. My tour of the schools on August 23, 1993, was very similar to yours. As we visited the same schools, except Romine, I was probably 15 minutes behind you and your staff. Our observations had some similarities, but my focus was a bit broader as I viewed some aspects of instructional programs. I have discussed and distributed copies of your letter to our support managers so that they may assist staff in addressing various concerns and issues. We were aware that some equipment would not arrive until September, but we do believe that, instructionally, youngsters needs were appropriately addressed by staff. The new constructions are becoming more physically appealing and attractive. Within the next few weeks, everything should be in place. Mrs. Mitchell and her interview team identified more than an adequate number of qualified teachers. The additional applicants were on standby, and we are able to employ capable teachers as the enrollment increased at King. We wall continue to focus on and devote our energies to supporting the schools to have a successful school year. Information provided from a number of different perspectives is deemed helpful by me. I continue to believe that \"none of us is as smart as all of us.\" Thanks for your continued support. Sincerely, Estelle Matthis Interim Superintendent EM/lks 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RS CSIVSD September 13, 1993 SEP 1 5 IKW Office of Dosegrogaiicn Mcnilcfing MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring .stelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Office of Desegregation Monitoring Software Following a discussion with Bob Morgan regarding the capabilities of your offices PC software, I checked with Dave Kingsella to verify the existence of such software in our district. Dave informed me that we have capabilities in his department as evidenced by the 1993-94 budget document that was produced this summer. I have requested that he secure such software for the Student Assignment Office\nhe is in the process of taking care of this matter. We are also verifying our preliminary enrollment data. Additional efforts are being made to ensure an accurate October 1 count. c: Board of DirectorsNew Stephens Interdist. Court Filings FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A, JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M, EISEMAN. JR.. P.A, JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A . JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A . FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVtS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Hi, P,A. THOMAS N . ROSE, P A . MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Nt, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-21 47 KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P A. CLYDE TAB* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J . L EE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWE/\u0026lt;0, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A . SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D . WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE OAVIO M. GRAF PAMELA 0. PERCEFULL CARLA G. SPA INHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P A. WRITER'S OIRECT MU. 1501 1 370- 1 553 September 15, 1993 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachelle First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of the LRSD's Site Proposal for Stephens Interdistrict School pursuant to the order of this Court.Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone JLM:nr cc: Mrs. Estelle Matthis Dr. Henry P. WilliamsIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED SEP 1 6 1993 LRSD'S SITE PROPOSAL FOR STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL Office of Dssegregaiion Mcnitcring The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, for its Site Proposal for Stephens Interdistrict School, states: 1. The hearing before this Court on Thursday, June 24, 1993, was recessed prior to completion to allow for the parties to have ninety (90) additional days within which efforts could be made to obtain a consensus regarding the location for the proposed Stephens Interdistrict School. As the Court noted during those proceedings, the process which had been used by the LRSD during a prior site selection process was acceptable. In fact, the Court stated: \"First of all, let me say that I think that [the] criteria, the subjective and objective criteria, in [LRSD's] methodology are to be commended. I think the [LRSD] worked hard putting this together, and the Court sees no flaws in that methodology. don't see them. There might be some, but I certainly And I know [the LRSD] worked hard to be as objective and fair as [it] could. that.\" I have no difficulty with Hearing transcript, p. 86, L. 19-25. The Court went on to note: \"My problem is principally the composition of the committee and the lack of consensus that we are facing here today. Hearing transcript, p. 88, L. 18-20.book er I . Washington Math/Science Magnet i 115 West z7th Street Little Rock , Ark ansas 7 J' Judge busan Webber Wright United States District Court Post u-f-fice box 3310 E* iVEO Little Pock, September 21, Ark ansas 1993 SEP 2 1 1593 Offica oi Cessgraa\nbear .Judge Webber Wright: We are deeply concerned by the over!cad students the ssigned to f1rst , Magnet school. third, and +i-fth grade 1evels based on state maximum cla= a surplus o-f two students our third students, and our +i+th grade has gra. Was\n1 z e , has \nington Math/ 1 snce Ct As an r first surp1 us grade has OT seven surplus oi t^^^o students. interdistrict magnet school , was our we were to recruit throughout the understanding that when our cl asses are at max imum received two new students: grade. feel the school year. How can this continue capac i ty In tact , 1 ast one in the third grade and one hriday we in the +i+th Both grades were already over the state class size limit. administration desegregat ion Surely, p 1 an without may be considering tol 1 owing the the intent 1etter o-r We the at the it was never the intent ot the court to permit c 1 ass discourage new students at Washington Math/Science Magnet penalize incentive school students as igned to Washington Magnet school. It has been our Magnet school understanding that the Washington program, wh ich IS school comprised o-f SOX to our school children, would not reach the maximum class size plan. size to school or to Math/Science Math/Science 607. incentive 1 i m 115 . bl nee so 1arge, we have a 1arge \u0026lt;22-44 students per grade 1evel). numaer o-f high risk students spec ial program) programs (i.e . , science It labs, 1 s i our math understanding that 1 aos , young our astronaut children and to were mandated by the court to help meet the needs o+ these increase academic achievement. LoD situations should not be overcrowded. school Recently, district we noticed in the newspaper that each Pulaski was asked to better educate its teachers about Count'/ demands and requirements o-f the courtordered desegregation plan. the We are concerned that we will be cut o-f compl iance with the desegregation plan if our class sizes are at the maximum or above the state limits. We -fear that we are not meeting the needs o-f our incentive school populat ion. must ' have cannot be It is twenty  our understanding that cl asses -for these students or 1 ess in the best per u 1 ass or el se a -f ul 1 -t ime aide. It interests o-f these at-risk students to havetwenty-eight or twenty-nine students by 'I aw , in u1ass , even i t It IS all owed + roiTi The pos5lb i1 ity or forming sp I It cI asses two grade 1evel5 has been ment i oned. combined with a maximum class size will students. We have heard that some area cornpr1sed Surely, oT this students sol ution not best meet the needs OT our enough students. is it true that elementary schoo l 5 do some area school c1asses then ten students? Coul dn ' t not have some OT these smal1 er cI asses have 1 es-s be consol idated and the Math/bcience Magnet school'.-' surplus teacher(s) be reassigned to Wash 1ngton This by large class size. is a timely concern. Each day students-' 1ives are impacted October J possible . 1st dead line. Thank you. Decisions must be made before the state imposed F'l ease respond to this concern soon 3 Sincerely, MMaarryy Lott Kahler,, Curriculum 3Specialist Alisa Ford, First Grade Level Chairperson Eric Coleman, Third Grade Level Chairperson Tommy Wal ker, Fi-f th Grade Level Chairperson Susan Schoessel, Fourtth GGrraade Teacher Nettie Epp Katherine Snyder, , Primary Science Specialist ntermediate Science Specialist P(jsee Barnes, Primary fMath Specialist Paula Smith, l^ntermediate Math Specialist Nava Gazitt, Young Astronaut Specialist Ginny ^lotti. Media Specialist Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Joshua Interveners c/o John Wal ker Frank Martin, Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Larry Robinson, Assistant Superintendent Karen Buchanan, PrincipalC.F. !D Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: September 22, 1993 To: From: Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent in Brown, Federal Monitor Subject: Construction at Chicot Last April 30, 1993, the Court approved LRSDs motion to build a cafetorium at Chicot Elementary School. 1 was pleased to learn of the districts intention to add a cafeteria to Chicot, and the Courts approval, because my staff and 1 had been concerned about conditions we observed at Chicot when we visited the school last spring. You will recall that Associate Monitor Melissa Guldin testified about Chicot during a March 19, 1993 hearing on the impact of LRSD 1992-93 budget cuts. In her testimony, Melissa pointed out that Chicot is the only school in the district without a cafeteria, meaning that the children must eat in their classrooms, thereby creating additional demands on the schools custodians. On September 9,1993, members of my staff made an informal visit to Chicot to look over the new cafetorium, only to find that construction on the facility had not even begun. Yet, in its motion for approval of construction projects that included the Chicot cafetorium, the LRSD stressed that the project was part of promises made to the public in exchange for approval of a millage increase in April 1990. The motion also states that the district \"plans to have the [Chicot) cafetorium constructed in time for the beginning of the 1993-94 school year.\" The Court has repeatedly admonished the district about the importance of keeping its commitments to the community. If we ever again expect to ask the public to approve a millage increase, we must be able to point to promises kept as evidence that the district can be trusted to keep its word and act quickly on its pledges. 1 would appreciate your answering the following questions so 1 can report to the Court as a follow-up to the April order on Chicot: 1. When is construction of the Chicot cafetorium scheduled to begin? 2. When is the construction scheduled for completion? 3. Why was the Chicot project not completed before the beginning of the 1993-94 school year? 4. How has the district determined the construction schedule for the Chicot cafetorium? 5. If Chicots construction is undertaken during the school year, how does the district plan to minimize the disruption the building project will have on the academic day?MEMORANDUM Date: September 16, 1993 From: Melissa To: Ann Subject: Chicot Construction Due to the brevity of our visit to Chicot Elementary School, it was not included in the summary of our September 9,1993 site visits. Upon arriving at Chicot, we asked to see the new cafeteria. The secretary told us that the cafeteria construction had not begun. We also spoke to the principal and he said that Doug Eaton informed him that construction would probably begin in January 1994. Since we travelled to the school only to look at the new construction, we left immediately after talking to the principal. After returning to the office, I checked the court record and noted that the Chicot construction project received court approval on April 30, 1993.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371^3100 Date: September 28, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis From: Brown Subject: Documentation of Administrative Directive Revocation As you know, on September 8,1993, judge Wright ordered that LRSD Administrative Directive No: 93-04S be immediately revoked. She also required the district to distribute immediately a complete copy of this Order and its revocation of Administrative Directive No: 93-04S to all personnel who received Administrative Directive No: 934)45.\" Im concerned that the district has failed to follow the Order because some LRSD administrators are evidently not aware of the September 8, 1993 Order. For example, last weeks Daily Bulletin at Central High School contained the' following paragraph: EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, all information requested of any staff member by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring is to be submitted to the Principal prior to forwarding to ODM. The Principal will then forward a copy of the information to the Superintendents Office as per Administrative Directive 93-04S. As soon as possible, please send me the following information so 1 can assure the Court that the district has complied with the September 8, 1993 Order: 1. A copy of the communication which revoked Administrative Directive No: 93-04S. 2. A list of the personnel to whom this communication was sent. 3. The date that each of these communications was sent. 4. Evidence that each administrator has communicated the revocation of Administrative Directive No: 93-04S to his or her staff. Thank you very much.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: September 22, 1993 To: From: Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent in Brown, Federal Monitor Subject: Construction at Chicot Last April 30, 1993, the Court approved LRSDs motion to build a cafetorium at Chicot Elementary School. 1 was pleased to learn of e districts intention to add a cafeteria to Chicot, and the Courts approval, because my staff and 1 had been concerned about conditions we observed at Chicot when we visited the school last spring. You will recall that Associate Monitor Melissa Guldin testified about Chicot during a March 19, 1993 hearing on the impact of LRSD 1992-93 budget cuts. In her testimony, Melissa pointed out that Chicot is the only school in the district without a cafeteria, meaning that the children must eat in their classrooms, thereby creating additional demands on the schools custodians. On September 9,1993, members of my staff made an informal visit to Chicot to look over the new cafetorium, only to find that construction on the facility had not even begun. Yet, in its motion for approval of construction projects that included the Chicot cafetorium, the LRSD stressed that the project was part of promises made to the public in exchange for approval of a millage increase in April 1990. The motion also states that the district \"plans to have the [Chicot] cafetorium constructed in time for the beginning of the 1993-94 school year.\" The Court has repeatedly admonished the district about the importance of keeping its commitments to the community. If we ever again expect to ask the public to approve a millage increase, we must be able to point to promises kept as evidence that the district can be trusted to keep its word and act quickly on its pledges. 1 would appreciate your answering the following questions so 1 can report to the Court as a follow-up to the April order on Chicot: 1. When is construction of the Chicot cafetorium scheduled to begin? 2. When is the construction scheduled for completion? 3. Why was the Chicot project not completed before the beginning of the 1993-94 school year? 4. How has the district determined the construction schedule for the Chicot cafetorium? 5. If Chicots construction is undertaken during the school year, how does the district plan to minimize the disruption the building project will have on the academic day?RECESVPP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SEP 2 9 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Date: September 23, 1993 To: LRSD Board of Directors Interim Superintendent Estelle Matthis From: -^D Dr. Selma Hobby 1993-94 LRSD United Way Campaign Coordinator Re: Final Report, 1993-94 LRSD United Way Campaign Attached is a copy of the final report I made to the United Way of Pulaski County regarding the 1993-94 campaign. Our goal for this year was $46,599, which was five percent more than our contribution last year and set by Frank White, Campaign Chairman. I am happy to report that we exceeded this goal by a substantial amount\nLRSD employees contributed $52,072.26 during this year's campaign, the largest amount ever contributed by district employees. Hall High School contributed $3,571, the largest amount of any school in the district, and Gibbs Magnet School contributed $2,391, the largest amount of any of the elementary schools. The following schools had 100% participation of both certified and support staff: Cloverdale Jr. High School, Forest Park, Geyer Springs, Meadowcliff, Mitchell, Stephens, and Woodruff. Brady, Gibbs, and Wilson had 100% participation among the certified staff. I am proud of all our employees who participated in the campaign and want to thank the principals and site coordinators for their hard work and cooperation. Support of this campaign is a chance for all LRSD employees to give something back to the community which supports us in so many ways every day.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN REPORT 23 September 1993 Sxibmitted by Dr. Selma Hobby, LRSD United Way Campaign Coordinator A B C D 1993-04 1992-93 1993-94 SCHOOLS and SITES ^CONTRIBUTING/ CONTRIBUTION CONTRIBUTION EMPLOYEES *100% Participation, Certified and Support SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central 67/162 JA Fair Hall McCleBan Magnet Parkview Magnet VOCATIONAL TECH. CENTER Metropolian JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale* Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Henderson Magnet Mabelvale Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Southwest ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Basefine Booker Magnet Brady** Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park* Frankfin Incentive Futoright Garland Incentive Geyer Springs* Gibbs Magnet** 35/91 65/102 25/86 28/95 5/33 74/74 11/75 43/76 26/100 8/65 47/89 8/87 34/68 9/26 23/44 18/48 15/70 31/48 12/68 11/70 11/41 13/39 12/37 39/39 19/72 28/47 10/55 31/31 38/40 TOTALS TOTALS 100% Participation, Certified $2,327.00 2,765.15 2,081.00 1,728.48 1,298.00 $2,716.00 2,516.00 3,571.00 1,679.13 1,282.00 607.00 283,25 369.00 1,295.94 939.20 748.24 1,341.00 334.00 1,135.76 268.00 749.00 479.18 407.00 652.50 524.00 270.00 185.00 459.00 520.00 651.00 451.00 964.00 215.00 265.00 1,638.50 199.00 1390.01 642.08 953.00 1880.24 476.00 1,676.00 229.00 693.00 260.00 1197.78 618.22 362.00 694.10 542.00 459.28 269.74 625.40 1,369.70 927.00 1258.18 1058.42 623.06 418.40 2391.32Page 2 United Way Report A B C D 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Jefferson King Interdistrict Magnet Mabelvale McDermott MeadovvcBff* IvfilcheB Incentive* Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsei Incentive Rockefeler Incentive Romine Interdistrict Stephens* Terry Wakefield Washington Magnet Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson** Woodruff* Alternative Learning Center SUPPORT/ALLIED SITES Administration Building Aduft Education Annex CARE Food Service IRC KLRE/KUAR_____________ Office of Deseg. Monitoring Plant Services Purchasing Safety and Security Student Assignment Bldg. Transportation GRAND TOTAL 34/52 35/61 15/50 8/47 43/43 56/56 10/36 19/37 21/46 36/81 14/50 48/48 18/51 9/43 23/103 32/43 16/36 16/54 31/48 31/31 0/15 33/71 13/25 8/25 2/5 3/21 36/45 5/11 5/10 2/67 2/6 2/4 14/15 8/300 1444/3814 567.00 N/A 970.18 364.00 717.24 907.00 417.00 683.00 355.00 1449.24 242.00 274.35 605.00 50.00 323.41 358.00 871.00 815.00 859.24 823.04 75.00 2077.96 450.00 486.00 88.00 20.00 497.00 381.62 594.00 310.00 69.00 120.00 301.00 648.00 $44,068.18 702.38 1671.34 422.00 442.00 502.00 900.50 390.00 506.00 344.00 1,574.00 442.34 664.00 869.00 227.00 399.00 292.00 513.18 745.00 781.50 917.36 0.00 1381.02 628.48 598.00 44.00 20.00 900.00 367.10 814.00 330.00 80.00 32.00 244.00 396.00 $52,072.26LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas RECEIVED Kanra * September 24,1993 SEP 2 9 1993 Office of Desegrsgation Moni\nTq From: Re Anne Brown, Of fits of Desegregation Monitoring Jeanette WagneqOrector of Communications Incentive Schod Brodiures In answer to your request, attached are the two incentive schod brochures produced ty the LRSD. At this time\nnew individual incentive schod brochures are in the conceptual stage Nelda Bromberg, who designed the other two brochures, is working on a new concept which is designed to address the varied issues of incentive siod recruitment needs. The individual brochures will also allow mere complete information on each incentive schod them\u0026amp;booker 1 Washington Hatn/Science Hagnet School 115 West 27th street Little Kock, Arkansas 72206 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Kock School uistrict 610 West Markham Street Little Kock, Arkansas 7\n:0: Dear Dr. Willi ams, recewsd SEP ? 8 Office ef .Desegregation LWiOfing  We are pleased to have the opportunity to meet with you and discuss our building concerns. month is our district scheduled faculty meeting. As you know, the -first Monday of each Many of us are involved in the presentation of the meeting on October 4, 199S. Therefore, we suggest a meeting time of 4:00 p.m. 1st is the state deadline for reporting student attendance, meeting before that date can better facilitate a solution, willing to meet at an earlier date. However, October If we are most Please consider inviting those individuals who received copies of our letter of September 21, 1993. interest and insight into these Each of these people has particular i ssues. We want you to understand that this group of teachers represents a building 1 evei concern . We appreciate your concern for the needs of our students and look forward to our meeting. Sincere I y ,y Mary f^u k.aahhler. Curriculum Specialist Al isa Ford, First Grade Level Chairperson WUMA-Eric Col eman , Third Grade Level Chairperson Tommy Walker, Fifth Grade Level Chairperson Susan bchoessel, Fourth Grade Teacher rimary Science Specialist CCaatthheerriinnee tt\u0026gt;\u0026gt;nnyyddeerr ,, intdrmmeeddiaialte bcience Specialist Rose Barnes, Primary Math Specialist Paula Smith, Intermed late Math Specialist Nava Gazitt ,^YdU:nngg Astronaut Specialist Ginny le Media Specialist cc\nEstelle Mathis, Deputy Superintendent Judge Susan Webber Wright, Eight District Court Ann Brown, O-f+ice ot Desegregation Joshua Intervenors c/o -John Walker Prank Martin, Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Larry Robinson, Assistant Superintendent Karen Buchanan, Principal CJ\u0026gt;/CO mv LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEH, .V M SEP 2 5  TO\nFROM: SUBJECT: September 28, 1993 Oifica of DsssgresaS' H.\noi' !i\nng Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent 1. Construction at Chicot 2. State Standards - Class Sizes This communication is a follow-up of your letter dated September 22, 1993, in which you requested information regarding the construction of the cafeteria at Chicot Elementary School. I have visited with Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services, and Larry Robertson, Associate Superintendent for Chicot, in order to provide the requested information. Doug Eaton has a previously-scheduled meeting with the architects for this project on September 29, 1993, at 9 a.m. I will have a more accurate schedule for the completion of the project tomorrow. A communication that includes responses to your letter will then be forwarded to you. On September 24, 1993, a meeting was held to re-assess staff needs of our elementary schools as we are aware of several classrooms that exceed state standards. Brady Gadberry is meeting today with Frank Martin, Executive Director of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers .Association, to review the process used to move existing teachers to schools where the student enrollment indicates a need for additional staff. All schools will be staffed in compliance with Arkansas State Standards for Accreditation as of October 1, 1993. Your assistance in this matter is deeply appreciated. /IksF.Y.I. Date: Ann  Bill Bob z  / Connie 7 Horace  Linda Margie Melissa  Polly Return to: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECFJV\"P SEP 2 9 Wi TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 28, 1993 Oifica of Desegres iicn soiiioiing Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent 1. Construction at Chicot 2. State Standards - Class Sizes This communication is a follow-up of your letter dated September 22, 1993, in which you requested information regarding the construction of the c^eteria at Chicot Elementary School. I have visited with Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services, and Larry Robertson, Associate Superintendent for Chicot, in order to provide the requested information. Doug Eaton has a previously-scheduled meeting with the architects for this project on September 29, 1993, at 9 a.m. I will have a more accurate schedule for the completion of the project tomorrow. A communication that includes responses to your letter will then be forwarded to you. On September 24, 1993, a meeting was held to re-assess staff needs of our elementary schools as we are aware of several classrooms that exceed state standards. Brady Gadberry is meeting today with Frank Martin, Executive Director of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, to review the process used to move existing teachers to schools where the student enrollment indicates a need for additional staff. All schools will be staffed in compliance with .Arkansas State Standards for Accreditation as of October 1, 1993. Your assistance in this matter is deeply appreciated. /IksOffice of Desegregation Monitoring. m /) United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor //I\" 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 28, 1993 To: From: Subject: Sterling Engram, Director of Planning, Research and Development Melissa Guldin and Connie Hickman Tanner Recruitment and Enrollment for the Rockefeller Child Care Program We understand that 1993-94 enrollment in the infant and toddler program at Rockefeller School has fallen far below the schools capacity. Apparently, enrollment in the classes for infants and two-year-olds is at only 50% of capacity. Since these early childhood classes are unique to Rockefeller, and are designed to help desegregate the school, we are very interested in the programs success. An ODM representative will contact you today so that we may set up a meeting to discuss our concerns. At that meeting we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding the Rockefeller early childhood program, its enrollment, and recruitment to the school. A preliminary list of questions follows. What is the current enrollment in the classes for infants, toddlers, and three-year- olds? (Please provide data that lists enrollment by class, race, and gender.) What is the capacity for each age level? What caused the drop in enrollment between 1992-93 and 1993-94? What process does the Student Assignment Office (SAO) follow in enrolling children in the classes serving infant to three-year-olds? How does SAO decide who is eligible to enroll, and when does enrollment begin? When did you inform parents of children new to the program that their children had been accepted (specific dates)? Who at SAO is primarily responsible for promoting the early childhood program and assigning early childhood students to the school? What is the current weekly charge for paying clients? How many childrens fees are paid by Title XX or other voucher programs? Does the SAO reserve spots for children funded through vouchers? If so, how many spaces are reserved, and what is your procedure? What is the recruitment plan for the Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet? Who is responsible for implementing the recruitment plan? To whom is recruitment being targeted? What marketing tools are you using to promote the program? On what dates have you conducted recruitment activities? What types of activities have been conducted thus far? What specific plans does the district have to increase enrollment in any underenrolled early childhood classes at Rockefeller?Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services From: Subject: Melissa Guldin Current Capacity Figures During a district court hearing held on June 8,1993, Judge Wright instructed the LRSD to provide current capacity figures for each district school. I realize that many schools capacity figures may be unchanged from those previously filed with the court, but the district has completed two new school buildings and modified others since you last furnished ODM with capacity figures. Please provide the current capacity for each elementary and secondary school in the district. Thank you for your cooperation. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 received TO: September 28, 1993 OCT 1 1993 Budget Managers Oliice of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Mark D. Milhollen, Controlle SUBJECT: Cafeteria Plan Please distribute the enclosed summary plan documents to the people indent!Tied at your site as being enrolled in the cafeteria plan. Employees not receiving documents who feel they are enrolled should call 324-2066 for additional information. r' 0m2-93 TUE 11:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 I? 55 September 28, 1993 OCT 1 3 W3 Oftice of Dessgregaticn Monitoring RECJV\u0026gt;=-o SEP 3 0 1993 Judge Susan Webber Wright Federal Building Fifth and Gaines Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 u. S. district judge Dear Judge Wright\nThis letter expresses the sentiments of numerous LRSD employees....Even\"though'we feel it would'be unwise to sign our names, please do not let the lack of signatures lessen the attention that you give to the matter. We are aware that you conducted budget hearings and directed the LRSD Board of Directors to review its proposal and determine if additional cuts could be made, which indeed was possible. However, we are not aware if you have given your approval to a final budget for 1993-94, thus the basis for this letter. In the spring of 1993, teachers and all administrators except 12 month administrators, were given three percent raises. Twelve month administrators received the following package: 1, 2. 3, 4. 5. Contract days per year extended from 240 days to 250 days Pay raise set at 1 1/2% instead of 3% Paid vacation days granted on the basis of: 0-7 years experience - 15 paid vacation days per year 8-14 years experience  20 paid vacation days per year 15+ years experience  25 paid vacation days per year Sick leave days may be accumulated equivalent to the total number of contract days. When/if the 12 month administrator leaves the district, he/she will be compensated for any accumulated vacation days. We think that you should know that by granting the above package to 12 month administrators, they become the only employee group in the LRSD to receive even one paid hoiiday/vacation. Every other group is paid solely on the basis of days worked - NO PAID HOLIDAYS, NO PAID VACATION DAYS. Furthermore, the fact that they received a 1 1/2% raise instead of a 3% raise was almost immediately made up for by the provision for paid vacation days\nbecause, with the high salaries they receive, it will only take three orOCT-12-93 TUE 11:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 four days for most of them to recoup the other one and one-half percent. We strongly feel that the package granted to 12 month administrators is grossly unfair to the remainder of the LRSD employees and bears a total lack of equity. It is also completely unwise, monetarily speaking, for the financial well-being of the district. How can this district, in good conscience, grant such a costly benefit to these administrators. Please investigate this package and question publicly the fairness and financial intelligence of such a decision. We would be indebted to you for your assistance in this matter.- Sincerely, A CONCERNED GROUP OF EMPLOYEESOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Rudolph Howard and Dorthy McDonald Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors Central Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Friday, October 8,1993 at 1:40 p.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate Central. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the Sth. Enrollment Data:  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1990- 91 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1991- 92 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The number of LRSD students recruited by grade, including race, gender and where they were recruited, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (all white PCSSD junior high students, private school students, and LRSD junior high students), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results.Qf \u0026gt; /4-fh Jfritr Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Clell Watts and Joyce Stiedle Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors Henderson Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Thursday, October 7,1993 at 10:00 a.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate Henderson. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the 7th. Enrollment Data:  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992-93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The number of students recruited who live in Hendersons attendance zone by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (ie. white sixth grade PCSSD students at Lawson, Baker, Romine), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S, Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date\nSeptember 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Clell Watts and Joyce S tie die Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors Henderson Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Thursday, October 7,1993 at 10:00 a.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate Henderson. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the 7th. Enrollment Data:  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992-93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The number of students recruited who live in Hendersons attendance zone by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender durin\u0026lt; the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (ie. white sixth grade PCSSD students at Lawson, Baker, Romine), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results./eis- A, Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Stales District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Nancy Acre, Faith Donovan, and Joyce Underwood Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors Dunbar Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Friday, October 8,1993 at 10:00 a.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate Dunbar. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the Sth. Enrollment Data:  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1990- 91 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1991- 92 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The number of LRSD students recruited by grade, including race, gender and where they were recruited, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (ie. white sixth grade PCSSD students at Lawson, Baker, Romine), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Jodi Carter and Steve Garrett Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors McClellan Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Thursday, October 7, 1993 at 1:30 p.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate McClellan. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the 7th. Enrollment Data:  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992-93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The recruitment committee roster by race, gender, and position  Recruitment committee agenda and minutes  A list of all recommended recruitment strategies developed and implemented by the recruitment committee  Recruitment training documentation, including the person(s) responsible, topic, location, time, sign-in sheets, and evaluation criteria  The number of students recruited who live in McClellans attendance zone by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (all white PCSSD junior high students, private school students, and LRSD junior high students), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results. IRC .  TEL:501-524-0504 Oct 0193 15:11 No.004 P.Ol LITTLE BOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIjANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date: September 30, 1993 To: All principals From: Sterling Ingram, Director Subject: Instructions for Completing Program Budget Document In order to standardize procedures for reporting achievements (evidence) of the strategies on the Program Budget Document, following instructions are provided. the Responsibilities of Principals Principals are expected to document the achieve of strateaies onlv where \"Principal\" or \"Distri ment strategies only -- is stipulated in the \"Responsibility\" Principals are Staff II columi of the Program Budget Document, responsible for inputting information in only three (3) columns: Strategies, Beginning Date and Complet. The diagram below shows the relative columns Date. for inputting information by principals. strategies Beginning Date Completion Date. 1. 2. submission to Assistant superintendents Your diskette should be forwarded to the assigned assistant superintendents on or before the second Thursday following the end of the quarter (i.e. Thursday, October 14, 1993, for this quarter). The assistant superintendents will compile the informa on to form a district-wide report that will be keyed a master School Operations diskette. 3 . Return to Schools I Your diskette will be returned to you after a paper copy has been extracted fop office use.IRC TEL:501-324-0504 Oct 0193 15:11 No.004 P.02 Memo to Principals September 30, 1993 Page 2 4. Placement of Achievements (Evidence) on the Program Budget Documents Evidence of the achievements should be placed underneath the \"Strategies\" column. Use alpha order to list achievements underneath strategies (A.______\n3, , etc.) where the principal or district staff has been specified as the responsible person. REMEMBER\nThe achievements will continue to grow underneath each strategy until the information for that particular strategy is completed. See the Sample of Achievements Documentation below for selected objectives and selected corresponding strategies for further clarification. Sample of Achievements Documentation OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES i 1. To ensure an organizational structure which provides equal opportunity and access for parents,students and staff. 1. To review organizational I structure in schools and [ central office to ensure sufficient support for students and staff success and for the implementation of the desegregation plan. 5. 3.1 Mini-seminars at PTA meetings and in the community. A. PTA Mini-Seminars Agenda, October 10 Beginning Date Each achievement should have a corresponding beginning date (MM/DD/YY), example: 09/28/93. IPC TEL:501-324-0504 Oct 0193 15:12 No.004 P.O S: Memo to Principals September 30, 1993 page 3 i 6. 1. 8 . Completion Date An actual date (MM/DD/YY), example: 11/14/93, will document when an achievement was completed. If an achievement has been started but not completed, give an approximate guess for the percent of completion, example: 75%. Limited Achievements for This Reporting Quarter Identify only achievements which have been completed during this quarter (July 1 - September 30). Every strategy is not expected to show achievements at this early date. Laser Printers Are Required for Hard Copies I Only laser printers are capable of producing hard copies (photocopies) of the information entered onto However, some laser printers in the the diskettes. schools are not capable of printing the WordPerfect program Budget Document. For those schools not having printing capabilities for this document. Planning Research and Evaluation will provide a hard copy upon request. REMINDER:\nIf you are confused, do not forget to refer to the three (3) sets of definitions for the Program Budget Document given you at the inservice. As a final note, schools are expected to present only, achieve- Kie which are succinct and meaningful. Blank forms of the Program Budget Document are enclosed. contact Marjorie Bassa at 324-2120. Tf vou have content questions concerning this memorandum, ',^.u 1.^ L_-L  fill. If you have technical questions concerning the Program Budget Document, contact Dennis Glasgow at 324-0518, drg Enclosures cc: Assistant Superintendents I-f / r 7\\ . ^. .. A . TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS received OCT 1 1993 October 1, 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Documentation of Administrative Directive Revocation 1. The district received Judge Wrights order dated September 8, 1993, and we complied with her order fully by September 10, 1993. The revocation of the directive took place immediately. See Attachment A 2. Provided is a listing of district personnel to whom this communication was sent. See Attachment B 3. The communication was sent September 10, 1993 (see date on Attachment A). 4. Each administrator will be contacted by means of the attached memorandum to apprise their staff of the revocation of Administrative Directive 93-04S, providing they have not previously contacted staff. This information should serve to establish that the directive was timely revoked. /Iks EnclosuresTo: From: Ma] W- Subject: ATTACHMENT A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 September 10, 1993 All Principals, Directors, Supervisors and Program Ma.nagers stelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent LRSD Administrative Directive No. 93-04S The District employs over 4000 employees, and we believe that it is critical for the administration to put in place a procedure that will allow us to keep track of information that is sent to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). Administrative Directive 93-04S was an attempt to help us achieve this No. task. Judge Susan Webber Wright has reviewed this directive and has directed the District to immediately revoke the document and to distribute a copy of her order to personnel who received the directive. The District will put into effect a procedure that meets the Court's approval and our needs in the very near future. all We continue to encourage staff to respond to ODM in a timely manner. Effective immediately until a new directive is developed, each staff member is to submit to the Office of the Superintendent copy of all reports, data, etc. that is forwarded to ODM. new directive developed a Your assistance in this matter is appreciated. EM: nrATTACHMENT B DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR POLICIES \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVES All Building Principals Superintendent Assoc. Supt., School Operations Associate Supt. for Curriculum Assoc. Supt. for Support Services Assoc. Supt. for Equity (OLE) Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Jo Evelyn Elston (Drug Education) Mark Milhollen (Financial Services) Charlie Neal (Director) Purchasing Doug Eaton (Director) Plant Services Brad Montgomery (Director) Transportation Patty Kohler (Director) Exceptional Children Dave Kingsella (Director) Data Processing Jackie Boykin (Director) Food Services Asst. Supt. Elem. (Gremillion) Asst. Supt. Elem. (Robertson) Asst. Supt. - Secondary Director (Reading Dept.) Director (Barnhouse) Safety and Security Director (Leon Adams) Federal Programs Director (Gadberry) Human Resources Director (Jeanette Wagner) Communications Director (Carol Green) Vocational Educational Metropolitan Director (Donita Hudspeth) Staff Development Liaison (L. Young) New FuturesPage 2 Office of Deseg. (Ann Brown) Rita White Adm. Asst. (Human Resources) Linda Swain - Student Hearing Officer Othello Faison (Director) - Alternative Learning Center Arma Hart Facilitator Incentive Schools Paulette Martin Adult Ed. Director Ouida Carter - Quigley Stadium - Athletics Marie McNeal, Supeirvisor - Social Studies Lucy Lyon (Coordinator) - Instructional Technology Dennis Glasgow (Supervisor) - Science Dept. Debbie Milam (Coordinator) VIPS Supervisor - Math Department Mabel Donaldson - Gifted and Talented Catherine Gill PAC Coordinator Marie McNeal, Supervisor - Social Studies Pat Price, Coordinator - Early Childhood Marian Shead HIPPY Martha Rodgers - CARE Mala Daggett - McClellan - Community Education Gene Parker (Supervisor) - English Dept.SCHOOL/SCHQOL CODE  Central High (01) J. A. Fair 08) Hall (02) McClellan (12) Parkview Magnet (05) Metropolitan Vo-Tech (04) Cloverdale Jr. (15) Hiqh Dunbar Magnet (07) Forest Heights (09) Henderson (13)' Mabelvale (16) Mann Magnet (03) Pulaski Heights (10) Southwest (11) Badgett Elementary (19) Bale (17) Baseline (22) Booker Magnet (06) Brady (18) Carver Magnet (21) Chicot (28) Cloverdale (31) Dodd (32) Fair Park (23) Forest Park ^4) Franklin (25)^ Fulbright (48) Garland (26)^ Geyer Sorings (37) Gibbs Magnet (27) King (351 Jefferson (30) Mabelvale (46) McDermott (20) Meadowcliff (33) Mitchell (34) Otter Creek * Pulaski Heil leJ^Ls^SS) e^ (36)* Rightsell Rockefeller (36) Romine (40) Stephens (41) Terry (47) Wakefielo (51) Washington Magnet (42) Watson (52) Western Hill\nIs (29) Williams Magnet (43) Wilson (44) Wood run (45) *lncentive Schools LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOLS/PRINCIPALS 1993-94 PRINCIPAL Rudolph Howard Al Niven Dr. Vic Anderson Jodie Carter Junious Babbs Dr. Doyle Dillahunty Gayle Bradford Nancy Acre Richard Maple Clell Watts Walter Marshaleck Marian Lacey Ralph Hoffman Charity Smith Mary Golston Levanna Wilson Dr. Mary Jane Cheatham Dr. Cheryl Simmons Mary Menking Mary Guinn Otis Preslar Frederick Fields Patricia McNeil Barbara Means Virginia Ashley Franklin Davis Mac Huffman Robert Brown Eleanor Cox Donna Davis Sadie Mitchell Frances Cawthon Julie Davenport Mike Oliver Jerry Worm Dr. Samuel Branch Carolyn Teeter Lillie Carter Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Lionel Ward Lonnie Dean June Looper Willie Morris Karen Buchanan Theresa Courtney Scott Morgan Dr. Ed Jackson Gwen Zieg er Pat HigginbothamLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 1, 1993 TO: All Principal^ Directors, Supervisors, and Program Managers FROM: fed this. Di Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Revocation of LRSD Administrative Directive 93-04S The district has been advised that some administrators may not have promptly apprised their staff of the revocation of Administrative Directive 93-04S. PLEASE COMMUNICATE TO YOUR STAFF THAT THIS DIRECTIVE WAS REVOKED AS OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1993. As always, your assistance in this matter is appreciated. /Iks1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVE OCT October 1, 1993 t 1993, a t Office oi pesegre'^jaion TO: FROM: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring ^^llle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Construction at Chicot This communication is a response to your memorandum dated September 22, 1993, and received in our office on September 24, 1993. 1. When is construction of the Chicot cafetorium scheduled to begin? The actual construction of the cafetorium is scheduled to begin February 1, 1994. The decision was reached with the architect/engineer and our director of plant services. 2. When is construction scheduled for completion? The Chicot cafetorium is scheduled to be completed by July, 1994. 3. Why was the Chicot project not completed before the beginning of the school year? Following the districts March, 1993, filing, the district began to advertise for an architectural/engineering firm to do the bond work for the next school year. This process was completed in April and assignments were initiated in May. On May 14, 1993, the director of Plant Services, Doug Eaton, identified and contracted an architectural/engineering firm to do the Chicot project. The preliminary Scope of Work was completed on or about June 15, 1993. During the summer of 1993, theConstruction at Chicot Page 2 readjustments to the budget, scheduling the completion of ongoing projects, and the preparation for the start of the school year caused certain projects to be delayed. Plant Services accelerated its activities and covered projects necessary for the opening of schools. Delays due to the lengthy budgetary process and other projects caused the Chicot project not to proceed on its originally-intended schedule. 4. 5. How has the district determined the construction schedule for the Chicot cafetorium? The construction schedule for the Chicot cafetorium is done in concert with the architectural/engineering firms by analyzing the size of the project, the anticipated duration to construct a project of this size, and by allowing for design time and contractual advertising. If Chicots cafetorium construction is undertaken during the school year, how does the district plan to minimize the disruption during the academic day? The Chicot cafeteria expansion will be a stand-alone building which will be connected to the new building with a hallway. By working closely with the principal, there should be no disruption to the academic day. During the latter part of July, I instructed Larry Robertson to secure from Otis Preslar, principal of Chicot, and Doug Eaton a status report regarding this project. From this point, we have been closely attuned to getting this project back on schedule. The district is committed to completing this project in a manner that provides for the needs of our students and our community. Please contact me if further information is needed.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 October 5, 1993 Mrs. Mary Beth Greenway Parkview Magnet High School 2501 Barrow Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Beth: Hooray for you! I want to add my voice to the many who are singing your praises and congratulating you on your latest achievement, the Milken Award. What a wonderful surprise, and yet its really not at all surprising that someone as fine as you would rate such a distinguished honor. You never flag in your devotion to children, intense interest in education issues, and energetic leadership for positive change. Were all very proud of you, Beth. Thanks for all you continue to do to make our world a better place. Sincerely yours, CX- \" Anh S. Brown- 7'dr^T~ 12''93 08:58 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst a 001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 /^? -/^ -^3 TO: -fa. FROM: SENDER'S PHONE#: SUBJECT: 3^  -_____ _ SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Number of Pages (include cover page Speed. Dial Fax Phone Number OIDO GRAnn/nz.cr J Tf^nV.T. W 0 2 TOTAL II 0 1 TOI'Al, h W o 1 TWL'Al. n w 0 5 TOTAL n M 0 6 TOI-A I- R W 0 7 'JVJ7.J, II w 0  TOTM. A 0 9 7W.M. n 0 $0 TOTAL II 0 JI 7'OTAI. n w 0 trUHUUIl TES'l'KO 369 4 1330 697 24 lisfJl 1 171 r.?2 2fl 1783 1131 612 10 1067 L 3 11 032 23 1922 1280 61? 2 2 1414 1 1209 609 25 1094 1122  50 21 J 57,1 JOflO 493 19 1554 995 53 6 23 1602 949 009 4 1 ,14 72 1125 612 35 LITJ^E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PTAWflKG, REse?iRC[( AND EV^LVZlTI0N STANFORD ACftlBVEMEHl' EIGliTlC EDITION HATIONAI. pr^CErfTILK RARK/NaRMAL CUIIVR IIQUIVALEHT SCORES (FR/NCR) DlSTRICWrOE aOHMARY 199? 7017. L llErtDlHG 42/45.a .3 5/4 1.9 63/57.(1 fi6/5fl-0 30/44.1 20/33.1 62/56. ?. 61/56.9 39/44.2 27/36-9 63/57.0 57/53.0 44/47.0 33/40.9 67/59.2 60/95.4 3n/-l3-3 26/3G.6 ru/5G, 1$ 50/54.1 50/49,9 37/42,0 74/03.6 67/59,2 4 2/'l!..5 li/39.1 7n/6i.0 72/62.2 41/45.2 29/:ia.s 67/59.4 73/62.6 44/40.6 10/39.? 