{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1147","title":"Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services"],"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","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","Arkansas State University","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Schools: Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program Evaluation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1147"],"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.\nPulaski County lnterdi tri  t Magnet School Evaluation 1993-1994 Arkansas State University Center for Excellence in Education State University, AR RECEIV,=n\n-la nJ - 1Jtlifr,,.J Jill_ 1 3 1995 I ::t- ?p,\nr Office of Desegregation Monitoring ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I gratefully a,~knowledge the help and cooperation of MS. Donna Grady Creer, Sa\nndy Luehrs, and the Magnet Review Committee, and the administ~ators and staff of Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Scho9ls. The evaluation was made easier by the honest, forthright and candid responses from staff, administrators and faculty. An enormous debt is owed my respected colleagues for their professi9nal work and dedication to the project. Finally, thanks to my research and gradate assistants without whom this project could not have been completed. Gerald B. Dickinson, Project Director TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .. Section I. Student Achievement Standardized Tests ........... . Section II. Racial Desegregation Balance. Sociograms .. Site Visits. Section III. Magnet Theme Magnet Themes ......... . Enrollment Policies and Procedures .. Magnet School Programs. ................................. Personnel Resources .... Section IV. Summative Evaluation Summary Findings. Conclusions ..... . 1 3 29 31 61 65 66 69 70 74 77 Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 PULASKI COUNTY IN'l'ERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION November 1, 1994 Evaluation Report Format This 1993-94 school year evaluation report will follow the same format as previous reports. The design is to provide a logical and sequential accounting of the attainment of evaluation project objectives, assessment activities and evaluation reports. The report also attempts to bring together data from prior year reports to determine changes, if any, that occurred during the past evaluation periods. Section titles are written to correspond to Expected Outcomes as identified in the evaluation proposal. It should be noted that not all evaluation reports have the same evaluation objectives. Expected outcomes may vary from one project year to another based on the contribution of each component toward assurances that magnet school objectives are successfully met. Some evaluation activities may be eliminated or used during alternate years and data provided during previous or subsequent evaluations provide a degree of confidence about the attainment of specific objectives. School climate surveys were not conducted during the present project year. Principle evaluation objectives are retained in each of the project years to provide a continuous measure of magnet school objectives that are attained. Where appropriate, comparisons and contrasts are provided. Additional evaluation objectives may be added in future evaluations as the Magnet Review Committee seeks new or different data regarding the magnet school programs. 1. Student Achievement -- To obtain and analyze 1993-94 standardized test scores for the following tests for appropriate grade groups. A. Minimum Performance Tests (MPT) B. Standford Achievement Tests (SAT 8) 2. Desegregation -- To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the \"desegregation\" goal of the project: A. What do enrollment data reveal about the attainment of objectives relative to student enrollment? B. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregated groups by race and sex? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? 1 C. Is there evidence of stereotyping, graffiti, and name calling? D. What are the interactions of administrators, staff, and students, and between teachers and students? 3. Magnet Theme To provide evaluation activities to assess the existence of a sound educational core program and an existing magnet theme as provided by the magnet school program objectives. A. What are the magnet school themes available to students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? B. Are magnet school programs available to students as prescribed by magnet school policies and procedures? C. Is there a coherent magnet program in place at each of the magnet school program sites? D. Are instructional and non-instructional personnel resources necessary to support the magnet school program in place at each of the magnet school sites? 2 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT PULASKI COUNTY IN'l'ERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Student Achievement BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives listed in the evaluation procedures relative to Student Achievement Student Achievement -- To obtain and analyze 1993-94 standardized tests scores for the following tests for appropriate grade groups. METHODOLOGY Following proper communications, data were received from the LRSD and the Arkansas Department of Education. Data were subjected to both descriptive and inferential statistical analysis using the PC computer and statistical software \"Statistics With Finesse.\" FINDINGS Arkansas school districts are no longer required to administer the Minimum Performance Tests (MPT). The ADE does, however, require Arkansas school districts to administer the Stanford Achievement Tests in grades 4, 7 and 10. Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools administer the Stanford Achievement Tests in grades one through ten .. However, Department of Education test data are available only for the grades for which the tests are mandated (4,7,10). Test results data are reported in Mean National NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent) scores. The NCE is a standardized score based on the normal curve by setting the mean at 50 and the standard deviation at approximately 21. Because of its larger standard deviation, the range of NCE scores (0-100) is wider than for T scores (20- 80, since it is rare for a score to fall more than 3 standard deviations from the mean). (Sprinthall 1994). Test data analyses for grades not mandated by ADE for testing (1,2,3,5,6) will be accomplished by comparing the subtests mean NCE scores with the Magnet School NCE mean score, the LRSD NCE mean score and with the National NCE mean score (50). Test data analyses for grades 4,7 and 10 will include comparisons of scores for magnet students to students' scores in the LRSD, Arkansas, and the nation. Test data for the magnet schools and the state are disaggreagted by race, as well as grade and school. Weighted means (Number of students (N) for each school times (x) the mean NCE for each subtest) will be used to compute the NCE mean scores for all magnet schools. These data will be used to compare like groups in the magnets and across the state. 3 Grade One A total of 1963 Little Rock School District first grade students took the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. Test results data were provided for each magnet school and for th~ entire LRSD. Test data fo~ grade one are not provided for the state since the ADE does not mandate achievement testing for grade one. National data test results are not disaggregated by race. The table that follows depicts tests data analysis of the performance of magnet school first grade students compared to LRSD first grade students as a group and first grade students across the nation. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 48.1 BOOKER 44.3 CARVER 70.8 GIBBS 52.3 WLLMS 69.6 First Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\ National TOTL LANG ENVR BASE MATH MENT BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 48.7 48.0 49.5 44.3 47.6 53.0 46.7 73.6 73.5 64.3 73.9 47.5 44.6 48.3 50.9 72.4 70.7 62.3 72.5 COMP BATT 50.0 46.6 44.7 72.5 48.3 71. 0 Williams and Carver magnets school students had higher mean NCE scores than students in the LRSD as a whole and students across the nation. The national mean is represented by the NCE scale score of 50. The graph on the following page depicts the performance of magnet school first grade students compared to the national and LRSD scores. State data were not provided because the ADE does not require administration of achievement tests at the first grade level. 4 Legend Nalonal State Booker ca\"\" Gibbs Wlllla-ns LASO 1()() BO 60 - 40 20 0 READ -- Graph 1 First Grade FIRST GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests ~ ,_... - - ----- ~ MAlH LANG ENVR'-\"IT 5 --- - Iii BASEBATT COMPBATT Grade Two There were 1778 second grade students in the LRSD who took the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. The table that follows depicts data from the results of the administration of the Stanford Achievement Tests to magnet school second grade students compared to the national and LRSD scores for second grade students. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 45.2 BOOKER 43.5 CARVER 57.0 GIBBS 51. 5 WLLMS 62.5 Second Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\ National TOTL LANG ENVR BASE MATH MENT BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 54.1 50.5 49.0 48.0 51. 6 53.6 49.1 46.3 65.1 60.9 54.8 60.0 55.5 50.6 55.6 52.9 76.9 65.2 76.2 68.5 COMP BATT 50.0 48.2 46.7 60.6 54.0 71.1 As with first grade test results, Williams and Carver magnet school students had tests scores substantially higher than the national and district averages. Second grade students at Gibbs magnet also scored higher than the LRSD and national average. More than eighty percent of the second grade students at Williams scored at or above the national average. The line graph that follows depicts NCE mean scores for second grade magnet school students compared to the national and LRSD mean NCE scores. 6 Legend Na100:i1 -- = -- Booke, -- carw -- Gibbs -- Williams ---- LASO Graph 2 Second Grade SECOND GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 0-+-----........ ------,-------,-----..--------1 FEAD LANG ENVPNNT BASEBATT eot.f'BATT 7 Grade Three There were 1789 third grade students in the LRSD who took the Stanford Achievement tests in the spring of 1994. Tests data were provided by the LRSD. The ADE does not require that school districts administer the SAT at the third grade level\ntherefore, .state data are not available. Magnet school third grade test data are compared to national and LRSD data in the table that follows. The subtests for which test results are reported include: Total Reading\nTotal Math\nTotal Language\nBasic Battery\nScience\nSocial Science\nand Total Battery. The table that follows depicts results of the third grade achievement tests for magnet school students compared to the national and LRSD average mean NCE scores. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 46.2 BOOKER 45.6 CARVER 53.0 GIBBS 57.5 WLLMS 61. 6 Third Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\ National TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE MATH LANG BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.7 50.5 48.4 46.3 47.5 51. 5 47.1 44.8 58.7 59.8 55.5 55.6 72.4 61. 6 64.1 62.9 65.0 67.8 65.3 63.2 SOCL TOTL SCIE BATT 50.0 50.0 51.1 48.0 48.9 46.4 58.4 55.9 69.9 65.5 68.9 65.9 Third grade students at Carver, Gibbs and Williams magnets consistently scored above the LRSD and national means. Booker students were at or just below the LRSD and national mean scores. The line graph that follows depicts tests results from the third grade SAT tests administered in the spring of 1994. 8 Legend N::11002! St:ote Booker C:m,e, Gbbs Willb.ms LASO Graph 3 Third Grade THIRD GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100 90 --- /_ - 60 c:----- 10 20 0 PEAD -- -- M'\\11-1 ....... .__ - - -- - ----- LANG BASBATT SOENCE 9 -- --- ---- socsa COM'BATT Grade Four The Stanford Achievement Test is mandated by ADE for all fourth grade students in the state. In the spring of 1994 more than thirty thousand (30,621) students were tested. A total of 1721 fourth grade students in the LRSD were tested. The table that follows compares the mean NCE scores for magnet school students to the national, state, and LRSD mean NCE scores. Further, comparisons are made between like type students (blacks compared to blacks, whites compared to whites) for the magnet schools and the state. Weighted magnet school mean scores are compared to state mean scores. National test scores are not disaggregated by race. School NAT'L STATE LRSD MAGNETS BOOKER CARVER GIBBS WLLMS Fourth Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\AR\\ National TOTL TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE SOCL READ MATH LANG BATT SCIE 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 51. 8 54.7 53.3 53.7 53.5 55.8 49.2 56.1 52.6 53.1 50.2 56.0 58.9 66.4 63.2 64.1 64.9 67.2 47.9 56.1 55.2 52.8 49.0 55.8 58.6 64.5 61. 8 62.5 64.9 69.8 61. 6 72.2 61. 0 67.3 62.8 69.0 64.6 73.3 70.3 71. 4 62.6 69.1 COMP BATT 50.0 54.1 53.1 64.9 52.8 64.3 67.9 71. 6 All magnet schools scored at or above the national and state average. Gibbs, Williams and Carver magnet school students scored well above the national, state and district average. The line graphs that follows depict the scores on the subtests for fourth grade magnet school students. Additional line graphs are used to depict the comparisons of like type students in magent schools and across the state. The national mean NCE score (50) for all students, as well as the mean NCE score for all students across the state are also included on the graph. Further, the graphs compare the mean NCE scores of magnet school students to scores for fourth grade students in the LRSD, the state and across the nation (Graph 4). The table compares scores for each of the magnets to national, state and district scores and depicts difference in mean scores. 10 Legend NAT'L - STATE LRSD - MAGNETS - Graph 4 Fourth Grade FOURTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100 80 - ~ 60 ~ jji\"\"\"\" 40 20 0 READ - MATH -----~ BBATT SCIE Fourth Grade SOCSCIE Stanford Achievement Tests - by Subtests Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\AR\\ National Subtest Magnet National State score diff score diff score READ 58.9 50.0 8.9 51. 8 7.1 49.2 MATH 66.4 50.0 16.4 54.7 11. 7 56.1 LANG 63.2 50.0 13 .2 53.3 9.9 52.6 B BATT 64.1 50.0 14.1 53.7 10.4 53.1 SCIE 64.9 50.0 14.9 53.5 11. 4 50.2 SOC SCIE 67.2 50.0 17.2 55.8 11. 4 56.0 C BATT 64.9 50.0 14.9 54.1 10.8 53.1 11 - CBATT LRSD diff 9.7 10.3 10.6 11. 0 14.7 11.2 11. 8 The table on the previous page compared PCIMS students' scores with students' scores in the LRSD, the state and the nation on all subtests. Magnet school students scored from 8.9 points (read) to 17.2 points (social science) higher than students across the nation. PCIMS students scored 7.1 points (reading) to 11.7 points (math) higher -than students in the state and 9.7 -points (reading) to 14.7 points (science) higher than students in the LRSD. The graph below shows student scores for each of the magnet schools compared to national, state and LRSD student scores. Legend National - Stat~ - Bookor -Car-...ar - Gibbs - Williams ---- LRSO Graph 5 Fourth Grade FOURTH GRADE 100 00 ~ 00 -__..... 20 0 READ Stanford Achievement Tests - -~ - - ---- ~ - - - IIM.1H LANG B'.SBATT SCIENCE 12 - ------- -- socsa COMPB'.TT The graphs that follow compare students in the magnet schools with like-type students across the state, as well as with students (all races as a group) across the state and nation. Graph six compares test scores for black students. Graph 6 Fourth Grade FOURTH GRADE 100 80 60 - ~ __..,.- 40 ~ ,--------, 20 Legend Naticn\" -- State (al) -- Magnet (B) -- State(B) -- LRSD 0 READ MATH Black Students - - LANG SCIEN:\nE SOCSCIE 13 BAS BATT COMPBO.TT Graph 7 that follows compares scores for white students. Legend Natia,al State (all) Magnet (W) State t\n,'I) LRSD Graph 7 Fourth Grade FOURTH GRADE 100 80 .... - 80 _.... 40 0 READ MATH White Students ---- - LANG SCl8'1CE SOCSCIE BASBATT CCMPBATT Magnet school students outperformed their counterparts across the state and did better than all students, as a group for the district the state and the nation. 14 Grade Five There were 1695 fifth grade students in the LRSD who took the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. The ADE does not mandate the SAT for fifth grade students and no state scores are available. The table that follows depicts the scores of magnet school students compared to the national and LRSD mean NCE scores. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 45.4 BOOKER 50.2 CARVER 51. 6 GIBBS 59.8 WLLMS 56.5 Fifth Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\ National TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE MATH LANG BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 55.0 53.0 49.9 51. 7 66.3 57.9 57.2 58.3 59.9 58.0 55.8 63.3 67.8 64.4 63.4 62.9 71. 5 61. 7 63.4 65.0 SOCL TOTL SCIE BATT 50.0 50.0 53.0 50.3 54.8 57.4 57.3 57.3 67.2 64.9 57.5 64.0 All magnet school students scored at or above the national and LRSD average mean NCE. The graph that follows provides a visual depiction of the comparison of test scores. Data were not available to compare like-type students for grade five. Data disaggregated by race are not provided for grades for which testing is not mandated by ADE. 15 Legend National Sta~ Book ... carGibbs Wiliams LRSO Graph 8 Fifth Grade FIFTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100~-----------------------------, 00+----------------------------1 20+-------------------------- 0-+-------,-----,-------.------.-----.....--------i READ MA11-1 LANG BASBATT SCIENCE socsa COM'BATT 16 Grade Six A total of 1763 LRSD sixth grade students were administered the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. The ADE does not mandate that sixth grade students take the achievement tests. No state test data are available. The table and graph that follow compare the test data for magnet school students with the test data for sixth grade students in the LRSD and across the nation. School TOTL READ NAT'L 50.0 LRSD 51. 2 BOOKER 62.0 CARVER 60.2 GIBBS 63.8 WLLMS 61. 4 Sixth Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\ National TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE MATH LANG BATT 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 55.0 51. 6 53.3 53.5 62.5 62.1 63.9 58.0 61. 8 56.1 60.5 63.1 65.5 60.2 63.3 61.1 65.9 61.1 63.3 63.7 SOCL TOTL SCIE BATT 50.0 50.0 54.1 53.3 62.4 63.8 60.3 61. 3 66.5 63.6 62.6 63.9 Magnet school sixth grade students scored well above the LRSD and national average. Mean NCE scores for magnet students, generally were 10 points above the district and national averages. The graph that follows depicts the performance of magnet school sixth grade students compared with students in the LRSD and across the nation. 17 Legend Nalional State Book., Car'tl'ilr Gbbs Wlltams LASO Graph 9 Sixth Grade SIXTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100-,-----------------------------~ BJ-t----------------------------------1 60 ----------------------- 'I0+---------------------------------1 lD+---------------------------------1 O+-----r---------,------.------r------,----------1 fl:AD M'\\TH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE socsa COM'BATT 18 Grade Seven The ADE mandates that all seventh grade students be administered the Stanford Achievement Tests. A total of 32,144 sixth grade students across the state took the SAT in the spring of 1994. There were 272 seventh grade students at Mann Junior High School who took the SAT. The tables and graphs that follow compare the mean NCE scores of students across the nation, in the state of Arkansas, the LRSD and Mann magnet school. Addtiional line graphs are provided to depict the comparisons of like-type students in magent schools and across the state. The national mean NCE score (50) for all students, as well as the mean NCE score for all students across the state are also included on the graph. School NAT'L STATE LRSD MANN Seventh Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\AR\\ National TOTL TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE SOCL READ MATH LANG BATT SCIE 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.2 48.1 52.3 49.2 56.6 49.6 47.3 46.0 50.9 47.3 49.0 48.6 54.6 50.4 56.6 53.2 56.0 53.4 COMP BATT 50.0 50.1 47.6 53.9 Mann magnet school seventh grade students scored higher than the national, state and LRSD mean NCE on all the subtests and the basic and complete batteries. The graph that follows provides a visual comparison of the magnet school students' scores with LRSD, state, and national scores. 19 - Legerd N,t\non,i -Stale -- Ma-in - - - - LASO Graph 10 Seventh Grade SEVENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100 80 60 - - - ~ ~ .. ---------------- ------- 40 20 0 READ M'\\lH LANG 81\\SBATT SOENCE socsa - COt.f'BATT Test data for seventh grade students are also disaggregated by race for the magent school and the state. The table that follows compares data for black and white magnet school students to black and white students across the state, all students (all races) in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. 20 School NAT-ALL LRSD-ALL STATE-BL MANN-BL STATE-WH MANN-WH Seventh Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\AR\\ National TOTL TOTL TOTL BASE SCIE SOCL READ MATH LANG BATT SCIE 50.0 50.0 50 . 0 50.0 50.0 50.0 47.3 46.0 50.9 47.3 49.0 48.6 38.3 40.6 46.2 39.7 42.7 40.9 45.9 43.6 48.1 45.1 45.9 46.0 55.0 51. 9 56.6 53.4 61.1 53.4 66.4 59.3 66.0 63.9 69.7 63.4 COMP BATT 50.0 47 . 6 39.4 44.9 54.6 65.7 Mann magnet students scored from 2 points (black students-lang) to 11.4 points (white students-read) higher than their counterparts across the state on the various subtests. The graphs that follow depict differences in the NCE mean scores for like-type students across the state and the national NCE mean score for all students (50) and the LRSD mean NCE of all students. 21 Legend National -- Slat-6 -- Mann--61 ---- LASO Graph 11 Seventh Grade Black Students SEVENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100 00 60 ---- --------- ------------ -~ -----........_ ) Z) 0 AE...O MATH UNG lll\\SBATT SOENCE socsa CXll,.f'eA TT 22 Legerd National St:ii9--WHT Mann-wHT LRSD Graph 12 Seventh Grade White Students -SEVENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests 100~-------------------------~ --- --- ------------ 40+-------------------------------\nal 0 READ MATH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE SOC SCI 23 Grade Ten A total of 27,170 Arkansas tenth grade students took the Stanford Achievement Tests in the spring of 1994. In the LRSD there were 1,512 students who were administered the SAT. The SAT was administered to 245 tenth grade students at Parkview High School-._ The table and graph that follow depict the results of test analysis of Parkview students compared to students in the LRSD and across the state and nation. School NAT'L STATE LRSD PRKVIEW Tenth Grade Stanford Achievement Test Magnet Schools\\ LRSD \\AR\\ National TOTL TOTL ENGL BASE SCIE SOCL READ MATH BATT SCIE 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 49.6 45.3 48.5 48.5 52.0 52.0 49.5 46.0 49.3 49.7 49.2 51. 5 56.8 52.3 58.0 57.3 57.6 56.6 COMP BATT 50.0 49.4 50.1 58.0 Parkview Magnet School tenth grade students' mean NCE scores were above the mean NCE scores for tenth grade students in the LRSD and across the state, and the nation. The graphs that follow depict the comparisons of Parkview Magnet School students' NCE scores with students' NCE scores across the state, with the national NCE mean score (50) and the LRSD mean NCE scores for all students. The graphs compare all students at Parkview with all students in the LRSD, state and nation. Additional graphs compare students at Parkview with like-type students across the state and all students as a group for the LRSD and the nation. 24 Le\niend Natlooal -- stal -- Park'liM\" ---- LRSD Graph 13 Tenth Grade All Students TENTH GRADE 100 00 00 i---...... \"'----- l ZJ 0 READ Stanford Achievement Tests - - - - - - - --- MATH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE 25 -- - SOCSCl COMPBATT 100 80 60 ...___ 40 20 Legend National.-ai -- Stal~I -- PrkvwBl 0 - - - - LASO-a.A READ Graph 14 Grade 10 Black Students TENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests - -------- - MATH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE SOCSCl COMPBATT 26 Legend NationaH:~I -- Sta:~Wlt -- Prk'M'-Whl - - - - LASO-al 100 80 60 Graph 15 Grade 10 White Students TENTH GRADE Stanford Achievement Tests ~ ~ - - - r--,......___ '\"\" ----------------- --..\n-\n--- 40 20 0 READ MATH LANG BASBATT SCIENCE SOCSCI COM'BATT 27 Conclusions Grades 1-3 Carver, Gibbs and Williams magnet school students (as a group) generally scored 5-10 points higher than students in grades 1-3 in the LRSD, the state, and the nation. Booker students (as a group) in grades 1-3 scored at or above the mean scores of students in grades 1-3 across the state and the nation. Grade 4 Magnet school students (as a group) generally scored 10 points higher than fourth grade students in the LRSD, the state and the nation. Both black and white students scored well above their counterparts across the state. The disparity between black and white students' scores remains significantly high (from 14 to more than 20 NCE points). Grades 5-6 Magnet school students (as a group) in grades 5 and 6 scored 6 to 10 points higher than students in grades 5 and 6 across the state and the nation. Grade 7 Seventh grade magnet students (as a group) scored 4-6 points higher than students across the state, the LRSD and the nation. Both black and white magnet school students scored higher than like-type students across the state. The disparity between white and black students' scores remains significantly high (from 15 to 20 NCE points). Grade 10 Tenth grade magnet school students (as a group) scored higher than other tenth grade students across the LRSD, the state and the nation. Black and white magnet school students scored higher than like-type students across the state. The disparity between black student and white student scores persists in grade ten. 28 PULAKSI COUNTY IHTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Desegregation BACKGROUND The purpose of this fromative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of the objectives in Expected Outcomes, Number 2, (A, B, C, \u0026amp; D) as stated below. To develop procedures and instrumentation for data collection regarding the contribution of the magnet schools toward the \"desegregation\" goals of the project: A. What is revealed by enrollment data about the attainment of objectives relative to enrollment? B. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregated groups by race and sex? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? c. Is there evidence of sterotyping, graffiti, and name calling? D. What are the interactions of administrators, staff and students, and between teachers and students? METHODS After notification and approval of the evaluation proposal from the MRC, the research team began to develop and review instruments and procedures to collect data for assessment objectives. Enrollment, Placement and Waiting Lists. A. What is revealed by enrollment data about the attainment of objectives relative to enrollment? Findings Student racial allocations for the total enrollment for all the magnet schools is approximately 50-50 for minority and nonminority students. Additionally, a \"shadow area\" is designated surrounding each magnet school from which up to twenty-five percent (20%) of seats (enrollment slots) are filled. The table that follows provides the enrollment data for students on the date of the site visit as provided by the principal's office at each magnet school site. 29 DESEGREGATION SCHOOL B M \\ % BOOKER 156\\ ENR. 25.9 601 CARVER 173\\ ENR. 28.7 601 GIBBS 85\\ ENR. 28.2 301 WLLMS 137\\ ENR. 28.8 475 MANN 197\\ ENR. 24.4 806 PKVIEW 180\\ ENR. 23.9 753 TOTAL 928\\ ENR. 26.2 3537 Student Enrollment: By Race and Gender H= 3537 B F T B WM W F TW \\ % \\ % \\ % \\ % \\ % 160\\ 316\\ 109\\ 166\\ 275\\ 26.6 52.6 18.1 27.6 45.8 154\\ 327\\ 159\\ 107\\ 266\\ 25.6 54.4 26.4 17.8 44.3 87\\ 172\\ 70\\ 50\\ 120\\ 28.9 57.1 23.3 16.6 39.9 124\\ 261\\ 95\\ 111\\ 206\\ 26.1 54.9 20.0 23.4 43.4 261\\ 458\\ 156\\ 176\\ 332\\ 32.4 56.8 19.4 21.8 41.2 267\\ 444\\ 125\\ 164\\ 289\\ 35.6 59.4 16.6 21.8 38.4 1053\\ 1982\\ 714\\ 774\\ 1488\\ 29.8 56.0 20.2 21.9 42.1 OTHER \\ % 10\\ 1.6 8\\ 1.3 9\\ 3.0 8\\ 1. 7 16\\ 2.0 17\\ 2.3 68\\ 2.0 There were 1981 black students enrolled in the PCIMS accounting for 56 percent of the student enrollment. White students accounted for 42 percent of the enrollment . There were 68 students listed as \"other\" who accounted for two percent of the enrollment. The magnet school enrollment data reflected that 46 percent of the students were males and 52 percent were females. The remaining two percent (others) was not disaggregated by gender. Parkview Magnet School had the highest percentage of black students at 59.4 percent. However, only 9 white students were on the waiting lists for Parkview Magnet School. Booker Magnet School had the highest percentage of white students at nearly 46 percent. Conclusions PCIMS substantially met its goals with regard to enrollment, by race and gender. 30 Sociograms. B. What are the social interactions between and within the disaggregated groups by race and sex? Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? Sociometric techniques used for prior evalaution activities were used for the 1993-94 evaluation project. Previous evaluations have provided a research foundation relative to the \"appropriateness\" and usefulness of sociograms in quantifying students' relationships. The sociogram was developed to enable the research staff to make assessments relative to student interactions in a school setting, both in and out of the classroom. Classroom relationships are assessed by the portion in which students choose other students with whom to sit near and with whom to work. Other social relationships are assessed by the portion in which the students choose other students with whom they prefer to play. Sociograms were administered in the fall and the spring. The report presents complete data from the fall administration of the sociograms. Only data from the spring administration which reflect a significant change in data from the fall administration are presented in total. The Chi-Square Test for Independence was chosen to assess and evaluate the significance of student choice patterns. Chi-Square is the most appropriate statistical test for nominal data and is used to compare categorical data such as sociometric data. The .05 level was chosen for significance (to reject the null hypothesis-- that is, there is no difference in the choice patterns of two disaggregated groups). A statistical difference is noted for inter-group probabilities of .05 or less. Contingency coefficients, which are similar to other correlation coefficients, are also provided as a measure of relationships. The PC utilizing the software package \"Statistics With Finesse\" was selected to analyze the data yielded by the sociograms (Bolding, 1990) . Sociogram data and conclusions drawn from previous reports were considered to compare and contrast student choice patterns where appropriate. Site visits by an evaluation team were made to gather data relative to the evaluation activities. An eight-member team consisted of professionals from Arkansas State University. Team members possessed competencies in specialty areas of elementary, secondary and physical education, early childhood education, education administration and program evaluation. 31 The purpose of the site visits was to collect data relevant to the assessment of project objectives. Each magnet school was visited by two evaluation team professionals. The project director visited all magnet school sites during the two-day visit. Visits lasted from three to four hours and included observations of classroom and non-classroom activities. Forms were developed and used to record and codify data collected during the observation visits . Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Findings A total of 858 sociograms were administered in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools during the fall of 1993. A total of 882 students completed the sociograms in the spring of 1994. Black students accounted for 54 percent of the total enrollment to which sociograms were administered. White students accounted for the remaining 46 percent. Students' race was disaggregated for only two groups -- blacks and whites. Students were also disaggregated by gender (sex). Males accounted for 48 percent of the students while females accounted for 52 percent. Student groups were further disaggregated into four subgroups: blacks males, black females, white males and white females. Disaggregated groups were contrasted and compared to assess significant differences, if any,_ in choice patterns for the subgroups. Sit With Each student chose five students in his\\her classroom they would prefer to sit near. Statistical analysis of these data are presented in the tables that follow. Complete data are provided for the fall administration of the sociograms. Data for the spring administration are presented only if significant differences in choice patterns were noted. Disaggregated by Race--Black Students Compared to White Students There was a significant difference in the choice patterns of black students and white students in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. For the fall administration, a ChiSquare of 27.3802 was computed which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1759 and a Probability of 0.0001. Black students were more likely (17.6 %) than white students (7.4 %) to choose to sit by no students of the opposite race. 32 On the spring administration data revealed that black students (10.9%) continued to be more likely than white students (4.3%) to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Data for the fall administration and statistical analysis for both the fall and spring administrations are provided in the table that follows. Race Black Stud. % White Stud. % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 82 130 133 83 33 17.6 27.8 28.5 17.8 7.1 29 102 111 97 46 7.4 26.1 28.4 24.8 11.8 111 232 244 180 79 12.9 27.0 28.4 21.0 9.2 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 6 1.3 6 1.5 12 1.4 Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 882 Chi-Square 27.3802 41. 5502 Contingency Coefficient 0.1759 0.2121 Degree of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 Disaggregated by Sex -- Males Compared to Females Sex of the student was a significant variable in the choice patterns of students choosing members of the opposite race to sit with. In the fall administration of the sociograms a Chi-Square of 12.7846 was computed producing a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1212 and a Probability of 0.0255. Almost 15 percent (14.9%) of the females but only about 11 percent (10.8%) of the males chose no students of the opposite race to sit near. In the spring administration both males and females were no more likely to choose students of the opposite race to sit with than they were during the fall administration. Nearly 12 percent (11.6%) of the males and nearly 19 percent (18.8%) of the females chose no students of the opposite race to sit with. Complete data for the fall administration and statistical anlysis of the spring administration are presented in the table that follows. 33 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Males Students Compared to Female Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Males 45 109 110 96 so 6 % 10.8 26.2 26.4 23.1 12.0 1.4 Females 66 123 134 84 29 6 % 14.9 27.8 30.3 19.0 6.6 1.4 Total 111 232 244 180 79 12 % 12.9 27.0 28.4 21.0 9.2 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 882 Chi-Square 12.7846 27.6661 Contingency Coefficient 0.1212 0.1744 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0255 0.0001 Black Males Compared to Black Females No significant differences in the choice patterns between black males and females were noted in analysis of the fall sociogram data. Black females (19.3 %) were more likely than black males (15.6 %) to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Analysis of the fall administration data yielded a Chi-Square of 1.8672, a Contingency Coefficient of 0.0631 and a Probability of 0.8672. Analysis of the spring administration data revealed a difference in choice patterns when comparing black males and black females. In the fall black males were more likely to choose students of the opposite race to sit with than were black females. Less than 16 percent (15.6%) of the males and more than 19 percent (19.3%) of the females chose to sit with no students of the opposite race. During the spring administration a significant difference was noted in the choice patterns of black males and black females. More than 80 percent (84.3%) of the black males chose at least one student of the opposite race to sit with. Only about 75 percent (74.9%) of the black females chose at least one student of the opposite race to sit with. The tables that follow depict the comparison of black males and black females for the fall and spring administration of the sociograms. 