60/60.1 63/57.2 49/49,2 3!5/-U.O 72/62.3 64/57.4 50/49.0 34/41.4 6\u0026lt;\u0026gt;/6O,7 r\u0026gt;6/Sfl,4 TOTAL MA'l'HEMATlCS LArrOtJAOE (1 2HVJnOMMEI?T* SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENC.: hz^sic RATl'EnV cqmpli:te ' n?tTPEftV CD 40/49.0 4(1/44.6 70/03,1 74/63.3 57/53.fl 46/47,7 77/65.6 07/73.6 50/54.1 46/47,0 76/65,1 flO/641.0 57/53,9 49/49.2 73/63.0 7C/CG,1 53/51,7 43/46.5 71/61,9 03/69-9 57/53.0 40/40.7 74/63.3 75/64.3 45/47.4 36/42.2 64/57,3 75/64.3 39/4't.O 3CI/3Q.U 9/54.7 87/73.6 34/41.2 23/34.1 57/53.9 6fl /59.6 37/'\u0026lt;3.2 26/36.7 56/53.1 50/54.R 43/46.0 32/40.1 59 /54,6 62/56,4 4.1/45.1 12/40.2 61/57.2 60/60.1 \u0026lt;''/49,7 39/43,9 70/60.9 61/57.4 tSD/SO. D .fl 70/60.\u0026lt;l .6 46/47.6 35/42,1 C5/G0.O 64/57.4 4n/.l. ? 341 / 4 3. 3 67/.69.1 66/150,7 51/50.3 41/45.4 60/59.9 64/57.7 43/46.1 33/40.7 64/57.7 70/01-1 40/40.1 30/43.6 6D/G0.7 R1/6U.5 54/51.9 ^2/45.9 73/63,0 09/60.6 47/40.6 34/41.5 60/60.0 59/54.6 4fl/49.1 5/41.9 66/50,S 61/56,1 37/42.9* 27/37,3 su/ss.o 49/49.5 43/46.3* 32/40.0 66/50.0 67/59.3 43/46.1 30/30.0 67/59,1 63/57.1 46/47.6 34/41.6 60/60.0 6(3/50.7 45/47.4 33/40.6 70/61,2 74/63.6 34/52.0 43/46.0 74/63,5 75/64,0 42/45.6 31/39.7 65/57.9 75/64.5 45/47.4 14/'n . 1 60/00.I 77/65.7 50/50,2 38/43,4 72/62.5 69/00.7 15/47.1 12/39,9 67/50.0 64/57.3 4?/4JI,6 32/40,2 fiO/Q9.7 50/54.'$ O Oo 45/47.5 36/42.4 67/ 59,5 74/63.5 39/44.0 31/39.5 64/5?.fl 67/5$ . I Ol 00 4S/47.4 34/41.3 69/60.3 73/62.6 45/47.3 33/40.0 70/61,2 74/63.5 I 46/40.0 35/43,6 67/59,2 61/55.9 4fl/4j.O 30/43.5 60/59.7 69/60.3 46/40,1 37/43.1 65/50,2 70/60.0 59/54.S 49/49,0 76/S5.0 72/62.0 35/42.1 72/ft2-0 B0/s?,a 46/40,0 34/41.3 72/62.I fl3/7O.O 49/49.6 36/42,5 73/62,6 71/61.4 43/46.2 30/3fl.7 66/5fl,4 57/53.fl Sl/50,6 3^/42,7 \u0026lt;59/60.7 72/62.3 * At Cr.idoB I nn\u0026lt;l 2 tlio .SCIENCE aivI SOCIAL SCIENCE ob'jocUtvos aro combload nmi rnrioctne] ein\u0026lt;. n\u0026lt;*oro uinlcr ENVinONHEMT, J). 49/49.2 36/42,4 70/61.1 69/60.4 ie/49,0 3A/43.6 60/59.7 67/53.0 44/46.0 34/41.1 65/5B.3 71/ei,5 54/52.1 43/46.4 73/63.1 72/62.2 46/47.9 35/41.7 69/60. 75/64,5 43/46.2 32/40,0 66/5B.6 H4/71.2 47/40.2 34/41,I 70/61,0 71/61,7 47/48.4 34/41.7 60/60.1 64/57.7 51/50.4 36/42.3  70/60,a 69/60,5 47/40.2 34/41.0 70/61.0 68/51. .7 47/4C.2 36/42.2 60/60.0 67/59.0 44/46.7 32/40.4 67/59.2 72/52.4 54/52.1 43/46,0 7S/64.0 71/62.6 46/47.7 32/40.9 71/fl1.5 7B/G6.O 43/46.1 30/39.2 50/59.0 06/72,6 48/441 .fl 34/41,1 73/62.6 73/62.9 47/40.5 32/40.4 VO/61.2 6G/5JI .2 51/50,4 34/41.3 72/62.1 ZO/eiiO  SO to o t-41 w a cr o 0 cn IS.k GRADE SUBJECT '89 ijj-i iiiis KULA uisiKiur PLAHNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING FIVE YEAR COMPARISON 1909-1993 ALL STUDEHTS__ '30 '91 '92 '93 ' 39 BLACK STUDENTS, '30 '31 92 ' 93 ' 09 WniTTLJiTUDENTS___ ' 90 '91 '92 9 3 1 I 3 6 8 READING MATH READING MATH LANGUAGE ARTS CIEMCE SOCIAL STUDIES READING MATH 86 89 88 09 7 5 66 70 90 89 07 8 7 90 90 77 7 2 \\ 7 7 09 8 7 8? 87 94 90 70 73 73 07 0 4 88 91 92 89 7 7 75 74 05 06 86 80 91 80 7 6 30 76 86 03 02 06 04 86 60 56 60 06 06 83 02 07 00 7 0 62 69 05 83 02 03 92 00 71 64 65 82 79 82 0? 89 86 70 67 66 79 81 81 83 07 84 70 73 69 82 70 96 97 96 95 89 06 89 90 97 95 95 97 96 92 92 94 90 97 95 94 90 95 90 90 09 9 7 95 90 9 6 97 9 8 95 30 90 09 97 95 96 99 94 90 95 91 95 92 EXHIBIT 2 t OTHER STUDENTS '09 '90 '91 '92 '93 70 03 96 96 80 85 00 90 00 95 90 95 95 86 02 35 88 93 96 91 ICO 97 90 87 90 9 0 90 96 96 94 91 85 00 05 97 92 06 91  95 9 2 92 02 02 02 7 7 1 I I 0 lANGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES TOTAL TEST * 85 67 74 91 84 74 7 5 91 02 63 63 92 01 62 66 80 80 63 67 7 9 55 65 79 7 6 75 75 97 93 9 4 92 91 70 80 02 06 79 64 68 50 54 52 57 51 50 * TOTAL TEST SCORE AFTER THIRD ADMINISTRATION EACH YEAR. 09 91 93 91 08 01 05 84 07 85 7 0 83 03 01 70 7 0 01 01 69 74 i! II ih I rc co Ol co CS OI o to to ro i/i Ci cr o o o tn1 LIWLB HOCK SCliOOI, Orsi'RjcT PUlWIIHB, lil!SEf,RCIl, AND EVAI.UATlOH ARKAHSA3 HINIMfiK rEKFOHMAHCB 3'EflT OJIADE EIOHT SUMHARy AND KVALUATLOH I.TTT'LK ROCK SCHOOL BISl'HIC-r PMUHIHG, RESEAIICFI, AKU EVAHJA'TIOH ARKAHS/iS_MIKIMUM PEREOHKAtfCE TEST to 1 It SglKX\u0026gt;L/MO. JflSlED* 2IjQ2EBiJAIiEZlSS Jfiimhsr -------rcroont 9119iSZ22a Kumhor - faroant aBF5TJ]SlST3/22? Humbor yoroent llllfiEBS9HZ,2U Numbor -------PqgQont HilBEIiViliEZlla Miinbor ----------tsr9iil_. H4M1IZ259 Kuobar -----------ggroant ITUAEMJISISJOSZU1 Hunber ----------Ssroent_________ acuimaazifii irumber ---------Jscsunli. iIl._llITaiEl![Z2 HiiTTiber ----------laisfint_____ 11 tUliCLE POTHTni WumLor -------KsrafiiLt___ Wumljor ----far\u0026lt;?BS_ TiriRb ADHlMlSTRZiTtOH 19 9 3 CRAOE KIGHT SUMMARV co STl/DENTa PAaSiHG__ ISA 3!*mLu^fP5T flWCK 22  3S_ 11 Ji .StW\u0026gt;EKTS_PATMHQ WFITTK li . 6 JI OTFIBR F _TOTA|, \u0026amp;gltaQL/MO. TRSTBD* _a ----.2_____fi. 33 12. CLSYBliEAlEZlia Humller ______percont___ I 222 _!15_ 115 -fit 214 -89. 151 _S 214 _21- 12 6 li .2 12. _n 0 e. _o _jL 29 11. JlUHflAHZlll llunhciv ---------feroont 21 .15_. 1.4 IS.. 12. -----il J _a IS^0. 0 ___________0,, 12 A3 12 -2 . . _o 0 11_____ -1 _a 0 IL _2 _a. !2 E!]iESl!.irETni]T.q/\niA Hunbor -------Efltflont__ _Q .J?. 21. -5 22 -9- 32 fiEiiioaotiziix Wpubor -------Earooiit_ THIRD ADHIKISTRATIOH 19 9 2 liTUOJilJTS ASaiHQ_ m 40 222 9a 151 03 122 .J5. .'lQTAli-3^11J\u0026amp;9Sllfg_5.\u0026lt;XiRrir7a^ 1-tl nwcK K WiriTE Ji O'fHKR -.iCSlAk. co o o 1-Q IS 99. 21 is. 21 0 -j 0 0 21 14. 0 oi Ik 11 35 U ik 0 0 __ik_  0  0 LC .a. hi 0 0 .12 1.2. 0 G 21.fi ----59___ 11 sc -2 Lk --------02_____12. . 1 iS. _1 __12. ___ai * iiio numbor o/ atuUants __10____ -j6 28, 0 k G __.s_. X5. 3 _2 0 0 -fi .. 0____iftfi______g._ -I -ll_ 12 11 _9 a U 0 ,2 _i9_ -12. 121 _52_ SI _3S_I IS jL 19 -. J. 1 _l. tented lias been rovlseit U -C.. .-9 IL Q k 21. 0 0 _0 _i 29 i{ 12 _2 24 30 21 2B_.. -54. -S .21. 35 2. Into ad out of tiia district sllicu^t)icscuond^adi ctudonta rnovtiig ^tPlents vbo ,ay Have boon Inc^idod Jo the sot^J atlmiidatratioFb sujftwiary, BaflELV4LBZ125 Humber Varofenfc_ MAljH/g73 Humber 191 _____SI. _____Pqtoeht_______ PlltJUKT HEIGfITS/aijn Hiuftber  fiernaiit_________ ggTjTin?RaT/i99 Huinbor ----Earepaid F LI2.R-JirLCirKT,b/9 Humber -------Pktaaaifc____ . EIUHaIJl_EOlnxZ5_ Humber ----------tflroent_______ EISlBICIZlX'-fi Kumboa: ____^roent _ 2SZ 12 ,56 c -li. 1 5 G 0 --------4k 292 _5___ 152 111 _5 19. 1552 __M, _a sc 0 0 0 0 19 .JB 29 il G 1S -52. 19 92. 19 jl 15. as -A9_ 0 0 0 Q 2 0 G 24. _1 -25. 0 0 22 J5. 22 ----il_. 19 c 29 11 22 15. W o 5 O cn a _44_ _1 JiL __B 1944. \u0026gt;1 5 12 5 0 0 229 _12. Unto^irLut' Of the'd?o?,dat':ioo\\h ?* students moving J1E13 boon revised to reCiwot i abieo tho seoand RdmlnJstvatlon the aocond iSOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building LtUe Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: October 14, 1993 To: Bobby Lester, James Smith, Hank Williams From: i\n- in Brown Subject ODM 1993-94 Monitoring Priorities and Procedures My staff and I have identified our monitoring priorities for the 1993-94 school year. We plan to closely examine the desegregation areas that are listed below and summarize our findings to the Court in a written report. It is possible that some of the topics will be subject to change depending upon unforeseen events such as new court orders. As in previous years, we identified our monitoring emphasis by reviewing the desegregation plans and court mandates. We paid close attention to those plan areas the Circuit Court has termed u 'crucial.\" We also noted District Court orders and directives issued during hearings that require ODM to review certain desegregation activities or scrutinize specific provisions of the plans or court orders. Some of our monitoring will be in the nature of a follow-up on previous reports, such as those on the LRSD incentive schools and racial balance in the PCSSD schools. Other monitoring will be in areas we have not previously reviewed as a discrete topic, such-as recruitment and the interdistrict schools. /Mthough we will not monitor all three districts in every area, we will review the activities of all districts in most of the subjects and monitor the district to which a topic specifically refers, such as Academic Progress Incentive Grants in the LRSD area schools. Well also likely visit some schools to assess their general compliance with the desegregation plans in addition to the emphasized areas. You can expect our monitoring procedures to remain essentially unchanged from last year, continuing to include both announced and unannounced visits to schools. Our observations will be guided by a written monitoring guide, the same type of instrument weve used in previous years. We will review the guide with your staff before beginning a formal monitoring project so youll loiow what were looking for. As you know, some guides include charts to reflect various data, such as school enrollment and staffing. Because ODM monitors gather this data from the annual school profiles, rather than asking school staff to fill out forms\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1539","title":"Court filings concerning District planning and finance, Magnet schools, junior high schools","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School boards","Magnet schools","Education, Secondary"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning District planning and finance, Magnet schools, junior high schools"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1539"],"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":["126 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_379","title":"Data","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":["1993/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Data"],"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/379"],"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\ns C H o O Learn a little about vour schools All three districts in Pulaski County have plenty to be proud of.  ARKANSAS TIMES  MARCH 27, I998_ w,hen you choose a neighborhood, you're also choosing a school system. The two are inevitably interlinked, and schools often are the determming factor when families are relocating. There are plenty of good-news stories in all three Pulaski County school districts, inspirational tales that help illuminate what is right about public education today. Here are brief looks at the three districts: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The largest school district in the state, the Little Rock School District includes 35 elementary schools, eight j unior high schools, five senior high schools, one alternative learning center and one vocational-technical school. Many are incentive or magnet schools that specialize in a particular educational theme, and plenty of other are area schools in which students from particular nearby neighborhoods attend them. The Little Rock School District has much to boast about  Thirteen LRSD students were named National Merit Scholarship Semifinalists during the 1997-98 school year. Twelve of those honored students attend Central High School, and the other goes to Parkview.  Six students were selected as National Achievement Scholarship Semifinalists four from Central, one from Parkview and one from J.A. Fair.  The 1996-97graduating class of the Little Rock School District received more than $5.1 million in scholarships.  The district offers more courses than any other district or private school in the state. There are computer labs in every elementary school in the district.  More than 160 businesses in the city participate with schools in the Partners in Education program. . \"The variety of programs offered through the district are attractive to parents because there's something for everyone,\" says Suellen Vann, head of communications for  the District. \"Parents whose children are interested in math, science, health sciences L s award-winning teachers and award-winning students.\" There are approximately 25,000 students in the district, with an average expenditure of $5,822. The average teachersalary in 1997- 98 is $33,8789, excluding fringebenefits. More than 53 percent of the teaching staff holds either master's degrees or doctorates. NORTH Little rock school District Parents who want a small-town school environment for their children but who still want to live smack-dab in the middle of bustling Pulaski County might want to take a long look at the North Little Rock School District. 'The district is approximately one-third the size of the Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts with about 9,000 total Computers have become an educational way of life In public schools. students attending the 14 elementaries, four middle schools and one high school, which issplitintotwocampusesthe Eastcampus for 9lh and 10th graders and the West campus for 11th and 12th graders. There are also three specialty programs and an alternative learning center. \"One of the strongest points for us,\" says Shara Brazear, communications head for the district, \"is that we can be a smaller-town school in a metropolitan area. We're exactly right for many people. Most teachers and employees have worked here for years. Once they work for the North Little Rock district they don't want to leave.\" students and recently lauiwhed several new projects. Poplar Street Middle School is an outrageously successful all sixth-grade school. Adolescents have a chance to mature and learn in an environment with their true peers. All 650 sixth-grade students in the district attend this school and are divided into seven teams. Approximately 90 students are in each team of four core teachers: math, English, science and social studies. Redwood Early Childhood Center is another exciting endeavor the North Little Rock School District undertook last year. This preschool program identifies at-risk students in North Little Rock and offers outstanding instruction as well as an exciting curriculum ' ride the bus long distances to take part in the for ail 135 students including 25 kindergarten students. Pulaski county special school DISTRICT A far-flung district of 729 square miles that covers every area of the county that doesn't fall within the Little Rock or North Little Rock city limits, the Pulaski County Special School District includes a total of 38 schools25 elementaries, one middle school, five juruor high schools, six high schools and an alternative learning center for grades 7-12. The district maintains a down-home, smalltown feel by operating under the neighborhood concept. \"As long as seate are still available in your neighborhood school, then that's where you go,\" says Susie Roberts, a district spokeswoman. All the elementaries feed to a particular junior high, and then to a particular high school so \"a majority of students end up going to school with the same kids their whole lives,\" Roberts notes. With 20,000 students and 2,700 employees, the Pulaski County Special School District is the count/s second largest. And there are plenty of good things happening in its schools, some of which Roberts proudly points out:  There is an average of only 20 students per classroom.  Several elementary schools offer a prekindergarten program for 4-year-olds, and others havean extended-day program, which supplies before- and after-school care for  children to better fit parents' schedules.  Five specialty theme schools offer attendance options for qualifying students. Baker Interdistrict Elementary offers an economics specialty theme, while students at College Station Elementary are offered specialized instruction in talented and gifted education. Students at Fuller Elementarv* ran elect tn program, while students at Landmark E. ementary enjoy the fine arts specialty pre gram. Fuller Junior High and Mills Univer sity Studies High School also feature a tai ented and gifted instruction specialty.  About 1300 students take advantage o the many opportunities presented by thi Talented and Gifted (TAG) program, whicl encourages critical thinking and creativih as well as specific subject skills.  Wilbur D. Mills University Studies High School offers a logical progression for students who have participated in the TAG specialty programs offered at College Station Elementary and Fuller Junior High. Roberts reports that many students elect tc unique program, through which they can get a head start on their college careers. That allows many to . enter college as first- or second-semester sophomores rather than as freshmen. Mills offers a more comprehensive selections of advanced placement (AP) courses and more upper-level electives to facilitate this early jump on college. The first class to graduate from the Mills University Studies program netted almost $3 million in scholarship offere.  All secondary schools offer a standard core curriculum in workforce education, and about 90 percent of students get some sort of this type training.  Pulaski County Special School District students, teachers and administrators are coT^sistently recognized with numerous local, state and national awards for excellence in education. Magnet schools Students who live in any school district in Pulaski County are eligible to apply for admission to magnet schools, which offer themed subject areas. Elementary magnet schools:  Booker Arts  Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science  Clinton Interdistrict (technology/speech)  Crystal Hill Communications  Gibbs International Studies/Foreign Language   King High-Intensity  Rockefeller Early Childhood  Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science  Williams Basic Skills Secondary schools:  Central International Studies  Dunbar International Student/Talenled and Gifted  Henderson Health Science  Horace Mann Arts and Science  McClellan Business/Communications  Pirkvipw .Art'^ and Sciences L. PURSUE fRE PUSSHitiiLmES Uf MAGIMET SCHOOL EIVROLLIUEIMT ir NOT TOO IBT!I \u0026gt; .\u0026gt; %\n. L - * I  .X  ,jr. /\u0026gt; \u0026amp; :t h \u0026gt;' I i\nr\nCheck Us Ootl i [^^^C/ioosefrom !5 II Schools or Programs i Pre-K through t2th Crude High Degree of Parental Involvement Test Scores, Low Student Disciplinary Referrals si^\nUMITCD SeRTING flVRILRBLCll Transportation Provided Call the Magnet Review Committee office at 75B-O1SE far enrollment information I Then I shared my knowledge with others. I Global Education in the Little Rock School District 324-2000 Town Hall Meeting October 11, 1994 7 p.m. .7 Fulbright Elementary School 300 Pleasant Valley Drive OCT V 1 W OUice Ct Oasaursoa^' RC*^ iujolWK Zone 4 AGENDA Introduction and Purpose of Meeting Leon Modeste Special Assistant to the Superintendent Opening Remarks John A. Riggs, IV Board Representative, Zone 4 Dr. Heiuy P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 1. Budget Configurations n. Goals and Mission Statement Questions and Suggestions from Citizens Closing RemarksOur Pride is Showing at the Little Rock School District  The Little Rock School District has more course offerings than any other district or private school in the state.  There are 125 businesses that are Partners in Education with the LRSD.  LRSD leads the state with 84 counselors for its 50 schools.  LRSD offers 21 advanced placement courses in its high schools.  LRSD is an educational partner in the New Futures for Little Rock Youth initiative which is a $15 million grant from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Little Rock is one of only five cities to receive this honor.  LRSD has more that 489,925 books in its school libraries\nthat's twice the state standard.  LRSD offers courses in five foreign languages: Spanish, French, German, Latin and Greek.  In 1994, LRSD seniors were awarded more than $3.3 million in college scholarships.  LRSD traditionally has more National Merit Scholars than any other district in the state.  LRSD offers an educational program for four-year-olds, allowing parents to begin their child's learning very early.  The LRSD has an Instructional Resource Center for teachers and parents with materials and services available to enhance the educational experiences of all LRSD students.  In 1994 LRSD identified 1,856 seventh graders to take the SAT and ACT college entrance exams as part of the Duke University Talent Identification Program.  LRSD offers many educational options such as incentive, area, magnet, and interdistrict schools, each with specialties unique and different.  LRSD has a strong gifted and talented program.  LRSD students have access to the electronic encyclopedia through the library media centers and computer labs.  LRSD offers an extensive program of adult education to meet the needs of people in Central Arkansas with morning, afternoon, evening and siunmer programs.  More than 53% of LRSD teachers hold Master's Degrees or have more than 30 hours towards advanced degrees. Little Rock School District Mission Statement The mission of the Little Rock School District i educational program which encouraoes all childranT v quality, integrated social, and emotional development To that end ,h a academic. '0 iitat end. the students in the Little RncU Oni, apprec.at.on for ethnic and cultural diversity, d vetp - resolut.on. and demonstrate program which District will develop an problem solving and conflict curriculum. mastery of the District', This will be achieved throu s Ji the collaborative efforts of a Board, of a dedicated . purents, and cttizens committed to fairness, racial and competent staff, and of smdems, p-- equity, and adequate support for education. Little Rock School District Goals 1. Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that aU academically sociallv and Pmnf \" ensure that all -  academic enrichment while  students grow 1. disparities in achievement. 3. Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. will valued contributor to and thp cultural diversity and the community as a valued that they accept each individual as a can draw as we resource upon which among students, staff, prepare for the 21st Centuiy. our community and nation Solicit and secure financial and other our schools, including resources that are our desegregation plan. necessary to fuUy support Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to leamin asnre that equity occurs in all phases of school g for all students. activities and operations.1994-95 LRSD Board Priorities Compiled at the Board Work Session on September 14, 1994  Safety \u0026amp; Security  Problem Solving at the Building Level  Quality Nursing Services  Alternative Means of Assessment  Alignment of Curriculum with Assessment  Staff Development  Parent Involvement  Collaboration between LRSD and City of Little Rock  Alternative Schools, including Alternative Learning Center (ALC)  Positive Discipline (Alternative Discipline Procedures)  Improved Relationship with MediaSchool Enroll -ment % BIk Elem Jr. High High Area Gadget Elem Bale Elem Baseline Elem Booker Elem Brady Elem Carver Elem Chicot Elem Cloverdale pddd Elem Fair Park Elem Fdre^ P^ Franklin Elem Fulbright Elem Garland Elem Geyer SprkigE Gibbs Elem Ish Elem Jefferson Elem Kwg Elam Mabelvale McDarmotl Meadowcliff Mitchel! Elem Otter Creek Pdl Heights 202 321 339 621 398 598 535 366 304 243 444 411 530 256 282 336 187 483 500 509 440 264 353 379 76 77 77 56 69 55 65 80 60 79 45:s 86 42 91 63 57 97 42 56 54 66 88 41 52 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-93 Incen tive X X X X Magnet Inter- dist Magne t X X X Inter -dist Mag -net Prog 4-Year- Olds Prog X X X X X X X X Annex -ed X X X X X X X X CommentsSchool Enroll -ment % BIk Elem Jr. High High Area Incen tive Rightsell Elem 249 96 X X Ftoctefelter 361 69 X X Romine Elem 361 77 X Stephens Elem 209 97 X X Terry Elem 541 44 X X Wakefield Elem 500 69 X X Washington 822 59 X Watson Etem 4S1 74 X X Western Hills 335 62 X X Williams Etem 502 55 X Wilson Elem 355 75 X X Woodruff Elem 234 63 X X Cloverdale Jr^ 775 74 X X Dunbar Jr. 705 58 X X Forest Heights Henderson Jr. Mabelvale Jr. Mann Jr. Pulaski Heights Southwest Jr. Central High Fair High Hall High McClellan High Parkview High High Sch Kind 787 914 BV 667^ 849 774 695 1.950 886 976 966 854 122 70 75 166 59 561 75 56 63 57 66 i:57i 89 X X X X X X X X X X X X ......... X 1X\nX 11\u0026gt;1-X::1 X Magnet X X 1B1'X Inter- diSt Magne t X X Inter -dist X Mag -net Prog X X X X 4-Year- Olds Prog X X X X X X X X Annex -ed X X X X X X CommentsNote: 1. Baker Elementary is an interdistrict school in the Pulaski County Special School District. For the 1992-93 school year, the extended care theme has drawn 63 LRSD students on M-to-M transfers. 2. Crystal Hill Elementary is an interdistrict magnet school in the Pulaski County Special School District. For the 1992-93 school year, it has drawn 278 LRSD students on M-to-M transfers. 3. Rockefeller is an incentive school with an early childhood magnet program serving children beginning at 6-weeks old. 4. Henderson Jr., Central High, and McClellan High are area schools with magnet programs. 5. All high schools house one to two kindergarten classes. The enrollment figures reflect high school enrollment. 6. The King Elementary Interdistrict School to open 1993-94 will probably be an interdistrict magnet school, as will the Stephens Elementary Interdistrict School opening in 1994-95.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent: Dr. Ruth Steele Finance Office: Jim Ivey Desegregation Officer: James Jennings Mileage Size of District: Millage Rate: 43.9 Annual Budget Operating Salary Desegregation Cost per Child Number of Employees Certified Support Enrollment 26,254 Elementary Secondary 14,683 11,571 49 Schools 36 Elementary Schools 8 Junior Highs 5 Senior HighsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT COMPARISON SCHOOLS 1988-89 Enrollment % BLK 1989-90 Enrollment % BLK 1990-91 Enrollment % BLK 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK Badgett 279 72% 237 76% 222 75% 220 73% Bale 414 72% 385 76% 375 81% 360 82% Baseline 400 73% 389 72% 370 74% 337 77% Booker 647 55% 610 53% 614 56% 634 55% Brady 447 64% 442 66% 456 72% 420 68% Carver 446 50% 589 46% 603 54% 601 54% Chicot 560 65% 531 64% 544 67% 531 64% Cloverdale 446 63% 419 70% 389 74% 392 78% Dodd 414 66% 394 64% 331 59% 303 55% Fair Park 341 72% 332 72% 345 81% 320 80% Forest Park 423 59% 392 57% 387 53% 402 48% Franklin 442 74% 448 81% 411 83% 507 84% Fulbright 598 55% 576 56% 559 52% 506 46% Garland 299 92% 285 94% 240 88% 279 94% Geyer Springs 239 66% 205 66% 201 72% 254 71% Gibbs 335 51% 338 51% 333 56% 339 56% Ish 197 90% 164 96% 146 97% 200 94% Jefferson 488 56% 479 50% 469 51% 484 43% King 94 94% Mabelvale Elem 586 63% 535 58% 559 57% 505 53% McDermott 506 59% 514 61% 524 62% 511 57% Meadowcliff 456 69% 432 62% 444 65% 427 59% Mitchell 261 84% 239 92% 207 88% 312 91% Otter Creek 361 58% 342 50% 359 50% 356 45% Pul. Heights 326 70% 307 71% 325 65% 342 54% Rightsell 241 81% 211 92% 193 99% 289 98% Rockefeller 300 85% 250 86% 271 72% 403 70% Romine 472 76% 425 80% 392 82% 357 84%SCHOOLS 1988-89 Enrollment % BLK 1989-90 Enrollment % BLK 1990-91 Enrollment % BLK 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK Stephens 233 97% 226 100% 202 94% 245 96% Terry 522 59% 513 61% 522 55% 512 47% Wakefield 501 63% 464 65% 502 65% 479 69% Washington 519 98% 762 57% 841 57% Watson 465 65% 456 64% 518 67% 467 72% Western Hills 332 64% 337 59% 339 60% 323 59% Williams 475 52% 501 51% 505 56% 495 55% Wilson 412 70% 397 66% 418 71% 394 73% Woodruff 221 74% 193 71% 186 65% 225 64% High Sch Kind 119 76% 113 87% 111 84% SUB TOTAL 14,179 66% 14,195 67% 14,336 66% 14,683 65% Cloverdale Jr. 712 60% 731 64% 764 70% 745 71% Dunbar 741 81% 576 79% 663 64% 691 61% Forest Heights 770 64% 808 67% 772 69% 765 71% Henderson 954 64% 956 71% 902 75% 859 83% Mabelvale Jr. 581 56% 609 61% 620 65% 665 65% Mann 882 59% 877 54% 886 58% 872 56% Pul. Heights 694 62% 721 63% 722 63% 761 62% Southwest 734 70% 700 70% 655 75% 704 74% SUBTOTAL 6,068 64% 5,978 66% 5,984 67% 6,062 68% Central High 2,070 57% 1,813 58% 1,580 59% 1,721 60% Fair 920 51% 911 56% 866 58% 882 61% Hall 1,268 50% 1,192 53% 1,212 57% 1,082 54% MeClellan 1,191 52% 1,081 59% 1,003 61% 980 65% Parkview 847 58% 805 54% 804 54% 844 53% SUBTOTAL s GRAND TOTAL 6,296 54% aie 5,802 56% 5,465 58% 5,509 59% 26,543 63% 25,975 64% 25,785 65% 26,254 64%SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pul. Heights Rightsell LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS 220 360 337 634 420 601 531 392 303 320 402 507 506 279 254 339 200 484 505 511 427 312 356 342 289 73% 82% 77% 55% 68% 54% 64% 78% 55% 80% 48% 84% 46% 94% 71% 56% 94% 43% 53% 57% 59% 91% 45% 54% 98% 237 396 390 656 492 613 558 492 328 348 396 510 515 340 328 353 245 486 515 492 442 340 351 351 340 93% 91% 86% 97% 85% 98% 95% 80% 92% 92% 102% 99% 98% 82% 77% 96% 82% 99% 98% 104% 97% 92% 101% 97% 85% 17 36 53 22 72 12 27 100 25 28 0 3 9 61 74 14 45 2 10 0 15 28 0 9 51SCHOOLS 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS Rockefeller 403 70% 385 105% 0 Romine 357 84% 467 76% 110 Stephens 245 96% 315 78% 70 Terry 512 47% 492 104% 0 Wakefield 479 69% 492 97% 13 Washington 841 57% 939 90% 98 Watson 467 72% 492 95% 25 Western Hills 323 59% 328 98% 5 Williams 495 55% 517 96% 22 Wilson 394 73% 394 100% 0 Woodruff 225 64% 304 74% 79 siOB TOTAL 14.683 65% Cloverdale Jr. 745 71% 857 87% 112 Dunbar 691 61% 751 92% 60 Forest Heights 765 71% 733 104% 0 Henderson 859 83% 959 90% 100 Mabelvale Jr. 665 65% 594 112% 0 Mann 872 56% 935 93% 63 Pul. Heights 761 62% 692 110% 0 Southwest 704 74% 702 100% 0 SUBTOTAL 6,062 68% Central High 1,721 60% 1,891 91% 170 Fair 882 61% 904 98% 22 Hall 1,082 54% 1,216 89% 134 McClellan 980 65% 1,085 90% 105 Parkview 844 53% 991 85% 147 SUBTOTAL 5,509 59% GRAND TOTAL 26,254 64%LRSD EMPLOYEE COUNT 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Certified 1,972 2,048 2,043 2,056 Non-certified 1,359 1,465 1,651 1,859 TOTAL 3,331 3,513 3,694 3,915BAKER EXTENDED DAY ENROLLMENT December, 1991 Morning Program Afternoon Program LRSD Students Black Males 8 6 5 Black Females 6 4 1 White Males 7 18 White Females 5 6 Percent Black 54% 29% Total 26 34 6GENERAL INFORMATION Pulaski County Schools 1992-93 LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL Enrollment 26,141 9,251 21,633 57,025 % Black 64% 48% 28% 48% # of Schools 51 25 37 113 # of Employees 4,306 1,292 2,724 .Annual Budget Per Pupil Expenditure Millage Rate Size/Square Miles $120 million $36 million $85 million $241 million $4,400 $3,400 $3,896 43.9 36.3 43.9 100 30 729 859 Incentive Schools (located within the LRSD) Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Ish Elementary Mitchell Elementary Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Magnet Schools - the orginial six (located within LRSD) Booker Arts Magnet (Elementary) Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet (Elementary) Gibbs Foreign Language/Intemational Studies Magnet (Elementary) Williams Basic Skills Magnet (Elementary) Mann Arts and Science Magnet (Junior High) Parkview Arts and Science Magnet (Senior High)Additional Magnet Schools Crystal Hill Communications Magnet (Elementary) (located within PCSSD) Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet (Elementary) Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet (Elementary) Dunbar International Studies/Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Magnet (Junior High) Additional Magnet Programs Henderson Health Science (Junior High) Central International Studies (Senior High) McClellan Business/Communications (Senior High) Interdistrict Schools Romine Elementary (LRSD) Baker Elementary (PCSSD) PCSSD Specialty Programs College Station Elementary TAG Specialty (Talented and Gifted) Bates Elementary Project MAST (Mathematics and Science Together) Fuller Elementary Orchestra Specialty Landmark Elementay Fine Arts Specialty Fuller Junior High TAG SpecialtyLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for racial and cultural diversity. develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of specific skills. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff. and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education.1. 2. 3. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GOALS Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Developing and maintaining staff that is well-trained and motivated. (Communicating with colleges and universities about teacher training will be a strategy for this goal). The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate behavior and human relations skills that value people as human beings and that are consistent with an appreciation and understanding of multicultural diversity. 4. Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. 5. 6. Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations.These were goals that were considered but were not chosen as being the most important. * Help students be productive in the 21st century by developing a capacity for life-long learning, problem solving skills, positive self-concept and a responsibility for learning. * Provide a disciplined environment that promotes citizenship. responsible  By the year 1996: (1) reduce by 50% the number of grades 3 and 6 below the 50th percentile\nstudents at increase by and (2) 50% the students scoring at the 90% percentile (on standardized tests)  strongly promote parental involvement in the education of their children through home and school activities and encourage community involvement through partnerships and volunteerism. * Development and infusion of multicultural education in all areas of the curriculum. * Develop and maintain a system of accountability to the public of the District (achievement and resources).Note - The issues related to each goal which are listed on the following pages are stated subcommittees. problems (e.g., exactly as They are not in parallel form. reported by the Sone are stated as behavior.), Adults not modeling appropriate interpersonal others are stated overcome problems (e.g., as strategies or activities Encourage student participation in to a cross-section of extracurricular activities.), while others are stated as programs). needs All, (e.g., however, parental involvement in all school involve areas which were viewed as impediments to achieving the goals of the District.Issues related to Goal #1 Goal #1 ensure that Implement integrated educational programs that will all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. 1) Program development in areas where needs of all children are not met 2) Accountability (Staff,student, parents, and programs) 3) Objective criteria for determining program effectiveness 4) growth Measurement system to measure academic, social, and emotional 5) Needs assessment (local and District) 6) Adeguate resources (human and financial) 7) Environment conducive to learningIssues related to Goal #2 Goal #2 - Developing and maintaining staff that is well-trained and motivated. (Communication with colleges and universities about teacher training will be a strategy for this goal.) 1) Accountability/change how do we deal with staff, i. e. teachers, principals, etc. who have not been held accountable in past (i.e. principal, etc.) 2) Monitor, evaluate, reinforce, and replicate 3) Recruitment and retention of quality staff and issuance of contracts in a timely manner 4) Quality inservice learning and trainers 5) Needs assessment, i.e., building level and district-wide 6) Adequate resources (financial and human)Issues related to Goal #3 Goal #3 - The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff and students will demonstrate behavior and human relations skills that value people as human beings and that are consistent with an appreciation and understanding of multicultural diversity. 1) Provide financial resources 2) Practices and procedures which will be used strategies relating to positive interpersonal relationships in teaching 3) Training in human relations (job performance related) 4) Lack of understanding of cultural differences 5) promote Communications to parents concerning teaching strategies that enhanced achievement and relationships positive interpersonal 6) Parental involvement in all school programs 7) Provide adequate time for staff development 8) The biases and practices that all of the players bring to the setting (i.e., segregated lounges, cafeteria) 9) Racial sensitivity programs for students, staff, and parents 10) Adults not modeling appropriate interpersonal behavior 11) Encourage student participation in a cross-section of extra curriculum activities 12) Lack of understanding of the desegregation plan 13) Need for a different type of staff development delivery system, other that the current five member staff 14) Employment practices at all levels 15) Effective monitoring of diversity in all programsIssues related to Goal #4 Goal #4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. 1) Lack of knowledge and commitment by public and District personnel to desegregation plan commitments. 2) Need hard data to evaluate programs in District and desegregation plan - - remove those that don't work. 3) More focused effort by all District personnel to promote school District. 4) Change in attitude in marketing (We have a lot to sell) progress in meeting LRSD goals. 5) Lack of knowledge of funding sources private) - such as Wal-Mart, Tyson (federal, state, 6) News coverage of schools needs to be more positive 7) Review and audit of personnel needs 8) Level of confidence of public in system Instability in staff and staff changes promotes confusion. distrust, and lack of support to pass a school millage 10) Securing partners for all schools 11) State funding processes 9) .Issues related to Goal /5 Goal #5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. 1) Promote parent participation that includes parents and students helping to establish and support classroom/school rules 2) Identify community problems/conflicts that spill over into the school setting 3) Lack of commitment of staff for inservice training 4) Cost of purchasing materials/equipment to maintain attraction facilities and grounds 5) Cost of adding custodial staff and security personnel to maintain clean, attractive, and safe buildings 6) Teachers need to be trained to be effective in controlling student behavior 7) Role models (especially male) are needed for students at the elementary and secondary level 8) A planned program for citizenship, personal responsibility, and moral/ethical behavior is needed. 9) Expense and space for In-School Suspension Program Kids don't need to be on the street 10) Difficulty in getting parents to come to school for conferences and training 11) Physical structure of some buildings create safety problems (Too many doors, etc.) 12) Changing staff expectations about student behavior 13) Training of students/staff on the Rights and Responsibility handbooks to ensure consistent enforcement.Issues related to Goal #6 Goal #6 Ensure that equity occurs activities and operations. in all phases of school 1) What is equity? 2) The lack of a definition of site-based management in the LRSD 3) Provide financial resources 4) Practices and procedures which will be used in teaching strategies relating to positive interpersonal relationships 5) setting The biases and practices that all of the players bring to the 6) Racial sensitivity programs for students, staff and parents 7) Encourage student participation in a cross-section of extra curriculum activities 8) 9) Lack of understanding of the desegregation plan Employment practices at all levels 10) Effective monitoring of diversity in all programsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: REVISED ADA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for ethnic and cultural diversity, develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the District's curriculum. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education. Adopted 11-18-93LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Total of 50 schools 36 elementary K-6 8 junior high 7-9 5 senior high 10-12, plus K 1 vocational/technical high school Total enrollment 3rd quarter 25,415 with 64% black 14,137 elementary 67% 5,792 junior high 66% 5,414 senior high 56% 72 special schools Magnet Schools for 1990-91 ELEMENTARY Booker Arts Magnet Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Gibbs Foreign Language/International Studies Rockefeller Cooperative Early Childhood Education Washington Basic Skills/Math and Science Williams Basic Skills JUNIOR HIGH Dunbar International Studies/Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Mann Arts and Math/Sciences SENIOR HIGH Central High International Studies Parkview Arts/Sciences LRSD has six incentive schools which are elementary schools which offer enriched programs as well as standard academic curriculum in order to ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Incentive schools: Millage rate: 43.9 Total Budget 89-90: 104 millionLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Central High School 1500 Park Street LR International Studies Interdistrict Magnet Program beginning 90-91 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 1796 59.74% black enrollment **** Fair High School 5201 David 0. Dodd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in west, southwest LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 876 56.62% black enrollment * *   Hall High School 6700 \"H\" Street LR located in west LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 1203 52.45% black enrollment  * *  McClellan High School 9417 Geyer Springs LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 1045 58.27% black enrollmentParkview Magnet High School 2501 Barrow Road LR located in west LR, south of 1-630 predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 757 54.55% black enrollment  * *  Cloverdale Jr. High 6300 Hinkson LR annexed school from PCSSD adjacent to Cloverdale Elem located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 711 65.96% black enrollment * * * * Dunbar Jr. High School 1100 Wright Avenue LR International Studies/Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Magnet School beginning 90-91 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 555 79.81% black enrollment * *   Forest Heights Jr. High 5901 Evergreen LR located north of Markham St, east of University predominantly white neighborhood enrollment 780 66.53% black enrollmentHenderson Jr. High 401 Barrow Rd LR located west of University, south of Markham, north of 1-630 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 924 70.88% black **** Mabelvale Jr. High 10811 Mabelvale West Mabelvale annexed school from PCSSD predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 572 59.79% black enrollment Mann Magnet Jr. High School 1000 East Roosevelt LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 890 53.16% black enrollment **** Pulaski Heights Jr. High School 401 North Pine LR located north of Markham, east of University predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 709 61.63% black enrollment ****Southwest Jr. High School 3301 Bryant LR University Lab Magnet School in conjunction with Bale Elementary beginning 91-92 located across from UALR, west of University, south of 1-630, property adjoins Bale predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 660 70.75% black enrollment **** * * * * Badgett Elementary 6900 Pecan Rd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in east LR, east of airport, north of 1-440 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 222 75.67% black enrollment **** Bale Elementary 6501 32nd LR University Lab Magnet School in conjunction with Southwest Jr. High beginning 91-92 located across from UALR, west of university, south of 1-630, property adjoins Southwest predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 371 74.12% black enrollment    Baseline Elementary 3623 Baseline Rd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 393 74.55% black enrollment     Booker Magnet Elementary 2016 Barber LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 629 52.46 black enrollment  * *  Brady Elementary 7915 W. Markham LR located west of University on Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 436 65.82% black enrollment  *   Carver Magnet Elementary 800 Apperson LR located in east LR predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 605 48.26% black enrollment ****Chicot Elementary 11100 Chicot Rd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 501 65.26% black enrollment     Cloverdale Elementary 6500 Hinkson Rd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR, adjacent to Cloverdale Jr. High racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 416 70.43% black enrollment  * * * Dodd Elementary 6423 Stagecoach Rd LR located west, southwest LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 389 63.75% black enrollment Fair Park Elementary 616 North Harrison LR located east of University, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 346 71.67% black enrollmentForest Park Elementary 1600 North Tyler LR located in the Heights area, east of University, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 390 55.12% black enrollment  * * * Franklin Elementary 1701 South Harrison LR Early Childhood Environmental Science/Basic Skills Magnet beginning 91-92 located east of university, south of 1-630 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 455 80.87% black enrollment Fulbright Elementary 300 Pleasant Valley LR located in Pleasant Valley, west of 1-430, north of Markham, south of Cantrell predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 563 55.41% black enrollment *    Garland Elementary (Incentive School) 3615 West 25th LR Montessori Magnet beginning 92-93 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 260 95.00% black enrollmentGeyer Springs Elementary 5240 Mabelvale Pike LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR, north of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 205 64.87% black enrollment Gibbs Magnet School 1115 West 16th LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 345 51.01% black enrollment  * * * Ish Elementary (Incentive School) 3001 Pulaski LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 161 96.89% black enrollment    * Jefferson Elementary 2600 North McKinley LR located in Cammack Village, west of university, north of Cantrell predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 465 50.10% black enrollmentMabelvale Elementary 9401 Mabelvale Cutoff Mabelvale annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 533 56.84% black enrollment McDermott Elementary 1299 Reservoir Rd LR located west of University, north of 1-630 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 499 61.12% black enrollment Meadowcliff Elementary 25 Sheraton Dr LR located in southwest LR, north of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 430 62.55% black enrollment *   * Mitchell Elementary (Incentive School) 2410 Battery LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 225 89.77% black enrollment ****Otter Creek Elementary 16000 Otter Creek Parkway LR annexed school from PCSSD located in west, southwest LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 349 49.28% black enrollment     Pulaski Heights Elementary 319 North Pine LR located in Heights, east of University, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 308 70.77% black enrollment  *   Rightsell Elementary (Incentive School) 911 West 19 LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enro1Iment of 211 91.94% black enrollment if ie \"k it Rockefeller Elementary (Incentive School) 700 East 17th LR Early Childhood Magnet Program beginning 90-91 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 257 84.82% black enrollment ****Romine Elementary 3400 Romine Rd LR Gifted/Talented and Basic Skills Magnet beginning 91-92 located west of University, south of 1-630 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 410 80.97% black enrollment  * w * Stephens Elementary (Incentive School) 3700 West 18th LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 206 98.54% black enrollment     Terry Elementary 10800 Mara Lynn Dr LR located west of 1-430, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 510 59.01% black enrollment Wakefield Elementary 75 Westminster LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR, north of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 454 65.19% black enrollment *   Washington Elementary (Incentive School) 115 W. 27th LR Basic Skills/Math \u0026amp; Science Magnet beginning 90-91 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 492 96.74% black enrollment     Watson Elementary 7000 Valley Dr LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 450 63.33% black enrollment **** Western Hills Elementary 4901 Western Hills LR located in west, southwest LR predominately white neighborhood enrollment of 326 58.28% black enrollment *    Williams Magnet Elementary 7301 Evergreen LR located west of University, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 505 51.88% black enrollmentWilson Elementary 4015 Stannus LR located in west, southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 384 66.66% black enrollment     Woodruff Elementary 3010 West 7th LR inter-city school, north of 1-630 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 192 67.18% black enrollmentNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (EXCLUDING KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS) Northeast High School 2400 Lakeview Rd NLR Beginning in 90-91 will house all 9th \u0026amp; 10th grades located in McCain Mall area predominantly white neighborhood enrollment 990 30.7% black enrollment **** Ole Main High School 22nd \u0026amp; Main NLR Beginning in 90-91 will house all 11th \u0026amp; 12th grades Located south of 1-40, west of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 968 45.5% black enrollment Lakewood Jr. High 2300 Lakeview Rd NLR located in McCain Mall area predominantly white neighborhood enrollment 488 34.0% black enrollment *  *  Ridgeroad Jr. High 4601 Ridge Road NLR located north of 1-40, west of JFK predominantly white neighborhood enrollment 626 46.8% black enrollmentRose City Jr. High 5500 Lynch Drive NLR located in southeast NLR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 415 47.5% black enrollment Central Jr. High 23rd \u0026amp; Poplar NLR Beginning in 90-91 this building will be closed for Jr. High. 7th \u0026amp; Sth grades will go to the other three jr highs and 9th grade will go to Northeast High. (Proposed to house elementary students from Argenta \u0026amp; Pine Elem) located south of 1-40, west of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 701 43.5% black enrollment **** **** Amboy Elementary 2400 W. 58th NLR located in west NLR, north of 1-40 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 414 45.9% black enrollment   * * Argenta Elementary 13th \u0026amp; Main NLR (Proposed closing in 90-91 and house students in Central Jr.) located south of 1-40, west of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 220 50.5% black enrollmentBelwood Elementary 3902 Virginia Lane NLR located in east NLR, north of 1-40 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 148 46.6% black enrollment  * *  Boone Park Elementary 14th \u0026amp; Crutcher NLR located south of 1-40, west of 1-30 predominately white neighborhood enrollment of 463 57.5 black enrollment Crestwood Elementary 1901 Crestwood Dr NLR located north of 1-40, east of JFK predominately white neighborhood enrollment of 207 43.5% black enrollment k'k ifie Glenview Elementary 4841 Edmond NLR located in southeast NLR, south of 1-40, east of 1-30 (north of Rose City) predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 233 41.2% black enrollmentIndian Hills Elementary 6800 India Hills Dr NLR located in north NLR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 448 36.4% black enrollment  * *  Lakewood Elementary 1800 Fairway Ave NLR located north of 1-40, between JFK and 1-67 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 240 42.5% black enrollment Lynch Drive Elementary 5800 Alpha Street NLR located in southeast NLR, in Rose City racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 268 49.0% black enrollment     Meadow Park Elementary 2300 Eureka Gardens NLR located in east NLR, south of 1-40, past