34 Race Black Males % Black Females % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females N=467 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 35 61 67 40 18 15.6 27.2 29.9 17.9 8.0 47 69 66 43 15 19.3 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 82 130 133 83 33 17.6 27.8 28.5 17.8 7.1 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Number of Observations 467 Chi-Square 1.8672 Contingency Coefficient 0.0631 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.8672 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females N=471 Number of Students of Opposite Race Race 0 1 2 3 4 Black Males 37 62 72 35 23 % 15.7 26.3 30.5 14.8 9.7 Black Females 59 72 65 30 7 % 25.1 30.64 27.7 12.8 3.0 Total 96 134 137 65 30 % 20.4 28.5 29.1 13.8 6.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Spring Number of Observations 471 Chi-Square 17.8393 Contingency Coefficient 0.1910 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0032 35 Chosen 5 3 1.3 3 1.2 6 1.3 Chosen 5 7 3.0 2 0.9 9 1.9 Black Males Compared to White Males Analysis of data from the fall administration of the sociograms reflected a significant difference in the choice patterns of black males and white males. Black males (15.6%) were more likely than white males (5.2%) to chose no students of the oposite race to sit with. Both subgroups were less likely to choose no students of the opposite race to sit with during the 1993-94 fall administration (blacks 15.6%, whites 5.2%) than in the 1992-93 fall administration (blacks 17.7%, whites 9.7%). Analysis of data from the spring administration yielded about the same results as the analysis of the fall sdministration. Data are presented in the table that follows. Race Black Males % Whites Males % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males N=416 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 35 61 67 40 18 15.6 27.2 29.9 17.9 8.0 10 48 43 56 32 5.2 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 45 109 110 96 50 10.8 26.2 26.4 23.1 12.01 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 3 1.3 3 1.2 6 1.4 Fall Spring Number of Observations 416 441 Chi-Square 24.9485 23.7754 Contingency Coefficient 0.2379 0.2262 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0002 Black Males Compared to White Females No significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of black males and white females during the fall administration of the sociograms. Black males tended to be less likely to choose students of the opposite race than were white females. The same tendencies were noted for the spring adminstration\nhowever, neither of these differences was statistically significant. 36 Data analysis comparing black males and white females are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females N=423 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 35 61 67 40 18 3 % 15.6 27.2 29.9 17.9 8.0 1.3 White Females 19 54 68 41 14 3 % 9.5 27.1 34.2 20.67 7.0 1.5 Total 54 115 135 81 32 6 % 12.8 27.2 31.9 19.1 7.6 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 423 442 Chi-Square 4.2238 10.2525 Contingency Coefficient 0.0994 0.1506 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.5177 0.0684 Black Females Compared to White Males As with other subgroups compared to white males a significant difference was noted in the choice patterns when comparing black females and white males. Only 5.2 precent of the white males chose to sit by no students of the opposite race while 19.3 percent of the black females chose not to sit with any students of the opposite race. No change in significance was noted during the spring adminstration of the sociograms. White males continued to be more likely to choose students of the opposite race to sit with than black females. Data analysis comparing black females and white males are presented in the table on the following page. 37 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males N=435 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 47 69 66 43 15 3 % 19.3 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 1.2 White Males 10 48 43 56 32 3 % 5.2 25.0 22.4 29.2 16.7 1.6 Total 57 117 109 99 47 6 % 12.8 27.2 31.9 22.8 10.8 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 435 440 Chi-Square 34.9977 55.3834 Contingency Coefficient 0.2729 0.3344 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 Black Females Compared to White Females No statistically significant differences were noted during the fall administration in student choice patterns when black females were compared to white females. -White females were less likely to choose no students of the opposite race than where black females. Each of the subgroups (blacks 25.1 % - whites 29.5%) was similar in choosing three or more students of the opposite race to sit near. Analysis of the spring data revealed a significant difference in choice patterns of black females and white females. The percent of white females choosing three or more students of the opposite race to sit with stayed relatively the same while the number of black students choosing three or more students to sit with declined. Data comparing black females and white females are presented in the tables on the following page. 38 Race Black % White % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females N=442 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 Females 47 69 66 43 15 19.3 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 Females 19 54 68 41 14 9.5 27.1 34.2 20.6 7.0 66 123 134 84 29 14.9 27.8 30.3 19.0 6.6 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Number of Observations 442 Chosen 5 3 1.2 3 1.5 6 1.4 Chi-Square 9.5344 Contingency Coefficient 0.1453 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0896 Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females H=441 Humber of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0  l 2 3 4 5 Black Females 59 72 65 30 7 2 % 25.1 30.6 27.7 12.8 3.0 0.9 White Females 24 46 78 44 11 3 % 11.7 22.3 37.9 21.4 5.3 1.5 Total 83 118 143 74 18 5 % 18.8 26.8 32.4 16.8 4.1 1.1 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Humber of Observations 441 Chi-Square 23.6022 Contingency Coefficient 0.2254 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0003 39 White Males Compared to White Females Significant differences were noted in student choice patterns when comparing white males and white females in choosing students of the opposite race to sit near. White males were less likely than white females to choose no students of the opposite race to sit near. Males were also more likely to choose three or more students of the opposite race to sit near. No change in the significant differences in white males and white females were noted from the spring administration of the sociograms. Analysis of data from the spring administration are presented in the table that follows . Race White Males % White Females % Total % Sociogram -- Sit With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females N=411 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 14 44 59 59 28 6.8 21.5 28.8 28.8 13.7 24 46 78 44 11 11.7 22.3 37.9 21.4 5.3 38 90 137 103 39 9.2 21.9 33.3 25.1 9.5 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 1 0.5 3 1.5 4 1.0 Spring Number of Observations 411 Chi-Square 15.9034 Contingency Coefficient 0.1930 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0071 40 The table that follows summarizes the data analysis of the fall and the spring administration of the sociograms. Significant differences in student choice patterns are noted as (S). Non-significant differences are noted as (NS). Summary Student Choice Patterns Sit With STUDENT SUBGROUPS\\ COMPARISON Black Students\\ White Students Males \\ Females Black Males \\ Black Females Black Males \\ White Males Black Males \\ White Females Black Females \\ White Males Black Females \\ White Females White Males\\ White Females Fall s s NS s NS s NS s * S = Significant N = Not Sign.i ficant Conclusions Spring s s s s NS s s s * White males are more likely than other student subgroups to choose students of the opposite race to sit near. * Black females are less likely than other student subgroups to choose students of the opposite race to sit near. 41 Work With Students were asked to name five other students with whom they would like to work. The narrative and tables that follow reflect the analysis of response data. Disaggregated by Race-~ Black Students Compared To White Students Data analysis revealed no significant differences in choice patterns of students with whom to work when groups were disaggregated by race. Slightly more than 14 percent (14 . 3%) of the black students and ten percent (10 %) of the white students choose no students of the opposite race to work with. The sociograms were administered to 858 students during the fall semester. A Chi-Square of 9.4940 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1046 and a probability of 0.0909. Most of the students were grouped in the choice categories of 1,2,or 3 students of the opposite race (blacks, 73.2%\nwhite, 80. 8%). Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Stud. 67 84 149 111 47 9 % 14.3 18.0 31.9 23.8 10.1 1.9 White Stud. 39 93 120 103 28 8 % 10.0 23,8 30.7 26.3 7.2 2.0 Total 106 177 269 214 75 17 % 12.4 20.6 31.4 24.9 8.7 2.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 883 Chi-Square 9.4940 4.3688 Contingency Coefficient 0.1046 0.0702 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0909 0.4976 42 Disaggregated by Sex -- Males Compared to Females Student choice patterns during the fall administration of the sociograms were not signifcantly different when groups were disaggregated by sex. Females (at 13.8 %) were slightly more likely than males -(at 10.8 %) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. No changes in significance were noted after analysis of data from the spring administration of the socigrams. Data are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Sex 0 1 2 3 4 5 Males 45 85 118 114 43 11 % 10.8 20.4 28.4 27.4 10.3 2.6 Females 61 92 151 100 32 6 % 13.8 20.8 34.2 22.6 7.2 1.4 Total 106 177 269 214 75 17 % 12.4 20.6 31.4 24.9 8.7 2.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 883 Chi-Square 9.9613 9.9627 Contingency Coefficient 0.1071 0.1056 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0763 0.0763 43 Black Males Compared to Black Females No significant differences were noted when black males were compared to black females. During the fall administration black females (at 16. 9%) were more _ likely thcll). black males (at 11_. 6%) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. Males (at 40.2%) were more likely than females (at 31.4%) to choose at least three students of the opposite race to work with. Data relative to the choice patterns of black males compared to black females are presented in the table that follows. Complete data are presented for the fall administration of the sociograms. Only statistical analysis data are presented for the spring administration. Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females N=467 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 26 37 71 56 27 7 % 11.6 16.5 31.7 25.0 12.1 3.1 Black Females 41 47 78 55 20 2 % 16.9 29.3 32.1 22.6 8.2 0.8 Total 67 84 149 111 47 9 % 14.3 18.0 31.9 23.8 10.1 1.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 467 472 Chi-Square 7.9470 5.3664 Contingency Coefficient 0.0294 0.1060 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1592 0.3728 44 Black Males Compared to White Males No statistically significant differences in choice patterns were noted when black males were compared to white males . White males (at 91.1%) were slightly more likely than black males (at 88.6%) to choose at least one student of the opposite race to work with during the fall administration. Complete data from the fall administration and of the sociograms and statistical anlaysis of spring data comparing black males and white males are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males N=416 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 26 37 71 56 27 7 % 11.6 16.5 31. 7 25.0 12.1 3.1 White Males 19 48 47 58 16 4 % 9.9 25.0 24.5 30.2 8.3 2.1 Total 45 85 118 114 43 11 % 10.8 20.4 28.4 27.4 10.3 2.6 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 416 442 Chi-Square 8.6506 3.3320 Contingency Coefficient 0.1427 0.0865 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1238 0.6490 45 Black Males Compared to White Females No statistically significant differences were noted in students ' choice patterns for working with students of the opposite race when black males were compared to white females. Only about ten percent (11.6% of black males\n10 . 1% of white females) chose no students of the opposite race to work with. A chi-Square of 7.9265 was computed for the fall administration yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1356 and a Probability of 0.1603 . Data comparing black males and white females are presented in the table that follows . Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females N=423 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 26 31 71 56 27 7 % 11.6 16.5 31. 7 25.0 12.1 3.1 White Females 20 45 73 45 12 4 % 10.1 22.6 36.7 22.6 6.0 2.0 Total 46 82 144 101 39 11 % 10.9 19.4 34.0 23.9 9.2 2.6 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 423 443 Chi-Square 7.92658 5.6860 Contingency Coefficient 0.1356 0.1126 Degrees of Preedom 5 5 Probability 0.1603 0.3380 46 Black Females Compared to White Males A significant difference in choice patterns for chosing students of the opposite race to work with was noted during the fall when comparing black females and white males. Black females (at 16.9%) were more likely than white males (at 9.9%) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. Analysis of data from the spring administration revealed no signifcant difference in choice patterns between black females and white males. A Chi-square of 8.6811 yielded a probability of 0.1225. Complete data from the fall administration and the spring administration are presented in the tables on the following page. 47 Race Black Females % White Males % Total % Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males N=435 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 41 47 78 55 20 19.3 28.4 27.2 17.7 6.2 19 48 47 58 16 5.2 25.0 22.4 29.2 16.7 60 95 125 113 36 13.8 21. 8 28.7 26.0 8.3 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Chosen 5 2 1.2 4 1.6 6 1.4 Number of Observations 435 Chi-Square 11.1296 Contingency Coefficient 0.1579 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.0489 Sociogram -- work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males N=435 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 35 49 73 57 14 7 % 14.9 20.9 31.1 24.3 6.0 3.0 White Males 18 38 74 50 22 3 % 8.8 18.5 36.1 24.4 10.7 1.3 Total 53 87 147 107 36 10 % 12.0 19.8 33.4 24.3 8.2 2.3 Chi-Square Test for Independence Spring Number of Observations 440 Chi-Square 8. 6811 Contingency Coefficient 0.1391 Degrees of Freedom 5 Probability 0.1225 48 Black Females Compared to White Females No significant differences were noted in student choice patterns to work with students of the opposite race when black and white females were compared. A Chi-Square of_ 6 .. 7924 was computed that yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0 .1230 and a Probabil-ity- of 0 . 2365. White females (at 10.1%) were sligthly less likely than black females (at 16.9%) to choose no students of the opposite race to work with. No significant differences were noted after the spring administration of the sociograms . Complete data from the fall administration and data anaylses for the spring administration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females N=442 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 41 47 78 55 20 2 % 16.9 19.3 32.1 22.6 8.2 0.8 White Females 20 45 73 45 12 4 % 10.1 22.6 36.7 22.6 7.2 2.0 Total 61 92 151 100 32 6 % 13.8 20.8 34.2 22.6 7.2 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 442 441 Chi-Square 6.7924 3.8945 Contingency Coefficient 0.1230 0.0936 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.2365 0.5647 49 White Males Compared to White Females No significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of students to name students of the opposite race to work with when -comparing white males and white females. Both males (at 91. 9% ). and females (at 89.1%) were likely to name at least one student of the opposite race to work with . A Chi-Square of 7.8451 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient 0.1402 and a - Probability of 0.1650. No significant differences were noted in the choice patterns of white males and white females after the spring administration of the sociograms. Complete data for the fall administration and data analysis of the spring administration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females N=391 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Males 19 48 47 58 16 4 % 9.9 25.0 24.5 30.2 8.3 2.1 Females 20 45 73 45 12 4 % 10.1 22.6 36.7 22.6 6.0 2.0 Total 39 93 120 103 28 8 % 10.0 23.8 30.7 26.3 7.2 2.0 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of ObservationDatas 391 411 Chi-Square 7.8451 7.4437 Contingency Coefficient 0.1402 0.1334 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1650 0.1897 50 The table below summarizes the relationships between the student subgroups with regard to the preferences in working with students of the opposite race. Summary Student Choice Patterns Work With STUDENT SUBGROUPS\\ COMPARISON Black Students\\ White Students Males \\ Females Black Males \\ Black Females Black Males \\ White Males Black Males \\ White Females Black Females \\ White Males Black Females \\ White Females White Males\\ White Females Fall NS NS NS NS NS s NS NS * S = Significant N = Not Significant Conclusions Spring NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS * Only black females were less likely to choose students of the opposite race to work with when compared to other subgroups\nhowever, that difference was noted only during the fall administration. - * Generally, magnet school students tend to choose students of the opposite race to work with without regard to sex or race. 51 Play With In order to further assess the social interactions of students the sociogram asked students to name five other students with whom they w~uld prefer to play. Disaggregated by Race -- Blacks Compared to Whites Student choice to play with students of the opposite race was dependent upon race. Black students (at 25.5%) were more than three times as likely as white students (at 8.7%) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. A Chi-Square of 68.9028 was computed yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2726 and a Probability of 0.0001. Complete data for the fall administration and data analysis for the spring administration are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Students Compared to White Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Stud. 119 141 124 57 22 4 % 25.5 30.2 26.6 12.2 4.7 0.9 White Stud. 34 97 112 97 39 12 % 10.0 23,8 30.7 26.3 7.2 2.0 Total 153 238 236 154 61 16 % 17.8 27.7 27.5 17.9 7.1 1.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 882 Chi-Square 68.9028 80.8000 Contingency Coefficient 0.2726 0.2897 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 52 Disaggregated by Sex -- Males Compared to Females Student choice patterns for naming students of the opposite race to play with are dependent on sex. A significant difference was noted. Analysis of data for -the fall administration -.of the . sociograms resulted in a Chi-Square of 2T.6497 which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.1767 and a Probability of 0.00-01. - Both males and females were more likely to choose no students of the opposite race in the spring than in the fall. Males were signifcantly more likely to chose students of the opposite race to play with than were females during the spring administration of the sociograms. Female students (fall-22.9%, spring-26.3%) were nearly twice as likely as males (fall-12.5%, spring-17.0%) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. Complete data from the fall administration and data analysis from the spring administration are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Male Students Compared to Female Students N=858 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Sex 0 1 2 3 4 5 Males 52 112 117 82 41 12 % 12.5 26.9 28.1 19.7 9.9 2.9 Females 101 126 119 72 20 4 % 22.9 28.5 26.9 16.3 4.5 0.9 Total 153 238 236 154 61 16 % 17.8 27.7 27.5 17.9 7.1 1.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 858 882 Chi-Square 27.6497 33.2581 Contingency Coefficient 0.1767 0.1906 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 53 Black Males Compared to Black Females Black males (at 82.9%) were significantly more likely to choose at least one student of the opposite race to play with than were black females (at 67.5%). Analysis of the data resulted in a Chi-Square of 21.3018 which yielded a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2089 and a Probability of 0.0007. Data analysis for the spring administration also resulted in a significant difference in the choice patterns of black males and black females. Complete data for the fall administration and data analysis for the spring administration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. Race Black Males % Blavk Females % Total % Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to Black Females N=467 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 40 63 76 30 12 17.9 28.1 33.9 13.4 5.4 79 78 48 27 10 32.5 32.1 19.8 11.1 4.1 119 141 124 57 22 25.5 30.2 26.6 12.2 4.7 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 3 1.3 1 0.4 4 0.9 Fall Spring Number of Observations 467 471 Chi-Square 21.3018 21. 6472 Contingency Coefficient 0.2089 0.2096 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0007 0.0006 54 Black Males Compared to White Males A significant difference was noted in student choice patterns when comparing black males and white males. White males (at 93.7%) were much more likely to choose at least one member of the opposite race to play with than were black males (at -82.1%). Analysis of the fall data resulted in a Chi-Square of 41.0295 yielding -a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2996 and a Probability of 0 . 0001. Data analysis for the spring administration of the sociograms also resulted in significant difference in the choice patterns of black males and white males. These data and analysis of the spring administration data are presented in the table that follows. Race Black Males % White Males % Total % Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Males N=416 Number of Students of Opposite Race 0 1 2 3 4 40 63 76 30 12 17.9 28.1 33.9 13.4 5.4 12 49 41 52 29 6.3 25.5 21.4 27.1 15.1 52 112 117 82 41 12.5 26.9 28.1 19.7 9.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Chosen 5 3 1.3 9 4.7 12 2.9 Fall Spring Number of Observations 416 441 Chi-Square 41.0295 44.2486 Contingency Coefficient 0.2996 0.3020 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 55 Black Males Compared to White Females Black males were not signifcantly different from white females in their tendencies for choosing students of the opposite race to play with. White females (at 11.1%) were slightly less likely than black males (at 17.9%) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. - No significant changes were noted for the spring administration. Data for the fall administration and analysis for the spring administration of the sociograrns are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Males Compared to White Females N=423 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Males 40 63 76 30 12 3 % 17.9 28.1 33.9 13.4 5.4 1.3 White Females 22 48 71 45 10 3 % 11.1 24.1 35.7 22.6 5.0 1.5 Total 62 111 147 75 22 6 % 14.7 26.2 34.8 17.7 5.2 1.4 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 423 442 Chi-Square 9.1592 9.8984 Contingency Coefficient 0.1456 0.1480 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.1029 0.0782 56 Black Females Compared to White Males Significant differences were noted in student choice patterns in naming students of the opposite race to play with when comparing black females and white males. Black females (at 32.5%} were five times more  likely than white males (at 6.3%} to name no students of the opposite race to play with. Analysis of the data produced a Chi-Square of 75.1234 yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.3838 and a Probability of 0.0001. Data for the fall administration and analyses of data for the spring administration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Males N=435 NUmber of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 79 78 48 27 10 1 % 32.5 32.1 19.8 11.1 4.1 0.4 White Males 12 49 41 52 29 9 % 6.3 25.5 21.4 27.1 15.1 4.7 Total 91 127 89 79 39 10 % 20.9 29.2 20.5 18.2 9.0 2.3 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 435 440 Chi-Square 75.1234 92.9758 Contingency Coefficient 0.3838 0.4175 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 57 Black Females Compared to White Females In choosing to play with students of the opposite race, race was a significant variable when comparing females. Black females (at 32.5%) were almost three times -as likely to choose no students_of the opposite race as white females (at 11.1%). Analysis of the data from the fall administration produced a CpiSquare of 45.3256 yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.3050 and a Probability of 0.0001. Data from the spring administration resulted in no changes in significance. Data from the fall administration and analysis of the spring administration are presented in the table that follows. Sociogram -- Play With Opposite Race Black Females Compared to White Females N=442 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 Black Females 79 78 48 27 10 1 % 32.5 32.1 19.8 11.1 4.1 0.4 White Females 22 48 71 45 10 3 % 11.1 24.1 35.7 22.6 5.2 1.5 Total 101 126 119 72 20 4 % 22.9 28.5 26.9 16.3 4.5 0.9 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of Observations 442 441 Chi-Square 45.3256 49.3999 Contingency Coefficient 0.3050 0.3174 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0001 0.0001 58 White Males Compared to White Females Gender was a significant variable in choosing students of the opposite race to play with when comparing white males and white females. Females (at 11.1%) were more likely than males (at 6.3%) to choose no students of the opposite race to play with. Analysis of the fall data produced a Chi-Square of 23.6310 yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2387 and a Probability of 0.0003. Analysis of the spring data produced a Chi-Square of 24.9176 yielding a Contingency Coefficient of 0.2391 and a Probability of 0.0001. Data from the fall administration and analysis of the data from the spring adminstration of the sociograms are presented in the table that follows . Sociogram -- Work With Opposite Race White Males Compared to White Females N=391 Number of Students of Opposite Race Chosen Race 0 1 2 3 4 5 White Males 12 49 41 52 29 9 % 9.9 25.0 24.5 30.2 8.3 2.1 White Females 22 48 -71 45 10 3 % 11.1 24.1 35.7 22.6 5.0 1.5 Total 34 97 112 97 39 12 % 8.7 24.8 28.6 24.8 10.0 3.1 Chi-Square Test for Independence Fall Spring Number of ObservationDatas 391 411 Chi-Square 23.6310 24.9176 Contingency Coefficient 0.2387 0.2391 Degrees of Freedom 5 5 Probability 0.0003 0.0001 59 The table below summarizes the comparisons relative to the choice patterns of students in choosing students of the opposite race to work with. Summary - student Choice Patterns - Play With STUDENT SUBGROUPS\\ COMPARISON - Fall Black Students \\ White Students s Males \\ Females s Black Males \\ Black Females s Black Males \\ White Males s Black Males \\ White Females NS Black Females \\ White Males s Black Females \\ White Females s White Males\\ White Females s N = Not Significant Conclusions Spring s s s s NS s s s * Both race and sex are significant variables when students choice patterns for playing with students of the opposite race are compared. * No changes in choice patterns were noted from the fall to the spring administratios of the socigrams. 60  Site Visits. The evaluation team recorded data during the site visits to each of the magnet schools. Observation forms were constructed to gather data relative to students' actions and interactions during non-instructional time. The items relating to non-instructional activities and responses are listed below. The number of responses for items will vary since not all observers were assigned to the same activities. Student Isolation B. Is there evidence of student isolation and solidarity? Playground Observation 1. Do students tend to play together without regard to race or sex? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 8 2 2. Is there evidence of isolation or solidarity based on student race or sex? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" Stereotyping, Graffiti and Name Calling 1 11 C. Is there evidence of stereotyping, graffiti and name calling? 3. Were there inappropriate or offensive racial and sexual behaviors or language observed during playground activities? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 0 12 4. Is there inappropriate racial or sexual graffiti on walls, hall, or other places in the school? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 61 0 12 Conclusions * Students generally appeared to play together without regard to race and sex. Only 1 observer recorded seeing any evidence of isolation and\\or solidarity. * No racially or sexually offensive behaviors, language or graffiti were observed during the site visits . Interactions of students, staff and teachers D. What are the interactions of administrators, staff and students, and between teachers and students? Several items were included on the observation form to assess student, teacher and staff interactions during classroom and cafeteria activities. The number of responses for each item will not be equal. Classroom Observations 1. Describe the seating arrangements (integrated, segregated). Observers recording \"integrated\" 14 Observers recording \"segregated\" 0 2. When activities are appropriate do students work together without regard to race or sex? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 10 1 3. Is there evidence of isolation and solidarity as exhibited by students behaviors? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" Observers recording \"some\" 1 12 1 4. Are teacher interactions appropriately directed toward students of both sexes and all races? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 12 0 5. Is there any noticeable difference, based on race or sex, in student initiated interactions with the teacher? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 62 : 0 :12 Conclusions * Classroom seating arrangements were integrated and students appeared to work together without regard to race and sex. * No apparent differences based on race or sex were noted in student\\teacher interactions. Cafeteria Observations 1. Are student seating arrangements based on student choice or by assignment? Observers recording \"choice\" 7 Observers recording \"assignments\" 2 2 . Did teachers remain with students while students ate? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 1 8 3. Did teachers remain with students while they (teachers) ate? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 1 7 4 . Was there any visible distinction by race\\sex for students who ate free lunch or paid full price? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 0 10 5. Was the cafeteria staff composed of adults of proportional white and black races? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 8 1 6. Were cafeteria staff interactions with students appropriate and without regard to race and sex? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" Conclusions 8 0 * Student seating was generally by choice during lunchroom activities. No distinctions were noted between students who paid and those who did not. * Cafeteria staffs were generally composed of adults of proportional black and white races. 63 I Staff Interactions 1. Did staff appear to work together without regard to race and sex? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" 10 0 2. Did staff appear t o ass ociate without regard t o race or sex during non-assigned times or activities? Observers recording \"yes\" Observers recording \"no\" Conclusions 10 0 * The certified staff appeared to associate and work t ogether without regard to race or sex . 64 MAGNET THEME PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL EVALUATION Formative Evaluation: Magnet Theme BACKGROUND The purpose of this formative evaluation is to gain insight into the assessment of objectives in Expected- outcomes\nNumber .3, (A, B, C, \u0026amp; D), listed below. To provide evaluation activities to assess the existence of a sound educational core program and an existing magnet theme as provided by the magnet school program objectives . A. What are the magnet school themes available to students in the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? B. Are magnet school programs available to students as provided by magnet school policy and procedures? C. Is there a coherent magnet theme in place at each of the magnet school program sites? D. Are instructional and non-instructional personnel resources necessary to support the magnet school program in place at each of the magnet school sites? METHODS Data were furnished to the evaluator by the Magnet Review Office and the principal's office at each of the magnet schools. Enrollment and staffing data reflect the number of students and staff at each site at the time of the site visit by the evaluation team. FINDINGS A. Magnet School Themes: What are the magnet school themes available in the Pulaksi County Interdistrict Magnet School Program? The Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Programs offer a variety of magnet school themes at the elementary level. One junior high program and one senior high magnet school program are also offered. Booker Arts Magnet School provides a curriculum that emphasizes the interrelationship of the elementary curriculum and the arts. The program intends to provide an education that fosters academics and aesthetic growth of students who express an interest and/or a need in the arts. 65 I Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School provides educational experiences that help each child to obtain a mastery of the basic skills curriculum. Additional emphasis is placed on a hands-on approach to math and science education . Gibbs Magnet School of International Studies and Foreign Language ' provides educational experiences that expand and enhance the multi-ethnic core curriculum through the infusion 0f international studies and foreign languages. The intent of the program is to assist each child in acquiring the skills needed to function as a citizen of the world. Language specialties begin at the kindergarten level. Williams Basic Skills Magnet School is a high-performance, high expectations elementary school offering a program for grades K-6, promoting a highly structured, disciplined approach to academic behavior. Strong emphasis is place on mastery of basic skills at the student's instructional level. The school is designed for students who learn well in a highly structured environment and are highly motivated by competition in all program areas. Horace Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet School is a junior high school (grades 7,8,\u0026amp; 9) offering two different curricular programs, the School of Science and the School of Arts . Students should have a strong interest in or aptitude for the area of the magnet curriculum in the school for which he/she applies. Parkview Arts / Science Magnet High School provides expanded and specialized studies in the arts and sciences, in addition to the standard academic curriculum. The science magnet program offers a wide range of advanced courses. The arts curriculum provides studies in music, drama, visual arts, and dance. B. Enrollment: Are magnet school programs available to students as prescribed by magnet school policies and procedures? Magnet school enrollments are allocated among the three participating districts, Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special, by percentage of total enrollment in each district. The enrollment percentage allotments by district are as follows: Little Rock: North Little Rock: Pulaski County Special 43 % 42 % 15 % 42 % 43 % 66 Elementary Secondary a maximum of 100 students may attend Parkview Elementary Secondary The table that follows shows the number of seats remaining and the number of students on the waiting lists for each magnet school and from each of the districts. Complete data on all magnet schools were not available at the time of this report. Magnet Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann-arts Mann-sci Prkvw-arts Prkvw-sci Magnet Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann-arts Mann-sci Prkvw-arts Prkvw-sci blk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Little Rock Seats \\ Wai t ing Lists Seats Remaining wht tot blk 0 0 26 0 0 32 1 1 16 1 1 10 0 0 20 0 0 11 5 5 9 2 2 0 No. Waiting wht 10 40 1 8 3 9 2 0 Pulaski County Special School District Seats\\ Waiting Lists Seats Remaining No. Waiting blk wht tot blk wht 3 15 18 22 12 3 1 4 12 19 5 7 12 4 0 9 3 12 5 13 0 0 0 31 17 0 0 0 10 32 32 30 62 19 5 10 12 22 6 2 67 List tot 36 72 17 18 23 20 11 0 List tot 34 31 4 8 48 42 24 8 II Magnet blk Booker * Carver * Gibbs * Williams * Mann-arts * Mann-sci * Prkvw-arts * Prkvw-sci * Little Rock School District Seats\\ Waiting Lists Seats Remaining No. wht - tot blk * * 214 * * 190 * * 112 * * 29 * * * * * * * * * * * * Waiting List wht tot 126 340 88 278 73 185 14 43 * * * * * * * * * Data incomp1ete at reporting time Findings * There were only a few seats for magnet school students unfilled for both the North Little Rock District and Pulaski County School District. The Pulaski County School District had more seats that remained unfilled at the secondary level. * The Little Rock School district had the greatest number of students (black and white) on magnet school waiting lists. Conclusions * Considerable efforts are undertaken by all three school districts and the Magnet Review Committee to maintain an acceptable balance between the number of magnet school seats available and the number of students on the waiting lists. * Unfilled magnet seats may result from the natural \"lag\" time between requests for student assignment and time required for administrative operations to fill vacant seats. 