Protho Junction racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 265 51.3% black enrollmentNorth Heights Elementary 4901 N. Allen NLR located north of 1-40, east of JFK predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 385 50.6% black enrollment *  *  Park Hill Elementary 3801 JFK NLR located north of 1-40 on JFK predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 221 38.9% black enrollment Pike View Elementary 441 McCain Blvd NLR located north of 1-40, west of JFK predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 424 46.7% black enrollment   *  Pine Elementary 19th \u0026amp; Pine NLR (Proposed closing in 90-91 and house students in Central Jr.) located south of 1-40, east of 1-30 predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 194 46.9% black enrollment    Redwood Elementary 4th \u0026amp; Redwood NLR located south of 1-40, east of 1-30 predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 251 53.4% black enrollment Rose City Elementary Early \u0026amp; School Streets NLR located in southeast NLR, in Rose City racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 198 43.4% black enrollment Jr    Seventh Street Elementary 7th \u0026amp; Beech NLR located south of 1-40, east of 1-30 predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 315 41.9% black enrollment k it \"k ie Baring Cross Center 10th \u0026amp; Parker NLR (For Students with Special Needs) located in south NLR, west of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 21 52.4% black enrollment  *  *PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHCX)L DISTRICT Jacksonville High School 2400 Linda Lane Jacksonville located in Jacksonville, east of 1-67 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 1,067 22% black enrollment Mills High 1300 Dixon Rd LR located in southeast LR, south of 1-440, east of 1-65 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 690 43% black enrollment North Pulaski High 718 Harris Rd Jacksonville located northwest of Jacksonville, south of Air Base predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 816 19% black enrollment * w * * Robinson High 21501 Highway 10 LR located west of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 454 20% black enrollment ick-kieSylvan Hills High 403 Forest Ridge Rd Sherwood located north of NLR (inside city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 892 19% black enrollment     Fuller Jr. High 1700 Dixon Rd LR located east, southeast of LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 864 46% black enrollment * * *  Jacksonville North Jr, High 1320 School Drive Jacksonville located in Jacksonville, east of 1-67 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 604 24% black enrollment Jacksonville South Jr. High 1329 School Drive Jacksonville located in Jacksonville, east of 1-67 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 627 27% black enrollmentNorthwood Jr. High 422 Bamboo Ln NLR located east, northeast of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 914 19% black enrollment  *** Oak Grove Jr. High 100 Oakland Dr NLR located east, northeast of NLR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 982 16% black enrollment * * * * Robinson Jr. High 21001 Highway 10 LR located east of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 489 24% black enrollment Sylvan Hills Jr. High 401 Forest Ridge Rd Sherwood located north of NLR (within city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 977 22% black enrollment  *  Adkins Elementary 500 Cloverdale Rd Jacksonville located south of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 381 40% black enrollment * * *  Arnold Drive Elementary 798 Arnold Drive Jacksonville located on Air Force Base predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 392 18% black enrollment Baker Elem 15001 W 12th LR located west of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 290 27% black enrollment \"kir is'k Bates Elementary 7000 Murray LR located in southwest LR (temporary site) racially balanced neighborhood (mostly industrial area) enrollment of 708 48% black enrollment k k k kBayou Meto Elem Rt 2, Box 200 Jacksonville located north of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 598 2% black enrollment Cato Elem 2901 Cato Rd NLR located east, northeast of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 663 21% black enrollment  *  * College Station Elem Box 428 College Station located east, southeast of LR predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 257 46% black enrollment kit it -k Dupree Elem Gregory St Jacksonville located in Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 487 20% black enrollment kkkkFuller Elem 1702 Dixon Rd LR located east, southeast of LR racially balance neighborhood enrollment of 578 58% black enrollment 'k'k'k'ie Harris Elem 4424 Jacksonville Hwy NLR located east of NLR predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 653 31% black enrollment kit-kit Jacksonville Elem 108 South Oak Jacksonville located in Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 795 33% black enrollment Landmark Elem 19824 Arch Street Pike LR located south of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 561 47% black enrollmentLawson Elem 19901 Lawson Rd LR located west, southwest of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 327 20% black enrollment **** Oak Grove Elem Rt 5, Box 158 NLR located west, northwest of NLR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 565 12% black enrollment **** Oakbrooke Elementary 2200 Thornhill Shearwood located north, northeast of NLR (within city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 637 23% black enrollment Pine Forest Elem 400 Pine Forest Dr Maumelle located in Maumelle predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 602 15% black enrollment * *  *Pinewood Elem 1919 Northeastern Ave Jacksonville located north, northeast in Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 594 29% black enrollment Robinson Elem 21600 Highway 10 LR located west of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 451 23% black enrollment Scott Elem Rt 1, Box 300 Scott located east, southeast of LR predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 201 40% black * * *  Sherwood Elem 307 Verona Avenue Sherwood located in northeast NLR (within city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 526 24% black enrollment   * Sylvan Hills Elem 402 Forest Ridge Rd Sherwood located north of NLR (within city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 776 18% black enrollment Taylor Elem Rt 1, Box 43-A Jacksonville located east of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 430 23% black enrollment Tolleson Elem 601 Harris Rd Jacksonville located west, northwest of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 555 15% black enrollmentPULASKI COUNTY 1989-1990 School Year School District LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI CO. SP. Expense oer A.DA STATE RAIIK % Change 5 Years in Last $3,227 23 +15 $3,124 28 -3 $4,409 6 -30 Kills Voted State average 26.8 35.50 36.30 35.90 ADr4 STATE RANK 22,374 1 9,363 4 21,229 2 # Teachers K-12 STATE RAJ4K 1,840.5 1 615.0 4 1,288.0 2 Avg. Teacher Salary K-12 STATS RANK $25,385 $22,955 $26,395 3 36 2 # Certified Personnel STATE sank 1,991.1 668.0 1,407.0 1 4 2 Avg. Salary Cert. Pers. STATE RANK $26,531 $24,083 $27,511 4 34 3 Superintendent Salary $88,000 $69,310 $79,272OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 DATA SHEET LRSD PCSSD NLRSD TOTAL Enrollment Black 16,634 5,755 4,279 26,668 Non-black 9,151 16,005 4,915 30,071 Total Enrollment 25,785 21,760 9,194 56,739 Black 65% 26% 47% 47% Number of Schools Elementary 36 23 19 78 Secondary 14 13 7 34 Total 50 36 26 112 Employees Certified Teachers 3,300 (2,000) 3,000 (1,346) (681) (4,027) Annual Budget (million) +104 +74 30 +208 Square Miles of Districts city limits 729 30 Millage Rate 43.9 35.9 36.3 Magnet Schools: Located within the LRSD: 6 elementary magnet schools 2 junior high magnet schools 2 senior high magnet schools Incentive Schools: Located within the LRSD 6 elementary schools\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_390","title":"Discipline, management report","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":["1993/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, management report"],"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/390"],"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\nRecidivism Report - Black/White Fea/-\n94 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF Senior High ^CENTRAL FAiR T? 70 80')*' 50 37 23 29 6 9 Junior High .V\" Elementary RECEIVED AUG 8 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOfllNS OM OF Total 0 0 149 V\u0026gt;7 2 0 157 ^HALL MCCLELLA METRO ^PARKVIEW .z6lOVR JR ,DUNBAR /forst HT / HENDERSN ^MABEL JR y MANN M/S J PULHTJ SOUTHWST i/BALE BASELINE / BOOKER -'^RADY ?CHICOT CLOVR EL ^DODD FAIR PRK J FORST PK FRANKLIN FULBRIGH 7,garland GEYER SP Wednesday, July 28,1999 Cleas'I 179' 45 29 16 1 1 185 24 6 3 0 0 112 irr (-V toy -------11 33 ' 39 0 3 4 - 0 0 36_ 13 2J Iff 96- ,io112 - ,nxii3'' I'E 101-1 61 ^0 81 0 1 12 I a 67 ^^1 64 5' 58-') 51 43 \u0026lt; i2o\n} Qi'i'j II 21 28 23 10 18 17 26 0 \"23 It?\"iCV 1 0 \u0026lt;70 1 3 0 0 16 3 7 2 2 17 5 9 0 10 1 51^ 1 2 0 4 0 1 2 2 1 2 4 0 n 1 2 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 2 //12 ~l 10 2 7 11 5 Senior High b 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Junior High 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sets 444-67J /iff 205 213 2^0 189 184 140 iSirC'J 155 \u0026gt;^7 199 ' 1457 IM? r 2 3 21 4 . 13 2 6 22 11 10 2 14 3 iBssa Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 9^ Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM OF Total Elementary JEFFRSN 12 14 VMABEL EL i/mcdermot 13 'f^lEADCLIF 14 / MITCHELL 12 y PULHTE 10 18 RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR 16 d ROMINE 'K STEPHENS yiERRY yX/VAKEFIEL v^VASHNGTN 12 15 WATSON 13 18 / \u0026gt;/m LKING 2 3 5 5 7 9 4 8 0 6 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 2 4 1 0 0 - I 2 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 6 5 WEST HIL 5 3 1 0 0 0 9 - WILLIAMS ^ywlLSON 4 0 1 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Elementary 288 fVednesday, July 2S, 1999 4 Grand Total 2456 + I Page 2 of 2little rock school district ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT SCHOOL district WUAL OISCIFLiNARr KAMJ SCHOOL SHORT TERH SUSPKNSIOH Population and % Blk Central 1879 65% J.A. Fair 918 65% Hall 976 60% McClallan 886 75% BM BP WH HP 68 56 27 5 Metropolitan Farkvlaw Magnet 788 59% ALC Cloverdale Jr. 701 81% Dunbar Magnet Jr. 701 63% Foreata Heights Jr. 788 73% Henderson Jr. 915 74% Mabelvale Jr. 654 69% Mann Magnet Jr. 8S1 set Pulaski Haights Jr. 790 55 Southwest Jr. 790 77% TOTALS 118 163 96 18 45 17 140 179 188 197 167 103 147 213 1,859 41 55 22 10 14 12 106 97 86 79 71 n 58 848 16 43 6 3 34 3 28 32 29 13 24 28 31 33 378 15 3 4 7 1 6 12 12 2 11 17 5 11 127 little rock school district ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT 1993-94 SCHOOL YEAR - TOTAL SANCTIONS SECONDARY LEVEL LONG TERM 8USP1WSlOM EXPULSION TOTXL TOTAL 156 219 276 127 12 100 25 246 329 326 298 281 219 260 315 3,212 BH 12 10 12 16 1 2 6 9 14 29 16 15 0 8 17 167 BP 8 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 7 15 5 9 2 4 3 69 HM 0 3 9 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 1 '3 16 HP 1 1. I 1 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 11 TOTAL 21 19 22 20 2 6 15 22 49 21 26 ' 2 13 23 263 BK 12 2 1 8 n. 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 5 38 BP 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 q 0 1 4 HH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 HP 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL 11 2 1 8 Il 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 0 1 7 45 IBUC 152. 240 299 155 21 104 32 264 353 378 320 309 221 274 345 3,520 51 73 80 93 51 60 87 84 86 87 95 88 79 86 86 85LITTIX ROCK SCHOOL WmUAL DISCIFLIMARI HMJ DISTRICT\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\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_1100","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case","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":["1993/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case"],"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/1100"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nLR-C-82-866\nexhibit numbers 203-280\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1181","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case (court exhibits)","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":["1993/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case (court exhibits)"],"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/1181"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nLR-C -82-866\nexhibit numbers 390-415\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_456","title":"Focused activities","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":["1993/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Focused activities"],"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/456"],"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\nLRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Jun 8 95 8:43 P.02/02 3j T-: n Little Rock School District News Release June 8, 1995 For more information: Suellen Vann. 324-2020 The Littie Rock School District received a $233,992 grant from the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission to fund early childhood education programs. The Arkansas Better Chance grant will help to fund programs which identify and assist educationally-deprived children ages three to five. Approximately 378 children will be served at 13 sites by programs funded through this grant. ### aiO-WP-^ Markham Street  Uttle Rock. Arkansas 72201 ^(501)324^2000FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM Notice The Little Rock School District is pleased that we have been able to offer a Four-Year-Old program in our schools for the past seven years at no charge to parents. Due to projected budget cuts the program may not be available in as many of our schools for the 1995-1996 school year. The final decision will be made by the LRSD Board of Directors in the near future. We will continue to accept applications for the Four-Year- Old program in hopes that we can offer the program at all current locations. However, please be reminded, your application does not guarantee a seat in the program. Final assignment letters are scheduled to be mailed the week of April 3,1995.BUSINESS CASE FOCUSED ACnVITIES/ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS May 25, 1995 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I  I i In order to address the concerns of the area school patrons and equity issues regarding adequate resources, the Little Rock School District proposed in the TriDistrict Plan to implement a program entitled Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG). The grants, which were not to exceed $25,000, were to be offered for one year with an opportunity to continue for two more years. Prior to the May 1, 1992 Court order, the District proposed to modify the Settlement Plan by requesting to substitute APIG for Focused Activities. The Court approved the continuation of the APIG program, which the District was to evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognized the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of, the original Focused Activities feature of the plan. The APIG has been offered to area schools for application the last five years. {? r i At the conclusion of each school year, the principals submitted a narrative which included a summary of the project activities, a list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. Most of the reporting schools used their funds to provide activities interrelated to the core curriculum. However, data did not reflect that the grants led to a disparity reduction or achievement improvements as had been expected. The intent of Focused Activities was to provide resources that would facilitate the creation of attractive, enriched learning activities at each elementary area school. Focused Activities were to serve as a recruitment tool to help improve racial balance through a voluntary assignment plan. The District did not begin to implement this component of the plan until the 1994-95 school year. Plans were developed during the spring of the 1993-94 year. Elementary area schools submitted grant proposals that requested a maximum of $5,000 to implement these activities. The severity of our financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have forced the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. 1The implementation of these two programs has presented some positive results in spite of delayed funding. Some of the submitted proposals did not specifically relate to the goals of APIG and Focused Activities. The grant application process is perceived by some to be burdensome and too restrictive in terms of how funds may be utilized. At least six alternatives were examined as the District looked for solutions that would continue to provide support to our area schools and allow us to operate our schools within our annual revenue. Alternative number three appears to be the most viable option at this time. The recommendation is to provide equitable opportunities to all area schools by eliminating the application process and providing additional funds through an armual appropriation in each area schools operating budget. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (COE) and the Desegregation Plan would be combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two proposals would be maintained. This would allow the District to concentrate obligations identified in multiple locations. Schools would be able to clearly focus, implement, monitor and evaluate these activities in a comprehensive manner. The objective of this recommendation is to provide equitable quality educational experiences so that all students have the opportunity to succeed. Successful implementation will enhance student achievement and ensure that area schools become communities of learning among parents, staff and students. The impact of this recommendation will be positive as the District will be able to continue to meet its obligation as specified in the Desegregation Plan, recommendation will require a plan modification as the District wishes to obligations located in multiple places to one central area of the plan. This move Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way as schools will focus their energy on implementation of a comprehensive and focused program rather than spending countless hours developing proposals. This recommendation will provide $183,900 to area schools and result in a $261,100 savings for the District. We have the opportunity to regain the support of our area schools staff, students, parents and other District patrons. This could pave the way for a productive and positive relationship with the Area School Advisory Committee. There will be minimum primary detractors if we keep our word to our area schools. It will be extremely important that the suggested implementation plan timeline be followed so as to provide our area schools the time, opportunity, and resources needed to provide equitable quality educational experiences. 2B. BACKGROUND The Districts Desegregation Plan initially included provisions for Focused Activities. The purpose was to provide resources that would facilitate the creation of attractive, enriched learning opportunities at each area elementary school. Focused Activities were to serve as a recruitment tool to help improve racial balance through voluntary interdistrict and intradistrict transfers. Specific details, including individual school allocations were not defined by the District until the 1993-94 school year. Implementation of Focused Activities began as of the 1994-95 school year. Area schools serve approximately 80% of the Little Rock School District student population. Many students whose attendance zones were within the area of the Incentive Schools were not able to attend these schools given the lack of space and provisions in the Incentive School Assignment Plan. The Tri-District Plan included a section, APIG, to improve the quality of education through increased achievement for all students which will result in the reduction of disparity among various races, socio-economic, and gender groups. This component was included in the May 1992 Desegregation Plan. The area, elementary and secondary schools, were provided e opportunity to develop non-competitive proposals for grants up to 525,000 for one year, with an opportunity to continue two more years at the same level of funding. The grants level of funding was reduced the third year to 510,000 as the district began to encounter very serious financial problems. Expected academic gains have not been established and/or sustained for this period of time. During the 1994-95 school year, secondary APIG grants were 510,000 and elementary grants were funded at 55,000. Uncertainty about whether and when funding would be available from year to year has hindered the area schools ability to plan and implement APIG and Focused Activities. Some schools have been slow and reluctant in submitting proposals for funding. The assistant superintendents for elementary and secondary schools conducted Fast Track Evaluations and Extended Evaluations of APIG grants during the 1993-94 school year. This information was used to determine the effectiveness of these programs in meeting their identified goals. It is important that all parties are informed and reminded of the trade-offs and benefits that area, incentive, interdistrict and magnet schools received through the Settlement Plan. Area schools were able to have attendance zone schools under a voluntary desegregation plan. At that time, it was clear that the District would need to find other means to support area schools, as provisions were made in the plan to provide additional support to incentive, interdistrict and magnet schools. 3c. PROBLEM definition Current implementation has or a reduction in not resulted in either expected improved achievement , -t uupiuvcu ttWUCA me oispanty m achievement among students of different racial, uffiaaS -feV an?\n financial nrnhipmc  buildings, and financial issues. The severity of the have TausS ,hT n- ! =ff,iveness of existing program feTth Te:rabr: Sis' ~ not Deen able to identify any sustained academic improvement are far, the District has relative to APIG. cope with many of the rfouTXams if\"nn=etivity the District has ^Tck E Kf\". pemussion to implement Focused Activities and meaningful way. APIG in a more focused and intplentented Focused Activities prior to the activities or DlaS fo?T ? adnnnts,ration had not defined focused 1994 did theW, \" iti Prins of not implemented 1994 did the District begin Activities. to study various approaches to implementing Focused On April 21, 1994, the LRSD convened responsibility of defim^ FoS Acti^^^T^ \"\" develop both a gran, proUSp^^Sal committee was comoosed nf cV ^ixteen-member steenng adnnrustrators, two magnet school cuniSmspeZlfaU Three T office Teachers Asso^atta parents appointed by the PTA Council. Grants however. (LRCTA), and three were made available in June of 1994, no proposals were submitted for funding until the fall of 1994 w, were provided .n the sprtag. Grant proposals werf not ubm  d or vio^s Ponjons of the grants were approved in order to allow IT, . 7 . Workshops reasons. programs. to allow schools to start their The steering committee adopted the following goals for based on the goals in .............. Plan: the Focused Activities focused activities which are section of the LRSD Desegregation 41. Each elementary area school will provide focused activities for the total school population. 2. Each elementary area school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive. 3. Each elementary area school will integrate focused activities into the core curriculum and will reflect the focused activities in the schools enrichment and day-to-day activities. 4. All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that compliment and extend the core curriculum activities. 5. Each elementary area school will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. In spite of the interaction with schools, problems still existed with timelines, stable funding, quality inservice, inadequate grant proposals, partial approval of grants, etc.. Several changes in the leadership of the District have not aided continuity in the implementation of these programs. Although the LRSD has been committed to Focused Activities and APIG, problems with the implementation of the programs were evident. Schools have viewed the grant application process as burdensome which has caused the number of applications to decline. Given several opportunities to apply for grants early in the school year, schools in some cases chose not to respond to a timely submittal of the grants. D. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Change Nothing This alternative would continue to offer the Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants to the area schools in their present form. Based on past performance, we can expect to receive the same results. A review of the evaluation reveals that the goals of APIG were not achieved at a level that warrants continuation. To continue operating in this manner suggest that schools would continue to yield the same results. 2. Eliminate Focused Activities and APIG for the 95-96 school year. This course of action would not provide any support for area schools. 53. 4. ^rpbine the goals of APIG, Focused Activities. Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation fCOE'), and the Desegregation Plan fSchool Operations) so that obligations that appear in multiple places and documents would be moved to the most appropriate place in the Desegregation Plan. All area schools will focus on Extended COE process based on quality education through the use of the Learner Outcomes, Curriculum Framework, that guide the development of an enriched multicultural curriculum and Arkansas Goals 2000. The guiding decision throughout this process should direct each school to establish a vision and develop an action plan based upon needs and critical indicators of success. The action plan would contain specific measurable objectives and an evaluation component as to what it implements and how well it is implemented. The action plan would allow area schools to become educationally effective as obligations in multiple places would be moved to an appropriate location in the Desegregation Plan, under School Operations. Such movement would increase the opportunity for schools to organize these activities in a more focused and comprehensive manner. The action plan would provide the opportunity for meaningful parent involvement in a broader range of activities. Parents would also participate in the development of this plan. The action plan would focus on what schools hope to achieve, not what they plan to buy. If obligations are specific, measurable, monitored, and evaluated, the LRSD will increase its ability to make this plan work. Therefore, this alternative allows the District to eliminate the application process and provide additional funds through an armual appropriation in each area schools operating budget\nthus placing the emphasis on site based decision making involving principals, staff, parents and students. Implement Extended Day Programs for students who need assistance is provided through the Districts Academic Support Program. This program is supplemented by federal funds. Many of the Focused Activities and APIG proposals included extended day activities which are a duplication of services. This alternative was rejected because of its narrow focus. 65. Secure Outside Funding grant The District could aggressively request assistance from the Parent Teacher Association, Partners In Education, City of Little Rock and private resources. Each school can seek assistance from the Little Rock School District grant writer for technical support. Funding would be inconsistent and unreliable as well as inequitable. 6. K-4 Special Summer School Act 348 of 1995 provides for a supplemental summer school program established for students who are performing below grade level and at-risk of failing. Instruction is delivered by teachers who receive state-approved training. Students who are usually served by Focused Activities and APIG are also eligible for the K-4 Summer School. Participation in both programs appears to be a duplication of services. At the time the Desegregation Plan was written, this comprehensive state-mandated program was not available. The K-4 Special Summer School Program is funded by the State of Arkansas. The K-4 Initiative is very effective, however, it serves a limited number of students. E. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the LRSD redirect its effort to provide equitable opportunities to elementary area schools by eliminating the grant writing process and providing additional funds through annual appropriations in each area schools operating budget. Annually each elementary area school will be funded $20 per student as of the October 1 enrollment. Funds will be allocated at the beginning of the new school year and adjustments will be made after enrollments are verified later in the year. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE and the Desegregation Plan would be combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two grant proposals would be maintained. Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curriculum. The regular operating budget in 7twenty-three (23) area elementary schools will be supplemented with an allocation of $20 per student This recommended alternative will cost the District a total of $183,900 while yielding a saving of $261,100. Using the expertise of the grant writer, efforts will be continued to increase this amount through private and public funding, This recommendation wUl allow the District to show continued support for the area schools. The following chart depicts how the goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE, and the Desegregation Plan complement and/or support each other. 8ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCRVTTVE GRANTS, FOCUSED AC^i^rDKEG'k'EcXlIGN PLAN (SCHOOL OPERATIONS), AND EXTENDED COE lac'anve Gnats, Focused Activities, Desejiesation Pisa (School Opentioas), sad Extended COE ire comparable u well u ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS A,. The focused activities of each area school wfll be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the school's environment and dav-to-dav acavides. ' 3  The academic performance of area school students will indicatei tchievemeat gained partiaUy as a result of enrichment experiences provided V the core ororam an\u0026lt;4 by the core projraa' and carichmeat activities. psredpate ia OBjoiag, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core canicular activities. D. Ail area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equiable and excellent educaaonai prngrawn FOCUSED ACTrvrriES The purpose of the Focused Activities' shall be threefold: 1. To promote the school as a 'community of learning* among parents, staff and students\n1 To provide earichmcat opportunities ic the building levcb md 3. To ensure cquiuble opportuniaes for partidpaaoa ia the eletaeaurv schools. vea Each non-magnet and aon-incentive elementary school will provide focnsed actmties (or the total school population including attention to gender, race, and socio-economic issues. B* Each school will be recognized as a community of learning ia which all^ students, suff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive.  The focused activiries of each non-magnet and non-incenove elementary school will be integrated into the core curricalum or reflected in the school's environment and day-to-day aeovities. A* All elementary area school students will parddpate In ongoing, meaningful enrichment actMtlcs that complement and extend the core cunicubr acevides. DESEGREGATION PLAN (SCHOOL OPERATIONS) C. To provide  climate in each jchool which is based on the beUef and crpectaaon that ail children can learn and to provide resources support that belief. necessary to C ?M1 elementary area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and ezeedest educational programs. EXTENDED COE (COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EV.M.UATION) Quality of Education Indicators included in this area are: D  i o monitor student class ratios and iastrucnonai epportunides for all students. practices to ensure equal B  An increase in overall student achievement and the reduction of racial academic disoarides. C. to provide and ensure oppormnities and encouragemeat to aU students to participate in extracurricular and ccxurricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minoritv and disadvanmged srudeais. to assess the raciusioa of muldculturai matenals and aondiscrimiaatory instnrcdooal materials. B 3. To revic'w and assess testing practices, formats, sad results in order to better address the needs of sU students while providing special intervention for disadvaaiajed students.  Staff development during designated staff development days which is used to faciliute the desegregation process in such areas as cross-cultural teaching and learning styles, dealing with diversity, cross-culturai ccunseling, and minority achievement strategies. D. To give school principals sufficient authority to improve schools and Eoval Access advocate for students and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all smdenis. to Indicators included in this area are: 3 To ensure school-wide planning and individual academic achievement: to address dispariries, individual needs, and student success\nand to provide staff ID * Equal access to classrooms, programs, and subjects. Student Achievement development on an ongoing basis. Indicators included in this area are: ii To provide infonnation to parents ia regard to topics relevant to increasing \u0026lt; A . AM . __t___ ___ 1 r  student access to educational and extyacurricalar opportunities. B* A continuous increase ia overall student achieveaenL *Same leiiering (AS) denota chat spedpc goaia other are comparable, complement, anhior support each others B  A reduction in the numbers of students retained (non promotes) by race, gender, grade, school, and teacher. E An increase in diverse parental participanon in parent groups, parent functions, and school functions (including school and district committees). 8AF. Objective The objective of is recommendation is to provide quality educational experiences so that students have the opportunity to succeed. The focus of this objective is to combine goals of the Desegregation Plan with Extended COE in order to enhance student achievement and reduce disparities in academic achievement among groups fnrmpH rvn ___ , , . . o o r Successful -------p  -  VillV XzlXAWAXk U tormed on the basis of race, gender, and socio-economic status. sJvZvoofui implementation of this objective will ensure that area schools become communities of learmng among parents, staff, and students. Evaluation Criteria Identified programs will be determined successful if there is: o Increased student achievement based upon results of pre and post tests (local, state, and national assessments). o Improvement on standardized test scores. Increased number of o o o o students moving from bottom quartile to the next quartile. Increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile as well as the sustaining of students growth in the upper quartile. Targeted Areas/Extended COE as defined in each schools study. Grade distribution reports reflecting an increase in letter grades of \"C or better in the core areas for each student. Program Budget Document (evidence of achievement). Parent Surveys The District will design an evaluation instrument that will specifically identify factors which may have an impact on student outcome and successful implementation of programs. This evaluation instrument would be used to help schools establish a solid relationship between what it implements and how well it is implemented, and then use that link to shape what it does next. In addition, results from the instrument Should improve use of resources, reduce wasteful activities, and provide data that would give the schools and District good information in which to make sound decisions regarding replication of successful effective strategies and programs as well as modification and termination of ineffective programs. 9Expected Benefits The District will be able to continue to make efforts toward increasing achievement tor all students, and reducing disparities among different racial, socio-economic, and gender ^oups. These benefits will be derived from the establishment of ? J . \"lu uc uciivcu irom tne estaonsnment ot a co^umty of learning that has school/community support as well as a stronger focus and connection between teaching, learning and support programs. The District will make a solid philosophical, management, and material commitment to the continuation and support of area schools as obligations are retained in the Desegregation Plan. TTie implementation of this recommendation will enable the district to operate within Its existing annual revenue. G. IMPACT ANALYSIS The District will be able to continue its efforts to meet its obligation of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity among ditterent racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. The area schools will be viewed as communities of learning,\" through the District implementation of enriched programs that are comprehensive, effective and efficient. The results of the implementation of this recommendation must be clearly communicated to the area schools staff and patrons so that they may understand that the Distnct has not abandoned its efforts to assist them in the achievement of their goals. The results and support must be comparable to the expected benefits derived from resources allocated to the magnet and incentive schools. This recommendation will require the District to seek approval, from the parties and the court, to move obligations located in multiple places to an appropriate location in the Desegregation Plan. This movement provides for schools to implement obligations more effectively by using a more focused and comprehensive approach. If every obligation is more focused and v/q are dnven toward these obligations, we increase our chance of being successful. Successful implementation will assure that the District will meet its obligation. With over 80% of our students attending area schools, it is likely that the patrons may perceive that the District is committing to equitable opportunities to all area schools. This recommendation could pave the way for the District and the Area Schools Advisory Committee to form a partnership and provide additional support for our area schools. 10The District must utilize available opportunities to inform and remind area school patrons of the trade offs that were agreed upon in the Settlement Plan that allowed differential funding for area schools. This decision paved the way for a voluntary Desegregation Plan that was court approved. H. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way as staff will focus their energy on the implementation of a comprehensive and focused program rather than spending countless hours developing proposals. Staff, students, and the community can benefit greatly from a more focused and interrelated program. The District will continue its efforts to fund and support area schools. Quality staff development will be provided so that instructional leadership, teacher effectiveness and parent involvement continue to enhance and expand the attainment of the area schools goals. Financial Analysis The District budgeted $445,000 for implementing APIG and Focused Activities for the 1994-95 school year. By effectively utilizing existing federal, state, local operating and dese^egation funds, a total saving of $261,100 will enable the District within existing revenues. to operate FY 1995-96 Proposed Level of Funding School Operations Elementary Area Schools (23) APIG/Focused Activities $20 per student TOTAL $183,900 $183,900 111. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the administration schools and patrons who want to existing revenues. I, area see the District implement effective programs within TTie primary detractors may be schools and patrons of the area schools who perceive that the district has minimized the effectiveness of this initiative for area schools. General Implementation Plan Provided this recommendation is implemented. If plans are approved, the following timeline will be QOt approved by May 15, it becomes more difficult to successfully implement this recommendation. Activity Completion Date Responsible Person(s) Develop and submit Business Case to court for review and approval. December 1994 - April 3, 1995 Henry P. Williams, Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. 122. Submit Business Case and other relevant data to District Attorney begin the process for plan modification to March 31, 1995 3. 4. 5. Attorney will work with parties to secure consent to move multiple obligations to School Operations. Plan modification presented to court for review and approval. Meet with parents of area school advisory committee to discuss and seek additional suggestions regarding implementation of this recommendation. April 3, 1995 TBA April 95 6. Provide staff development inservice to principals regarding the revised plan modifications. May, 1995 Henry P. Williams, Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Chris Heller, District Attorney Chris Heller, District Attorney Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Marian Woods, Staff Development 137. Provide staff development to school teams regarding plan modification. June, 1995 8. 9. Schools develop action plans based on staff development. Action plans reviewed. June, 1995 Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Marian Woods, Staff Development Local area school teams 10. Court reviews, approves/rejects plan modification and budgets. 11. 12. Provide staff development relevant to implementing School Operation (action plan). Following Court approval, review Districts approach to the implementation of School Operations (Local School Action Plan) 13. Implement action plan June/July, September, 1995 September, 1995 - June 1996 August, 1995 August, 1995 September, 1995 - June 1996 Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Asst. Supts. - Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Dennis Snider Local area school teams Local area school teams Estelle Matthis, Deputy Supt. Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Asst. Supts. Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Dennis Snider Local area schools teams 1414. Ongoing monitoring of action plans. September 1995 - June 1996 15. Formative and summative evaluation of 1995-96 action plans. September, 1995 - June, 1996 16. 17. Use results of evaluation to modi^/revise existing action plans. Annual report to Board regarding the implementation of the modified plan. June, 1996 Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Local area school teams June, 1996 Henry P. Williams, Supt. Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. 15 d 3 '-i fcy r SiUSL'A^y 31995 Office of Desegregsiion Mcriuonrig IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTSSCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APP 0 3 1995 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By.- PIAII^JLRF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached \"Business Case - Focused Activities/Academic Progress Incentive Grants\" and the \"Little Rock School District Incentive School Plan - Staffing Business Case\". These documents have been revised since they were originally filed on March 14, 1995. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 ByT Chr i s topher He 1 Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3rd day of April 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 1st cipher Hell 2 BUSINESS CASE FOCUSED ACnVITIES/ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS April 3, 1995 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to address the concerns of the area school patrons and equity issues regarding adequate resources, the Little Rock School District proposed in the TriDistrict Plan to implement a program entitled Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG). The grants, which were not to exceed $25,000, were to be offered for one year with an opportunity to continue for two more years. Prior to the May 1, 1992 Court order, the District proposed to modify the Settlement Plan by requesting to substitute APIG for Focused Activities. The Court approved the continuation of the APIG program, which the District was to evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognized the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of, the original Focused Activities feature of the plan. The APIG has been offered to area schools for application the last five years. At the conclusion of each school year, the principals submitted a narrative which included a summary of the project activities, a list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. Most of the reporting schools used their funds to proxdde activities interrelated to the core curriculum. However, data did not reflect that the grants led to a disparity reduction or achievement improvements as had been expected. The intent of Focused Activities was to provide resources that would facilitate the creation of attractive, enriched learning activities at each elementary area school. Focused Activities were to serve as a recruitment tool to help improve racial balance through a voluntary assignment plan. The District did not begin to implement this component of the plan until the 1994-95 school year. Plans were developed during the spring of the 1993-94 year. Elementary area schools submitted grant proposals that requested a maximum of $5,000 to implement these activities. The severity of our financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have forced the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. 1The implementation of these two programs has presented some positive results in spite of delayed funding. Some of the submitted proposals did not specifically relate to the goals of APIG and Focused Activities. The grant application process is perceived by some to be burdensome and too restrictive in terms of how funds may be utilized. At least six alternatives were examined as the District looked for solutions that would continue to provide support to our area schools and allow us to operate our schools within our annual revenue. Alternative number three appears to be the most viable option at this time. The recommendation is to provide equitable opportunities to all area schools by eliminating the application process and providing additional funds through an annual appropriation in each area schools operating budget. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (COE) and the Desegregation Plan would be combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two proposals would be maintained. This would allow the District to concentrate obligations identified in multiple locations. Schools would be able to clearly focus, implement, monitor and evaluate these activities in a comprehensive manner. The objective of this recommendation is to provide equitable quality educational experiences so that all students have the opportunity to succeed. Successful implementation will enhance student achievement and ensure that area schools become communities of learning among parents, staff and students. The impact of this recommendation will be positive as the District will be able to continue to meet its obligation as specified in the Desegregation Plan. This recommendation will require a plan modification as the District wishes to move obligations located in multiple places to one central area of the plan. Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way as schools will focus their energy on implementation of a comprehensive and focused program rather than spending countless hours developing proposals. This recommendation will provide $155,000 to area schools and result in a $290,000 savings for the District. We have the opportunity to regain the support of our area schools staff, students, parents and other District patrons. This could pave the way for a productive and positive relationship with the Area School Advisory Committee. There will be minimum primary detractors if we keep our word to our area schools. It will be extremely important that the suggested implementation plan timeline be followed so as to provide our area schools the time, opportunity, and resources needed to provide equitable quality educational experiences. 2B. BACKGROUND The Districts Desegregation Plan initially included provisions for Focused Activities. The purpose was to provide resources that would facilitate the creation of attractive, em-iched learning opportunities at each area elementary school. Focused Activities were to serve as a recruitment tool to help improve racial balance through voluntary interdistrict and intradistrict transfers. Specific details, including individual school allocations were not defined by the District until the 1993-94 school Implementation of Focused Activities began as of the 1994-95 school year. year. Area schools serve approximately 80% of the Little Rock School District student population. Many students whose attendance zones were within the area of the Incentive Schools were not able to attend these schools given the lack of space and provisions in the Incentive School Assignment Plan. The Tri-District Plan included a section, APIG, to improve the quality of education through increased achievement for all students which will result in the reduction of disparity among various races, socio-economic, and gender groups. This component was included in the May 1992 Desegregation Plan. The area, elementary and secondary schools, were provided the opportunity to develop non-competitive proposals for grants up to $25,000 for one year, with an opportunity to continue two more years at the same level of funding, The grants level of funding was reduced the third year to $10,000 as the district began to encounter very serious financial problems. Expected academic gains have not been established and/or sustained for this period of time. During the 1994-95 school year, secondary APIG grants were $10,000 and elementary grants were funded at $5,000. Uncertainty about whether and when funding would be available from year to year has hindered the area schools ability to plan and implement APIG and Focused Activities. Some schools have been slow and reluctant in submitting proposals for funding. The assistant superintendents for elementary and secondary schools conducted Fast Track Evaluations and Extended Evaluations of APIG grants during the 1993-94 school year. This information was used to determine the effectiveness of these programs in meeting their identified goals. It is important that all parties are informed and reminded of the trade-offs and benefits that area, incentive, interdistrict and magnet schools received through the Settlement Plan. Area schools were able to have attendance zone schools under a voluntary desegregation plan. At that time, it was clear that the District would need to find other means to support area schools, as provisions were made in the plan to provide additional support to incentive, interdistrict and magnet schools. 