68 c. Coherent Magnet Program: Is there a coherent magnet program in place at each of the magnet school program sites? A total of thirty (30) different classrooms were visited by the evaluation team. - Classes visited by subject were: Art 3 Foreign Language 2 Dance 2 Language Arts 7 Math 4 Basic Skills 3 Music 2 Social Studies 4 Science 3 Every item may not have been marked by the evaluator and the totals for every item will not be equal . Item# 2: Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, this particular class and class activities: (YES 22\nNO .Q.Q.) . Item# 3: Bulletin Boards (displays, posters, banners, ie .. ) reflect a magnet theme: (YES 19\nNO 02). Item# 4: Non-text materials and resources are available in the classroom that support the magnet theme: (YES 25\nNO 02). Item# 5: ( 2) ( 2) (16) ( 9) ( 0) ( 2) Presentation: (check one): lecture student presentation guided practice independent study test other 69 D. Instructional and Non-Instructional Personnel: Are instructional and non-instructional personnel resources in place at each of the magnet school sites? Certified Staff. There were 295 certified staff at the Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. Whites accounted for more than 66 percent of the total staff with blacks accounting f or nearly 33 percent of the total certified staff. Those classified as \"others\" accounted for one percent. The table that follows depicts data relative to certified staff . SCHOOL B M \\% BOOKER 3\\ Tot. 6.0 50 CARVER 0\\ Tot. 00.0 43 GIBBS 1\\ Tot. 3.3 30 WLLMS 1\\ Tot. 2.8 37 MANN 14\\ Tot. 21.2 66 PKVIEW 6\\ Tot. 8.7 69 TOTAL 25\\ 295 8.5 Certified Staff: By Race and Gender N= 295 B F T B WM W F T W \\ % \\ % \\ % \\ % \\ % 15\\ 18\\ 4\\ 27\\ -31 \\ 30.0 36.0 8.0 54.0 62.0 11\\ 11\\ 1\\ 31\\ 32\\ 25.6 25.6 2.3 72 .1 74.4 8\\ 9\\ 1\\ 20\\ 21\\ 26.7 30.0 3.3 66.7 70.0 9\\ 10\\ 0\\ 27\\ 27\\ 24.3 27.0 0.0 73.0 73.0 12\\ 26\\ 8\\ 32\\ 40\\ 18.2 39.4 12.1 48.5 60.6 16\\ 22\\ 13\\ 32\\ 45\\ 23.2 31.9 18.8 46.4 65.2 71\\ 96\\ 27\\ 169\\ 196\\ 24.1 32.6 9.2 57.3 66.4 70 OTHER \\ % 1\\ 2.0 0\\ 0.0 0\\ 0.0 0\\ 0.0 0\\ 0.0 2\\ 2.9 3\\ 1.0 Classified Staff. There were 120 classified staff members employed by Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. Blacks accounted for more than 68 percent. Males accounted for nearly 28 percent of the classified employees with females accounting for 70 percnt of the employees. Others accounting for two percent of the total classified employees were not disaggregated by gender. Data were provided by the principal's office at each of the magnet school sites and represent the number of employees at the time of the site visit. No record of changes during the years were provided to the evaluation team members. The table that follows depicts the data for each school provided to the evaluation team relative to the classified employees. SCHOOL B M \\ % BOOKER 4\\ Tot. 19 21.4 CARVER 5\\ Tot. 21 23.8 GIBBS 3\\ Tot. 16 18.8 WILLMS 2\\ Tot. 13 15.4 MANN 8\\ Tot. 2 36.4 PKVIEW 8\\ Tot. 29 27.6 TOTAL 30\\ 120 25.0 Classified Staff: By Race and Gender N= 120 B F T B w M W F \\ % \\ % \\ % \\ % 12\\ 16\\ 0\\ 2\\ 63.2 84.2 0.0 10.5 10\\ 15\\ 0\\ 6\\ 47.6 71.4 0.0 28.6 9\\ 12\\ 0\\ 3\\ 56.3 75.0 0.0 18.8 7\\ 9\\ 1\\ 3\\ 53.8 69.2 7.7 23.1 6\\ 14\\ 1\\ 6\\ 27.3 63.6 4.5 27.3 8\\ 16\\ 1\\ 12\\ 27.6 55.2 3.4 41.4 52\\ 82\\ 3\\ 32\\ 43.3 68.3 2.5 26.7 71 T w OTBER \\ % \\ % 2\\ 1\\ 10.5 5.2 6\\ 0\\ 28.6 0.0 3\\ 1\\ 18.8 6.3 4\\ 0\\ 30.8 o.o 7\\ 1\\ 31. 8 4.5 13\\ 0\\ 44.8 o.o 35\\ 3\\ 29.2 2.5 Evaluation team member comments. The following statements by evaluation team members were recorded on the Magnet Theme Observation Document, Class Demograhpics, Item# 8: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Class projects support the fine arts theme. Instruction was fast paced and appropriate. Teacher seems to have great rapport. Learning centers greatly enhance instruction. Teacher planned activities support the magnet theme. Students were allowed to be creative and to think. Excellent demonstration of students cooperating together in a learning environment. Students very involved in learning - lots of interactions regarding multicultural concepts. Students seem to know what to do and they do it. The student interaction was so obvious and so positive. One could not help but to feel that these students will be excellent leaders in the future. One could sense a high level of thinking going on. These students interacted in a manner that suggested that this clearly goes beyond the classroom. The teacher and the students were on task at all times. Students seemed well aware of procedures and were able to do independent work with a minimal amount of supervision. The magnet theme was indeed evident in the classroom. 72 Conclusions Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools provide a variety of magnet themes and educational settings at the elementary level. Junior high and senior high magnet schools are also provided. Student enrollment is fairly consistent in terms of the numbers of minorities and non-minorities. All schools had a majority _of black students. The magnet schools total minority enrollment was 56 percent. White students accounted for 42 percent and students classified as \"other\" accounted for two percent. The majority of certified staff at all Pulaski County Interdistrict Schools were non-minorities. Minorities accounted for 32 percent of the staff and those classified as \"others\" accounted for one percent of the certified staff. Over 68 percent of the classified staff were minorities. Nonminorities accounted for just over 29 percent and those classified as \"others\" accounted for slightly more than two percent . Conclusions based on interviews with school administrators and staff, student enrollment data, and the numbers and percentages for certified and classified staff relative to race and gender, the composition of the magnet schools has not changed greatly during the past several years. 73 SUMl1ATIVE EVALUATION PULASKI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS EVALUATION Summative Evaluation: Expected outcomes BACKGROUND The purpose of the summative evaluation is to make an overall assessment with regard to the total magnet school program. The scope of this evaluation covers magnet school objectives relative to student achievement, desegregation, and magnet theme. METHODOLOGY Conclusions are drawn from insights gained from the review of the literature, previous magnet school evaluations and data collected during the current school year. Valuable data were furnished by Arkansas Department of Education, the Little Rock School District and the office of the Executive Director of the Magnet Review Committee. SUMMARY FINDINGS Student Achievement * Grades 1-3 Magnet school students scored above the national mean on standardized achievement tests. * Grade 4 Magnet school students (as a group) scored above other fourth grade students in the nation, the state and the LRSD. Both black and white students scored higher than their counterparts across the state. The disparity between magnet school white students' and black students' scores ranges from 14 to more than 20 NCE points. * Grades 5-6 Magnet school students (as a group) scored 6 - 10 NCE points higher than other students in grades five and six across the state and nation. 74 * Grade 7 Magnet school students (as a group) scored higher than other seventh grade students across the nation, the state and the LRSD. Both black and white magn~t school students scored higher than like-type students across the state. The disparity between magnet school white students' and black students' scores ranges from 15 to more than 20 NCE points. * Grade 10 Magnet school students (as a group) scored higher than other tenth grade students across the nation, state and the LRSD. Both black and white magnet school students scored higher than like-type students across the state. The disparity between black and white students' scores persists in grade ten. 75 Desegregation * Sociograms Students' choice patterns for choosing students of the opposite race to sit with are generally dependent upon race. Students' choice patterns for choosing students of the opposite race to play with are generally dependent upon race. Students' choice patterns for choosing students of the opposite race to work with are not dependent on race. * Site visits -- Students appeared to play together without regard to race. No apparent differences relative to race were noted in interactions between students, teachers and\\or other staff. The certified staff appeared to work together without regard to race or sex. 76 Magnet Theme * Program Pulaksi County Interdistrict Magnet Schools manifes_t compelling evidence of providing a sound educational core and a coherent magnet theme in each of the magnet schools as ~rovided by the magnet school objectives.: * Accessibility -- A high level of effort is maintained by the schools and the office the Magnet Review Committee to maintain full enrollment at the vairous magnet schools. Enrollment data provide evidence that magent themes are appropriate and student that access is provided. Magnet school placement waiting lists attest to the desirability for attendance at Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools. CONCLUSIONS * Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet Schools continue to manifest compelling evidence of fulfilling their purposes and expectations. 77 APPENDIX PULAKSI COUNTY INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS SITE DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT School- ------- Grade- ---- Teacher- ------- Evaluation team member -------- Classroom Observation: l. Describe seating arrangement. (integrated, segregated: by race, by sex) 2. When activities are appropriate do students work together without regard to race or sex? If no, describe. 3. Is there evidence of isolation and solidarity as exhibited by students behavior? If yes, is this evidence conspicuous by race or sex? 4. Are teacher interactions appropriately directed toward students o! both sexes and all races? If no, describe. 5. Is there any noticeable difference, based on race or sex, in student initiated interactions with the teacher? If yes, describe. --- 6. Other pertinent comments regarding classroom activities. Cafeteria (Lunch) Observation: 1. Are student seating arrangements based on student choice or by assignment? If by choice, are there clear patterns of student choice by race or sex? 2. Did teachers remain with student's while students were eating? -=-r-..,,....,,- If not, was there any discernable behavior difference among students based on race or sex? 3. Did teachers remain with students while they (teachers) were eating? ___,.----,,-- If not, were seating patterns apparent among teachers? By race? By sex? 4. Was there any visible distinction by race or sex in treatment of, or behavior of, students who ate free lunch, paid full price or brought their lunch? If yes, please describe? 5. Was the cafeteria staff composed of adults of proportional white and black races? If not, describe. ------ 6. Were cafeteria staff interactions with students appropriate and without regard to race or sex? If not, describe. ------ 7. Other pertinent comments. Playground Observation (noon, or recess): 1. Do students tend to play together without regard to race or sex? If no, describe. 2. Is there evidence of isolation or solidarity based on student race or sex? If yes, describe. --------------------- 3. Were there inappropriate or offensive racial or sexual behaviors or language observed during playground activities? I f yes, des-cr-ibre:. ------------------------- 4. Is there inapropriate racial or sexual graffiti on walls, halls, or other places in the school? If yes, describe. -------- Staff Interactions: 1. Did staff appear to work together without regard to race or sex? --,---r-------------------------- I f no, explain. 2. Did staff appear to associate without regard to race or sex during non-assigned times or activities? _____ _ If no, explain. overall Generalization: 1. Is there distinct coherence between the magnet theme and the schools curriculum and instructional activities? Does the magnet school actually deliver what is advertised, that is, to what degree the school offers any unique, quality elements in its curriculum and program? Magnet Theme Observations l. Class type (lesson) and magnet theme: Class type (Eng.- Math, ie .. ) Magnet theme (same as #4,p.l) 2. Classroom space and equipment appear to be appropriate for the magnet theme, this particular class and class activities: (yes _ no _ ) 3. Bulletin Boards (displays, posters, banners, ie  ) reflect magnet theme: (yes _ no _ ) 4. Non-text materials and resources are available in the classroom that support the magnet theme: (yes _ no _ ) 5. Presentation: (check one) lecture: student presentation: guided practice: independent work: test: other: s. Reference to magnet theme (ie .. specific menti~n in teacher or student presentation, assignments, and other activities): ::please try to observe for 20 uninterrupted minutes):: l. _______________________________ _ 2. _______________________________ _ 3. _____________________________ _ 4. ____________________________ _ s. ____________________________ _ 6. _______________________________ _ ?. _____________________________ _ 1. Observer: OBSERVATION DOCUMENT Class Demographics Date: 2. School.: 3. Teacher: .lliQ ~El \" Magnet Theme: s. Grade: 6. Number\\Race Students: Totals: Black Students White students Other Races Boys: Girls: sex: race: Black Males: White Males: Black Females: White Females: others: F B M w ,. Classroom Seating Arrangements: Assignment: (check one) Assigned _ Unassigned _ By race: (check one) segregated _ integrated _ By gender: (check one) segregated_ integrated _ a. other comments about class demographics: SITE DATA RECORD Site Demographics Date: ----- l. School: 2. Principal: ______ _ ------- 3. Magnet Theme: ______ _ 4. Number/Race of Students Totals: Black Students White Students Others Males Females sex: race: Black Males White Males Black Females White Females Others 5. Certified/Instructional Staff: Black Males White Males Totals: Black Staff White Staff Others Males Females Black Females White Females Others F B 6. Classified Staff (custodial, food services, aids) Black Males White Males Black Females White Females Others Totals: Blacks Whites Others Males Females M w Playground Observation 1. Student play activities were: ( directed not directed 2. If student play is not directed students tend to: choose playmates (without with choose playmates (without= with-- regard to race\nregard to gender. 3. There (was was not ) evidence of isolation or solidarity during playground activities. 4. Students (were were not ) observed using racial slurs or inappropriate language during play time. Lunchroom Observation 1. Seating arrangements for eating were based on (choice _ assignment _ ) 2. If seating arrangements were by choice students tended to: choose seat mates (without with choose seat mates (without= with-- regard to race\nregard to gender. 2. Teachers (remained did not remain _ ) with students while students were eating. 3. Teachers (remained did not remain ) with students while they (teachers) were eating. 4. There (was was not ) any visible distinction by race for students who ate free lunch or paid full price. 5. The cafeteria staff was composed of: Black Males White Males Black Females White Females Others 6. There (were were not ) any offensive or racial language or behaviors observed during the lunch period. 7. There (was was not ) any racial graffiti observed on walls in the hall, bathrooms or other places in the building. E1/,\\LUA'!'ING SOCIAL DEVELOPME~IT SOCIOGRAM St:1.!c:er::: Name ---------------- dace ____ _ Ci:-cle each grade that you have attended at thi s school: K l 2 3 4 5 6 Du=ing the next few weeks we may be re-assign~ng seats, worki~g i~ small groups and playing in class and C\nc~e playground. The purpose at this torm is to help me dec~de whic~ of you work and play best together. You can do th~s by writing the names ot children you would like to have sit near you. to have work with you, and to have play with you. Ycu may choose anyone in this room you wish. including pupils who are absent. Your choices will net be seen by any other student. Give the first name and the initial at last name . Make your choices carefully so the groups will be the way you really want them. Remember! l. Your choices must be from pupils in this room. including those who are absent. 2. You should give the first name and initial ot the last J. Ynaomu es. hould make all tive choices tor each question. 4. You may choose a pupil tor more than one group it you wish. 5. Your choices will not be ~een by anyone else. I would choose to sit near these children: 1. ___________ _ 3. ____________ _ 2. __________ _ 4. _____________ _ 5. I would choose to work with these children: 3. l. 4. 2. 5. I would choose to play with these children: 3. l. 4. 2. 5. SCHOOL: BOOKER ELEMENTARY NUMBER GRADE/RACE TESTED 1 TOTAL 78 B 40 w J8 0 0 2 TOTAL 80 8 41 w J4 0 5 3 TOTAL 83 B 46 w J6 0 1 4 TOTAL 8) B 45 w JO 0 0 5 TOTAL 91 B 48 w 39 0 4 6 TOTAL 89 B 47 w 42 0 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORKJ\\L CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1994 ENVIRONMENT TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL READING KATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE )9/44.J J9/44.J 46/47.6 56/5J.O  27/J7.J 28/)7.9 JJ/40.5 42/45.6 54/52.1 5J/51.4 60/55.3 70/61.2 -- -- -- -- J8/4J.5 5J/51. 6 57/5J.6 48/49.1  18/J0.7 JO/J9.2 JJ/40.6 29/J8.4 60/55.4 74/6J.4 77/65.5 69/60.6 84/70.5 91/78.5 96/85.7 69/60.7 42/45.6 45/47.5 53/51. 5 40/44.8 48/48.9 27/J7.2 J5/41. 7 41/45.1 25/J5.9 35/42.1 61/56.0 59/54.8 67/59.4 61/55.6 64/57.5 6J/57.0 54/52.1 75/64.2 77/65.6 54/52.1 46/47.9 61/56.l 60/55.2 48/49.0 61/55.B 28/J7.9 49/49.4 44/46. 7 31/39.3 47/48.6 68/59.8 75/64.0 76/65.1 69/90.4 75/64.J -- -- -- -- -- 50/50.2 78/66.J 65/57.9 65/58.3 59/54.8 31/J9.6 67/59.1 52/51. 2 45/47.2 41/45.J 70/61.2 86/7J.O 75/64.J 83/69.6 76/64.9 84/71.1 96/85.8 89/75.5 91/78.8 81/68.8 72/62.0 72/62. 5 72/62.1 65/58.0 72/62.4 51/50.7 59/54.6 56/53.3 48/48.7 58/54.4 88/74. 6 84/71. J 85/71.8 81/68.4 84/71.J -- -- -- -- --  At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT. BASIC COMPLETE BATTERY BATTERY I 44/46. 7 40/44.7 33/40.6 28/)7.5 56/5J.l 54/52.J -- -- 43/46.J 44/46. 7 21/32.9 20/J2.2 66/58.5 68/59.6 90/76.7 91/77. 6 45/47.7 43/46.4 )2/40.2 JO/J8.8 61/55.7 61/55.8 62/56.4 6J/57.0 55/52.8 55/52.8 )9/44.1 38/43.5 73/63.0 74/6J.8 -- -- 6)/57.2 64/57.4 47/48.4 45/47.4 77/65.6 80/67.4 93/80.3 9)/81. 1 75/63.9 74/63.8 58/54.1 57/5J.6 88/74.8 88/75.2 -- -- . I SCHOOL CARVER ELEMENTARY NUMBER GRADE/RACE TESTED 1 TOTAL 62 8 Jl w Jl 0 0 2 TOTAL 85 B 49 w 36 0 0 3 TOTAL 89 B 49 w 38 0 2 4 TOTAL 94 B 48 w 46 0 0 5 TOTAL 94 B 53 w 39 0 2 6 TOTAL 92 B 49 w 42 0 l LITTLE ROCX SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHT II EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUHKARY 1994 ENVIRONHENT TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 84/70,8 87/73,6 87/73.5 75/64 . J  72/62.2 75/64.3 74/63.7 56/53 . 1 92/79. 6 94/83.3 94/83.3 89/75 . 7 -- -- -- -- 63/57.0 76/65.1 70/60.9 59/54.8  47/48.5 62/56.5 57/53.8 40/44 . 7 81/68.4 90/76. 7 84/70.6 81/68 . 2 -- -- -- -- 56/53. 0 66/58.7 68/59.8 61/55.6 66/58.4 42/45.5 50/50.0 58/54.4 47/48.5 54/52.2 73/62.6 83/69.9 79/66.7 76/64.9 78/66.5 58/54.1 66/58.9 69/60.5 55/52.4 59/55.1 66/58.6 75/64.5 71/61. 8 76/64.9 83/69.8 44/46 . 7 57/53.6 50/49.9 56/53 . 3 67/59.5 84/71. 1 89/75.8 88/74. 2 90/77.0 93/80.5 -- -- -- -- -- 53/51.6 68/59.9 65/58.0 74/63 . 3 64/57.3 32/40 . 4 56/53.2 47/48.3 53/51. 5 48/48 . 8 77/65.4 79/67.3 83/70.3 91/77 . 9 80/67.6 93/81. 4 98/91. 8 91/78. 8 99/99 . 0 96/86 . 4 69/60.2 71/61. 8 61/56.l 73/63 . l 69/60 . 3 50/49 . 8 53/51.6 49/49 . 2 53/51.7 52/51.0 85/71. 7 86/72.8 74/63.8 89/76 . 0 84/70.9 96/86 . 9 99/99.0 84/70 . 9 91/78 . 2 82/69.3  At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT. BASIC COMPLETE I BATTERY BATTERY 87/73.9 86/72.5 75/64.2 72/62.2 95/83.6 94/82,8 -- -- 68/60.0 69/60.6 52/50 . 9 52/50.8 86/72.4 87/73.9 -- -- 60/55.5 61/55.9 47/48,2 47/48.3 76/65.0 77/65.8 59/54.6 58/54.3 72/62.5 75/64.3 51/50.4 53/51.8 88/75.2 90/77 .4 -- -- 32/55.8 33/57.3 44/47.0 45/47 . 5 78/66.0 82/68.9 97/89.3 98/93.0 69/60.5 70/61. 3 52/51.0 51/50.7 84/70 . 8 86/72.9 97/89 . 6 97/89.6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION BTI\\NFORD ACHI\u0026amp;VEHENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1994 SCHOOL: GIBBS !O,GNET ELEHENTl\\RY ENVIRONMENT NUMBER TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL GRADE/RACE TESTED READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 1 TOTAL 43 54/52.3 45/47.5 40/44.6 47/48.3  B 24 43/46.2 34/41.2 27/37.2 32/40.0 w 16 72/62.3 65/58.1 61/55.7 70/60.8 0 3 51/50.6 39/44.2 46/47.6 46/48.1 2 TOTAL 39 53/51. 5 60/55.5 51/50.6 61/55.6  B 22 41/45.4 50/50.2 36/42.6 49/49.5 w 15 67/59.2 70/61. 0 66/58.4 77/65.4 0 2 74/6).3 83/70.2 92/80.0 44/46.8 3 TOTAL 37 64/57.5 86/72.4 71/61.6 73/62.9 83/69.9 B 19 41/45. 3 72/62.4 51/50.7 49/49.3 64/57.8 w 18 84/71.1 94/83.5 87/73.7 91/78.1 94/82.7 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- 4 TOTAL 43 71/61.6 85/72.2 70/61.0 73/62.8 82/69.0 B 24 55/52.5 74/63.5 57/53.8 56/53.2 69/60.6 w 18 86/73.1 95/83.8 85/71.4 89/75.3 93/80.5 0 1 88/74.7 84/70.9 43/46.3 82/69.3 77/65.6 5 TOTAL 38 68/59.8 80/67.8 75/64.4 73/62.9 79/67.2 B 22 49/49.4 66/58.4 61/55.8 52/50.8 64/57.7 w 16 87/74.0 93/80.6 89/76.2 92/79.5 93/80.3 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- 6 TOTAL 37. 74/63.8 77/65.5 69/60.2 70/61. 1 78/66.5 B 21 58/54.0 62/56.4 58/54.1 56/53.l 68/59.6 .w 13 91/78. 5 91/78.5 79/66.8 85/71.9 89/75.5 0 3 80/67.8 86/73.1 87/73.6 83/69.7 89/75.7  At Gc-ades 1 and 2 the SCIEtlCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and c-eflected as one scoc-e undec- ENVIRONMENT. BASIC COMPLETE BATI'ERY BATI'ERY I 52/50.9 47/48.3 39/44.1 33/40.9 71/61. 4 68/60.0 49/49.5 42/45.9 56/52.9 58/54.0 43/46.1 43/46.4 69/60.6 .73/63.1 81/68.6 82/69.1 75/64.1 77/65.5 55/52.8 57/53.7 90/76.6 .91/78.0 -- -- 79/67.3 80/67.9 65/58.2 65/58.2 92/79.4 93/80.8 80/67.7 83/70.1 74/63.4 76/64.9 57/53.9 58/54.2 90/76.4 92/79.5 -- -- 74/63. 3 74/6).6 58/54.3 59/54.5 89/76.1 .89/76.3 85/71.5 85/72.2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1994 SCHOOL: WILLI1\\H9 MJ\\GNET ELEMENTARY EtfVIRONMENT NUMBER TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL GRJ\\DE/RACE TESTED READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 1 TOTAL 66 82/69.6 86/72.4 84/70. 7 72/62.3  B 33 79/66 . 7 84/70.8 78/66.2 65/58 . 0 w 33 86/72 . 5 87/73.9 89/75.3 79/66.6 0 0 -- -- -- -- 2 TOTAL 67 72/62.5 90/76.9 77/65.2 89/76.2  B 39 65/58.3 85/72 . 0 70/61.0 85/72.0 w 22 81/68.3 95/84.3 84/71.0 94/83.5 0 6 81/68.3 93/81. 7 85/71.6 90/76.4 3 TOTAL 65 71/61. 6 76/65.0 80/67.8 74/63.2 82/68.9 B 34 60/55.5 63/57.2 74/63.6 56/53 . 0 70/61. l w 28 80/67 . 5 86/72 . 8 85/71.4 88/74.4 91/77. 6 0 3 89/76.3 92/79.9 93/80 . 8 87/73.3 89/75.6 4 TOTAL 71 76/64.6 87/73.3 83/70.3 73/62.6 82/69.l B 37 60/55.4 81/68.5 74/63.5 57/53.8 73/62.8 w 33 88/74.9 91/78.0 91/77.7 85/71.9 88/75.2 0 1 80/67.7 99/99 . 0 91/78.2 92/79.6 99/99 . 0 5 TOTAL 67 62/56.5 85/71.5 71/61.7 76/65.0 64/57.5 B 39 46/48.1 81/68.2 64/51.5 66/58 . 6 53/51.3 w 28 81/68.3 89/76.1 80/67.4 87/74.1 78/66.2 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- 6 TOTAL 68 71/61.4 78/65 . 9 70/61.1 74/63.7 73/62 . 6 B 39 56/53.2 69/60 . 5 60/55.2 61/56 . 1 64/57.6 w 28 86/72 . 5 85/72 . 2 82/69.) 87/73 . 6 82/69 . 0 0 1 84/70 . 9 99/99 . 0 72/62.3 94/82 . 7 91/78 . 2  At Grades land 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT . BASIC COMPLETE I BATTERY BATTERY 86/72. 5 84/71.0 83/69.7 80/67.9 89/75.3 88/74.2 -- -- 81/68 . 5 84/71. l 74/63.4 78/66.l 89/75. 7 91/78.l 89/75 . 7 91/78.3 77/65.3 78/65.9 66/58.4 66/58.6 85/72. 0 87/73.4 94/82.3 92/79.9 85/71.4 85/71.6 73/63.1 73/63.l 92/80.l 93/80 . 5 97/89.6 98/93.3 74/63.4 75/64.0 65/58.0 64/57.7 84/71. 1 86/72.8 -- -- 74/63.3 74/63.9 63/56.9 63/57 . 0 85/71. 5 86/72.7 94/82 . 7 95/84.6 SCHOOL: KANN KMHET JR, HIOK NUMBER GRADE/RACE TESTED 7 TOTAL 269 B 151 w 113 0 5 8 TOTAL 25) B 147 w 101 0 5 9 TOTAL 224 B 124 w 96 0 4 LITTLZ ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANKING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION BTAJIFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHT EDITION PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCB) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1994 TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 59/54.6 51/50.4 62/56.6 U/56.0 56/5),4 42/45.9 311/43.6 46/48.1 42/45.t 43/46.0 78/66,4 . 67/59.1 81/68.1'. 83/69. 74/63.4 54/51. 9 64/57. 63/56. 7 54/52.2 53/51. 9 56/52.9 5)/51.5 62/56.4 6)/56.8 59/54.8 41/45,3 39/44.2 49/49.4 48/48.9 45/47.3 74/6J.2 70/61.0 78/66.0 79/67.2 76/65.1 74/63. l 113/70.0 76/64.6 89/75. 7 77/65.5 53/51. 7 41/45.3 62/56.3 60/55.1 61/55.9 34/41.0 22/lJ.4 45/47.2 39/44.2 40/44.7 76/64.6 68/59.7 79/67.1 81/68.4 82/69.4 88/74. 8 80/68.l 89/75.l 81/68.4 90/77.1 BASIC COMPLETE BATTERY BATTERY 56/5),2 57/5).9 41/45.1 40/44.11 75/63.9  11/65.1 65/58.1 ' 64/57.7 58/54.0 58/54.4 43/46.1 42/45.9 76/64. 8 78/66.1 79/66,7 83/69.8 55/52.7 57/5l.9 35/41.9 35/42.0 77/65.5 81/68.2 90/76.7 91/78.5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAHNINO, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIORT EDITION PERCENTILE RAKlt/NORKAL CURVB EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL BUHKARY uu SCHOOLr PAJUtVIElf KAONET RIGII SCHOOL HUMBER TOTAL TOTAL SOCIAL GRADE/RACE TESTED READING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SCIENCE 10 TOTAL 242 6)/56.8 54/52.J 65/58.0 64/57.6 62/56.6 B 1)6 48/48.9 4)/46.1 51/50. 4?. 47/48.5 50/50.l w 100 80/67.8 68/59.9 80/67. 8)/70.0 78/65.9 0 6 49/49.5 74/6J.l 83/70.0 67/59.0 51/50.4 11 TOTAL 2)8 50/50.2 4J/46.1 49/49.6 47/48.6 47/48.5 8 145 J8/4J.5 H/41.1 39/43.9 )6/42.2 J4/41.0 w 88 72/62.J 58/54.0 68/59.7 69/60.2 70/61.J 0 5 29/)8.6 62/56.l 36/42.2 29/38.l 45/47.J BASIC COHPLETE BATTERY B-'TTER'l 64/57 . J , 65/58.0 49/49.S, 49/49.2 80/67. \u0026lt; BJ/69.9 69/60.4 68/59.8 51/50.6 50/50.1 J9/44.l )6/42.7 71/61.5 72/62.4 41/45.4 40/44. 6\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\u003eArkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services\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_1468","title":"Martin L. King Junior Elementary Interdistrict Provisional Magnet School,","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District Communications Department"],"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th Century","Education","Segregation in education","African Americans","Little Rock School District","Advertising"],"dcterms_title":["Martin L. King Junior Elementary Interdistrict Provisional Magnet School,"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"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/1468"],"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":["videocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":["32,006 KB","00:09:30"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_661","title":"Obligations","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","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Obligations"],"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/661"],"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\nIncludes ''Audit of Obligations'' (October 1993-1994)\n''Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case'' (August 1995, draft copy)\nand news clippings\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL JAN 3 1 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Cffics Ct Desegn 9' tVtOi uiCf'PQ INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached audit of obligations, October 1993 October 1994. The attached audit of obligations is being filed in order to apprise the court, the monitor and the parties of the desegregation efforts being made by LRSD. LRSD's progress in meeting its desegregation obligations will be shown in the LRSD Program Budget Document. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011CERTIFICATE 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 27th day of January 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 It Christopher Heller U' 2RECEIV^rD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 4 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS . No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS The Plaintiff, \"District\"), NOTICE OF FILING Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. Representatives of the District attended budget hearings before this Court on Tuesday, August 1, and Wednesday, August 2, 1995 . During the hearing on the afternoon of August 2, this Court heard testimony and evidence regarding the desegregation obligations of the District and efforts which had been made to compile a listing of the obligations under subject categories and identify those persons who are primarily and secondarily responsible for those obligations. 2 . The examination initially related to the desegregation duties and responsibilities of the deputy superintendent and the assistant to the deputy superintendent as well as those persons who would now be assigned those duties and, thereby, become responsible d iana\\pcssd\\lll i ng-4. ikx -1-for insuring that the District complies with those obligations. Specifically, it is the District's understanding that this Court wanted to be apprised of those desegregation-related responsibilities of the deputy superintendent which will now be performed by other persons within the District. 3 . Attached hereto as Exhibit One (1) is a true and accurate copy of the District's rough draft listing of its desegregation- related obligations from the various sources as identified in the document. Please note that this document is by no means intended to represent the District's final representation of its desegregation obligations. Rather, it is envisioned that further clean up, adjustment and refinement to this document will occur to remove redundancies, items which are not obligations and the like. As identified in the document, certain subject areas were previously assigned to and under the supervision of the deputy superintendent. In those instances, the deputy superintendent served as the primary leader for those subject areas during the 1994-95 school year. During the 1995-96 school year, the attached document reflects the job titles of the persons who will now be the primary leaders for those subject areas. The District understands that this Court has also 4 . 5. requested revised job descriptions for those persons who will assume responsibility for duties formerly performed by the deputy superintendent. The District will prepare those job descriptions and provide them to the Court, ODM and the parties upon their completion. diana\\pcssd\\ti}ing-4.no( -2-WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District does hereby submit the foregoing in accordance with the order of this Court made from the bench on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, and requests that it be awarded any and all legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201-3493 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT diana\\pcssd\\fiiing-4.rxx Jerry L. Malone Bar I. D. No. 85096 -3- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, except as otherwise indicated, on August 4, 1995, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. (Hand-delivered) Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered as per Order by the Court) Attorney at Law Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone diana'pcssdifiling-J.rxx -4-March 12, 1996 AR \"^S EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 1 y \u0026lt;'./ 1500 WEST 4TH STREET UTTIEROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1064 PHONE: (501) 375-4611 FAX: (5011375-4620 GRAINGER lEDBETTER President CORA D. McHENRY Executive Director An NEA Stole Affiliate Memorandum Office To: From: Little Rock Desegregation Committee Cora D. McHenry, Co-Chair Bill Bowen, Co-Chair Enclosed you will find materials to review in preparation for our meeting on March 14, 1996. If you have any questions, please feel free to give us a call. Thanks. Enclosure BB/CDMcH:at-jDesegregation Committee The Role of the Committee: 1. Determine the extent to which the Board has been able to meet the goals of the current desegregation plan. 2, Identify barriers impeding the Boards ability to implement the current plan. 3. Make recommendations for possible alternative actions that will make it feasible for the Board to meet its desegregation obligations. Desegregation Charges\nReview the current desegregation plan for the following purposes: 1) to determine the goals of the plan 2) to identify the expected outcomes from the established goals 3) to appraise whether the District has been successful in reaching the established goal 4) If the answer to question 3, is no, was the goal unmet because it was not implemented or because the goal was unattainable? 5) . to identify the measurement tool used to determine success or failure 6) to identify internal or external forces which preclude the Little Rock School District from being able to attract and maintain a desegregated student body. 7) to determine the publics commitment to maintain school structures in their community and to gamer from them ways the District may develop a sounder fiscal base without school closures 8) to ascertain how the patrons of the Pulaski County School System will respond to restructuring schools (i.e. site-based decisionmaking, middles schools, alternative schools, etc.). I Office may J996 KI ' I . Little Rock School District CFFiCE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 3, 1996 I 0 J996 3 Ms. Melissa Guildin Assoc. Monitor, ODAI 201 E. Markham, Suite 510  Office Ot Gti: 'C.'( Little Hock, AH 7 01 Dear Ms. Guildin\nYou are cordially invited to join me for a very special announcement concerning the progress of the Little Rock School District in its ongoing effort to meet the obligations of the Desegregation Plan. The announcement will be made as part of a press conference to be held on Wednesday, May 8, 1996, 1:00 p.m. at 1500 Park Street. We will meet in the auditorium in the event of inclement weather. I look forward to seeing you on May 8. Sincerelv, Henry P. Williams Superintendent 810 West .Markliam Street  Little Rock, zVrkansaa 72201 (501) 324-2(X)0 1 K r ^'f t- a:*' A 4 \u0026gt; f *\u0026gt; ! ? A. t 9: A\" t ) t .V, V t., ji .4  V lA^, isff*\"'*^'fx'.  'j\nADMIN. BULLING Fax:1-5G1-324-2032 May 8  96 9:12 P.02/02 1 r 5? Tjttle Rqcjl^chqoiJDistrici LRSD Press Conference May 8, ! 996 For more information: Suellen Vann,, 324-2020 [jlttle Rock School District Superintendent Dr. Henry P. Williams will hold a Dress terence today at 1\n00 p.m. to make an aruiouncement concerning the districts desegregation plan. The press conference will take place on the steps of Central Higli School, 1500 Park In the event of inclement weather, the event will be held in the Central High aaditorium. iiif#J.i?9i ADMIN. EULDING Fax:l 1-324-2032 Maq 8 96 9:12 P. 02/02 1 iiTLE Hock School JhsrRici I I'Si) Press Comfereocc \\by K. ! 906 For more information\nSuellen V.tnn. 324--2020 Little Reck School District Superintendent Dr. Henn' E. 'Wil'ianis will hold a cies' cimfer-mce 'oday at L.OO p.m. to make an announcement concerning the district's deegrcgaM'ip plan. The press conference will take place on the steps ct Central High School, 1500 P,yk In the event of inclejnent weather, the event will be held in the Central High aadnotiuni. 810 West Markha-m Street  Little Rock, Arkaiisaa 7ii401  (501)324-3000 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-G-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MAY ^1996 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Decosregaiian Msniiontfa INTERVENORS SPECIAL-STATUS REPORT ...__ For its special status report, the Little Rock School District states: 1. The Little Rock School District has recently reviewed the status of its compliance with its desegregation obligations and determined that the district is in substantial compliance with those obligations. The attached \"Little Rock School District Position Paper On Desegregation Obligations\" describes the process used by LRSD to determine its compliance and reports the conclusion that LRSD has implemented 96.3 percent of its desegregation obligations. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Bar No CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Special Status Report has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 8th day of May, 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WTILKER, 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 HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 2 RECEIVED Little Rock School District MAY 1996 Office of Desegfegaiion Monncnntf Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 1. Purpose of Position Paper 2. Background 3. Response Groupings and Definitions of Terms 4. Results of Audit and Interviews 3 4 8 11 5. Position on Not Begun Items 6. Internal Enhancements 13 15 7. Conclusions 16 May 8,1996 This report was prepared by the LRSD administrative team of Brady Gadberry, Sterling Ingram, Dr. Ed Jackson, Deana Keathley, Dr. Patty Kohler, Dr. Russ Mayo, Leon Modeste, Ken Savage, and Marvin Schwartz. Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201 #501-324-2000Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Findings  The District is in substantial compliance with its desegregation obligations. This is based on implementation of 96.3% of its obligations.  Some of the goals of the plan have not been achieved and are not likely to be ACHIEVED THROUGH THE CURRENT OBLIGATIONS. Recommendations  Recognition of the Districts substantial compliance should be made by the Court.  Obligations where substantial compliance has been achieved should be RELEASED FROM COURT SUPERVISION.  Obligations which do not meet the needs of students should be revised.  Revised obligations should be modeled on action items in the recently COMPLETED STRATEGIC PLAN. Page 1Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations Summary of Position Paper Sections 1. Purpose of position paper Assess Districts performance in 4. Results of Audit and Interviews  Final assessment of the audit showed meeting desegregation obligations.  Inform the public of status of these accomplishments.  Prove good faith effort in achieving substantial compliance. substantial compliance with all desegregation obligations. This is based on implementation of 96.3% of those items. The interview process allowed comprehensive review of all evidence 2. Background  The District has accepted desegregation obligations as a binding contract.  Desegregation obligations are reviewed through regular updates of the Program Budget Document.  A LRSD obligations audit identified more than 2,000 items and published the listing as the Abbreviated Summary. Scan sheets were developed for each item and completed by District staff.  Compilation of scan sheet responses provided the overall status for this report. supporting obligations. implementation of 5. Position on Not Begun Items  Obligations identified as Not Begun reveal barriers to effective implementation such as unrealistic expectations.  The obligations modification process lags behind current implementation plans. 6. Internal Enhancements  An automated PBD will show new patterns of completion, allowing 3. Response Groupingsand Definition OF Terms  Responses to the scan sheets were grouped to match program names.  Responses within each program name were sorted to identify total items in compliance and items not yet begun. assessment of obligations by individual items and by schools.  The automated process increases overall accountability toward fulfillment of the obligations. Page 2Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 1. Purpose of Position Paper The daily operation of the Little Rock School District is centered on providing the public with the highest quality education available in Arkansas and the nation. With an October 1995 enrollment of 24,922 students and the employment of 3,513 people, the tasks required to provide that quality education are quite numerous. Effective coordination of those tasks and obligations the District has fully or partially accomplished, and it will show the results from those actions. public accountability for their The overall intent of this paper is to prove a good faith response by the LRSD to the complex task of meeting desegregation obligations. implementation are some of the criteria by which the District should be measured. The numerous obligations approved for the District by the Sth Circuit Court of Appeals have resulted in a lengthy and highly detailed document containing more than 2,000 obligations or specific tasks. Additionally, the LRSD Desegregation Plan is one of several plans approved by the Court for Pulaski County public school districts. The District commits significant personnel and financial resources to Further, this paper will address those obligations which the District has not fulfilled, and it will give an account for those nonaccomplishments. In some cases, an appropriate response to the obligation was not possible. In other cases, a response was possible but not attempted because circumstances made the effort unfeasible. Finally, this paper will provide an update on District efforts to meet reasonable obligations where progress is lacking. implementation and reporting of desegregation obligations. Some of these resources could be used more effectively to meet student educational needs. The primary purpose of this position paper is to More specifically, the overall intent of this paper is to prove a good faith response by the LRSD to the complex task of meeting desegregation requirements. assess District desegregation obligations. progress in meeting Secondary purposes of this position paper follow in logical sequence. To assure accountability by the District in response to desegregation obligations, this paper will identify the status of those accomplishments. It will show which It is the goal of the LRSD to meet the educational needs of all its students. In the process of meeting those needs, the District seeks to achieve unitary status or release from Court jurisdiction. We believe an objective reading of this position paper will advance that effort and better serve the interests of Little Rock students and all citizens of the community. Page 3LrrTLE Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 2. Background The desegregation obligations currently in place for the LRSD have evolved from legal actions and court supervision of Pulaski County school districts that began in the early 1980s. These obligations derive from the consent decrees the District has entered into with several parties, including:  North Little Rock School District  Pulaski County Special School District  Knight Intervenors  Joshua Intervenors  State of Arkansas (no longer current) toward obligations is key to the assessment and conclusions reached in this position paper. This process is the Program Budget Document (PBD). An explanation of the development and implementation of the PBD will help identify the reporting burden and the tendency for duplication imposed by the system. The PBD was developed to monitor progress on all obligations. The document identifies every obligation relating to the case and provides essential information to track relevant activity. In 1993, an audit of desegregation obligations was undertaken by LRSD attorneys at the Friday Law Firm. After review by District management, the obligations listing was filed with the court. The District's response to the desegregation obligations has been to accept them as a binding contract. The Districts response to all desegregation obligations has been to accept them as a binding contract. As a whole, this imposes a weighty burden on the District. Finances for instructional programs have been diverted toward legal fees, and an administrative capacity for the development of creative instruction has been dissipated in time spent in the legal process or in The PBD is updated quarterly with information provided by the primary leaders to reflect progress. However, many items on the PBD are repeated yearly or are part of a continuous process. These can include items such as principals writing school profiles or District Equity Monitors visiting schools. Such items are never completed in preparation of desegregation-related documents. These impositions have limited the Districts ability to meet the needs of a diverse student population. A reporting process used by the District to update the Court on progress themselves, but reports are required within the year to show how much of the task has been accomplished. Conversely, some items are maintained on the PBD and addressed even after they have been completed. (This weakness in the PBD design has been corrected in the new automated version. See Section 7. Internal Enhancements'). Page 4Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations The LRSD process for reporting to the Court is centered on updates of the obligations and activities contained in the PBD. One barrier to the PBD reporting process, however, is the lack of a quantifiable assessment which clearly shows how well the District has done in meeting all its obligations. The original version of the PBD did not provide a numerical or percentage summary. duplicative obligations fSee Figure 1. Examnles of Duplication among Desegregation Obligations) and obligations being implemented for which no legal reference could be located. Additionally, numerous legal As a preliminary step toward overall assessment, the comprehensive review District began a in mid 1995 to identify every distinct obligation. The Abbreviated Summary, as the project came to be known, involved cross referencing items from the PBD and all legal documents. The audit identified 2,098 distinct obligations. A refining of the list yielded a final count of 2,008 obligations. Further, the Abbreviated Summary identified numerous inconsistencies such as documents had made separate contributions to the obligations by this time, each introducing additional requirements. Legal Documents Influencing Obligations  8th Circuit Court Orders  District Court Orders  Interdistrict Plan  LRSD Desegregation Plan  Settlement Agreement  Stipulations  McClellan Plan  Henderson Plan  Court Transcripts  Exhibit  June 5,1992 Monitoring Report Figure 1. Examples of Duplication among Desegregation Obligations Subject Abbreviated Text I Original Legal Document ID#' Incentive School Staffing 1. Make recommendations to the Board 2. Make staff recommendations 3. Make staff recommendations for ! employment to the Board LR Deseg. Plan LR Deseg. Plan LR Deseg. Plan 1783 1788 1789 M-to-M 1. Develop recruitment plan with PCSSD for Interdistrict Plan 1481 Transfers i M-to-M transfers 2. Parties to promote M-to-M transfers Interdistrict Plan 3154  ID numbers for obligations refer to listings in the Abbrc\\'iated Summary. Page 5Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations The assessment process chosen for the task was for the LRSD Division of Planning Research and Evaluation (PRE) to develop computer scan sheets relating to the status and evidence of all obligations. (See Figure 2. Obligations Scan Sheet) In 1995, a process was begun in which primary leaders answered six concise questions and sent the sheets back to PRE for compiling of responses. The scan sheets asked direct questions and gave multiple choice answers. The Primary Leaders had to identify if their obligations were a) not begun, b) completed, c) completed periodically, or d) continuous/never completed (See Figure 3. Response Categories for Scan Sheet Survey of Obligations). To assure accountability, they also had to identify the specific location where evidence concerning the obligation was kept and who was responsible for that evidence. The assessment process continued with a 1996 follow-up survey to address items that had been recently added as well as allow a Figure 2. Obligations Scan Sheet Questions relating to the evidence available for the above named obligation. (e\n(i' (c) I () 1. What IS the status of the obligation? A) Not begun (If answer is A. do not complete the rest of the form.) B) Completed (If answer is B. go to question # 2.) C) Completed Periodically (If answer is C. go to question #3.) D) Continuous/Never Completed (If answer is D. go to question #3.} 2. In what school year was the obligation completed' A) Priorto1992-93 (If answer is A, go to question 114.) B) 1992-93 (If answer is B. go to question # 4.) C) 1993-94 (If answer is C, go to question # 4.) D) 1994-95 (If answer is D, go to question # 4.) (i) r lr-.k :  I  I  I  I  1 .l-StT' I  \nJ  I    I    I      .. i . ! e 3. If the obligation is on-going, in what school year was the obligation first accomplished? A) Priorto 1992-93 B) 1992-93 C) 1993-94 D) 1994-95 '!  J    'l i   i  !  5. In what form does the primary evidence for this obligation exists A) Pamphlet or Publication B) Written Evaluation, Survey or Summary Report C) Bill or Requisition D) Document {written agenda, sign-in sheet, notice of meeting, invitation, etc.) E) No evidence exists (If answer is E. do not comolete the rest of the form: however, explain why in AREA 2 on the Pack of this sheet.) I:  '  d\u0026gt;. I  I' T  'p I  f?)   fS) ' (? ffl l-(cptaa I Location where pr/mary evidence concerning this obligation is kept A) School B) District Offices. LRSD Annex. IRC, Student Assignment C) Plant Services, Procurement Food Services. Safety \u0026amp; Security, Transportation D) Adult Education |.l4\u0026gt;\n|ia4a8E) i tU Si!' 4  I f'  C   .! li I    i  I  '  .1   I  i  I  '  6 Who IS the keeper of the primary evidence? A) Primary Leader B) Secondary Leader C) Person Responsible ii\u0026gt;,| _l. . (.4 J li/   d) Signature: Date: Si    '  Page 6Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations second reporting on items previously identified as not begun. The processing of scan sheets gave the District a clear and comprehensive understanding of the degree of compliance it had achieved regarding the identified obligations. r/ie scan sheets gave the District a clear understanding of the degree of compliance it had achieved regarding the identified obligations. I I I I Progress since 1993 has resulted from the improved tracking accuracy of the original PBD. A recent upgrade to a computerized PBD process will further improve its accuracy. The audit of obligations and scan sheet surveys represent other distinct improvements in the Districts overall obligations. response to desegregation Figure 3. Response Categories for Scan Sheet Survey of Obligations CO - Completed. Items done once which need no repeating. Example: Motion granted for construction of cafeteria at Chicot Elementary. ID *1177. Court Order. 4/30/93. Pg. 1 CP - Completed Periodically. Items which have repetitive schedules within fixed time frames. Example: Establish a summer school program, id #1208. inteixustnct pian. 4/29/93. pg. 13 NC - Continuous/Never Completed. Items which require on-going implementation. Example: Monitor the Desegregation Plan, id msse. lr pian. 4/29/32, pg. 28 NB - Not Begun. Items which have not been addressed. Example: Plan new junior high school construction, id #1326. lr pian, 4/29/92. pg. 129 Page 7Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 3. Response Groupings and Definition of Terms To fully understand the information reflected on the scan sheets and to communicate those results to the public in a precise manner, certain groupings of responses were made. This process included three broad steps, summarized below and detailed in the remaining sections of this report. 1 2 3 The status of individual obligations were identified on the scan sheets as CO, CP, NC, orNB. All obligations were categorized as CO or NB. Overall response to desegregation requirements was identified as Substantial Compliance (SC). The process began by grouping the scan sheet responses into PBD Program Areas. In this manner, thousands of individual obligations and strategies were brought together under distinct program names.  Restore Gifted Coordinator to Budget, ID if 5144, Court Transcript, 7/6/95. Pg. 7  Court Requires Long-Range Facilities Plan, ID 5I27. Court Order. 2/8/95. Pg. 2 All A items have been addressed in the follow up survey of February 1996, and their tally is included in the final results. As represented in Figure 4. Obligation Status - Grouping Process, the grouping process condensed five categories of responses into three. Each category represents total responses for that status and does not relate to specific programs or activities. For example, responses marked completed include those which are addressed periodically and those which are continuous/never completed or cyclical. These items are considered completed because the District has met all possible requirements for their fulfillment during the time frame or cycle. The process then gave abbreviated titles to the distinct categones of response as culminated Final grouping of the responses in the two categories, shown on the scan sheets. These abbreviations are presented in Figure 3, and examples of obligations for each category are provided. An additional category is Completed (CO) or Not Begun (NB), represented in the next section of this report. In this manner, the District has been able to provide the most direct presentation of its substantial compliance with desegregation obligations. represented with the letter A. This group includes obligations which were identified after the 1995 scan sheet survey. Examples of A items include: To assure the most accurate reporting possible, the District identified the legal definitions of the categories of response and other terms used when describing desegregation obligations. Many Page 8Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations of these terms have had their original meanings transformed through usage by the media, the public, and by educators who did not fully understand them in the proper context. As a legal document, however, the Plan requires a strict and consistent interpretation. The following items are key terms^in understanding desegregation obligations and the Districts response. Obligation - a legal requirement that constrains to a course of action, an imperative for specific action. An Page 9 LtTTLE Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations obligation is something one is bound to do. It leaves no room for negotiation, compromise, or alternative. Example: LRSD -will pay an increase of S52,604.09 in the ODM budget. ID #4113 . Court Order. 4/8/94, Pg. 1 defraud or seek advantage. Example: Provide Homework Hotlines, id ^918, lr Desegregation Plan. 4/2/92, Pg. 180 Recommendation - something which is offered or suggested as a favored action. A recommendation is worthy of acceptance, but there are no constraints upon its action. Recommendation refers to an action which is advisory in nature rather than one having a binding effect. Example: The following full time positions are recommended for each Incentive School. (20 positions are listed, including classroom teachers, counselors, etc.) lr Desegregation Plan. Incentive School Section, 4/2/92. Pg. 190 Completion - something which is fully realized, which possesses all necessary parts. Completion means an action has been brought to an end or to an intended condition. With desired results achieved, no further action is necessary. Example: Install Rockefeller Elementary Heat/AC. id # 1350. Monuonng Report, 6/5/92. Pg. 43 On-Going Obligations - certain items identified as obligations which need to be repeated on a regular basis. These on-going obligations' l can not be Substantial Compliance: conformity with the essential requirements in fulfilling formal or official obligations of a contract or a statute. Being in substantial compliance means that you have done substantially all you were required to do to fulfill the obligation. The concept of substantial compliance is the primary assessment criteria for this report. Example: Establish six thematic interdistrict schools, id #1479. imerdistnct Plan. 4/29/93. Pg. 3 totally completed because further action is necessary throughout the term of the desegregation plans. The District considers itself in compliance with these items if it fulfills the necessary action within each scheduled reporting period. These items are represented in the CP (completed periodically) or the NC (never completed) groups. Example: Maintain all school facilities for safe/operable condition. ID a950. LR Desegregation Plan. 4/2/9/92. Pg. J 29 Good Faith Effort - an effort based on an honest belief, the absence of malice, and the absence of the design to Page 10Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 4. Results of Audit and Interviews showed Results of the preliminary surveys the District in substantial compliance with its desegregation requirements. This was based on initial findings which showed implementation of 97.5% of obligations. was achieved in 1.1% or 19 obligations, and only 45 obligations or 2.6% of the total remained as Not Begun items. The need for evidence of compliance with obligations led to a final round of interviews. The intent of the interviews was to gain proof in addition to the scan sheets that all information was accurate. Interviews were conducted with all primary and secondary leaders and all persons responsible for implementation of the obligations. Evidence of all activities was reviewed by committees, and a new and more specific assessment was obtained. As illustrated in Figure 5. Results of the Interview Audit, the final number of obligations became 1,753. This was achieved by the removal of additional duplicates, recommendations, goals, and items which were obligations. identified as not The District is in substantial compliance with its desegregation requirements based on 96.3% ! implementation of its obligations. Of that group of 1,753 obligations, 96.3% or 1,689 were identified as being in substantial compliance. Partial compliance Page 11Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations Figure 5. Results of Interview Audit ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED OBLIGATIONS REVIEWED - NOT OBLIGATIONS DUPLICATE OBLIGATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS GOALS NET OBLIGATIONS AFTER AUDIT 2008 12 224 9 10 1753 RELEASED FROM COURT SUPERVISION SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE COMPLETED ON-GOING PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT BEGUN 203 52 429 1005 19 45 1753 11.6% 3.0% 24.5% 57.3% 1.1% 2.6% 100.0% } 96.3% Substantial Compliance I SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT BEGUN 1689 19 45 1753 96.3% 1.1% 2.6% 100.0% I I i i I NOT BEGUN 3% PARTIAL COMPLIANCE 1 i SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE 96% Page 12 Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 5. Position on Not Begun Items As previously stated in this report , the District has identified desegregation obligations with a Not Begun status. Analysis of those obligations showed that in some cases, the premise upon which the obligations were based was found to be flawed. In other areas, obligations were shown to be dependent on numerous factors outside the Districts control. Accountability for the Not Begun obligations is best represented through the following broad categories.  Conditional Obligation: These items are dependent on external factors which have not been met, such as partnership relations with other organizations, receipt of grant funds, or other conditions outside District control. Example: Two obligations under the Library Media section of the Interdistrict Plan and cross referenced in the LRSD Desegregation Plan call for Utilization of TV Technology and Implement Utilization of Cable Channel 19. (id #1033, Interdistrict Plan. Pg. 34, 4/29/92) The Plan states these obligations will be done if funded by a federal Star grant. The grant was not funded, therefore, the obligations were not begun.  Unrealistic Expectation: These items are unfeasible or do not generate a sufficient return to justify the effort of implementation. This decision is based on District experience in the field and is a realistic response to items developed as part of a wish list by framers of the obligations. Example: The Incentive School Support Section of the LRSD Plan requires the District to meet at homes with groups of parents, (id #2049, lrsd Desegregation Plan, Pg. 210, 4/29/92) The District has found the effort to locate and coordinate a home-based meeting of parents is a time consuming and laborious process. This obligation does not address the reality that people must be invited into a home. They can not be mandated to offer that hospitality.  Changed by Court Order: Changes in the LRSD Desegregation Plan by the Court, such as rulings from the bench and Court orders, have not been reflected as revised the language in the Plan. Example: Numerous items within the Focused Activity section of the LRSD Desegregation Plan have been superseded or redefined by a May 1, 1992 Court Order.  On Appeal: The District is involved in an appeal process to the Sth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding an the obligation. In this instance, obligation is not appropriately aligned with contemporary events. Example: A Court Order currently under appeal states that the LRSD will reimburse PCSSD SI 67,113 within 60 days of the order, (id #4111, coun order, pg. 3, 3/16/94) Page 13Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations  Improperly Reported: Errors in reporting were discovered as a result of of the desegregation obligations scan sheets and audit. Example: An item erroneously reported as NB requires the LRSD to develop or enhance site-based management at designated schools, (id #0501, LRSD Desegregation Plan, Pg. 42, 4/29/92) The obligation is being implemented through staff development for principals, revision of District procedures, and enhanced principal accountability for programs. The implementation is being addressed through the Strategic Planning Action Team 8 and will continue through the 1996-97 school year.  Not Begun: These are obligations which the District has not yet implemented.The District recognizes the validity of these obligations and intends to comply with them. Example: An obligation addressing the Incentive School Latin Program calls for the District to evaluate the elementary Latin Program, (id #2021, lrsd Desegregation Plan, Pg. 164, 4/29'92) This will be done as soon as possible. Similarly, an obligation requires the District to form a media coalition that involves a series of meetings between the superintendents of the three school districts and representatives of the local media, (id #1555, Interdistrict Plan. Pg. 3, 4'29'92) Scheduling for these meetings is currently being arranged. Page 14Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 6. Internal Enhancements The LRSD has completed a revision of the Program Budget Document (PBD) reporting process which will provide information in greater detail and with instant computer access. The computerized PBD will greatly enhance the Districts ability to track on-going compliance with obligations. Staff inservice is underway for the recently designed program automation, which is expected to be implemented in the spring of 1996. updates and changes to the obligations, thereby avoiding errors resulting from changing text or phrasing of obligations. An automated computer linkage will allow primary leaders to access the system and input directly to the LRSD mainframe AS400 system. Information will address activities done toward the fulfillment of obligations. The automation replaces a manual system where computer diskettes were submitted quarterly and updated reports printed. Another improvement in the system is the automated programs ability to identify responses to single items by individual schools and across the District. This will allow school-by-school reports on specific obligations, an option not previously available. If questioned about a specific obligation, the District has immediate access to its status at each setting. The system will also show patterns of completion and allow deactivation and storage of completed obligations. PBD automation will control the publishing of Page 15LrTTLE Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 7. Conclusions Major accomplishments such as the identification of obligations and the implementation of a strategic planning process show the District is doing a good job of meeting its desegregation obligations. A 96.3% level of implementation affirms that achievement. The District should be recognized for its accomplishments and certain items should be released further court supervision. from The District should be recognized for its accomplishmentsand certain items released from further court supervision. The District is accountable for its response to desegregation obligations, a response represented in this report. But it should not be held accountable for all of the goals of the Plan, some of which have proved to be unobtainable in this district or any other district in the country. The desegregation plans of the District have resulted in significant desegregation accomplishments. As we near the end of the six-year life of those plans, however, it is apparent that in some ways they have outlived their usefulness. The recently completed Strategic Plan, developed as a result of significant community input and involvement, should be used to guide decisions about LRSDs future. Page 16-LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Rax:1-501-' 4-jo: Man 9:12 o 1.12 I Little Rqtk School Distbjci LRSD Press Conference May 8, 1996 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Little Rock School District Superintendent Dr. Henry P. Williams will hold a press conference today at 1:00 p.m. to make an announcement concerning the districts desegregation plan. The press conterence will lake place on the steps ot Central High School, 1500 Park. In the event of inclement weather, the event will be held in the Central High auditorium. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, .ArkaMsas 73301  (501)324-3000 W5S LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DIUFr Subject'\"! Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities  Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs.  Fed. Progs.  Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Pli LdjMF^I Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Asst Supts Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Sac Ld Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Transport Principal Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance De MR MR MR MR MR CO CO CO CO I CO LR LR LR LR LR LR LR L^ LR LR LR LR LR LR LR CO C8 MR MR CO CO CO CO CO CO 43 43 43 47 47 1 1 1 1 5 1 97 96 96 97 97 97 Hl 9? 97 97 97 97 97 97 1 5 2 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 6 Data jft 6/5/92 6/5/92 6/5/92 6/5/92 6/5/92 3/21/91 9/13/93 9/27/93 9/27/93 4/29/92 3/24/93 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 5/1/95 7/12/95 6/5/92 6/5/92 1/4/91 8/4/92 11/5/92 12/30/92 12/30/92 7/9/93 Install Rockefeller Heat/AC Complete Repairs/Stephens Incentive School Landscaping Incentive schools priority in district capital improvement Incentive schools high priority in capital funding Constr. proj. approved for Rightsell, Mitchell, Cloverdale Elem/JH, etc. Court approves sub. language on J. A. Fair constr. Old Stephens must be demolished or used for community - not left vacant Court requires LRSD to report to ODM plans for old Stephens's Bldg. Schs. in lower socio-econ. areas shall receive equal attention \u0026amp; resources May delete PAL after submission of prg. that can be monitored Pursue Federal Magnet School Grant Develop Grants To Enhance Desegregation Identify Programs/Funding Areas Submit Application to USDE for Funding Be Placed on Mailing List for Grant Applic. Form Grant Devel. Committee Develop Grant Proposal Appoint Grant Development Comm. Conclude Grant Proposal Ready for Admission Provide Grant Proposal to Board for Approval Submit Grants to A. Supt. for Review Submit Grant Proposal to USDE Submit Grants to Board for Approval Submit Grants to Agencies for Approval Pursue federal magnet school grants and funds Identity major adjust, made since 1995-96 propos. budget doc. last month. Place pooling of M-to-M funds into a central account. Demonstrate Invest, pd. for children before settlement money lost Dist. is bound to keep pledge to double fund incent, school Continue double fund, after six yrs. if inc. schs. over 80% black Restore certain cuts to 92-93 budget Reinstate individuals listed for 93-94 Restore 22.8 FTE music teachers for 93-94 \u0026amp; 7th per. at Hendersonz Any changes to budget must be court approved for budget 93-94 Revise budget so not so dependent on non-recurring revenue sources LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 nn^Sullj^WW  Gifted Prog  Gifted Prog Gifted Prog  Guid/Cnsing  Guid/CnsIng  Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing  Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing  Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing Guid/Cnsing Guid/Cnsing Guid/Cnsing Guid/Cnsing Guid/Cnsing Guid/Cnsing Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Dir Except Child Dir Except Child Supt Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 9 w? )W Dir Gifted Dir Gifted LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Mng Sup Serv Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal DUAll Pc LR 62 Date?\n'.' 4/29/92 LR 62 4/29/92 TR 1 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR HN HN HN HN HN HN HN HN CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 37 37 37 37 37 37 25 25 15 25 26 26 26 26 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 7/6/95 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 Implement Objectives Relating to Plan Implement Strategies/Activities to Refine Plan Restore Gifted Coordinator to Budget Inform Students of All Opportunities Publish Annual Document of Financial Aid, Higher Ed. Opportunities Encourage Students to Take Advantage of Opportunities Follow-up on Referral Make Parents Part. In Ed. by Keeping Them Informed Hold Community Ed. Mtg. Each Year During Spring Provide Written Info to Parents on Curriculum 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 Make Students Aware of Ed./Post Ed. Opportunities Hold Annual Skills/Employment Fair with Business Community Provide Guidance/Counseling to Address Student Needs Create Community Linkage to Assist Students Provide Linkages w/Service Providers and Guidance Staff Provide Minicourses in Sequenced Program Gr 4-12 Develop Sequential Minicourses Beginning w/Gr 4 Provide Teacher Staff Development in Use of Curr. Raise Awareness of Student Career Options Use Resourse Volunteers in Classes/Assem. - Career Options Provide Guidance/Counseling making Students Aware of future Options Require A/Z Students Submit Magnet Application Require Non-A/Z Students Complete OERF Use Random Selection Process for Non-A/Z Applicants Require Interdistrict Students Complete M-M and OERF Consider Applications on Basis of Deseg Requirements Only Process Applications During Spring Each Year Grant StaffTransfers According to PN Agreement Ensure Staff Racial Balance Complies w/Deseg Requirements Provide Clearly Stated Program Goals/Objectives Provide Comprehensive Description of Program Components Describe Selection Criteria for Students/Teachers/Staff Identify Students by Grade/Teachers \u0026amp; Staff by Role Identify Necessary Resources\nIdentify Costs Itemize Necessary Teacher Training (Preparatory \u0026amp; Ongoingl Provide Evaluation Criteria/Timelines LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95r^^wsubjMi^^ Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag ^Pri Ld ^1 jjgse Ld ' ~ LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations De  HIPPY  HIPPY Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY CO CO CO HN HN HN HN HN CO LR LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY  HIPPY HIPPY  HIPPY  HIPPY  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY LR LR LR LR LR  HIPPY  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY LR LR  HIPPY  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY LR LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR LR 4 4 28 4 26 26 26 26 3 6 6 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 Jl 5 DUAIT 2/11/92 2/11/92 2l-iyi92 81^182 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 2/11/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 10 Anticipate Impact on School Capacity, Facilities, Enrollment Identify Community Involvement in Program Development Address Program Implementation/Completion Timelines Establish 7-penod Day Hold Mtg. During 2nd Semester to Familiarize New Students Principal Meets Prior to 4/23/92 w/Staff re Commitment Ascertain Future Applicants' Commitment to Magnet Program Specialist Coordinates Program and Teaches Part-Time Do written plan for Henderson Mag. in 30 days 1 Initiate Home-based and 4-yr-old collaboration in training areas  Collaborate Implementation LRSD and PCSSD Promote the HIPPY Program with mailed flyers \u0026amp; PSA's Mail PSAs/Distribute Flyers Select 14 HIPPY Aides ' \" Select 14 Aides Conduct Initial Training Aides/Staff Arrange Logistics w/State Regional Office for Training Conduct Home Interview /Enroll Families Conduct Home Interview /Enroll Families Recruit Families Send correspondence to Churches to Recruit Families/Aides Determine Service of Coordinators Identify Families to be Served By Each Coordinator Identify \u0026amp; assign families to be serviced by aides Identify Families to be Served by each Aide Organize Instructional Material Print Curriculum Material Familiarize Aides of Implementation in LRSD Conduct 3-day Workshop Obtain Material for Program Conduct orientation meeting for enrolled families of Conduct Orientation Meeting Identify and secure meeting sites for Secure Meeting Sites for Group Mail Notification of Meeting Sites Schedule Implementation of Curriculum groups program LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers SubjectyV^ V? I Pl/ M-M Transfers M-to-M Mag M-to-M Mag M-to-M Mag M-to-M Mag M-to-M Mag M-to-M Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec td I Sc Ld I De I ajli LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Dir Transport Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal ST ST ST ST ST LR LR LR LR LR MC Tic Tic MC mF mF MC MC 7^ CO CO CO FF MC mF\" MC MC 7^ MC MC 4 5 6 6 7 DP .  