3c. PROBLEM DEFINITION Current implementation has not resulted in either expected improved achievement or a reduction in the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socio-economic, or gender groups. The District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school districts, including safety and security, urban flight, racial issues, aging buildings, and financial issues. The severity of the financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have caused the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. Thus far, the District has not been able to identify any sustained academic improvement relative to APIG. The District must now redefine the required levels of focus, clarity, and connectivity of our programs if we are to optimize student performance. This plan must allow the District to operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of the revenues it receives on an annual basis. In accordance with the Desegregation Plan, the District has determined, based on the results of Fast Track Evaluations, Extended Evaluations, informal and formal observations, that it is appropriate to seek Court permission to implement Focused Activities and APIG in a more focused and meaningful way. LRSD elementary area schools have not Implemented Focused Activities prior to the 1994-95 school year. The District administration had not defined focused activities or planned for its implementation in the schools. Not until the spring of 1994 did the District begin to study various approaches to implementing Focused Activities. On April 21,1994, the LRSD convened a steering committee and charged it with the responsibility of defining Focused Activities. Committee members were also to develop both a grant proposal and promotional plan. The sixteen-member steering committee was composed of six building administrators, two central office administrators, two magnet school curriculum specialists, three classroom teachers appointed by the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA), and three parents appointed by the PTA Council. Grants were made available in June of 1994, however, no proposals were submitted for funding until the fall of 1994. Workshops were provided in the spring. Grant proposals were not submitted for various reasons. Portions of the grants were approved in order to allow schools to start their programs. The steering committee adopted the following goals for focused activities which are based on the goals in the Focused Activities section of the LRSD Desegregation Plan: 41. Each elementary area school will provide focused activities for the total school population. 2. Each elementary area school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive. 3. Each elementary area school will integrate focused activities into the core curriculum and will reflect the focused activities in the schools enrichment and day-to-day activities. 4. All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that compliment and extend the core curriculum activities. 5. Each elementary area school will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. In spite of the interaction with schools, problems still existed with timelines, stable funding, quality inservice, inadequate grant proposals, partial approval of grants, etc.. Several changes in the leadership of the District have not aided continuity in the implementation of these programs. Although the LRSD has been committed to Focused Activities and APIG, problems with the implementation of the programs were evident. Schools have viewed the grant application process as burdensome which has caused the number of applications to decline. Given several opportunities to apply for grants early in the school year, schools in some cases chose not to respond to a timely submittal of the grants. D. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Change Nothing This alternative would continue to offer the Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants to the area schools in their present form. Based on past performance, we can expect to receive the same results. A review of the evaluation reveals that the goals of APIG were not achieved at a level that warrants continuation. To continue operating in this manner suggest that schools would continue to yield the same results. 2. Eliminate Focused Activities and APIG for the 95-96 school year. This course of action would not provide any support for area schools. 53. Combine the goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended Comprehensive Outcomes_Evaluation (COE), and the Desegregation Plan (School Operations) so that obligations that appear in multiple places and documents would be moved to the most appropriate place in the Desegregation Plan. All area schools will focus on quality education through the use of the Extended COE process based on Learner Outcomes, Curriculum Framework, that guide the development of an enriched multicultural curriculum and Arkansas Goals 2000. The guiding decision throughout this process should direct each school to establish a vision and develop an action plan based upon needs and critical indicators of success. The action plan would contain specific measurable objectives and an evaluation component as to what it implements and how well it is implemented. The action plan would allow area schools to become educationally effective as obligations in multiple places would be moved to an appropriate location in the Desegregation Plan, under School Operations. Such movement would increase the opportunity for schools to organize these activities in a more focused and comprehensive manner. The action plan would provide the opportunity for meaningful parent involvement in a broader range of activities. Parents would also participate in the development of this plan. The action plan would focus on what schools hope to achieve, not what they plan to buy. If obligations are specific, measurable, monitored, and evaluated, the LRSD will increase its ability to make this plan work. Therefore, this alternative allows the District to eliminate the application process and provide additional funds through an annual appropriation in each area schools operating budget\nthus placing the emphasis on site based decision making involving principals, staff, parents and students. 4. Implement Extended Day Programs for students who need assistance is provided through the Districts Academic Support Program. This program is supplemented by federal funds. Many of the Focused Activities and APIG proposals included extended day activities which are a duplication of services. This alternative was rejected because of its narrow focus. 65. Secure Outside Funding The District could aggressively request assistance from the Parent Teacher Association, Partners In Education, City of Little Rock and private resources. Each school can seek assistance from the Little Rock School District grant writer for technical support. Funding would be inconsistent and unreliable as well as inequitable. 6. K-4 Special Summer School Act 348 of 1995 provides for a supplemental summer school program established for students who are performing below grade level and at-risk of falling. Instruction is delivered by teachers who receive state-approved training. Students who are usually served by Focused Activities and APIG are also eligible for the K-4 Summer School. Participation in both programs appears to be a duplication of services. At the time the Desegregation Plan was written, this comprehensive state-mandated program was not available. The K-4 Special Summer School Program is funded by the State of Arkansas. The K-4 Initiative is very effective, however, it serves a limited number of students. E. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the LRSD redirect its effort to provide equitable opportunities to area schools by eliminating the grant writing process and providing additional funds through annual appropriations in each area schools operating budget. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE and the Desegregation Plan would be combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two grant proposals would be maintained. Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curriculum. The regular operating budget in 7thirty-one (31) area schools will be supplemented with an additional ($5,000). This recommended alternative will cost the District a total of $155,000 while yielding a saving of $290,000. Using the expertise of the grant writer, efforts will be continued to increase this amount through private and public funding. This recommendation will allow the District to show continued support for the area schools. The following chart depicts how the goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE, and the Desegregation Plan complement and/or support each other. * 8E. ReconuneadatioD GOALS AND PURPOSE  ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS. FOCUSED ACTIVITIES, DESEGREGATION PLAN (SCHOOL OPERATIONS). AND EXTENDED COE The goals and purpose of Academic Progress Incentive Grants, Focused Activities, Desegregation Plan (School Operations), and Extended COE are comparable as well complementary of each other.* as ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS A The focused activities of each area school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the schools environment and day-to-day activities. B  The academic performance of area school students will indicate - achievement gained partially as a result of enrichment experiences provided by the core program and enrichment activities. C  Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. D All area schoolswill be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educadonal programs. FOCUSED ACTIVITIES The purpose of the \"Focused Activities shall be threefold: 1. 2. 3. To promote the school as a \"community of learning\" among parents, staff, and students\nTo provide enrichment opportunities at the building level\nand To ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the elementary area schools. Each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will provide focused activities for the total school population including attention to gender, race, and socioeconomic issues. B* Each school will be recognized as a community of learning in which alf students, staff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive.  The focused activities of each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the schools environment and day-to-day activities. DESEGREGATION PLAN (SCHOOL OPERATIONS) C To provide a climate in each school which is based on the belief and expectation that all children can learn and to provide resources necessary to support that behef. Ae All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. C* All elementary area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. EXTENDED COE (COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION) Quality of Education Indicators included in this area are: D* To monitor student class ratios and instructional practices to ensure equal opportunities for all students. C* To provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. B To review and assess testing practices, formats, and results in order to better address the needs of all students while providing special intcr^ention for disadvantaged students. De To give school principals sufficient authority to improve schools and to advocate for students and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all students. B To ensure school-wide planning and individual academic achievement\nto address disparities, individual needs, and student success\nand to provide staff development on an ongoing basis. B  An increase in overall student achievement and the reduction of racial academic disparities. A\u0026amp;C The inclusion of multicultural materials and oondiscriminatory inslrucrional materials. B  Staff development during designated staff development days which is used to facilitate the desegregation process in such areas as cross-cultural teaching and learning styles, dealing with diversity, cross-cultural counseling, and minority achievement strategies. Equal Access Indicators included in this area are: Equal access to classrooms, programs, and subjects. Student Achievement Indicators included in this area are:  To provide information to parents in regard to topics relevant to increasing student access to educational and extracurricular opportunities. *Same leicering (^-) denotes that specific goals either are comparable, complement^ and/or support each other. B* A continuous increase in overall student achievement B* A reduction in the numbers of students retained (non promotes) by race, gender, grade, school, and teacher.  An increase in diverse parental participation in parent groups, parent functions, and school functions (including school and district committees). 8AF. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to provide quality educational experiences so that all students have the opportunity to succeed. The focus of this objective is to combine goals, of the Desegregation Plan with Extended COE in order to enhance student achievement and reduce disparities in academic achievement among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and socio-economic status. Successful implementation of this objective will ensure that area schools become communities of learning among parents, staff, and students. Evaluation Criteria Identified programs will be determined successful if there is: o Increased student achievement based upon results of pre and post tests (local, state, and national assessments). o Improvement on standardized test scores. Increased number of students moving from bottom quartile to the next quartile. Increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile as well as the sustaining of students growth in the upper quartile. o o Targeted Areas/Extended COE as defined in each schools study. Grade distribution reports reflecting an increase in letter grades of \"C\" or better in the core areas for each student. o Program Budget Document (evidence of achievement). o Parent Surveys The District will design an evaluation instrument that will specifically identify factors which may have an impact on student outcome and successful implementation of programs. This evaluation instrument would be used to help schools establish a solid relationship between what it implements and how well it is implemented, and then use that link to shape what it does next. In addition, results from the instrument should improve use of resources, reduce wasteful activities, and provide data that would give the schools and District good information in which to make sound decisions regarding replication of successful effective strategies and programs as well as modification and termination of ineffective programs. 9Expected Benefits The District will be able to continue to make efforts toward increasing achievement for all students, and reducing disparities among different racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. These benefits will be derived from the establishment of a community of learning that has school/community support as well as a stronger focus and connection between teaching, learning and support programs. The District will make a solid philosophical, management, and material commitment to the continuation and support of area schools as obligations are retained in the Desegregation Plan. The implementation of this recommendation will enable the district to operate within its existing aimual revenue. G. IMPACT ANALYSIS The District will be able to continue its efforts to meet its obligation of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity among different racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. The area schools will be viewed as \"communities of learning,\" through the District implementation of enriched programs that are comprehensive, effective and efficient. The results of the implementation of this recommendation must be clearly communicated to the area schools staff and patrons so that they may understand that the District has not abandoned its efforts to assist them in the achievement of their goals. The results and support must be comparable to the expected benefits derived from resources allocated to the magnet and incentive schools. This recommendation will require the District to seek approval, from the parties and the court, to move obligations located in multiple places to an appropriate location in the Desegregation Plan. This movement provides for schools to implement obligations more effectively by using a more focused and comprehensive approach. If every obligation is more focused and we are driven toward these obligations, we increase our chance of being successful. Successful implementation will assure that the District will meet its obligation. With over 80% of our students attending area schools, it is likely that the patrons may perceive that the District is committing to equitable opportunities to all area schools. This recommendation could pave the way for the District and the Area Schools Advisory Committee to form a partnership and provide additional support for our area schools. 10The District must utilize available opportunities to inform and remind area school patrons of the trade offs that were agreed upon in the Settlement Plan that allowed differential funding for area schools. This decision paved the way for a voluntary Desegregation Plan that was court approved. H. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way as staff will focus their energy on the implementation of a comprehensive and focused program rather than spending countless hours developing proposals. Staff, students, and the community can benefit greatly from a more focused and interrelated program. The District will continue its efforts to fund and support area schools. Quality staff development will be provided so that instructional leadership, teacher effectiveness and parent involvement continue to enhance and expand the attainment of the area schools goals. Financial Analysis The District budgeted $445,000 for implementing APIG and Focused Activities for the 1994-95 school year. By effectively utilizing existing federal, state, local operating and desegregation funds, a total saving of $290,000 will enable the District to operate within existing revenues. FY 1995-96 Proposed Level of Funding School Operations APIG/Focused Activities $5,000 Elementary Area Schools (23) Junior High Area Schools (5) Senior High Schools ____CT Total Schools (31) TOTAL $115,000 $115,000 $25,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $155,000 $155,000 Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the administration, area schools and patrons who want to see the District implement effective programs within existing revenues. 111. 2. 3. The primary detractors may be schools and patrons of the area schools who perceive that the district has minimized the effectiveness of this initiative for area schools. General Implementation Plan Provided this recommendation is approved, the following timeline will be implemented. If plans are not approved by May 15, it becomes more difficult to successfully implement this recommendation. Activity Completion Date Responsible Person(s) Develop and submit Business Case to court for review and approval. Submit Business Case and other relevant data to District Attorney to begin the process for plan modification Attorney will work with parties to secure consent to move multiple obligations to School Operations. December 1994 - April 3, 1995 March 31, 1995 April 3, 1995 Henry P. Williams, Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Henry P. Williams, Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Chris Heller, District Attorney 124. 5. Plan modification presented to court for review and approval. Meet with parents of area school advisory committee to discuss and seek additional suggestions regarding implementation of this recommendation. TBA April 95 6. Provide staff development inservice to principals regarding the revised plan modifications. May, 1995 7. Provide staff development to school teams regarding plan modification. June, 1995 8. Schools develop action plans based on staff development. June, 1995 Chris Heller, District Attorney Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Marian Woods, Staff Development Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Marian Woods, Staff Development Local area school teams 139. Action plans reviewed. June/July, September, 1995 Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Asst. Supts. - Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Dennis Snider 10. Court reviews, approves/rejects plan modification and budgets. September, 1995 - June 1996 Local area school teams 11. 12. Provide staff development relevant to implementing School Operation (action plan). Following Court approval, review Districts approach to the implementation of School Operations (Local School Action Plan) August, 1995 August, 1995 13. Implement action plan September, 1995 - June 1996 14. Ongoing monitoring of action plans. September 1995 - June 1996 15. Formative and summative evaluation of 1995-96 action plans. September, 1995 - June, 1996 Local area school teams Estelle Matthis, Deputy Supt. Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Asst. Supts. Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Dennis Snider Local area schools teams Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. 1416. 17. Use results of evaluation to modify/revise existing action plans. Annual report to Board regarding the implementation of the modified plan. June, 1996 June, 1996 Local area school teams Henry P. Williams, Supt. Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. 1516Bale School Brady Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Geyer Springs (Resubmitted) Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Terry Watson Western Hills Woodruff FOCUSED ACTIVITIES 1995-96 Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded November 22 October 6 September 8 (1st) February 1 (2nd) December 8 January 17 February 7 February 10 December 6 (1st) January 17 (2nd) October 18 October 3 September 2 (1st) October 4 (2nd) March 2 February 2 (2nd) December 13 (1st) January 9 (2nd) February 9 December 12 November 28 October 17 February 13 December 12 January 23 February 20 February 13 December 12 February 20 October 31 October 31 October 31 March 6 February 6 January 23 February 20 December 19 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,700 (partial) $8,886 (partial) $10,000 $7,070 (partial) $2,852 S 10,000 S10,000 $10,000 $7,900 (partial) $10,000_________ $5,102.20 (partial) $2,686 (partial) $10,000 TOTAL\n$135,296.20ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCEiNTIVE GRANT - SECONDARY 1995-96 School Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded Central Hall Pulaski Hgts. January 25 January 9 March 2 January 30 Janutuy 9 March 6 $10,000 $10,000 $1,700 (partial) TOTAL: $21,700 ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT - ELEMENTARY School Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded Bale Brady Pulaski Hgts. Watson Woodruff February 14 February 14 February 22 February 27 February 14 February 20 February 20 February 27 March 6 February 20 $5,000 $5,000 $600 (partial) $5,000 $5,000 TOTAL\n$20,600Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: December 19, 1994 To: From: Subject: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Little Rock School District Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Focused Activities and APIG Report Enclosed you will find a draft copy of the Focused Activities and APIG Monitoring Report. Please review the report and take note of any inaccuracies. Submit any corrections or other relevant observations in writing along with the draft report to our office by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 20, 1994. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 13, 1994 To: From: Subject: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Little Rock School District Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Academic Progress Incentive Grants and Focused Activities As you know, we have been monitoring the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the development of Focused Activities. It is our desire to conclude our ongoing inquiry and submit a report to the Court, In order to finalize that report, we wiU need the following information by September 19, 1994.  A description of the current status of Academic Progress Incentive Grants  Definition of Focused Activities  Copies of all correspondence received by building principals regarding Focused Activities/APIGs for the 1994-95 school year.  Documentation of any inservice held to explain application procedures for. the 1994-95 school year.  Copy of the timeline used by the district for submission of proposals, approval of proposals, and actual funding for the 1994-95 school year.  List of all schools which have had proposals approved and are currently being funded. Include the dates when funding was actually provided.  Copies of all Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grant proposals for the 1994-95 school year. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call our office.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: December 9, 1993 To: From: Subject: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Little Rock School District Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Revised Documentation List for Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants Thank you for meeting with me regarding Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants on December 6. I found the meeting with you and Mr. Ingram to be enlightening and productive. The enclosed documentation list reflects the changes we discussed during the meeting. The submission date for these materials remains January 14, 1994. As always, if you have questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation.Focused Activities/Academic Progress Incentive Grants Documentation Focused Activities  Any memos or records of meetings during which focused activities were described and presented as an option to area schools  List of schools with focused activities and copies of focused activity plans for those schools  Records of community involvement in focused activity development and implementation: meetings, dates, names, race, sex  Record of the annual allocation received by schools with focused activities - 1990-91 through 1992-93  Documentation of any efforts by the LRSD to encourage area schools to implement focused activities.  