Dau syf 142 T42 143 143 144 144 2 51 51 51 FT 51 51 60 F~ 3 F\" F\" F\" 5~ F\" 5? 51 51 52 52 DRAFT 6I26IQ\u0026amp; 3l2ei3G 8/26/86 8/26/86 S/2e/B6 8/26/86 BI2BIBB BI2BIBB ^I2BIB2 4/29/92 4/29/92 ^129192 AI29I92 4/29/92 BIMB2 Bf\\l92 5/1/92 BI-\\IB2 Bf\\l92 5/1/92 BI-\\IB2 BIMB2 Bn 192 2/1 yi92 2n 1/92 2nyi92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 ' bn 192 bni92 1 bn 192 I 5/1/92 i i Provide transport, for extra-curr. act. (Cost to ADE) i ADE \u0026amp; Districts to follow payment procedures 1 ADE to pay cost of K-12 FTE students to host dist. I Current yr. payments based on previous school year i Host to report M-Ms to ADE on forms provided i Host to estimate \u0026amp; forward FTE of students to ADE in Sept. ADE to pay monthly with correction in January Host maylnof count M-M in number of reg. aide stud, number ADE pays home dist. .5 of table rate Payment provisions do not apply to magnet schools \u0026amp; programs SAO assigns students to Henderson Jr. High Magnet SAO assigns students to McClellan High Magnet SAO assigns students to Central High Magnet School SAO assigns students to Dunbar Magnet Jr. High Obtain a 60/40 ratio of either race in interdist. magnets SAO assigns students to Washington Magnet School Use Program to Achieve Racial Balance A/Z Students Must Submit Magnet Application Non- A/Z Students Must Submit OERF Use Random Selection Process tor Non-A/Z Applicants Interdistrict Students Complete M-M and OERF Consider Applications on Basis of Deseg Requirements Process Applications During Spring of Each Year Anticipate Impact on School Capacity, Facilities, Enrollment U McClellan Class Periods Provide Clearly Stated Program Goals/Objectives Provide Comprehensive Description of Program Components Describe and Use Selection Criteria for Students, Teachers, Staff Increase Academic Achievement/Decrease Disparity in Bl/Wh Interweave Business Courses With Various Subject Areas Begin 7-period Day in 1992-93 McClellan Students Also Apply When Declaring Area of Study Hold Mtg. During 2nd Semester to Familiarize New Students Familiarize Staff with Goals/Objectives of Program Principal Meets Prior to 4/23/92 w/Statf Re Commitment Grant Staff Transfers According to PN Agreement * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 29 LRSD Office of Desegregation 0/4/95Subject McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations  Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. * Multicult Curr. * Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr. * Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr. Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Assoc Supt Asst Supts Asst Supts Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr. * Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr. * Multicult Curr. * Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Dir PRE Principals Principals Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs MC MC MC MC MC MC MC CO CA CA LR CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR 52 52 53 55 56 58 y 101 101 35 100 100 100 100 100 100 101 TT? 64 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 30 Jii/'DateJ^L 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 imAFT Ascertain Future Candidate's Commitment to Magnet Program 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 2/11/92 12/21/90 12/21/90 4/29/92 12/21/90 12/21/90 12/21/90 12/21/90 12/21/90 12/21/90 12/21/90 12/21/90 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 ' 4/29/92  4/29/92 i 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 i Ensure Staff Racial Balance Complies w/Deseg Requirements ! Identify Students by Grade/Teachers \u0026amp; Staff by Role ! Provide Program Implementation/Completion Timelines ! Identify Necessary Resources \u0026amp; Costs ! Itemize Necessary Teacher Training (Preparatory \u0026amp; Ongoingl ! Provide Formative/Summative Criteria/Timelines ! Do written plan for McClellan Mag. in 30 days  Est. sequntl. Unit among data, planng., goal dev., curr. dev. and budgeting I Require 1 goal in school's annual plan be related to stud. ach. Create Academic Intervention Strategies ' Dav- \u0026amp; adopt a compreh. Bd. policy framework for curr. management ' Dev, policy establishing purpose for curr. \u0026amp; progs, of district Dev. policy that sets min. goals and obj. for all student learning outcomes Require congruence among curr. objs., tching techqs, \u0026amp; dist. test asses. Est. policy requiring texts to align w/adopted curr. outcomes est. by Board Dev, policy that outlines clear procd. for curr. dev.and includes Bd adopt Require Bd to use achieve, data in their goal-setting process Establish consistency and equity in educational programs Monitor Staffing Develop Speaker's Bureau Establish Curriculum Review by 9/30/91 Implement Curr. Review/Revision Cycle Provide Teachers Formal Course Training Obtain Info on Multi-Cultural Courses from Colleges Advertise Course Offerings to Staff Identify Summer/Fall Course Participants Develop District A/V Resource Catalog Review \u0026amp; catalogue A/V materials Purchase Addit. A/V Materials from Budget Identify Other Resources tor A/V Materials Revise A/V Catalog for LRSD Place Initial Supp. Order for A/V Materials Plan annual instructional materials fair (Multicultural) Plan Fair as Component of Pre-School Conference (more) Identify Vendors of Instructional Materials LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95_ TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1995  Copyright O Uttlp Rock Nowspopors, Inc. LRSD lists mandates from suit Money running out before goals reached BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright figures the Little Rock School District has spent an average of/$34,812 on each of its more than 2,000 desegregation mandates since 1989. The judge made the calculation last week after learning school district officials had, for the first time, compiled a complete list of their desegregation obligations. Wright observed that the district has received 92 percent of the $73 million it will get from the state as the result of a 1989 financial settlement in the desegregation lawsuit. But the district estimates it has complied with about 41 percent of 2,097 obligations. Im aware that the money is being dispersed at at rate greater than the rate of meeting the goals, the judge said. She reminded district officials of a federal appeals court order that said the inability to afford the desegregation plan cant be an excuse for non- compliance. While the district has satisfied 41 percent of the obligations, officials estimate that another 51 percent are ongoing commitments, such as racially balancing enrollments at each school. After last weeks court hearing, the district on Friday submitted a copy of its mandates to the judge. Dr. Russ Mayo, associate superintendent for desegregation, called the 59-page list user-friendly. Compiling the list was a first step in determining how much progress the district has made in complying with each obligation, he said. The district plans to present evidence showing how it has met some of its obligations at a hearing Aug. 30. The obligation list gives a brief, one-line description for each mandate. It also notes the administra- tors overseeing implementation of each mandate and its source. There are 10 different possible sources for each obligation. Those sources include the districts desegregation plan, the Pulaski County interdistrict plan, the 1989 settlement agreement with the state, transcripts from past court hearings and a a 1990 audit of the districts educational programs. The people listed as having primary responsibility for implementing each desegregation obligation include school board members, the superintendent, the associate and assistant superintendents and Sterling Ingram, who Williams said was recently appointed district director of staff development. Meeting the obligations can include any thing from keep staff and citizens informed, to provide transportation for extracurricular activities and monitor and evaluate recruitment to the incentive schools. The document also includes information showing how the hundreds of desegregation duties once assigned to the deputy superintendent have been redistributed among staff members.Arkansas Democrat gazette THURSDAY, MAY 9, lg96 Schools Henry Williams LRSD 96.3%\nin compliance, Williams says BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-GazEttB Educatoi Writer The Little Rock School District has complied with 96.3 percent of its desegregation obligations and deserves to be released from federal court supervision. S__u-p erinregation. for his role in identifying fondent Henry Williams sa  obligations included in J- ' tile 1989 desegregation plan, as Stoi^g m .front of histo c i well as obligations included in fed- Central High School and speaking | , orders, court transcriots. to more than 100 school and com- JUDGE ends court-munity leaders, ordered busing in Williams pro- Cleveland. claimed the dis- Page 10A. tricts long, ar- ----- ----------------- duous journey to achieve school desegregation near an end. In li^t of the districts degree of compliance with its 1,753 desegregation obligations, Williams said, attorneys will ask a federal judge next week to release the district from court supervision, thereby ending the school systems 13-year-old desegregation lawsuit, It will be up to the judge to review the evidence and make some kind of ruling on our compliance, Williams said. We believe we have irrefutable evidence that we have substantially complied. Substantial compliance means we See SCHOOLS, Page 10A  Continued from Page 1A have done all that we can do with a particular obligation.\" The Little Rock district has been operating under a desegregation plan and court orders that touch virtually every' aspect of its operation. Williams announcement was greeted with sustained applause and congratulations from onlookers, including Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey. Some people involved in the case expressed reservations, however. Among its many provisions, the desegregation plan requires construction of a new King Elementary School, operation of some doublefunded elementary schools, development of a multicultural curriculum, and operation of magnet programs and interdistrict student transfer programs. District officials submitted a position paper Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright describing the method used to determine the 96.3 percent rate of compliance. Williams praised Dr. Russ Mayo, associate superintendent for deseg- ' eral court orders, court transcripts. and agreements negotiated with other parties in the lawsuit. The district complies with 1.689 obligations. Williams said. There are an additional 19 obligations only partially completed and 45 never begun. The district, for e.xample, never planned for construction of a new junior high, as required by its desegregation plan. Nor did district officials meet with parents in their homes about children attending the incentive elementary schools, another requirement. Little Rock School Board member Judy Magness attended the announcement and later praised Williams for his efforts to measure the degree of compliance. Finally we have a superintendent who stayed here and dug into this to see what we had accomplished, Magness said, Im grateful for his leadership. But Linda Ponde.xter, president of the school board, was skeptical about the accomplishments and concerned that Williams made the announcement without involving the school board. This is nothing short of a miracle, said Ponde.xter, who didnt attend the announcement. Six months ago we were told by the superintendent that we had an un-\nworkable desegregation plan. Today* we have 96 percent compliance, fl believe in Biblical miracles, but? lets get real.\" She said the final as-* sessment will be up to the judge. ! The school board will discussf the compliance report withj Williams at a special board meet-i ing at 5 p.m. today, Pendexter said.: John Walker, an attorney for black families who intervened ini the desegregation lawsuit said he.' doesnt believe the district has^ made significant headway in meet4 ing its desegregation goals. The\nachievement disparity between\nblack and white children hasnt! been eliminated, and black stu-? dents are still more likely than^ whites to be bused to school and to be punished, he said. j Ill feel better when I see thej eridence that confirms what Drj Williams says. Walker said. think it will prove to be very em-t barrassing to this district if it turns? out that what he said is untrue. Walker also said the districts\nclaims contradict findings abouti compliance made in reports to the? judge by the federal Office of De-^ segregation Monitoring. 5 .And he said Wednesdays an-? nouncement will undermine the\nwork of a citizens committee com-* missioned by the school board to? propose amendments to the deseg-j regation plan. .Asked whether ther work of the citizens committee was unnecessary, Williams said his job\nis to present the school districts\nposition to the community. ,  I dont have any control over\nthe committee. Williams said, i\ncan't tell you that the committee\ndoesnt need to e.xisL The commit-3 tee members may point out other\nthings that we need to consider.^ JJ They may have value.' Williams acknowledged that en-3 rollment in some of the districts^ schools has become heavily blacki because of white flight. But raciaC composition and white students*\nhigher achievement test scores^ shouldnt preclude the district' from getting released from court\nsupervision, he said. He is opti-\nmistic that he will soon be able ten show that the academic disparity\nhas lessened.\nChris Heller, an attorney for the^ school district said the motion he! files ne.xt week will show that the' district is better desegregated than\nother districts across the countryll that have been released from court\nsupervision.  School board members Mag-? ness, John Riggs TV, Mike Daugher-! ty and Dr. Katherine Mitchell at-1 tended the announcement I 6 EDUCATION WEEK  MAY 22,1996 Across the Nation Little Rock Seeks End to Oversight of Desegregation Efforts By Jeff Archer 'The superintendent of the Little Rock schools planned last week to seek an end to court supervision of desegregation efforts in the Arkansas district. But the announcement troubled some school board members, who werent told about it in advance and who were skeptical about the prospect of a speedy end to federal court oversight. During a press conference at historic Central High School, Superintendent Henry P. Williams said a recently completed analysis showed the system has met 96 percent of its desegregation goals. We believe weve done those things we were obligated to as part of the desegregation plan, Mr. Williams said in an interview. Were not going to do anything different, but we would have the freedom to modify our programs as best as we see fit. Board members said, however, that they had yet to receive the voluminous review. u 'I havent seen it, so I cant go n out and give it a glowing report, said Linda Pondexter, the board president. I feel the board should have been informed first. At a meeting later in the week, the board decided that Mr. Williams could proceed with filing the motion with U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright in Lillie Rock. Still, there are things we said we were going to do that we simply have not done, Ms. Pondexter said. If he is able to prove that we have, then great. But the sudden announcement troubles some board members. Disagreements over the management of the 26,000-student district during the past year have split the boards support for the superintendent. Last fall, the board voted 4-3 riot to extend Mr. Williams current contract, which ends alter the 1996-97 school year. The Longest Struggle Little Rock made history in 1957 when Gov. Orval E. Faubus mobilized the Arkansas National Guard in an attempt to thwart school integration there. In response, President Eisenhower sent federal troops to protect nine black students ns they became the first to attend the traditionally all-white Central High School. The districts current desegregation case stems from the tremendous white flight that occurred in the following decades. The Little Rock case differs from most other desegregation cases because the district itself initiated the lawsuit, and so the remedy was court approved rather than court ordered. In 1982, the Little Rock schools sued the state and two surrounding districts in an effort to consolidate with them. Although a federal judge approved the idea, an appeals court overturned his ruling. Instead, the districts agreed on a greatly modified plan as part of a final settlement the court approved in 1992. The final plan involved a series of programs designed to improve education in Little Rock and to attract white students from the suburbs. As part of its settlement with Little Rock, the state agreed to pay about $73 million to subsidize the districts desegregation efforts over several years. (See Education Week, March 8, 1989.) Mr. Williams noted last week that the district will receive the last of those payments next year, although the district still will receive some other state funds for desegregation programs.Little Rock School District Audit of Obligations October 1993-October 1994 o S o o o c5 y 6' -.3 CM o ialil U..^3 a \u0026lt;0 cn rn \u0026lt;*.0 vO cn till I i i  i 1  r \u0026gt; c/i H: I I -4 November 22, 1994 toLittle Rock School District Audit of Obligations October 1993-October 1994 The purpose of the annual Audit of Obligations is to catalogue and merge into the Program Budget Document all desegregation obligations incurred during the previous year. In October 1993, all previous obligations under the desegregation plans were researched and identified. By February 1994, they were added to the Program Budget Docnnicnt. Thal Program Budget Document represents all incomplete obligations of the district through October, 1993. This years audit is for the period from October of 1993 through October of 1994. All court orders, hearing transcripts, monitoring reports, and stipulations were reviewed for that period. The obligations were extracted from the documents and listed. The list has been reviewed by Ihe Superintendents Council, the Superintendent, LRSD Aliorneys, and the LRSD Office of Desegregation. This year research on Ihe audit includes an update on Ihe status of each obligation. Responsible persons were asked to report on Ihe status on the listed obligations. Responses have been reduced Io codes. The audit is included here in chart form for easy reference. Evidence of Ihe status of each is maintained by Ihe person responsible. The chart is divided according to the documents from which the obligations were drawn. In Ihe far left column, each obligation or recommendation is numbered in sequence for easy reference. The dale of the document, type of document, page, obligation, person responsible, and Ihe date ihe obligation was completed (if completed) is included. Codes appear along the right side of the chart. They indicate the status of the obligation. Their legend appears al the bottom of each page. Those without a code cannot be attempted until other events occur. They are found in the section on the Stephens Stipulation. Final written comments from Judge Wright concerning the Stephens Stipulation are expected. Document types from which obligations came are coded as follows: MR = Monitor's Report TR = Transcript COxxxx = Court Order ST = Stipulation A copy of this audit will be sent to the following locations and people\nI. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Filed with the U. S. Federal Court, Eastern District of Arkansas (Judge Susan Wright and all parties)\nMembers of the Lillie Rock School District Board of Directors\nThe Superintendent of LRSD\nMembers of the Biracial Committee\nMembers of the Parent Council\nMembers of the Superintendents Council Each Program Manager affected (Io be included in the Program Budget Document for monitoring unless they are completed, one-time obligations)\nThe Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation as custodian of the Program Budget Document\nand. The LRSD Office of Desegregation. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 DATE 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/03/94 DOC MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR Pg 5 5 12 12 13 15 15 15 15 22 22 22 27 LRSD A udit of Obligations October, 1993 to October, 1994 Ai C. OM iJl(^ i^- INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) RECOMMENDATION _________________________ Make recruiting white students to the incentive schools among district priorities, focusing the energy and resources necessary to ensure that the incentive schools become fully desegregated.___________ Identify the facts that are working to make Rockefeller a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them for the other incentive schools.____________________________ Establish goals and objectives for racially balancing each incentive school staff as part of a comprehensive long-range strategic plan for implementing the incentive school features. Exempt incentive schools from being forced to accept any employees that have not been interviewed and recommended by the principal and the school's staffing committee.____________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Requirement: The Incentive Schools Staffing Committee is composed of teachers, parents, supervisors, principals, other administrators, and the Joshua Inten/enors. The committee assesses staffing needs, sets criteria, assists in recruiting quality staff, and determines hiring procedures. (LRSD Plan, pg. 190)____________________________________________________ Institute staffing needs assessments as an annual process in the incentive schools.____________ Develop a comprehensive guide for assessing staffing needs which incorporates the factors listed in the plan as well as other relevant archival and anecdotal data._____________ Train principals and staffing committees in procedures for effective assessing staffing needs. Involve the LRSD Human Resource Department as an integral part of the assessment process._______ Develop specific, comprehensive job descriptions for instructional and supervision aides. Make sure all aides receive a thorough orientation to their individual job along with comprehensive, ongoing formal training in areas such as child development, supervision and classroom management, learning styles, and discipline techniques. _______________________________________ Provide teacher inservice training in the effective use of instructional aides that include team-building activities for teacher and aide teams.____________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. Requirement: The parties shall have as a high priority the elimination of educational achievement disparities between black and white students, and recognize that eliminating disparity may place greater demands on the black students in racially identifiable school than on others. (Interdis. Plan, pg 6) - Needs to be done + In progress dX4f\u0026lt;^ PERSON Mayo, Wagner Matthis Hurley Hurley Hurley Asst. Supt. Matthis Matthis Woods Matthis Asst. Supt. Hurley Woods Woods Matthis DONE 8-94 8-92 11-93 11-93 * Completed + + + + 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 DATE 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/03/94 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 2 DOC MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR Pg 30 34 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 40 41 41 41 41 _____________________RECOMMENDATION ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. Requirement: Disaggregate data related to student discipline and review student data to address issues of racial disparity. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 27)________________ Increase the amount of time the gifted and talented program specialists spend in the incentive schools so they can fully implement the G/T program and spend more time identifying the children whose needs can be met through the program._________________ Continue to repair roof leaks at Franklin as they occur. Once a leak is corrected, repair or replace water damaged ceiling tiles and carpet._______________________ Repair or replace the leaky roof in Mitchell's reading room Replace the loose floor tiles in Mitchell's hallway.__________________ Develop a schedule of carpet repair or replacement for Rockefeller, Mitchell, and Rightsell. Repair the floor and wall in Rightsell classroom 3-B, and then replace any damaged carpet.__________ Take steps to correct the remaining drainage problems at Rightsell, including relocation of any down spout draining toward the foundation.____________________________________ Make sure all incentive school principals are aware that district funds are available to improve landscaping at their schools if a parent, teacher, or community organization will take maintenance responsibility for plantings.____________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans Requirement: The incentive school program promotes and ensures academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The incentive school program compensates the victims of segregation and serves as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-term desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149)_____________ Create job descriptions for council members that clearly identify the district's expectations of the council-membership responsibilities, and the amount of service time involved.__________ Outline the council's organizational structure and its working and reporting relationship to the school board, district administrators, the incentive schools, and other monitoring entities.___________ Provide a comprehensive orientation for the council at the beginning of each school year so all members will understand their role, district policies and procedures, communication channels, and what district resources and support are available.__________________________ Develop and carry out a specific plan for meeting council obligations that includes goals and objectives, tasks, timelines, persons responsible, and evaluation criteria that addresses the council's desegregation plan obligations. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Roberson Donaldson Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton Matthis Mayo, Buchanan Mayo, Buchanan Mayo, Buchanan Mayo, Buchanan DONE 8-94 9-94 7-94 7-93 7-92 1-94 6-94 6-94 6-94 * Completed + +28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 . 39 40 41 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ____________________________ Page 3 DATE 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 I 2/03/94 DOC MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR Pg 41 41 41 43 43 43 45 45 46 47 47 48 48 49 ____________________________________RECOMMENDATION Develop a monitoring instrument for council use that correlates specifically with desegregation plan and court order requirements. Such an instrument and the information it elicits will facilitate an ongoing assessment of how well the district is complying with its obligations.______________ Help the council develop monitoring and reporting procedures, guideline, and schedules that provide members clear direction for their monitoring tasks_____________ Coordinate monitoring activities with other internal monitoring groups including the district biraci^ committee, school biracial committee, and the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Such coordination will help avoid monitoring gaps and duplication and also help ensure more effective use of time and other resources._______________________ Include as a member of the Early Childhood Education Task Force at least one instructional aide or teacher from each school having a four-year-old program._________________________ Increase the involvement of area colleges and universities by naming active higher education representatives to the task force._________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. Requirement: Writing to Read labs, or another instructional technology program, are in place for grades K-2 at each school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 152)_____________________________________________ Base staff development on activities on areas of demonstrated need.______________ Utilize Teacher Assistance Plan (TAP) for those teachers who need the help available through the TAP approach._______________________________________________ Encourage principals and assistant principals to attend subject area in service meetings so they. too. are well informed and understand the new curriculum____________________________ Ensure that each school develops and executes a plan for fully implementing its theme by the opening of the 1993-94 school year.___________________________________________________________ Provide equal treatment for Stephens Incentive School by providing full support for a school theme. Children at Stephens are entitled to every incentive school feature guaranteed them by the Settlement Plans, unless the district should seek, and the Court grant, permission to temporarily deviate from a particular plan provision._____________________________ Establish a schedule of regular meetings among the incentive school program specialists so they can discuss effective theme implementation strategies, share ideas, and review experiences Encourage interaction among the incentive school program specialists and those specialists assigned to the magnet schools. Capitalizing on in-house expertise and encouraging cooperation among the schools will help strengthen the district's programs._________________ Schedule science inservice training for teachers who need or want help improving their science instruction. Principals should be able to determine which teachers are not fully using the science labs and steer them to staff development sessions devoted to enlivening science in the classroom. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Mayo, Buchanan Mayo. Buchanan Mayo, Buchanan Price Price Price Woods Parker Asst. Supt. Asst. Supt. Asst. Supt. Grier Grier Glasgow DONE 3-94 6-94 10-94 8-93 * Completed + + + + + + + +42 DATE 12/09/93 DOC MR Pg 49 43 12/09/93 MR 51 44 12/09/93 MR 51 45 12/09/93 MR 51 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/03/94 MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 61 61 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 4 RECOMMENDATION __________________________ Ensure that the materials needed for all science experiments are available to school staff and make sure teachers are aware of procurement procedures. Capitalize on the district's resident expertise and experience to assist the incentive schools in establishing a foreign language program as an integral part of the overall school program Place as many qualified foreign language teachers as needed to provki^SpanisKlnstruction to incentive school students as part of the regular school day instructional program Encourage the Spanish teachers to develop a series of Spanish \"mini-lessons\" for each grade level to help the regular classroom teachers reinforce foreign language instruction across the curriculum Increase the amount and improve the quality of Spanish language materials available in each school. ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Requirement: Parent Home Study Guides in each core subject area for each grade (1-6) will be available by the 1993-94 school year. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)___________________________________ Provide sufficient training and support to enable all schools to fully implement Abacus during the 1993- 94 school year.________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Requirement: The Effective Schools model operates in each school, with training provided for implementation. (LRSD Plan, pg. 154)________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Requirement: The school emphasizes a classics reading program and uses the basal reader to augment the classics. (LRSD Plan, pg. 154)__________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitment in its desegregation plans. Requirement: A Latin program, used to increase vocabulary and word attack skills, is incorporated into the fifth and sixth grade language arts program. The staff schedules time for instruction, provides materials and supplies, and documents student achievement. (LRSD Plan, pp. 154, 159-164)________ Incorporate leisure time activities, which students can pursue throughout their lifetime, as part of the physical education curriculum.___________________________________________ Strengthen efforts to recruit mentors for the students. Having at least one special friend, coach, and encourage can be so important to a child's development that every student who needs or wants a mentor should have one._________________________________________________ Consider a trainer of trainers program or similar means to equip principals or other school staff to train volunteer mentors. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Glasgow Grier, Parker Grier, Parker Grier, Parker Grier. Parker Matthis Woods Woods Asst. Supt. Grier, Parker Matthis Milam Milam DONE 8-94 8-93  Completed + + + + 7^ + .A55 DATE 12/09/93 DOC MR Pg 63 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12,'03'94 MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR 65 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 70 70 72 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 -------------------------------------------------Page 5 ___________ RECOMMENDATION Abandon the practice of limiting three-and-four-year-oid children to walking field trips and allow them to travel by bus to any appropriate site, with parental approval. Whatever the past misunderstanding that resulted in travel restrictions for young students, ADE should confirm that, with appropriate parent permission, it is lawful to transport children of these ages in public school buses. Treat and teach career skills development as an integral part of school life. Solicit candid feedback from summer school participants (including staff, parents, and students) about what they most and least valued about the summer school programs. Ask them to identify those elements that enticed them into the program, what facilitated their participation, and any barriers that impeded it._________________________________ Ask incentive school parents and students who did not take part in summer school to identify why they did not participate and what would most likely induce them to attend. Seek broad-based input from incentive school staff, parents, and students to learn what course offerings or other program features make summer school most appealing to prospective participants. Routinely monitor and evaluate summer school as part of a comprehensive, ongoing process for continuous improvement. Include the incentive school principals, teachers, students, and parents in the assessment, publish and analyze the results, and when act decisively upon what the evaluation reveals.______________________________ Mount an aggressive marketing campaign for summer school recruitment, getting ideas from staff, students, and parents and also encouraging them to help recruit. Maintain thorough and accurate records of all summer school information, including planning, recruitment efforts, surveys or other means of input and feedback, evaluations, a tally of children participating in each program category and individual class, and a record of these students' home school. Comprehensive records will enable program planners to track success and make appropriate program modifications as needed.____________________ Consider implementing the recommendations made by the extended year administrative staff in the district's summary report._________________________ Encourage partnered schools to develop some joint projects and co-activities so students will learn how to plan, organize, and cooperate on activities that they develop. Shared ventures could held increase participation in Saturday School activities. The principals should collaborate with each other to provide the necessary resources and to ensure successful projects. Consider pairing Franklin with two smaller incentive schools for Saturday School activities so no incentive school is without a partner to encourage sharing and variety. Design the extended day survey to include a description of the skills a student develops while engaged in leisure time activities. This design will help parents and students recognize the importance of a good balance between work and play. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Cheatham Elston Ingram, Asst. Supt. Ingram, Asst. Supt. Ingram, Asst. Supt, Ingram, Asst. Supt. Ingram, Asst. Supt. Ingram, Asst. Supt. Ingram, Asst. Supt. Asst. Supt. Asst. Supt Asst. Supt., Principals DONE T94 8-92 10-93 10-92 * Completed + + + + + +67 68 69 70 71 72 73  74 75 76 77 78 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ___________________________ Page 6 DATE 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 I 2/03.94 DOC MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR Pg 72 76 76 78 78 78 84 85 89 89 89 91 ____________________________________RECOMMENDATION Make sure all extended day students have an opportunity for some fun activities, such as jump rope, board games, or making up and reciting rhymes. It's developmentally and emotionally healthy for students to participate in wholesome activities just for fun.___ Make an effort to pair aides and teachers who are compatible with each other, and provide training that will enable instructional aides and classroom teachers to work together as an effective team. Provide pre-service orientation and training for ail aides, and follow-up with regular inservice, on topics that include behavior management techniques and other subjects that will contribute to the aides' effectiveness.______________________________ Consider having VIPS train incentive school principals to serve as instructors for new mentors so these building leaders can conduct their own streamlined, on-site mentor training. Allow principals to contact and select pre-professionals from institutions of higher education when the opportunity presents itself. Sometimes the best deals occur because of a chance meeting at a seminar or conference. It doesn't make sense for a good opportunity to get lost in bureaucratic wastelands.___________________________________ Expand contacts with and widen access to the variety of community-based programs designed to support children and families.______________________________ Allow teachers who want to leave the incentive schools to do so with impunity. If staff members wish to transfer elsewhere, they are not necessarily unfit or incompetent\nthey may simply not be suited for the incentive school experience. It cannot be overemphasized that the district should only assign people to the incentive schools who are not only talented, committed, and experienced, and who also want to be there. _______________________________ Comply with the requirement to develop complete student performance profiles for each child and then use the information to define and guide each student's learning path and to help determine the effect of the variables these profiles record.______ Make sure that each incentive school has a full-time certified guidance counselor on staff throughout the school year.______________________________ Decide each incentive school's need for a social worker, then staff accordingly. Require incentive school counselor to meet as a group on a regular basis. Such meetings will provide an informal atmosphere in which to discuss problems unique to incentive schools, develop solutions, share ideas and success stories, and Io explore ways to expand their resources. Counselors need the support and encouragement they could get from an organized group of peers. Assign a district employee the responsibility for fully developing and implementing the plan requirements for a program that will equip parents with job skills necessary for employment at all levels within the incentive schools. Be sure Io include program goals, objectives, timelines, persons responsible for each step of implementation, and evaluation criteria. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Asst. Supt, Principals Principals Woods Milam Asst. Supt. Principals Hurley, Asst. Supt. Principals Hurley, Asst. Supt. Hurley, Asst. Supt. Elston Marlin DONE 10-92 8-94 9-94 8-94 8-94 + + + 1-94  * Completed79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 DATE 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/03/94 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ----------------------------------------------- Page 7 DOC MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR Pg 92 92 95 97 97 98 105 105 105 106 ____________________________________RECOMMENDATION Follow up to provide appropriate assistance to survey respondents who have expressed interest in receiving specialized help from the district, such as obtaining their GED,_____________ Evaluate the cost effectiveness of using local community resources, such as the Parent Learning Center, as a means for providing education opportunities for parents._____________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Requirement: A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 208)___________________________________________________________________ Evaluate the parent workshops offered to determine if they are meeting the plan's goal of helping incentive school parents understand and carry out school expectations.________ Ask workshop participants to evaluate each session at its conclusion to make candid suggestions for training improvement and future session topics. Then carefully analyze the feedback to assess the quality and relevancy of the training and make changes accordingly. ______________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitment in its desegregation plan. Requirement: Recognition is used as a tool for community and parent involvement. The school recognizes parents and the community at monthly PTA meetings, displays awards, gives school lunch vouchers to award winners, and involve students in the recognition selection process. (LRSD Plan, pp. 209-210)___________________________________________________________________________ Standardize the method staff uses to document and repoit home and school communication to promote data consistency and accuracy. In order to standardize reporting and minimize the burden of documentation, schools could use a simple form identifying the contact date, type of contact (such as parent/teacher conterence, home visit, interim or monthly report, phone call, success or alert card), which staff member contacted whom (parent, grandparent, or other), and a brief description of the results of the contact or any other pertinent information._________________________ Train incentive school principals and staff to serve as trainers for new mentors so they can conduct their own mentor training, if needed, and thereby expedite mentor placement.____________ Develop transportation policies and procedures, ensuring that principals are aware of this service, know how to identify parents' transportation needs, and understand how to arrange for it to support parent participation where needed.________________________________________ Provide parents with current school year contracts to sign when they register their children in the incentive schools. Contracts with old dates and information convey a sloppy message that parents can interpret as a sign that either the school, the district, or both don't place much value on the contracts or parent commitments._________________________________ - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Martin Milhollen, Martin Gill Gill Gill Principals Principals Woods Cheatham, Principals Principals DONE 3-94 4-94 * Completed + + + +89 DATE 12/09/93 DOC MR Pg 109 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 102 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/03/94 MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR 109 109 116 116 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 120 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 8 ________________________ RECOMIVIENDATION __________________________ Assign a LRSD employee the responsibility for coordinating the speakers bureaus and assisting the key communicators. Without consistent direction and support, those who volunteer as a speaker or key communicator can't be expected to carry out their responsibilities effectively Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for utilizing the services of the speakers bureaus and key communicators that includes specific goals, objectives, the persons responsible, and evaluation criteria to determine success and where changes need to be made. Develop job descriptions for the speakers bureau and key communicators that clearly identify the job goal, qualifications, performance expectations, the participant and district responsibilities, and the amount of time that will likely be required to successfully perform each job._____________ Seriously consider placing at Rockefeller an early childhood program specialist who has the credentials and experience that clearly illustrate adequate training and interest in the education of very young children.__________________________________________________________________ Re-establish the Rockefeller advisory group. Regularly evaluate Rockefeller's early childhood education policies as specified in the plan and then publish the results in an informational handbook for parents.__________________ Make sure that the early childhood students receive the services of the school's counselor. Very young children can need the specialized insights and services of a counselor professional just as much as older children.__________________________________________________ Concentrate the same level of attention, funding, and materials on the Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program that the district lavishes on other magnet schools and programs.________________ Broadly publicize the Early Childhood Magnet Program. This program is truly unique and the district should capitalize on its success._______________________________________________________ Refrain from placing any uncertified teacher in an early childhood classroom._____________________ Provide regular, quality staff development opportunities for the early childhood education staff._______ Ensure that Rockefeller serves as an early childhood education model, demonstration site, and training center by initiating the innovative practices described in the desegregation plan, utilizing advice and expertise from parents, teachers, and college and university staff. ODM makes no neviz recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. Requirements: Fundings for the Incentive Schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences and activities. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 4) The Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the Court- approved desegregation plan as incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 1) - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Wagner, Principals Wagner, Principals Wagner, Principals Matthis Price, Mangan Price, Mangan Mangan Milhollen Mangan Mangan Mangan Mangan Milhollen DONE 1-94 3-94 93-94 8-93 93-94 ongoing Annually * Completed + + +103 104 105 DATE 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 106 03/11/94 107 I 03/11/94 108 109 110 111 112  113 114 115 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 t2\nO3\n94 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 -------------------------------------------- Page 9 Incentive School Recruitment Monitoring Report DOC MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR Pg 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 19 20 20 _______________________ RECOMMENDATIONS Evaluate the means parent recruiters are using to inform the community about the incentive schools hotline, then analyze the findings to determine more effective ways to heighten awareness of this service. Ensure that prospective parents receive information about the incentive schools by expanding the target audience. Assign specific district employees the responsibility and accountability for fully developing and implementing all the district's recruitment obligations identified in the desegregation plans, marketing plan, and court orders. Develop a system to ensure that employees responsible for incentive school recruitment receive ail monitoring reports and court orders that deal with the incentive schools. Establish parent recruitment teams in each incentive school, staffing the teams according to qualification and job descriptions that clearly state the team charge, the district's expectations, qualifications (such as skills, experience, or school affiliation), the amount of time involved, and the precise duties anticipated. Implement an orientation and training schedule for the recruitment teams that utilizes the skills and expertise of parents and district personnel who have a track record of successfully promoting desegregation. Utilize up-to-date enrollment and school capacity data to develop a plan to target specific schools and neighborhoods for recruitment to the incentive schools. Survey white parents in LRSD and PCSSD to find out what features they consider when selecting a school and what would prompt them to request a desegregation transfer to an incentive school for their children. Develop a comprehensive and detailed annual recruitment plan for each incentive school. Annually identify specific recruitment goals for each incentive school and regularly track the headway made toward each goal. Establish a target date for completing recruitment efforts, measuring results, and deciding whether to petition the Court to release available pre-kindergarten and kindergarten seats to black students who could benefit from the district's early childhood education. Routinely survey parents whose children opt out of incentive schools to determine why they leave and to which schools they move. Then use this information to modify recruitment and retention strategies. Consider adding four-year-old classes at the incentive schools which have only one class, thereby achieving a more even grade structure that can help foster desegregation as children rise from one grade level to the next. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Wagner Wagner Wagner Mayo Principals, Wagner Principals, Wagner, Ingram Wagner, Principals, Wagner Principals Wagner, Principals Wagner. Mayo Principals, Ingram Matthis DONE 1-94 + 5-94 9-94 + 8-94 * CompletedAudit of Court Orders \u0026amp; Transcripts I DATE 01-25-94 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 01-26-94 01-26-94 02-04-94 02-04-94 02-25-94 03-16-94 04-05-94 04-08-94 04-22-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 10 DOC TR TR TR CO2091 CO2091 TR CO2129 CO2146 CO2155 TR TR TR TR Pg 54 227 241 2 6 115 3 5 1 39 39 150 192 OBLIGATION__________ The Court wants PCSSD and LRSD to document and track their success in efforts toward recruitment. The LRSD is obligated to build, in addition to the King Interdistrict School in the fall of 1993, the Stephens Interdistrict School.' LRSD was instructed to take a careful look at the demographic data it has supplied the ODM, and at student population shifts because black children are going from the central Little Rock area to Crystal Hill and King School.______________ The Court instructed the LRSD that it wanted the interdistrict transfers, which are at the heart of the Desegregation Plan, to be done more quickly than the District has done in the past. LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the desegregation plans. The ideal goal being a student enrollment ration of 50 percent black to white. White students attending an LRSD Interdistrict school will be recruited primarily from the PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County Develop immediately specific guidelines regarding assignments to King School, by extension, apply to its other Interdistrict schools. Guidelines are to reflect past practices and promises and include intradistrict transfer eligibility criteria for both black and while children\nthey must be sufficiently comprehensive to be applicable to all of the district's interdistrict schools\nthey must be clear and unambiguous enough for district workers and parents to understand\nand while a specific numeric quota or cap is neither required nor desirable, the guidelines must describe that portion or range of intradistrict transfers that an individual interdistrict school can reasonably accommodate. The Court goes on the record that the district is to follow through in its efforts to get feedback from its budget process and public input with respect to the budget._____________ LRSD reimburse PCSSD $167,113 within 60 days of order PERSON Wagner Mayo DONE 6-94 Mayo Mayo Mayo Williams Miilhollen 5-94 8-94 9-94 11-94 Approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary should be and hereby is granted LRSD will pay an increase of $52,604.09 in the ODM Budget. The court wants something justifying the expenditures and explaining why increases, decreases or deletion are made and these business cases for expenditures above $25,000. It wants to know how white students will be recruited for the incentive school, what student assignment zones will be, and the impact on the racial balance of all the schools. Before the court gives final approval to the Stephens and Garland Schools Stipulation it wants more thought on it. The court wants more detail on how the district plans to recruit white students for Stephens in light of the demographic trends._____________________________ In addition, the court wants to know who will be responsible for recruitment. Eaton Miilhollen Miilhollen Mayo Mayo Wagner 1 The Stephens Stipulation of June 7, 1994 changes the third interdistrict school from Stephens to Washington. 12/03/94 - Needs to be done + In progress APPEAL PEND. 6-94 9-94 9-94 * Completed + +129 130 131 132 133 134 135 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 11 DATE 06-07-94 06-28-94 06-28-94 09-07-94 10-24-94 10-24-94 10-24-94 12/03/94 DOC TR CO2225 Pg 193 5 TR CO CO CO CO 81 4 5 6 8 ________________________________________OBLIGATION The court wants a long-range facilities study, which considers the 1988 study and the Deseg. Plan. Approved magnet status for King with the expectation that the LRSD will expeditiously revise its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines to facilitate intradistrict transfers of white students, thus promoting racially balanced school enrollments.__________________ The court expresses its interest in pursuing the idea of middle schools and asks the Superintendent of Schools to set a goal with interim time lines where the school district will reach point a, b, c and d and finally reach a decision as to whether middle schools are a viable option for the school district. LRSD may fill the vacant seats in kindergarten and 4 year old programs at the incentive schools, and also in the four year old programs at the other schools. The district must reserve half of all incentive school kindergarten and 4 year old seats for 1995-96 and subsequent school years, and must also remain mindful of the target racial balance in the other elementary schools so as to recruit and assign students accordingly. The LRSD must seek court permission before releasing any reserved seats in future school years.__________________________ Develop and conduct quality, continuous training on the program planning and budget process for all those who participate in that process. At a minimum, these training sessions should address the operational responsibilities of the participants in each of the components of the process (needs assessment, program inventory, goals and objectives, program development, budgeting, monitoring and reporting, and evaluation). The LRSD will work with ODM to ensure that the training is adequately defined and implemented.______________________________ Institute management processes which will actively review progress, in terms of achievements and expenditures, on a regular basis, involving every level of the organization down to at least every budget manager._________________ LRSD must submit on or before Wednesday, November 16, 1994, a concise but complete description of the Spanish program as it is being offered at each of the incentive schools - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Eaton Mayo Wiiliams Mayo Clowers Clowers Matthis DONE 9-94 10-94 * Completed + + +136 137 138 139 140 141 142 DATE 10-24-94 10-24-94 DATE 06-07-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 12 DOC CO CO DOC ST ST ST ST ST Pg 9 17 Pg 1 1 1 1 2 _________________________ OBLIGATION __________________________ The district is to submit on or before Wednesday, November 16, 1994, a description of theme implementation in each of Ihe incentive schools that includes at least the following information: 1) a summary of the theme, how it is being integrated into the curriculum and school activities, and the implementation timeline. 2) if theme implementation is contemplated in phases, the rationale for such a method and plans for seeking Court approval for that approach. 3) a summary of the special programs, activities, events, equipment, and materials which are devoted to theme support at each school. 4) the extent to which the theme is fully implemented at each school and an explanation for any delays in implementation. 5) what remains to be done to implement the theme fully. 6) the amount of money spent on each schools theme implementation during FY 1992-93 and FY 1993-94 and the amount budgeted for FY 1994-95, by line item category, if possible (e g., personnel, equipment, etc.).________________________________________ The court requires the district to file a plan or business case which explains how the district plans to spend the money on transportation. Stephens School Stipulation^ i i June 7, 1994 ' ______________________________________OBLIGATION Stephens Incentive School will be closed at the end of the 1993-94 school year.____________________ Students who would otherwise have attended Stephens Incentive School shall be assigned to Garland or Franklin Incentive School but will have the option of attending other schools where their presence will aid desegregation.____________________________________________________ LRSD shall build a new school within generally the same area in which the Stephens and Garland schools are now located.________________________________________ The new school shall accommodate approximately seven hundred students and will be constructed as soon as possible but shall be completed no late than July 31, 1996._____________ The new Stephens school shall be a magnet school. . . PERSON Matthis, Ingram Mayo PERSON Williams Mayo Eaton Eaton Matthis DONE 10-94 DONE 6-94 8-94 + 2 This stipulation was the subject of the June 7, 1994 hearing. References 126-129 on this list are related to this stipulation. Toward Ihe end of the hearing, Judge Wright approved the building of \"something\". Therefore, LRSD assumes that these items from Ihe stipulation are now obligations. From the hearing, it is clear that Judge Wright remains concerned about whether or not students can be recruited to racially balance Ihe new Stephens School and whether or not enough students exist in LRSD Io justify a planned capacity of 700. Therefore, LRSD is further assuming that items 126-129 above are still of interest to Judge Wright. 12/03/94 - Needs to be done + In progress * CompletedLRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ---------------------------------------- Page 13 1 DATE 143 I 06-07-94 DOC ST Pg 2 144 I 06-07-94 ST 2 145 146 06-07-94 06-07-94 ST ST 2 2 147 06-07-94 ST 2 148 06-07-94 ST 3 149 06-07-94 ST 3 150 06-07-94 ST 3 151 06-07-94 ST 3 _______________________________________OBLIGATION ... and the student body shall consist primarily of black and white LRSD students and some majority- to-minority transfer students from PCSSD. ____________ Garland Incentive School shall be closed as an educational learning center for elementary pupils when Stephens Magnet School is opened.__________________ The former Garland Students shall be assigned to Stephens Magnet School. Students who reside within the area of the Stephens Magnet School shall be entitled to preferential assignment to the new school.____________________ Stephens Magnet School shall have a bi-racial faculty with at least forty percent black certified faculty members not including administrators. They will also promote the use of uniforms as is done at Williams Magnet School unless it is demonstrated to be unfeasible.__________________________ The double funding provisions for Stephens and Garland Schools shall apply to Stephens Magnet School unless and until the new school becomes an effectively desegregated school. (At or below 80% black population)________________________________ Moreover, the Stephens Magnet School shall be funded at the level contemplated for the highest quality educational programs in the LRSD.__________________ Stephens Magnet shall provide the following benefits which are found in LRSD incentive schools: PERSON Mayo Williams Mayo Mayo Hurley, Principal Matthis, Principal Williams Williams 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Extended Day Program\nExtended Week Program\nExtended Year Program\nEarly Childhood Program\nCurriculum Specialist\nStudent Educational Plans\nComputer Loan Program\nParent Programs including parents as tutors, instructional aides and advisors. . . . Parent support workshops shall be provided at least once each quarter of the school year. Parents shall be Matthis, Principal 152 06-07-94 ST 4 DONE 153 154 06-07-94 06-07-94 ST ST 4 5 155 06-07-94 I CT 5 employed as instructional aides with the expectation that they may, in accordance with the desegregation plans, complete college teaching degree programs leading to teacher certification at LRSD's expense and enjoy possible career opportunities in the districts. The goal for the racial composition of the new Stephens Magnet School shall be fifty-five percent black student enrollment with a target racial composition range of fifty percent black to sixty-five percent black.________________________________________________ LRSD will pursue federal magnet school grants and funds from other potential funding sources. All parties will be fully involved in the development of the new Stephens Magnet School to ensure that the desegregation plan objectives can be achieved. ________________ The parlies agree to withdraw their appeal regarding Stephens School. Mayo Williams Matthis + + 12/03/94 - Needs to be done + In progress Attorneys * Completed156 157 158 159 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 14 DATE 06-07-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 1 2/03/94 DOC ST ST ST ST Pg 5 6 6 6 _________OBLIGATION The parties agree that early childhood programs within LRSD should be located in accordance with LRSDs motion and substituted Exhibit 1 {Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites, April 6 1994 and substitute Exhibit 1 to that motion, April 21, 1994.___________ The LRSD agrees to either resolve the matter of costs with Joshua or, failing resolution, to have the amount of same referred to the Court for disposition at the cost of the LRSD. The parties agree that the combination of the operation of Washington Interdistrict Magnet School and the agreements contained in this stipulation and settlement satisfy the desegregation plan requirements for interdistrict schools required to be constructed within LRSD. No additional interdistrict schools within LRSD are required by the desegregation plans. The parties agree to cooperate with the City of Little Rock in an effort to enhance the facilities and educational opportunities of Stephens Magnet School. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Matthis Williams Williams Williams DONE 6-94 6-94 * CompletedLittle Rock School District Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case Abbreviated Summary August, 1995 Previous responsibilities of Deputy Superintendent notedRECEIVED RECBVeo AUG 41995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case Summary IW5 Office of Desegregation twoniioring The attached list is a summary of obligations essential to the Little Rock School District in the Pulaski Couhfy Desegregation Case. The list was excerpted from documents relating to the case. Documents reviewed include the Little Rock Desegregation Plan, The Interdistrict Plan, court orders, stipulations, transcripts, exhibits, and monitoring reports to name a few. The first audit of LRSD obligations was completed by attorneys of the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark law firm in December 1993. After extensive review by LRSD senior management, the obligations were filed with the U. S. Court, Eastern District of Arkansas. The Program Budget Document (PBD) was then developed to monitor these obligations. To keep the PBD current, an audit of new obligations is done each year. During the first six months of 1995, a study was repeated. All legal documents relating directly to LRSD obligations m the Pulaski County Desegregation Case were reviewed again to verify the accuracy of the original audit. The attached list is the result of this research, defined generally as statements that require action. They include those that are routinely done m a school district. They are Obligations are \u0026lt; included here because they are specifically mentioned in a document relating to this case. This document includes two parts as follows: 1. Explanation of Codes for List of Obligations (Figure 1) is an explanation of headings across the top of the obligations list and the meaning of codes found in that column\nand, 2. Pulaski County Desegregation Case Obligations is the list of obligations abbreviated for quick reference. It is a working document. We believe it includes all possible obligations including those from stipulations dating back to 1986. It includes approximately 75 redundant items that will be considered for removal after consulting with the appropriate leader. There are 2098 listed. It is still m draft form. NOTE: Under no circumstances should the abbreviated text of the Pulaski County Desegregation Case Obligations list be considered a complete statement of the obligation. The original legal reference should be read when making decisions about the implementation or meaning of the item\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_586","title":"Organization and learning equity/recruitment","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","Educational planning","School integration","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Organization and learning equity/recruitment"],"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/586"],"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\nLittle Rock School District M Scj  r*Z March 3, 1993 MAR 3 1993 Otfice of Desegregation .MoniLcring Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Monitoring West Heritage Building 201 E. Markham St., Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 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)324-20001992/93 RECRUITING ACTIVITIES LRSD COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT January 26, 1993 lA /aca A If' o February 1992 MAR 5 1593 Citica of Desegregation Monito\nJ Realtors Guide providing Realtors, Chamber of Commerce, City of Little Rock, corporate relocation officers and other targeted groups with a comprehensive tool showing all schools and their programs, extracurricular offerings, faculty information and maps showing the areas from which the schools draw their student population. February 1992 Arnold Schwarzenegger visit to Rockefeller to represent the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. February 1992- International and national press requests came to the Communications Office for coverage concerning the President and Mrs.Clinton's role in education in Arkansas.This opportunity allowed the District to present some of its finest programs and promote severe of our schools. Internationally we worked with journalists from France, Germany, England, Japan, Korea, Switzerland, and Australia to name a few. National coverage included affiliates from ABC, NBC, CBS, the Boston Monitor, National Public Radio and many more. April 1992 Premiere of \"LRSD Today\" a new promotional video produced by the Office of Communications, which uses live video and animation to present the LRSD to parents, new residents and community leaders. The video was deliver^ to the same targeted group as the Realtors Guide. In addition it was delivered to four major video stores to be placed in their community service free rental sections. May 1992 New school brochures were written for four schools, three of which have experienced recruiting problems. The fourth school paid for its own brochure but took advantage of a group printing price because of the volume in printing for four schools at one time.Brochures are being distributed by the Communications Office, Student Assignment and the schools. April 1992- January 1993 Cooperative efforts began with the Arkansas Motion Picture Office to bring Disney Studios to Little Rock to film \"The Ernest Green Story\" at Central High School. The fUm was completely filmed in Little Rock and on January 4,1993, the film premiere was held at Central High. President-elect Clinton, Ernest Green and his family, Benjamin Hooks, NAACP national president, Disney officials and many other city dignitaries attended the event which received national media coverage. June 1992 Incentive school promotional video produced July 1992 An incentive school hotline was set up by the Communications Department for use by the Student Assignment Office. The line assists parents with information about LRSD Incentive Schools. The parents may leave their phone number and receive a call from Student Assignment with further information. July 1992- Sept. 1992 Production and completion of CAT bus ads, bUlboard ads and bus bench advertising for registration and promotion of incentive, interdistrict, 4-year-old and two new magnet schools. July 1992 recruitment Meeting called by LRSD with PCSSD for Crystal HUI MagnetPage 2 Recruiting Report LRSD Communications Department 1-26-93 August 1992 School calendar produced and distributed to all student households. Sept. 1992 Production began on Curriculum Updates via Cable Channel 4. The purpose of the updates was to inform the public of the new curriculum in place for the 1992/93 year. Sept. 1992 - for information Miscellaneous group presentations (3) currently requested by public October 1992 Dr. Bernd began seven Community Forums throughout the community to gather information from the public. October 1992 October 1992 Production of HIPPY brochure Dr. Bernd began his weekly show at KARN allowing the District to talk about school programs, special events, etc. Among the many schools mentioned were Stephens, Garland, Rockefeller and RightseU incentive schools\nRomine and King interdistrict schools. October 1992 Dr. Bernd began the filming of a 4-part public affairs series on LRSD on Fox Channel 16. The programs covered information on the incentive schools, magnets and general information on the District. October 1992 Craig O'Neill (KURB Radio) began doing weekly school announcements from District schools. Each school has announced its special events, awards and programs over the air. Incentive schools taking part in the program are Rockefeller and Franklin. Rightsell is scheduled during February 1993. All schools will be given the opportunity to make their school announcements. November 1992 findings from the seven community forums. Dr. Bemd gave a report over Cable Channel 4 concerning his November 1992 School tours for the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce were arranged by the Communications Office during American Education Week. All (40) participants were surveyed about their perception of the LRSD before and after the visit. The surveys showed that perceptions can be changed if we can get people in to the schools. November 1992 The VIPS Office and the Communications Office surveyed all parents/students who had left the District (those not returning from the 92-93 year) to find out the reasons for leaving. November 1992 Production of registration advertising for Chamber of Commerce publication. The ad featured the Superintendent and the twenty-two 1992 National Merit Scholars from the district. November 1992 Principal cluster meetings training principals on event selection for coverage, proper media reporting and providing them with a comprehensive report of what was covered in the local media month by month.Pages Recruiting Report LRSD Communications Department 1-26-93 December 1992 Groundbreaking ceremony for Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary Interdistrict was organized by the Communications Office. Key constituency invited  PCSSD, ODM, etc.The event was highly visible for the promotion of the location which was the key objective. January 1993 Communication Office assisted in promotion of 1993/94 registration by producing the registration brochure distributed to all LRSD student households and quantities to Student Assignment Office for distribution to private schools, PCSSD, etc.\nproducing a 30-second Public Service Announcement video for television, placing PSAs on nine local radio stations, placing registration information on all television community calendars, and taping a new registration message to be played on the District phone when callers are placed on hold. January 1993 media coverage resulted. Hillary Clinton visit to Rockefeller. Local, national, internationalA RSCEi 'U {i ijcT- MAR 3 1993 Oifica of Desegregation Moniionng Little Rock School District Organizational and Learning Equity Office February 26, 1993 TO\nAnn Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring FROM\nMarie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity SUBJECT\nRecruiting Report The attached report summarizes activities that will be facilitated by the Organizational and Learning Equity/Recruitment Office that will contribute toward recruiting for the district as a whole, and for the specific types of schools which we seek to promote.