Copy of the procedures jointly developed by the LRSD and PCSSD to prevent duplication of specialty themes  Copies of all evaluative checklists submitted by the schools 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93  Copies of all semester reports submitted 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93  Copies of all annual progress reports submitted by the schools 1990-91,1991-92,1992-93  Documentation of the assistant superintendents review of the semester reports and actions taken to revise activities for 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93  Copies of the summative districtwide report on Focused Activities 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93  Names of activity coordinators at each school 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94Academic Progress Incentive Grants  Records of grants given by the LRSD 1990-91 through 1992-93. Documentation should include: school name amount approved date the application was submitted date the application was approved date of actual appropriation of funds amount expended by the school during that fiscal year  Documentation for 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 (as it becomes available) indicating the amount spent each year per school and the schools outstanding balance.  Copies of individual school grant proposals for 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 (as they become available)  Names, race, sex, and position of individuals who served on the grant evaluation panel during the 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 school years  Copies of any communication 1990-93 which explains the review criteria to the schools  Detailed description of the review process used from 1990-91 through 1992-93 and the process currently used for review of the 1993-94 grants  Copy of the three-year evaluation of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant ProgramOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date\nDecember 6, 1993 To: From: Subject: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superiutendeat, Little Rock School District Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants Monitoring As you are aware, ODM is currently monitoring Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants. Our monitoring will encompass funding and programmatic elements of both areas from the 1990-91 school year through the current school year. The monitoring process will consist of data analysis as well as site visits to observe activities currently being funded. Enclosed you will find a list of needed documentation. We are requesting that these materials be submitted to our office by January 14, 1994. If you have questions or concerns regarding the documentation request or monitoring process, please dont hesitate to call our office. Thank you very much for your assistance.Focused Activities/Academic Progress Incentive Grants Documentation Focused Activities  Any memos or records of meetings during which focused activities were described and presented as an option to area schools  List of schools with focused activities and copies of focused activity plans for those schools  Records of community involvement in focused activity development and implementation: meetings, dates, names, race, sex  Record of the annual allocation received by schools with focused activities - 1990-91 through 1992-93  Documentation of any efforts by the LRSD to encourage area schools to implement focused activities.  Copy of the procedures jointly developed by the LRSD and PCSSD to prevent duplication of specialty themes Academic Progress Incentive Grants  Records of grants given by the LRSD 1990-91 through 1992-93. Documentation should include: school name amount approved date the application was submitted date the application was approved date of actual appropriation of funds amount expended by the school during that fiscal year g  Documentation for 1991-92,1992-93, and 1993-94 (as it becomes available) listinj the schools which carried over funds from the previous year and the amount of carryover  Copies of individual school grants for 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 (as ey become available)  Names, race, sex, and position of individuals who served on the grant evaluation panel during the 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 school years  Copies of any communication 1990-93 which explains the review criteria to e schools Detailed description of the review process used from 1990-91 through 1992-93 and the process currently used for review of the 1993-94 grants  Copies of all evaluative checklists submitted by the schools 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93  Copies of all semester reports submitted 1990-91,1991-92, 1992-93  Copies of all annual progress reports submitted by the schools 1990-91, 1991-92 1992-93  Documentation of the assistant superintendents review of the semester reports and actions taken to revise activities for 1990-91,1991-92, and 1992-93  Copies of the summative districtwide report on Academic Progress Incentive Grants 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93  Names of activity coordinators at each school 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 (unless this information is included in the individual grant applications)  Copy of the three-year evaluation of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program.RECEIVED MAR 1 2 1993 TO\nFROM: RE\nDATE: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Area School Patrons . ... 1992-93 Budget Cuts for March 19, 1993 Hea?\u0026amp;g '\"9 I. March 9, 1993 Area School parents and patrons of the Little Rock School District request that this letter and the accompanying petitions be made a part of the court record. We wish to address the Court on Budget discussions directly related to Desegregation Plan. We educate 64% of all students in the Little Rock School District, that is approximately 10,788 out of 16,700 black students, and 6,000 out of 9,000 white student's, certainly the majority. We are concerned about the following issues: 1) 2) 3) 4) The Little Rock School District has promised, under the Desegregation plan, to make available to the Area Schools $25,000 per Area School per year for a three-year period or more (if the evaluation proves that the grant had positive results) for Academic Progress Incentive Grants to decrease academic disparity. Unfortunately, Area school patrons have had to repeatedly request these funds from the Little Rock School District. Currently, the Little Rock School District has slashed the available money from $25,000 to $10,000 per Area School (a cut of almost 1/2 million dollars). To date for this year, our district has only given Area Schools a total of $50,000 of the allotted $320,000. The Little Rock School District is also obligated to make available to the Area Schools funding for \"Focused Areas of Activities\", but has not responded to pleas and public requests for defining and implementing this funding. Area Schools have borne a disproportionate burden of budget cuts shown by reductions in funding for Gifted/Talented staff, music, counselors, physical plant assets, and general per capita funding compared to Magnet and Incentive Schools, This scenario has significantly diminished the educational opportunities of Area School students. Area School parents and patrons perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts and their negative impact on the Little Rock School District efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the Little Rock School District. 1 r-  r f I fi /fr-Zn', i I I I 1 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 another does not. So we'll conti there is a clear guideline in tha THE OURT: I, again, ca I knov/ you have been dealing with than one judge. In fact, if you  you have been dealing with three \u0026lt; thi case. And we don't all thin! Another thing I wanted to ask with thi Z\u0026lt;f7/iz?ez'C ^02 A5ti about. and we struggled , ray staff and 1 struggled with thi to area schools, and that is. focused activ s, with respect ies in area schools. The May 1 order, and May of this says, and I quote, \"The year, of '92, ourV recognizes that the Incentive Grant Prograra is a corapliraentary addition to. but not a replaceraent of the original focused activities features of the Plan. Focused activities will continue to be an option for area schools, may center around a theme and will according to the original plan which provide and parental involvement and operate for community an annual allocation of funds. There is no budget appropriation for this Settlement Plan budget\". MR. CHIP JOKES\nincentive grants, slash. focused activities in Now, can you I intended Program 13 to read focused activities. Thi was a suggestion made by the Office of De segregation Monitoring that I didn't  that I failed to make. So that should read on Program 13, \"Incentive grants. slash. focused activities\". EUGSNIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER  r- ( i -----'a. / I f a'aa) r. 33 1 I 1 9 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 another does not. So we'xx continue to work v/ith then so there is a clear guideline in that area. TOE OURT: I, again, can't be too critical, I know you have been dealing with more than one judge. In fact, if you coun because than one plan and more the Special Master, you nave been dealing with three district court judge thi case. And we don't all think alike. Another thing I wanted to ask about. in and we struggled with tnis, my staff and 1 struggled with this. to area scnools, and that schools. is, focused activ with respect ies in area ihe May 1 order, and May of this year, of says, and I quote. n The '92, ourt recognizes that the Incentive Grant Program is a complimentary addition to. but not a replacement of the original focused activities features the Plan. of rocusad activities will continue to be an option for area schools, may center around a theme and will operate according to the original plan which provide for community and parental involvement and an annual allocation of funds. There is no budget appropriation for focused activities in this Settlement Plan budget\". MR. CHIP JONES: incentive grants, slash. Nov/, can you I intended Program 13 to read focused activities. This was a suggestion made by the Office of De that I didn't  that I failed on Program 13, egregation Monitoring to make. So that should read \"Incentive grants. slash. focused activities\". EUGENIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER 4-.r I i i i 1 ! i 1 2 3 J 4 ! 34 THS COURT\nAll right. I was concerned that the District didn't really understand that 1 was saying the incentive grants are still there and focused activities still there. And I reiaeaber fron Ms. Mathis' testimony, that 5 t t I thought the District was trying to inerge these two. 6 and I really didn't want them merged. I 7 8 9 And I realise that it is very important, I mean. in my opinion. to continue these program for area schools, not only just for quality of education generally, bu also for their desegregation efforts 10 in reducing disparity. Because even thougii we concentrati so 11 much in thi courtroom on the incentive schools, Mr. Walker, 12 we concentrate very much on them, and monitor them and 13 14 monitor the Four-Tear Old, the Court is not unmindful of the fact that the bulk of the black children in this district are 15 in area schools, and we don't want to forget about them. and 16 they're not getting as many of the goodies as those children 17 in the incentive schools and the magnet schools are getting. 18 MR. WALKER\nOr supposed to be getting. Our 19 20 contention is that they are still not being received in the incentive schools, even though they say they are. 21 22 that. THE COURT\nWell, again. this i not a hearing on But if we cut out focused activities from the budget. 23 they certainly are less likely to get it in the area schools, 24 as well. 25 MR. WALKER\n.Absolutely. EUGENIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER1 2 THS COURT: And there's been at least 35 I've heard reports of sone wonderful ideas and thenes and progran. 3 that thes area school have come up with that have been very 4 successful and have a lot of community support, and I 5 certainly don't want to eliminate those. xAnd so now hat o 7 you're adding incentive grants/focused activities, do you still expect the budget to be $320,000.00 for the '92-93 a academic year? 9 ilR. CHI? JONES: At this point in time, again, the 10 budget is still in process, and one final plans on how to I 11 treat that or develop it, it's all subject to revision. 12 THE COURT: Now, as to the incentive schools, on May 13 1 the Court did not approve some of the things you wanted to 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do with respect to the incentive schools. the smaller classe you had more we And, for example, required  we required more aid if than  we had required an aid par classroom in some instances. budget. I won't go through the details of the But, anyway, it' you wanted it to cost you. the May 1 order? MR. CHIP JONES: Honor. THE COURT: going to cost you more money than Is this reflected in the budget. Yes, it's based on 20 to 1, Your What about the Latin program? MR. CHIP JONHS: It's not specifically set out, but if you look at program  let's see. Program 75, \"Other EUGENIE M. POVTER U.S. COURT REPORTERHOI 123 DR. BERND: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Tne exceptional children, do you know 10 11 12 13 14 what reduction explain that? are really reflected there? DR. 3ERMD: talking about are and t Could you Basically, Your Honor, what we're situations in which we have dona placement ting of children into special education programs through the use of outside contracted services. developed the capacity within the District to And we have accomplish these same functions and not spend that money in that manner, and we expect the savings to accrue from that change to be what has been given here. THE COURT: And you don't believe that thi will have a negative impact on black children who are r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 B disproportionately represented in that category? 16 No, we do not. It's more in the area of DR. BSR^^^: 17 testing and placement rather than a reduction of special 13 education services. And the procedure that we use to place 19 20 cnildren in special ed is very strictly legally prescribed, and we'll still have to follow that procedure and use the 21 appropriate tests and recommendations to place children. 22 23 24 25 THE COURT\nprogress grants. My next question relates to academic And you've taken $480,000.00 off them, yet the Settlement Plan promises that area school may have up to $25,000.00 thi year for those grants. How did you arrive at EUGENIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER124 10 11 12 13 14 15 that 43G,000-dollar figure? DR. 3ER:-ID\nBasically what wg looked at, we looked at what the Plan required and our interpretation of the Plan, and the up to\" was the fact that we could make that recommendation, that reduction and still follow the Plan. And I should add as kind of a parenthetical expression. Your Honor, we did look at the Plan with regard to all of these. and really try and make a conscientious determination that least the reductions did fit th THE COURT: at requi aments of the ?lan. Well, you said you looked at the \"up to's\". What did you figure per area DR. BERND: Jones, if I may. chool? Im going to throw that one to Mr. MR. CHIP JONES: Ten thousand. THE COURT: In other word you plan to slash these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 o 9 16 grants from 25,000 to 10,000? 17 MR. CHIP JONES\nAnd, again, this totally hadnt 13 been worked out, but look at where the plans had \"up to 19 20 800,000\", if an individual had some particular need or proposal, the \"up to\" would also work a that level, as well. 21 Last year the District spent  we didnt spend  wer were a 22 couple of hundred thousand dollars less than the full 23 $300,000.00 that was budgeted. So even last year the full 24 25 25,000 per chool was not spent. THE COURT\nHave you had any negative reaction from EUGENIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER125 10 11 the comnunity on this? i-m. CHI? JONES: DR. BERND\nit's out ther None that Im aware of. Actually we have not. That doesn't mean that it's not out there, but it hasn't reached our level. The other comment that I would make is V7a also want to look very carefully at how these monies are being spent and make student achievement. ure that they are directly affecting We're not totally convinced that that' been the case in the past. THE COURT\nIt might not have been. Again, I think I e::pres3ed this concern this morning. Th Rian doe call 1 2 3 4 6 7 3 9 12 for reduction in disparity, and I know that your model, the 13 effective schools program, would also strive for reduction in 14 disparity. This Settlement Plan, which I'm charged with 15 monitoring and you're responsible for implementing, place a 16 lor of emphasis on incentive schools and magnet schools and 17 inter-district schools. And this is about all that 13 shculdn' t ay it's about all. But thi is one of the few 19 perks that these area schools receive. And the bulk of the I 20 students, including the black students, are at these area 21 schools. And it concerns me that the Plan focuses so much on 22 a minority, and I'm not talking about a racial minority, but 23 I mean a minority of students in student population when the 24 bulk of the tudents are in area schools. And this i one of 25 the things that they are eligible to receive. And that's my EUGENIE M. PO14ER U.S. COURT REPORTER 41 only ramark at this time. 125 And I don'c know that you are 2 wrong in saying that perhaps these progress grants really 3 have not added much I think they have been useful morale 4 boosters, but I know it's something other than just a morale 5 booster. S I want to go on to transportation, cut those e^cpenses by 7 $200,000.00. now, this is, I assume. in addition to the 3 70,000-dollar out in Proposal No. 2. 9 DR. 3ERKD\nThat' correct, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT\nHow do you plan to cut the 200,000? 11 Where is that going to coma from? 12 DR. BERND: Mr. Jone could elaborate, but we're 13 looking at increased efficiency in routing, fuel savings, and 14 savings in transportation supplies, basically. Anything to 15 add to that? IS 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. CHIP JONES: The process these on an across the board basis. we used was looking at And in the nonpersonnei we used 20 percent as the figure, so this represents approximately 20 percent in reduction in their nonpersonnel budget. This is why this has to be a continuing process. The transportation budget is really tied to the price of gasoline. thi You know, if that goes up, you know, this may not may not be able to prove to be much savings. Right now this is something we just have to keep monitoring. And I 25 agree, there's not much control once we start transporting EUGENI M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTERi J 4 b b / B y XU / 1. X 1 ic X J peopiti wer'\u0026gt;j belny trained IbS On IL at. t ne Li me i c a me . Q well, boc to r, wli V is it that you would spend s u c h h i q h piopoi'lioii or your' budget kriuw ttiat you are that ro r such a computer' system wiren you don't have much money.-' so much go and then be cal led a desegregation expense p roce s s r' 0 r you Wfiy 'wou I d ror data a data processing system that nobody understands and is out or proportion even to teaching expense A Mr . waIker, X will L a k e r e s po n s i b i I | t y tor many things on this stand, but happened betoiB b A I I right. the purchase or that computer my wa tell. Now , you have 1 ti you have system I s one that listed here incentive grants. 'What I s an Incentive grant: Ihdt s Linder No. X J . 1 i I X4 Xb Xb X / XB xy 20 2X 22 24 2b A Uk ay . Let me get to id. to gi've money to area schools An inoen Live g rant i s a program So they can use that discretionary money tor school Improvement planning, Intended to enhance desegregation. Q Well, i r It's activities that are so important, why would you reduce obB,OL)U to SJtiO.OGo a year? A we reduced It because we looked at the Plan and that the Plan did not so we reduced It, i t r rom and saw require a minimum or bbB.OOU to be spent, and we reduced 1t as one or our balancing budget-baIanc1 ng measures. Inals why we did it. boe s doe s the Pl an require SJ2U,OuO to be spent 1 or incentive g ran t s ?i o o I i I i I j 4 i u j A I tie Plan, W a 1 K e I' . A d I d 1 don t De I Ie. e, requires a s pec i r i c ainuun I . r -i ( . A t I I-1 yh t . J. d 11 a w e I ee I I live ti live app I to yu back and re-read the I diiguaye , Du c - - but we like we wanted tu letatii y 1  a 11 L s . Liid t a u r a 3 iiiuc h o 5 pO S sI D 1 e u r t. Hose particular school i budget tna:/ be eiuianced by some u the r p rueedu re to the extent ol a p ru pu r t I u n a t e auiuunt o Ir this money/ I i 1 1.U i 1 A that What s correct. the ma*1 mum amount that an incentive grant can be / i i I I ic 1 J 14 lb I 10 A y A y A 1 believe id you 1  d I'd have to look It up. All right. 1 or i I i 1! lb bl b J Id,Odd . b4 bb I Ht dUUH1 I 1 HL W1I Ntbbl 1 Ht CUUKI ! 1Ht W1 INtbb i UK. tAlUNi 1 Ht WllNtbb! bV MH. WALKtH-. y Id,ddd. Its It not much this year. It went down. Veah, 10,0ud. Its Now, why IS it went down. yeah, I was going to say i 11 -schoo 1 SU s pen s i on a de 3eg regat i onL tt , 1 J 4 to I d to 11 1^ 1J i4 lb 10 expense rather than a district s expense? I ha t Is No. i 1 1 / Id 19 2 I 22 2 J 24 2b  lot or a lot or the th toys here and i m t in niakinii th I s we re I n re I a t I on to -the I II - sc hoo I suspension there. I o t Carryiiiy those things as expense because they are sped t ie i II as a s a de sey regat i on in the Plan. Why is it view oI t he treated r a 1 re r in trie r u lure ' that this amount should not expectation or the Plan that and more 1 mean. planned continuation or A was non nio re are you pre sen t i understand your point. I liank you . it s Now a point that concerns talked about tills mo in 1 riy . students won t come. is not dec 1 i niny students will be and less discriminatory not building in. p rac t i ces ? me , i r and its the we don ' t iiave on the other hand, you may build space that the students won t use. ch i ckeri-and-the-egg argument. Its a 111 e r r e c t. same po 1 n t the space. ne re L h .11 t he not want to 1 don't think 1 can give you a definite answer to it. understand your point. but 1 I would like nothing better than to be able to spend those runds on something else. Uli the other iiand, i r we need need them, 1 want to have them there. a re a I I A And that's going to be a desegnegation expense? why not not there are not these programs necessary programs tile chi Idren in tiie district Id tiie r 1 I o r than ror black children\nunderstand the point you're making to me. Une9 '^A/' I 1 J 4 b b the Court It they were ir these cuts were approved by the Court, i don't know that they were, but 1 1 think they were. IHt CUUH I ) MR. WALKtKt BY MR. WALKER: well, some were and some weren t. All right. Q Uoctor. It Iook 5 as it to me i n looking at this document I that virtually all or these cuts were from. basical Iy, the B UesegregatI on budget. incen Live SGhoo1s look at begin at y the bottom down there, ^,4UB,OUU. incentive school, parent I I I iO rec ru1 Li ng , library, coiiimurilLy school. transportat ion. a c a d e III 1 c i t program grants. I ha t s Liie big one over here on on No . i J 1 J under i ncen t i ve IhaL s the grants, same a s academic program grants. i 5 n t it: 14 A Yes. lb y All right. And i t seems like it's -- you cut more than lb 480,000 you cut $460,000, which meant then that it was a i / Iarge r amount than $688,000 to begin with. in other words. IB 480,000 plus J^O-, to me. is 800,000, but you represented to the I ! 1 I I i I I I I 19 ^O 2i 22 2-1 24 2b Court that the previous year was only $688,000. A y is there a question in thereY Well, i m asking you two things. One , you're making the cuts in the desegregation budget, but then you're giving the cou r t inaccurate 1 ntormaIion. Urn year before was $688,000 and you said you made a cut o I $480,OOO. 480,000 from 688,OOO would leave $168,000. And \"n 1 i I I 1 I i I i I i I I i 2 J 4 b b I a y to li 12 12 14 lb lb 1 i lb IS 20 2 1 22 23 24 2b 191 and the -- and the represantation being made to the Court Is -120,000 , and causes us to You see I A t tie A Yes . i they're also to us. So, Im saying that this question the integrity or the figures. t i I a t, Mill I Doctor-f say that i m rigures on the page that A I I r i gn t. now . 1 was I n 'J o I V e d ! those numbers, and. them in detail, but y All right. seated. I e I I again. i reel well. let me wha t i t 1 i  in only going to comment you re showing me in the on I I I in the development or m not going to remember eaci) one or like those numbers are accurate. rae ask you this, Doctor, then 111 be is that the board or the directors does with $ay,obb that you cut out? money that went to the MH. WALkLH) your Honor? IHt CUUKI: bV MH. WALKtHi y 1 mean, does is that some board or Do you di rectors? understand what Im saying here. Yes, sir. You re cutting that amount from departmental budget. was tlie amount or the board or place? A Q A What directors budget in the first I'm not going to give you that orr the top of my head, but Who can? Who can? Mr. Milhollen may be able to I I i i j i I I I ISi r7 To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings MAR 3 1993 Office ci Dsssorsgaticn Monitoring 1, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters, name address date\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":108,"next_page":109,"prev_page":107,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1284,"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}}]}}