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ORGANIZATIONAL AND LEARNING EQUITY RECRUITMENT OFFICE BUDGET/EXPENDITURES ANALYSIS 1991-92 During the 1991-92 school year records for the Office of Desegregation indicated that a total of $45,254 was spent for recruitment activities. Housed in the Student Assignment Office are two recruiters. The salaries are not included as part of these monies. The major recruitment focus, as evidenced by dollars spent, is reflected in the categories listed below: ACTIVITY AMOUNT SPENT Incentive school advertising and equipment Registration brochures Incentive school brochures Arkansas Democrat advertising Retail display Incentive School booth (Park Plaza) Advertising via helium balloons Production for Incentive Schools Woodruff brochures Romine brochures Rockefeller brochures/Four-Year-Old Program Postage for mailing brochures Henderson/McCellan Plan Bumper stickers for Cloverdale Travel - Recruiter Bale recruitment 18,000 3,450 1,800 1,300 1,322 900 139 3,724 1,046 3,631 6,134 1,007 1,507 551 500 153 $ 1992-93 During the 1992-93 school year records for the Office of Organizational and Learning Equity (OLE) formerly, the office of Desegregation, indicated that salaries for two Parent Recruiters have been allocated within the OLE office. The 1992-93 budgeting process indicate the funds previously allocated to the Office of Desegregation are now reflected as Recruitment in the Office of Communications or other program managers budget allocations. The report submitted by the LRSD Communications Office will reflect recruitment activities/expenditures for the 1992-93 school year.Conclusion The LRSD administration recognizes and is in total agreement that a more efficient, effective, and an accountable job can be done with recruiting. To accomplish this will require a more concentrated and coordinated effort of the various umbrella groups and individuals described in the Desegregation Plan. It will also require revisiting, rethinking, and restructuring our current recruitment strategies. We must develop a strategic plan that shows, 1) where we are\n2) where we want to be\nand, 3) how we will get there. To that end, the Recruitment Section of the Organization and Learning Equity Office is recommending to the LRSD Cabinet that the following steps be adopted and implemented immediately. This renewed effort would require us to: 1. 2. 3. 4. Designate a recruitment coordinator to coordinate all recruitment efforts. Develop a strategic plan to ensure the different individuals, groups, and/or activities function in a coordinated and collaborated manner. Develop specific strategies to ensure the most effective and efficient use of all human and financial resources. Develop strategies for tracking and documentation of all recruitment efforts.LRSD DESGREGATION PLAN Implementation Timeline Area: Parent Recruitment (Private Schoois, incentive Schoois, Area Schools) Goal: To develop a comprehensive plan to ensure coordination of all parent recruitment activities described in the plan. Page Objective Strategy 135 216 To promote the effective and efficient use of Interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies. Designate a parent recruitment coordinator. Establish a planning/impiementation recruitment team representing the various groups described in the plan. Convene recruitment teams to share and discuss LRSD vision, goals, roles, responsibilities, timelines, and expectations for each group, in order to determine each group's commonalities and uniqueness. Designate a contact person at each school to report to an established information center (Parent Recruitment coordinator). Clearly define the role of existing parent recruiters. Conduct a formal and informal survey to assess status of recruitment activities, and collect evidence of those activities which may or may not be working. Meet bi-monthly with representatives from various groups to monitor recruitment activities. Assess the effectiveness of recruitment strategies on an annual basis. Develop strategies for tracking and documentation of all recruitment efforts. Seek court approval of alternative strategies. Beginning Date March 93 Comp. Date April 93 Cost Responsibility Assoc. Supt., Deseg. Feb. 93 March 93 April 93 Jan 93 Aug 92 March 93 June 93 July 93 March 93 Ongoing Ongoing April 93 May 93 Ongoing Ongoing Annually Evaluation PRC appointed PRC/Assoc. Supt., Deseg. PRC Bldg, prin./ local PTA/PRC Assoc. Supt., Deseg. Assoc. Supt., Deseg.\nPRT\nTeam appointed Minutes of meeting Designated Job description Surveys Completed/ Analyzed PRCZ Biracial Team/Assoc. Supt., Deseg. Daily, weekly documentation PRE/Biracial/ PRT Assoc. Supt., Deseg. Annual reportLRSD DESGREGATION PLAN Implementation Timeline Area: Parent Recruitment (Private Schools, Incentive Schools, Area Schools) Goal: To coordinate all private school recruitment activities and provide necessary suuport via the parent recruitment coordinator. Page Objective Strategy Beginning Date Comp. Date Cost Responsibility Evaluation To actively recruit private school students to the Little Rock School District. 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Share and network recruitment strategies with PTAs. Provide direct assistance to the PTAs. Meet bi-monthly with PTA Council and or various PTA representatives to monitor recruitment activities. Obtain and forward to each school, computer printouts of students on the data base you are not presently enrolled in the district. Contact these parents and encourage them to reconsider their public school option. Continue to foster relationships with area realtors to access those families with school-age children who are relocating to the Little Rock area. Assess the effectiveness of recruitment strategies on an annual basis. Share and discuss the assessment with all parties. Seek court approval of alternate strategies. Jan 93 March 93 March 93 Jan 93 Jan 93 Jan 93 July 93 July 93 March 93 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Annually Ongoing Annually PRTs/PC PRC/PR Biracial/PRC/PRT PRC/PR PRT/PRC/PR PRC/PR PRTs/Biracial/ Assoc. Supt., Deseg. PRTs/ Biracial/ PR/PC Assoc. Supt., Deseg. Doc. of activites Doc. of assistance Doc. of activities Doc. of activities Daily/wkly documentation Daily/wkly documentation Comp, doc./critical analysis Doc. shared information Report filedArea: Parent Recruitment (Private Schools, Incentive Schools, Area Schools) P. 2 Goal: To coordinate all private school recruitment activities, provide necessary suuport via the parent recruitment coordinator. Page Objective Strategy Beginning Date Comp. Date Cost Responsibility Evaluation 135 135 135 142 Utilize parents in marketing of educational programs and benefits that will result from desegregation of all three districts. Develop a resource list of all parents who are willing to talk with potential patrons. Establish a parent recruitment team in each school to encourage families to enroll in the public schools. Work through local parent/teacher organizations to encourage media coverage. Conduct recruitment via Student Assignment Office (SAO). March 93 March 93 March 93 March 93 March 93 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing PRTs/PRC/PR PTA Councils/ PRs/PRC PTA Councils/ PR/PRC Local PTAs PR/SAO Staff Doc. of activites Available resource list List on fiie Doc. of assist./ Public survey Daily/wkly doc. of activitiesLRSD DESGREGATION PLAN Implementation Timeline Area: Parent Recruitment (Private Schools, Incentive Schools, Area Schools) Goal: To encourage voluntary assignments of white students to the incentive schools that will enable the schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. Page Objective Strategy Beginning Date 218 218 218 220 223 223 223 223 223 To provide general Information to the community about the incentive program. To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment programs in the incentive schools. Actively seek out special interest groups and seek their assistance in disseminating information to the general public. Conduct special information campaign in the black community. Distribute information to parents and community. Utilize a variety of marketing strategies to recruit white students to the incentive schools. Provide a special inservice for the LRSD Biracial advisory committee on the incentive school program and the longterm desegregation plan. Utilize the volunteer services of individuals with expertise in marketing/advertising. Develop procedures for monitoring implementation of the recruitment program. Recommend any changes needed in recru itme nt st rateg ies/act ivifies. Evaluate the incentive school recruitment program. Prepare quarterly reports and submit to the Board of Directors. March 93 Jan 93 Jan 93 July 93 April 93 April 93 April 93 March 93 March 93 Jan 93 Comp. Date Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Annually June 93 Ongoing July 93 Ongoing Ongoing Quarterly Cost Responsibility Assoc. Supt., Deseg./attnys./ PRC/PR/SAO Assoc. Supt., Deseg./PRC/PR Assoc. Supt., Deseg./PRC/PR PRC/Relev. admin, staff/PRC Assoc. Supt., Deseg./Principals./ Coordinators Assoc. Supt./ Biracial Assoc. Supt., Deseg./PRE/ Biracial/PRC PRC/PRT/Biracial Assoc. Supt., Deseg./Biracial/ PRC/PRT Assoc. Supt., Deseg./Biracial/ PRC/PRT Evaluation Doc. of activites Doc. activities Doc. of activities Comprehensive documentation/ critical analysis Doc. of inservice Doc. of activities Procedures developed Doc. of recs./ implementation of Monitoring report Report of progress x  rec'S i MAR 3 1993 New Futures For Little Rock Youth Office of Dessgregaiion Woniioring New Futures for Little Rock Youth is an initiative that creates new citywide systems that enhance the ability of all youth to become successful, productive adults. New Futures envisions institutions working together to create a powerful community commitment to help young people achieve success and move beyond the poverty and frustrations that so often constrict their dreeuns. New Futures also seeks change within institutions as well. It is a vehicle for reviewing and revamping practices and policies that have not previously worked well with our young people. New Futures is based on the premise that it institutions simply become stronger collaborators. is not enough that It is also necessary that each Institution become stronger and better at working with youth and that organizations themselves and make the changes necessary to effectiveness with young people. look deep increase inside their New Futures is guided by the following principles: Every youth must have a supportive, encouraging adult help guide him/her through adolescence. Every youth must have solid academic skills. Every youth must have access to basic health and social services. Every youth must have opportunities to experience success. Working from these guiding principles, comprehensive methods for developing implementation strategies to attain these goals are based on: Developing collaborative efforts between schools, social service agencies, government, businesses, churches, civic groups, parents, and other concerned community members.  Promoting responsive, youth-focused public policy. Creating public awareness of youth issues. Developing model programs for direct service to youth.  Researching and evaluating data about youth. New Futures has developed programmatic strategies within each component area that seek to provide solutions to the complex problems that face many Little Rock Youth. The Little Rock SchoolNew Futures District is by far the largest youth serving institution in the city and has worked in full partnership with New Futures to achieve effective collaboration with a range of organizations that can bring the full array of the city's resources to bear on youth problems. The programmatic strategies currently being implemented in the component areas of health, youth-violence prevention, and youth employability are listed below. SCHOOL-BASED EFFORTS (See narrative pages 3-11) HEALTH School-based health care.  Mentoring for pregnant teens. Student forums and performance groups. School-based health committees with parents, teachers, and nurses. Family-life education curriculum. School-based Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment. YOUTH-VIOLENCE PREVENTION Gang-alternative programs. Youth development and adult mentoring. Establishment of youth centers city-wide.  Team problem-solving by city government, law enforcement, and social services agencies. Team efforts with established drug and alcohol-abuse programs. YOUTH EMPLOYABILITY  Building relationships between business community and youth. Summer youth-employment programs. Job fairs. 2New Futures Pre-employment training. Career mentoring. School-to-career linkage.  Mini-grant to youth-enrichment programs. student Schools must believe in their ability to ensure that every succeeds in productive adulthood. learning the basic skills needed for a Given the complexity of the problems facing youth today, it is also necessary for schools to utilize the range of resources available in the community to develop intricate approaches that are comprehensive and creative yet still have a connection to concrete problems. The LRSD New Futures approach to restructuring for effective schools has developed with these ideas in mind. Four junior high schools, Cloverdale, Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest have been involved in this process. in a long-term process that will The focus has been to engage enhance entire schools and maximize their effectiveness for all students not just those immediately identified as at-risk. Through restructuring, teachers and administrators have had the opportunity to expand their thinking and engage in basic and fundeunental changes around issues that affect how they teach and support all students. Specifically, the purpose of the junior high school restructuring initiative is to establish a school climate, culture, and curriculum that is responsive to the developmental needs of early adolescent youth and the particular needs of at-risk students. These schools are committed to supporting students' development by honoring achievement through the united efforts of parents, teachers, students, and administrators. Restructuring schools create cultures whereby all individuals shall experience a sense of belonging and community through team leadership and open communication conducive to innovative interventions which ensure student success. A more effective transition in the school experience is needed between elementary and high schools. Students in junior high schools are young adolescents facing significant turning points in their lives. Early adolescence is characterized by significant change and growth complicated by unprecedented societal pressures and choices. Schools which serve these students can and should be organized in such a way to be developmentally supportive to ensure academic success as emotional growth. well as positive physical. social. and 3New Futures These needs are addressed through the process of whole school restructuring which includes organizational changes such as teaming, flexible scheduling, emphasis on cross curriculum and interdisciplinary planning, attention to relationships of academic units to real experiences, increased use of cooperative learning techniques, reduction of frontal teaching practices, student team projects and class discussion. students actively in the learning process. Teachers are encouraged to engage Listed below are key structural, programmatic changes that have been implemented. organizational, and  Teachers are organized into interdisciplinary teaching teams. Each grade level is composed of two heterogeneous teams of 120-150 students served by a core team of teachers. A common group of students will share a common group of teachers, common space, and common blocks of instructional time.  Bells are used only to indicate the beginning and ending of the school day. Some schools do utilize a lunch bell. This strategy creates conditions that allow for teaching teams to utilize flexible scheduling when appropriate for effective instruction. An academic day consisting of seven blocks of instructional time allowing for flexible scheduling techniques was developed. Seventh and eighth grade student schedules are composed of five core subjects, (English, math, science, social studies, and Learning Foundations) and two related arts courses (in some specific cases, Reading). Ninth grade student schedules are composed of English, math, science, social studies and either health/FE or Computer technology and two related arts courses (in some specific cases, Reading).  Two planning periods daily (one team planning period and one personal planning period) were provided for all teaching staff. The daily team-planning period provides teachers the opportunity to plan together as a group, develop interdisciplinary units, plan incentive programs, discuss individual student needs, hold joint parent conferences, discuss instructional issues, establish cross curricular connections between sxibject areas, and provide collegial support opportunities.  Writing skills, thinking and reasoning strategies. 4New Futures study and learning skills, test-taking strategies, special reading strategies, communication skills and technological applications, the reading/writing process, and team learning are stressed through an interdisciplinary approach that characterizes Learning Foundations, a core course at the 7th and Sth grade levels. I School management system functions in an organizational style that utilizes school-based leadership/improvement and shared-decision making techniques.  The guidance and counseling function of each staff member is emphasized. An on-going process of school-based self-assessment continues at each school.  An extended day program is operational three days each week. It includes a component to enhance academic achievement, reduce disparities among subgroups, improve student attendance, and promote social development. Activities include homework and tutorial assistance, career explorations, club activities, and health/fitness/nutrition programs. Transportation and a nutritious snack are provided. In-school suspension programs are operational in all four schools. Initiated planning has taken place toward development of an outcome-based process for assessment of student achievement.  A review of existing accelerated learning programs for at-risk youth and development of appropriate recommended strategies for local accelerated programming was conducted. There is frequent monitoring of total school environment and programming by school staff regularly making adjustments and changes to meet student needs through various methods including school improvement teams, faculty study committees, school management teeuns, and school-based assessment processes. Parent to parent support groups called TOUCH, 5New Futures (Together Our Understanding Can Help), have been developed, training has been provided for parents who serve as the facilitator of the groups has occurred, and the groups are meeting regularly at a local church. This is open to all parents in these schools.  The Feunily \"Support Net\" System has been developed and is functioning. This system is an intervention strategy developed to provide families of chronically truant students with the skills necessary to become independent problem solvers. It has three levels of operation ranging from an intensive all-day retreat and weekly support groups to a seminar series designed to address the special needs of students and parents. It is part of the Truancy Review Committee process (TRC) which is a collaborative community program to address chronic truancy.  A simple guide to understanding the attendance policy of the LRSD was developed and shared with parents at registration. A video was also produced and shown to parents at registration.  All schools hold special 7th grade orientation programs for students and parents at each school.  At each school a steering committee composed of team leaders, administrators, parents, and students. meet on a weekly basis to discuss issues and make decisions that guide many school activities and the annual school plan. Each team has a unique team name, logo, goals, and objectives.  The consulting teacher model is utilized to mainstream resource students onto interdisciplinary teams, students belong to a team. All Cloverdale, Forest Heights, and Pulaski Heights applied to the Arkansas State Department for status as official restructuring schools and were accepted. Southwest is currently completing the process. Restructuring schools have common characteristics. The following characteristics provide a focus for the restructuring initiative in the LRSD/New Futures schools. Each school: (1) Features a program designed to ease student 6New Futures transition from elementary to junior high school including building on the successes of elementary education and preparing students for a successful experience in the high school. (2) Utilizes educational programming techniques that respond to the physical, intellectual, and social- emotional needs of the early adolescent learner. (3) Organizes teachers into interdisciplinary teaching teams using block time or flexible scheduling techniques to best deliver the instructional program. (4) Employs teachers and staff members who focus on the learning needs of students by using a variety of teaching techniques that actively involve students in the learning process and emphasize the development of students higher order thinking skills. (5) Emphasizes the guidance and counseling function of each staff member. (6) Recognizes the importance of affective education by providing for a home-base of teacher/advisory program stressing the importance of self-concept in the curriculxim and working as a staff to foster a positive climate for learning. (7) Utilizes a curriculum plan that includes factual information or organized knowledge, skills, and personal development activities that can be correlated with each other and related to real life experiences. (8) Provides access to increased support services that are available for at-risk youth. (9) Functions in an organizational style that utilizes school-based leadership/improvement and shared- decision making techniques. (10) Evaluates total school environment and programming, regularly making adjustment and changes to meet student needs through various methods including school improvement teams and school based assessment processes. (11) Involves parents actively in program planning and implementation. 7New Futures The restructuring process is an evolving process that continues to develop and grow while continually improving program strategies and making needed adjustments according to student needs. Restructuring is not \"quiclc fix\" solution educational challenges that face our school district. to the It is. however, an effective and well substantiated process to be used in creating school enviroiunents that ensure student success. Recognizing that restructuring is a process that is ongoing, the most critical factor in the process is that everyone at every level must understand the direction in which they are moving and be committed to the process. on the vision for This requires a constant sense of focus each individual school. Discussions and decisions must be based on the established vision of the school. Local schools must be empowered and supported as they proceed through this process. a To provide a guide for the restructuring initiative, these schools have \"bought into\" certain strategic imperatives that were developed by the Center for Leadership in School Reform. These imperatives provide a framework for schools to undertake the process of self-examination and self-direction. They help provide a sound philosophical base from which schools can begin the restructuring process. The strategic imperatives are listed below with specific activities and programs that have been developed and implemented in these schools that address these imperatives. SHARED VISION  Participation in the CLSR self-assessment process. Development of a shared vision at each school. Staff development activities which have served to create a common understanding of the issues and practices for effective junior high instruction. PARTICIPATORY LEADERSHIP Steering committee composed of teeun leaders, students, parents, and principals. This committee provides the process for collaborative decision making at the local level. 8New Futures Leadership training for principals.  Principals' collegial support group.  Leadership training for assistant principals.  Assistant Principals' collegial support group.  Leadership training for Teacher Team Leaders. The organization of teaching staff into teams, teams provide the structure for collaborative decision making for student-based teams. The Principal's encouragement of staff to have major decision making authority in the hiring of new staff members. MANAGEMENT BY RESULTS Participation in the Glendale Effective School Assessment Instrument. Student-centered learning focus. Staff development to support creation of teaching strategies that engage students in the learning process.  Team planning and discussions in which individual student needs are identified and addressed by the team. Exploration and implementation of alternative methods of discipline to reduce suspensions and expulsions (e.g. in-school suspension, lunch detention, student contracts, peer mediation). Increased parental involvement through tezun parent conferences, often adjusted to times that accommodate working parents. Specific staff development focused on increased teacher understanding of the student population. Incentive programs to reward student success. 9New Futures Staff development opportunities for teachers to listen to \"student perceptions\" of schools and teaching practices. Staff development opportunities for teachers to understand the high-risk student population. INNOVATION AND IMPROVEMENT Staff development activities in which teachers are provided information on new ideas and practices that have proven to bring about student success and are encouraged to try innovative techniques and strategies and evaluate them based on the results they produce for students. Development and training on authentic assessment strategies. Staff development on cross-curricular and interdisciplinary instructional strategies. CONTINUITY AND INSTITUTIONALIZATION  Continual reassessment toward established goals. CTA/LRSD/NF Joint Committee on School Restructuring. Collaboration between LRSD Board of Directors and New Futures Board of Directors.  Training for LRSD Board of Directors on restructuring issues.  New teacher orientation and team mentoring programs. FLEXIBILITY Stated commitment by building principals to permit changes in the rules, roles and relationships that govern the local schools to allow for growth, build capacity, and encourage innovation. 10New Futures SUPPORT  Local business support through mentoring prograuns. Use of the New Futures grant to obtain resources to support innovative teaching.  High quality staff development opportunities that are shaped in response to teacher requests. Case management service teams at each school which provide school-based, collaborative social service efforts for at-risk students.  Homework hot-line for homework assignments at Forest Heights Junior High. Community Outreach Program to increase public awareness of local school programs. Enhanced health services at each school. Specific programming for at-risk youth: - Teacher Advisor Program - After school programming - Summer Experiential Program - Truancy Review Committee - Mentoring programs - \"Family Net\" Support System - Community Study Center for students on long-term suspension Day-care for children of students. Emphasis on increased parental involvement. - TOUCH program for parents - Parent meetings with school staff held at community locations. - Flexible hours utilized on district parent conference days to accommodate working parents (e.g. FHJH parent conference schedule 12:00 - 7:00 p.m.)  Advisor/Advisee programming. dcMgre 11Page 56 - 68 Page 59 - 68 Page 95 Parent Involvement Public Relations Recruitment Private School received Page 131 -138 Parent Involvement Page 149-223 Incentive School LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline MAR 3 1993 1 Area: Public Relations Office of Desegrsgaiion Monitoring Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 59 Page 62 Page 59 Page 62 Page 67 Page 60 Page 67-11 Page 59 Page 62-2 Page 63 Page 215,1 Page 216, K Page 132,3b * *** Augument professional staff in Communications Department Use public relations programs to educate all publics to all aspects of the desegregation plan Bold type refers to wording in Desegregation Plan 1. Recruit volunteers/two interns from UALR, etc., journalism/radio-TV/public relations program for 1991-92 school year. Vicki Taylor (June-August. 1992) intern 2. Contract for consultant/outside services on project-by-project basis where feasible. Bromberg \u0026amp; Associates, etc., for calendar, brochures, etc. 3. Promote relationship with other public relations professionals for volunteer services and in-kind support to Department for overall planning and project-by-project needs. Chamber visits lABC-VIPS 4. Create public relations advisory council for Communications Department 1. Stress special features and District achievements of magnet, area, incentive, early childhood, community school, etc., programs. \"LRSD-Today\" video, premiere Incentive school video* Districtwide marketing brochure Incentive school brochure* Romine brochure Brochures for Bale, Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, Bale, Terry, Sept. '91 Ongoing Ongoing Oct. '92 Spring '92 Oct. '91 April '92 June '92 Feb. '92 Feb. '92 Fall '92 May '92 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Oct. '92 Ongoing Ongoing -0- -0- Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Interns at LRSD Quality/Quantity of projects delivered, cost Active support Results from advice receivedArea: Public Relations LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 2 Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School standing and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. District through improved community awareness, under- Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 62, 3a Page 215, II A Page 215,1 B Page 215,1 C Early childhood magnet brochure HIPPY program brochure Henderson brochure McClellan brochure Early registration brochure New curriculum brochure LRSD Cable 4 programming (Curriculum updates Forum report) Arnold Schwarizenneger visit to Rockefeller incentive Hillary Clinton visit to Rockefeller incentive school Ernst Green movie assistance PSAs Pat Lynch radio show weekly news items Weekly news release to local news media on upcoming school activities coverage Weekly school announcements on KURB radio by Craig O'Niell KEZQ/Coleman Dairy 30-second highlights of SO LRSD schools Public presentations Realtor's Guide Fall '91 June '92 Feb. '92 Feb. '92 Annually Jan. July '92 Fall '92 Nov. '92 Feb. '92 Spring '92 Dec. '92 March '92 March '92 for a. General information brochure on each of above programs Districtwide marketing brochure Incentive school brochure Romine brochure Brochures for Bale, Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, Bale, Terry, Woodruff HIPPY program brochure Henderson brochure Jan '93 Spring '92 Ongoing Sept. '92 Ongoing Oct. '92 Spring '92 Ongoing March '92 Aug. '91 Jan. '93 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing June '92 Jan. '91 Commun. Dept CompletionArea\nPublic Relations LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 3 Goal\nSupport the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School standing and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. District through improved community awareness, under- Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 132,3d Page 62, 3b Page 57, B3 Page 59 Page 62 Page 63-4 Page 215,1 E Page 57, B 3 Page 59 Page 62-3 Page 132,3b, c Page 215,1, E Page 57, B3 Page 62,3 ^McClellan brochure Early childhood magnet brochure New curriculum brochure b. General promotion printed piece about LRSD, including reasons for positive support \"LRSD-Today\" video, premiere c. Newsletter to parents d. Production of television news and feature programming on LRSD-TV, Cable 4 LRSD Cable 4 programming (Curricu lum updates, Forum report) e. Positive media coverage Pat Lynch radio show weekly news items Weekly news release to local news media on upcoming school activities for 'coverage Weekly school announcements on KURB radio by Craig O'Niel KEZQ/Coleman Dairy 30-second highlights of 50 LRSD schools Channel 11 Education Report feature stories f. General information (positive tone) statistical fact sheet about LRSD June '91 Oct. '91 May '92 Oct. '91 July '91 Aug. '91 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Nov. '91 -0- Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Distribution Year-end survey Year-end survey Compile positive/ negative/neutral listing coverageLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 4 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Districtwide marketing brochure/ highlight fact sheet Page 62, 2 \u0026amp; 3 Page 216, G Page 62. 2 \u0026amp; 3 Page 216, F g. Promote registration open houses through various media for dissemination to Key Community People Television PSAs Radio PSAs Registration brochure to all student households, private school lists, PCSSD distribution, etc. District telephone hold message Fliers, posters Newspaper ads LRSD Cable 4 TV Pat Lynch weekly radio news Weekly news release to all news media Jan/Feb '92 Commun. Dept. \u0026amp; Student Assign. Attendance Numbers h. Produce a special issue of FOCUS for registration covering all pertinent programs and options. (Registration/ Marketing Brochures replaced FOCUS) Jan/Feb '92 Commun. Dept. \u0026amp; Student Assign. Distribution response numbers Page 62, 2 \u0026amp; 3 a Page 215, HA Registration brochure to ail student households, private school lists, PCSSD distribution, etc. 1. M-M, Act 609, deseg. transfers 2. 4-Yearold applications Jan/Feb '92 Jan/Feb 92 Commun. Dept. \u0026amp; Student Assign. Commun. Dept. \u0026amp; Student Assign. Response numbers Response numbersArea: Public Relations LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 5 Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies 3. Kindergarten registration 4. Open house dates Page 216K Page 62,2 \u0026amp; 3a Page 216 8, C, F, K, N, E Page 62,2 \u0026amp; 3 Page 62,3 \u0026amp; 3a Page 95 Page 216, M Page 132, B Page 132, d Beginning Date May/June '92 Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Jan/Feb '92 Commun. Dept \u0026amp; Student Assign. Response numbers i. Use various media to promote and distribute school-based registration information Television PSAs Radio PSAs Registration brochure to all student households, private school lists, PCSSD distribution, etc. District telephone hold message Fliers, posters Newspaper ads Bus ads Bus bench ads Billboards LRSD Cable 4 Pat Lynch weekly radio news Weekly news release on positive events to all news media j. Promote HIPPY HIPPY (Early Childhood) brochure k. Use various media to promote parent recruiter services \"LRSDToday\" video Incentive school video Districtwide marketing brochure PSAs (radio and TV) Registration brochure Public presentations Realtor's Guide July/Aug '91 Ongoing Ongoing Commun. Dept HIPPY Coord. Commun. Dept. Student Assign.LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 6 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness under- CtanHin/l on/i AAnfirlAnAA in _______  standing and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Page 62,3 \u0026amp; 3a Page 62, 3a Page 216 G Page 215 I, D, E, I Page 62, 3a Page 215,1, HA Page 62,3a Page 63, 4 \u0026amp; 4a Page 215 G I. Inform all students and patrons of co-curricular, extracurricular activities available ????????? m. Disseminate info, on and promote focused activities Weekly news release to media Media tog Coverage tracking sytstem/reports Promotion of each Mall events Workshops Open houses n. Brochure on each incentive school Brochure general information on entire incentive program p. Incentive school information hotline Set up with SAO Beginning Date Ongoing Ongoing Dec. '91 Dec. '91 Completion Date Jan. '91 Ongoing Costs Responsibility Commun. Dept. Principals, staff, PTA, Board, Educ. Programs, Schoolbased Director of extra-curricular activities Commun. Dept Staff Development Assoc. Supt., Deseg., Commun. Dept. Parent Recrurter, Commun. Dept. Evaluation Complete Number of calls Page 63, 6a \u0026amp; c Page 66, 9b, c, d 2. Address concerns over security and safety to reassure parents, public, staff and students over desirability of LRSD Pat Lynch Show Rotary Public presentations Supt. update Community forums District Dialogue with staff Speakers Bureau Evidence of improved confidence levelArea: Public Relations LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 7 Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 66, 9 and 9d Page 66,10 Page 67,12 Page 65, e, f Page 66, 9 Page 66, 9d Page 65. e, f Page 66, 9 Page 65, e, f Page 66, 9 Page 65, e, f Page 66, 9 Page 65, e, f Page 66, 9 a. Public opinion/input survey on attitudes, expectations and values ExiX survey of former student's parents Community Forums Chamber Leadership Institute survey b. Provide communications support to LRSD Security Task Force Working plan Notify public Member of Task Force Supt. update News release Statements Position papers c. Conduct crisis communications train ing to key District personnel Crisis Plan Principal cluster training d. Update District written crisis communication plan e. Clarify media/communications dept, roles and procedures f. Update list of District and building level personnel who have roles in crisis procedure g. Obtain input from LRPD and Pulaski County Prosecuting Atty on appropriate comments, procedures, in event of inci dents, accidents, crisis July '91 Ongoing Oct. '91 July '91 July '91 Sept. '91 July91 Aug. '91 -0- 0- -0- -0- 0- -O- -O- Commun. Dept Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Security Evidence of improved confidence level Evidence of improved confidence level Workshop held Procedure written Procedure written List prepared Meet information obtainedLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 8 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness under- efanrISnzi onH in _x:______ standing and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation h. Develop news articles periodically on security/safety status News releases Statements Promote broad contact with staff and parents to highlight accomplishment i of students, staff and volunteers 1. Superintendent breakfast meetings monthly with community leaders and patrons Rotary 2. Superintendent/executive staff 30-min weekly news briefing on LRSD-TV, Executive Staff Cable 4 to general public Page 65, 8a-8f, Page 66, 9d 3. Employee briefing and Q \u0026amp; A call-in program monthly on Cable 4, LRSD-TV Survey results Page 62, 3 \u0026amp; 3a Page 63, 6a Page 215 I Page 67,12 4. Operation Involvement program Superintendent monthly employee meeting with administrative/executive staff District Dialogue Principal Roundtable 5. Provide annual calendar information folder to each student household 6. Present citations to reward staff, students and community for achievements during monthly televised board meetings Superintendent's citations Nov. '91 Aug. 91 Ongoing Ongoing Annually -0- Superintendent Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Oelivered Number presentedLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 5 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Page 59 Page 62, 3 \u0026amp; 3a 7. Provide community and patrons an annual report update on the state of LRSD Beginning Date Aug. 91 Completion Date Annually Costs Responsibility Evaluation Commun. Dept. Distributed Annual report Page 215,1 Page 216, K Page 215 I Devise innovative ways to to communicate with hard-to-reach publics 1. Make better use of non-traditional communications media and target audiences more specifically on topics such as incentive schools, magnets, safety issues, etc. LRSD Today\" Mortimer Swartzenager Hillary Clinton Craig ONeill weekly school feature Page 63 - 4 a. Develop monthly articles for minority media Oct. '91 Monthly $2,000 Commun. Dept. Executive Staff Articles published Weekly release to State Press PSAs to minority stations Black access channel b. Develop a series of 2-minute information modules for use on radio stations, especially KLRE Sept. '91 Commun. Dept. Page 63 - 4 c. Develop and promote programming on LRSD-TV, Cable 4 Oct. '91 Ongoing Commun. Dept. Increased viewership Curriculum update, 4-part seriesArea: Public Relations LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 10 Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process.  Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Page 63, 4,4a Page 215 I Page 63 - 4 Page 216 N Page 63-4 Page215 1, C\u0026amp;D Page 216, B, C d. Record and periodically update taped information to play on District telephone system when caller must be placed on hold Special incentive message tape, registration message tape e. Implement speakers bureau of LRSD executive staff for Central Arkansas circuit Make public presentations f. Develop parent involvement calendar to distribute to community agencies g. Information booths at malls Incentive mall booth h. Place highlight sheets/flyers on incentive programs at local businesses i. Information \"hotline for incentive schools j. Use billboards \u0026amp; bus bench ads to promote incentive schools (strategically placed) Advertisement on billboards, bus, bench '92 LRSD Calendar Show \"LRSD Today\" Show Incentive video June '91 Sept. '91 Oct. 91 Jan. '92 March '91 March '91 Oct. '91 Completion Date Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Annually Annually Ongoing Costs $100 -0- -0- $700 Responsibility Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. VIPS, HIPPY. PTA Commun. Dept. Parent Recruiters, Commun. Dept. Parent Recruiters, Commun. Dept. Parent Recruiters, Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Evaluation Caller response survey # speeches requested, delivered Distributed Completed Enrollment figuresLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 11 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community av/areness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date k. Use LRSD-TV to promote incentive schools Cable 4 calendar 2. Establish a systematic approach to effective communications between home and school to teach parents system for advancing support and concern for schools a. Teach parents the system for advancing support and concern for the school through programming on LRSD-TV Oct. '91 March '92 Page 132 B, 3, b Page 63,5 Page 133, 111 A Develop a school communication network to assure accurate, ongoing information flow 1. Design a process to assist the building leader in each school to monitor and address public needs at each building. Oct. '91 Completion Date Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Annually Costs -0- $5000 $12,500 Responsibility Commun. Dept. VIPS Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Evaluation Enrollment figures Survey Established and functioning Event Notification Form Weekly Release Pat Lynch Page 63 * 5a ,b, c, d, e a. Conduct public relations training Principal cluster meetings Oct. '91 Oct. '91 Ongoing Ongoing Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Established and functioning Established and functioning b. Conduct crisis communications training Principal cluster meetings Oct. '91 Ongoing Commun. Dept. Established and functioning c. Conduct media relations training principal cluster meetingsLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 12 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 133 III, A d. Establish and maintain regular, routine two-way communications between the school communication coordinators and the Communications Department on District activities , goals and school concerns Sept. '91 Ongoing Commun. Dept Established and functioning district dialogues e. Develop articles from schools for use in various media (radio, TV and print) for broad community outreach. Ongoing Ongoing Commun. Dept. Established and functioning Weekly Releases Pat Lynch Channel 11 TV spots feature stories Page 95 Page 215 I, II Page 132, B, 3a f. Work with representatives of PTA and staff in each building to help them improve image and produce necessary support materials for communication network Sept. '91 Ongoing Commun. Dept. Established and functioning School brochures, i.e, Terry, etc. Event notification form Page 57 Ensure that outreach to the community is broad and consistent 1. Use various, appropriate media to reach specific audiences on programs general District information Ongoing Established and functioning a. District-wide video presentation \"LRSD Today\" Incentive Video Dec. '91 $5000 Commun. DeptArea: Public Relations LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 13 Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Page 63, 6a Page 64, 6b Page 215 I Page 63, 6a Page 62, 3 Page 63, 6a Page 64,7 Page 215, E Page 63, 6a Page 216, C Page 65 Page 216, N Page 67,11 a Page 133, II, 3 Page 132, D b. Catalog profiling every school and their boundaries for use by Realtors, and business recruiters Realtors Guide c. Evening meetings by superintendent with community representatives Community Forums d. Minority media articles/radio coverage Weekly release to media Pat Lynch radio show Craig O'Neill Radio PSAs e. Radio information segments to targeted audiences Craig O'Neill KEZQ features Pat Lynch Radio PSAs f. Strategically placed bus bench and billboard messages g. Use of District speakers bureau including staff and parent members speaking engagements 2. Support organization of an independent non-profit Positive Parents of Little Rock organization supported by PTA, Chamber of Commerce, business interest to promote the successes in the district Nov. '91 Sept. '91 Monthly Sept '91 Aug. '91 Fall '91 Fall '91 Completion Date Nov. '91 Monthly Ongoing Ongoing Costs -0- $700 -0- Responsibility Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Superintendent Commun. Dept. Executive Staff Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Parent Recruiters Student Assign. Commun. Dept. Parent Recruiters, PTA Superintendent, PTA, Chamber of Commerce, Evaluation Established and functioningLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 14 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 64-7 Page 67 - 2 Page 64 - 7 Page 67-12 a. Recognize staff through appreciation days so they will know they are valued by District Teacher/Staff Appreciation Day during National Education Week Superintendent's Citation March '92 Annually PPLR b. Recognize student achievement Pat Lynch Show Weekly news releases Superintendent's Citations March '92 Annually PPLR 1. Letter sweater program 2. Honor former graduates Page 64 - 6b 3. Provide accurate, factual information about LRSD to patrons, persons inquiring about enrollments Ongoing Ongoing PPLR Registration brochure Marketing brochure Ad in Arkansas Times Newcomers Guide Bus, Bus Bench, billboards Page 64, 6b Page 95 4. Provide minigrants to schools for public image improvement programs 5. Develop school profile book for Realtors Realtor's Guide Marketing brochure \"LRSD Today\" Fall '92 Nov. '92 Annually Annually PPLR PPLRLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 15 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 65 a Ensure that staff has adequate information with which it can support District-wide goals and objectives, priority issues. 1. Formalize an internal communications program using various media and recognition activities to assure staff they are all team members Fall '91 Commun. Dept. District Dialogue Page 64 - 8 Page 66, 9d a. Newsletter b. Monthly LRSD-TV, Cable 4, briefing and call-in program 0. Implementation of Operation Involvement program to provide mechanism for ongoing face-to-face flow and feedback/ staff and community input Fall '91 Fall '91 Fall '91 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Commun, Dept. Commun. Dept. Superintendent Executive Staff Commun. Dept. Survey Survey Survey District Dialogue Community Forum Budget Committee Page 60 Page 67-11 Strengthen the link with the business community 1. See P.6 Positive Parents Organization Fall '91 Ongoing -0- Commun. Dept. Page 57D Page 67 -11 a Page 132, D Pago 216 I Page 64-7 2. Work with Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce Education Committee to maintain link with it and interests of NLRSD and PCSSD. Chamber of Commerce Leadership Institute Visits A. Teacher Appreciation National Education Week Superintendents Citation Fall '91 Annually 0- Commun. Dept. CompletedLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 16 Area: Public Relations Goal: Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies B. Excellence in Education Awards Beginning Date Spring '92 Completion Date Annually -0- Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 67-12 Maintain ongoing awareness of public, student and staff needs and values to provide needed services and information 1. Conduct periodic community surveys and focus groups \"dose of reality\" on general and specific issues (i.e., incentive and safety) Ongoing 0- Commun. Dept. Commun. Dept. Eval. \u0026amp; Planning Completed Survey, focus group completed Chamber of Commerce Tour Survey Community Forums Superintendent Update Exit Survey Page 64 - 8 Page 66. 9d 2. Conduct periodic staff surveys on general and specific issues Ongoing Commun. Dept. Eval. \u0026amp; Planning Survey, focus group completed District Dialogue Page 67-12 Page 95 3. Conduct periodic student surveys and focus groups on general and specific issues. Ongoing Commun. Dept. Eval. \u0026amp; Planning Exit Survey (VIPS assisted) Chamber of Commerce Survey Page 65 f Provide review, consultation and planning services on public relations/ communications activities undertaken by all program areas, departments of work 1. Periodically confer with and review materials from Departments or program directors with reference to their individual public relations/communica tions plans and needs Ongoing Commun. Dept. Number of meetings, results of recommendations usedLRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline 17 Area: Public Relations Goal. Support the education mission and all of the goals and objectives of the Little Rock School District through improved community awareness, understanding and confidence in order to undergird the desegregation process. Plan Reference/Page Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Costs Responsibility Evaluation Page 56, A2 2. Provide workshops, seminars as needed to assist with improved and coordinated techniques Ongoing Commun. Dept. Number shops/ seminars,results of improved techniques Principal clusters Incentive Workshops Page 62, 2,3a Page 63, 5 Page 63, 6a Page 215 I 3. Schedule into District-wide media apropriate information to promote and communicate about individual programs Ongoing Commun. Dept. Completed PSA Incentive \"hold\" message News releases Incentive workshop bus, bench, billboards HIPPY brochure 4-year old brochure New curriculum brochure\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_627","title":"Principal selection process, newspaper clippings","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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School principals"],"dcterms_title":["Principal selection process, newspaper clippings"],"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/627"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["newspaper clippings"],"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\nArkansas Democrat (gazette ' WEDNESDAY. OCTOBER 27. 1993 Williams dispels rumors about school closing, says board sensitive to blacks BY WAYNE JORDAN Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer More than 65 parents, teachers and school administrators heard Little Rock School Superintendent Dr. Henry Williams address wide-ranging questions Tuesday at another of the new school chiefs public forums to determine priorities for the next budget year. The Little Rock School District operates more than 50 schools for 26.000 students at an annual cost of $162 million. Most of the expense is wrapped up in salaries for 4.000 employees. Williams, the former superintendent of schools in Syracuse. N.Y., spoke at Parkview Arts Magnet School on John Barrow Road in the second of five planned public forums. He reassured the crowd that Garland Incentive Elementary School at 3615 W. 25th St. was not scheduled to close. He called the idea a false rumor that the School Board has never even discussed. Black parents at the meeting expressed concern that when the district closes or moves schools, they always seem to be in the black community. That creates a cultural and social void, furthering the disassociation of blacks with education, they said. The board is appealing a federal judges decision to move the proposed new Stephens Elementary School from the inner city to a site on Interstate 630. The board wants to build the school at the existing school site, 3700 W. 18th St. Williams lamented that the district must obey court orders and follow approved desegregation plans, but said he hoped to get the district out of court as soon as possible. Then well build schools where we want to, he said. Williams, who is black, also said the board was sensitive to the needs of blacks. But one man said it appeared to him that the only time the district built something in the inner city, negative connotations were involved. He cited the opening of the old Martin Luther King School as a truancy center, where police can drop off students found skipping school. He called that operation, which begins Monday, a mini-jail. Williams took exception to the term. I never thought of it like that, he said. I thought of it as a clearinghouse.TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7,1993 No decision on closing Garland, LRSD chief says BY CYNTHIA HOWELL * Democral-GazeltQ Education Writer No decision has been made to close Garland Incentive Elementary School, Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams told parents Monday night al a community forum at the school. But the school board and district administrators will be studying central Lillie Rock demographics and the projected number of children in the area, Williams said. Those statistics may determine the fate of both Garland and Stephens Incentive Elementary. Both schools are in central Lillie Rock and have enrollments of under 300. Stephens i.s al 3700 W. lOlh SI. Gal land is al 3615 W. 25th St. \"No one i.s saying Garland is closing. The board hasn't said so. I havent said so, Williams said. But he also said the board must consider ways to operate more efficiently and whether there will be enough children in the area to support two schools or a new school building. District officials must make a decision fairly soon about the schools  particularly Stephens, as the district is obligated by its court-approved desegregation plan to rebuild Stephens as a considerably larger interdislrict school along the Interstate 630 corridor for the 1995-96 school year. School board members have discussed seeking permission in federal court to change the desegregation plan to retain Stephens as an incentive school. An incentive school gels extra money for special programs to improve the achievement level of black students and attract whiles to Hie hard-lo-desegre- gale schools. On another issue, a parent. Pearlie Creal-Pope, asked Wil- liam.s to consider altering a policy that results in susiiension of both students in any fight. She said the policy practically forces junior liigh students to join gangs for protection from attackers.District  Continued from Page 1A to hundreds of names. Jackson said in a telephone interview from Greensboro, N.C., where he and several of the principals are attending a magnet school conference, that he had not asked for any kind of transfer. He said he did not know whether he would ask for a school board hearing on the change. Under a November 1992 federal court order, the district is supposed to consult with the Magnet Review Committee and seek court approval before making staffing changes at magnet schools. The court has not received a request to approve the moves. Donna Creer, executive director of the Magnet Review Committee, could not be reached for comment on Jackson. The Mag- . net Review Committee comprises representatives of each of the three school districts in the county, the state Department of Education, and black families who intervened in the 11-year-old Pulaski County desegregation lawsuit. Williams did confirm that Franklin Davis, principal at Franklin Incentive Elementary School, is going to become the principal at Wilson Elementary. jf f. The current Wilson principal SIm m 1 x Henry Williams Gwen Zeigler, will go to Washington Magnet Elementary. Karen Buchanan, the current Washington principal, will hecome principal at Henderson Junior High. Clell Watts, the current Henderson principal, is retiring. Barbara Means, principal at Fair Park Elementary, will become principal at Baseline Elementary. Williams would not comment on the unassigned principals or on any other changes among the schools. I However, Dr. Mary Jane Cheatham, principal at Baseline, confirmed that she is unassigned. Others unassigned include Walter Marshaleck at Ma- belvale Junior High\n-Gayle Bradford at Cloverdale Junior High\nand Lavanna Wilson, principal at Bale Elementary School. Still other changes confirmed  through interviews and sources Tuesday include transfer of Lionel Ward, principal at the Romine Interdistrict Elementary School, to Mabelvale Ele- mentap^\nand Julie Davenport, principal at Mabelvale, to Franklin Interdistrict School. Rudolph Howard, interim principal at Central High School this year, is expected to be recommended to the school board to fill the position permanently at that school. A district committee interviewed three candidates  Howard and two out-of-state candidates  before recommending that Howard be permanently appointed to the post at the districts largest and most famous school. Williams said some of the positions, particularly those vacated by retiring principals. must be advertised and candidates interviewed before they can be filled. Besides Watts at Henderson, Dr. Doyle Dillahunty, principal at the Metropolitan Vocational Technical Skills Center, has said he will retire at the end of this year. And Richard Maple at Forest Heights Junior High is expected to retire at the end of this year.Aricansas Democrat igr (gazette WEDNESDAY, MAY 4,1994 LR schools shuffling principals Spreading expertise, superintendent says / BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Principals at more than a dozen of Little Rocks 52 public schools will change jobs next year because of retirements and involuntary transfers made by. Superintendent Henry Will-i iams. i Dr. Ed Jackson, principal of the popular Williams Magnet EL ementary School, is one principal who wont be returning toi his post. He said he was notified\nFriday that he would not be re\u0026lt; . assigned to Williams next year. and has not yet been assigned-' J to another school. ' At least four other principals ) were unassigned on 'Tuesday. } The Arkansas Democrat- Gazette learned of changes Tues-' day from principals, from sources who asked not to be identified and from_Williams.^ Williams said in a telephone interview Tuesday afternoon that principal changes will not be completed before the end of next week. He said he is waiting for final decisions from employees who are considering retiring. The moves are being made to strengthen schools, Williams said. All buildings need strong leadership, and there are some principals in our district who have experience in successful schools. They should be used to strengthen other schools. Williams said he has not seen negative evaluations on the people being moved. Jackson has been principal at Williams for six years and served in several other district schools before that. His school has been among the most popular of the magnet schools. The waiting list for the school in recent years has grown See DISTRICT, Page 13AAAansati Democrat (gazette TUESDAY, MAY 24, 1994 Copyrignt e UMe Rock Nowspapefs. lop. Williams lists principles, not principals Answers criticism, says stability is goal BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Caught in a backlash of criticism about eliminating athlet- * ic stipends and reassigning principals, Superintendent Henry Williams said Monday he is trying to operate the Little Rock district efficiently and effectively. In recent weeks, Wil- liams has Williams come under fire over some of his administrative decisions. Those decisions include changing principals at several schools and sending notices to coaches and others who get extra-duty pay that their stipends may be discontinued after this year. The stipends notice led to widespread speculation that athletics might be eliminated or that coaches might be asked to put in extra time without pay. Williams also announced retirements and reassignments that would result in new principals at 20 of the districts 51 schools. Williams, who has been superintendent only since October, had little to say during the last few weeks as public criti-  See DISTRICT, Page 6A District  Continued from Page 1A cism about those issues grew. But he spoke about them, and his basic goals, during an interview Monday. Williams said the stipends issue has been misinterpreted and that he has no intention of eliminating sports or other activities. Instead, he said the district sent out the notices that stipends would be eliminated to give administrators time to review the stipends, to make sure they were being paid to the people who were doing the work. Larry Buck, chairman of the legal services committee of the American Federation ofTeach-ers in Little Rock, said two weeks ago that the districts action on the stipends violated stipends in the district are for as much as $6,000 a year. Stipends also are paid to teachers who supervise students before and after school, or who teach six instead of the traditional five periods in the junior and senior high schools. Williams said his staff is looking closely at the extra class periods for which teachers get stipends worth 20 percent of their salaries. If we can more effectively schedule our teachers, then the need to offer the sixth period is no longer present, he said. We believe we can run the district more efficiently and save money in areas where we have not saved before. If we can give a teacher who is teaching six periods now, the same number of students in a five-period day, it doesnt make sense to teach six periods. Its a sizable amount of district resources go-state law and the organization would challenge the decision. The superintendent describes himself as an advocate of school athletics and the recipient of a basketball scholarship to Fayetteville State College in North Carolina. I recognize as a superintendent the importance of athletics to a school district, Williams said. They give so many of our young people an opportunity to display their skills and develop their academic skills, as well, and go on to colleges and universities. As a person who benefited from an athletic program, I would not want to eliminate it. Williams said people who coach or sponsor activities should have no concerns about continuing those activities and getting stipends for them, unless their particular activity no longer exists. Some of the ing to those sixth periods. The superintendent wouldnt say anything specific about proposed principal changes, but said he has made some decisions and is waiting to make some others. He said he may be here for a long time and that they now have stability in this office. Ive got to make decisions that I think will move this dis-trict forward, he said. The superintendent is looking for other ways to improve schools and their operations\nHe has proposed closing Stephens Elementary and building a larger building that would be attractive to residents across the city. He also is looking at closing schools in other areas where  enrollment has declined. He is looking at programs in other parts of the country that could be adapted to Little Rock. Last week, he visited Oklahoma City to see a teaching approach that emphasizes student self-esteem. He hopes to send Little Rock board members and principals to see the Oklahoma City schools in action this spring. He ygars would like to start some pilot I tell them that I plan to be programs next year, he said. able to make some announcement by the middle of this week. Williams angered parents, especially those at Williams Magnet Elementary School, by telling Principal Ed Jackson that he will not be reassigned to that school for next year. Williams School is one of the most popular schools in the district with parents, in part because of the high test scores the students produce. Parents tell Williams that principal assignments have been stable in a district that has faced a lot of uncertainty and leadership changes in recent Betnocnttyil  FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1994 LRSD posts jobs to lead 11 schools Reshuffling could put new principals at 40% BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Nearly 40 percent of Little Rocks 52 schools could begin next year with new principals, thanks largely to reshuffling by Superintendent Williams. Henry  Related article 6B More than a dozen of the 20 possible principal changes would result from reassignments made by Williams. Some of the moves follow principals resignations and retirements. District officials on Thursday posted openings for 11 of the positions, including the principals post at Williams Magnet Elementary School, where some parents and teachers have protested the removal of Dr. Ed Jackson. The district rehired Jackson for the 1994-95 school year, but like some other principals, he has not been assigned a job for next year. His school is among the most popular with parents in all three Pulaski County school districts and has some of the highest student test scores. The unassigned principals  whose salaries wont change next year  are not guaranteed a principals job. Unassigned principals are eligible to apply for their current jobs. The 11 posted job openings are at six elementary schools, four junior highs and one high school. Of the six elementary schools with job openings, three are magnet schools and three are incentive schools. Williams has not commented on his reasons for moving specific principals. In general remarks about the changes, though, he has said that moving principals can strengthen schools and he has no intention of harming programs at any school. In one meeting with parents, Williams said officials at some schools ' had become complacent. Information about some of the changes began leaking to the I Principals  Continued from Page 1A public last week, but two more schools were listed Thursday among those advertising for new principals: J.A. Fair High and Rightsell Incentive Elementary. Fairs principal, Al Niven, is retiring from the district. Sharon Davis, Rightsell principal, has been assigned to Romine Interdistrict Elementary. Besides Williams, Righlsell and Fair, the advertised principal jobs are at Gibbs Magnet Elementary, Carver Magnet Elementary, Mitchell Incentive Elementary, Franklin Incentive Elementary, Cloverdale Junior High, Mabelvale Junior High, Forest Heights Junior High and Southwest Junior High. Several other schools also are expected to have new prin- cipals next year, including Henderson Junior High, Fair Park Elementary, Wilson Elementary, Washington Magnet Elementary, Mabelvale Elementary, Baseline Elementary, Bale Elementary and Metropolitan Vocational Technical Skills Center. Those jobs have not been advertised as vacant, but Williams has revealed who will take over some of them. For example, Karen Buchanan, principal al Washington, will be assigned to Henderson\nGwen Ziegler, now at Wilson, is expected to be assigned to Washington\nand Franklin Davis, now at Franklin, is scheduled to go to Wilson. The 11 vacant positions were posted Thursday, the same day the Pulaski County Magnet Review Committee met about its role in overseeing staffing changes at the magnet schools. Committee members said Thursday they will ask U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright about their interpretation of their duties. In a November 1992 court order, Wright told the district to consiill the committee and seek court permission prior to making stafling changes at the magnet schools. Williams has acknowledged that the school board and ultimately the federal judge must approve hi.s decisions on the principal changes. Committee members agreed Thursday they do not have the right to overturn staffing decisions in the Little Rock district. But the.v said that from now on, the Little Rock district should notify them as soon as possible about expected changes in the certified staff, including principals, at the magnet schools. Committee members objected to first learning of the clianges in newspaper reports. , Dr. Bobby Altom, commit- : tee chairman and an assistant superintendent in the Pulaski County Special School District, said the panel has the au- thority to review whether changing principals will affect the magnet school program. In Jacksons case, that determination was not made Thursday because the committee lacked needed information, such as who the replacement might be. The committee can make recommendations to the judge about proposed staffing changes. Magnet schools are desegregation tools that offer special academic programs to make hard-to-desegregate schools more attractive. They are funded by the three Pulaski County school districts and the stale Department of Education. Students from all three districts attend the six magnet schools in Little Rock. The Magnet Review Committee consists of representatives of the districts, the state and the black families who intervened in the school desegregation lawsuit. Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis assured the committee Thursday that the district would follow its standard process for hiring principals.Legal ius, outs of session on principals split board Arkansas Democrat ^(^azette SATURDAY, JUNE 25, 1994 Copyright O Little Rock Newspaoera. Inc. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School District officials disagreed Friday about the legality of school board action on the transfer of could be grounds for a court challenge because discussion 15 principals to new positions, of a trans- Ih, Williams  At a Thursday meeting at- , fer proce- . tended by a large contingent\ndure is not of parents opposed to some of listedihthe  tHaiaa the transfers, the board recessed for a brief private conference. It returned a few minutes later and announced its conclusion that board approval of the transfers wasnt listed in the '' .   law as a \\ 4 , reason for a closed ssibrii The issue also couldcofne, up at a federal court bearing.\nscheduled for Tuesday' before J U.S. District Judge Siisah WiSb-'- required.  y. ber Wright.,She presides in Perrin Jones, a spokesman ' districts desegregation ?ifor the Arkansas attorney . weeks generalS office, said Friday ^^sked for information abput that the executive session . ' See.WILLIAMS, Paget4A' Williams  Continued from Page 1A principal assignments. Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams said Friday that the board acted correctly. He cited a clause in his contract that states that the superintendent has authority to direct and assign teachers and other employees and shall organize, reorganize and arrange the administrative and supervisory staff in a way that best serves the district. But school board member Pat Gee disagreed. She said the boards decision to take no action was inconsistent with state law that gives school boards authority to assign, reassign or transfer all teachers in schools upon the recommendation of the superintendent. Gee said she would have voted to oppose the principal reassignments had she been given a chance. She also said she felt the executive session was illegal because it dealt with the process for handling the transfers, not the hiring, firing, promotion, or disciplining of specific employees as required by the states Freedom of Information Act. She and board member O.G. Jacovelli were on the losing side of a 4-2 vote to go into executive session Thursday night. Board members Kevin OMalley and John A. Riggs IV, said Friday that the board was correct in going into a closed session to discuss personnel. Both said the purpose of the session was to discuss the specific principals to be transferred. However, the board decided almost immediately after convening the closed session that a vote on the transfers was not needed. Alfred Angulo Jr., a representative of parents unhappy with the process used to select a principal for the Gibbs Magnet Elementary School, said parents are reviewing the legality of the boards decisions. The group will look for help from the Magnet Review Committee, which New principals People hired as new principals by the Little Rock Thursday: William Broadnax, principal of J.A. Fair High School, previously interim principal at Henderson Magnet Junior High. Cassandra Norman-Mason, principal of Cloverdale Junior High, previously assistant principal at Southwest Junior High. Johnny Neely, principal al Southwest Junior High, previously principal al Townsend Park Elementary School In Dollarway School District. Since 1973 he also has worked In the Lee County. Earle, Bay, South Mississippi County, Parkin and Forrest City school districts. Principals transferred to other district jobs by Superintendent Henry Williams: Sharon Davis, assigned to Romine Elementary from Rightsell Incentive Elementary. Lionel Ward, assigned to Mabelvale Elementary from Romine. Julie Davenport, assigned to Franklin Incentive Elementary from Mablevaie. Franklin Davis, assigned to Wilson Elementary from Franklin. Gwen Ziegler, assigned to Washington Elementary from Wilson. Karen Buchanan, assigned to High from Henderson Junior Washington. Or. Samuel Branch, assigned to Fair Park Elementary from Mitchell Incentive Elementary, Barbara Means, assigned to Baseline Elementary from Fair Park Elementary. Mai7 Menking, assigned to Williams Magnet Elementary from Brady Elementary School. oversees the operation of magnet schools. The Gibbs parents complained to the board that a decision about a new principal was made without their input, even though they were invited to interview applicants for the job. They called the interview process a sham. Williams appointed Dr. Ed Jackson, who has been principal at Williams Magnet Elementary School, to Gibbs. Jack- son has said he applied for the School Board on Duane Benage, principal at Forest Heights Junior High School. Benage previously was principal at the Oxbow High School in Bradford. Vt. He also has been a principal and teacher in several schools in Indiana. Sharon Brooks, principal at Rightsell Incentive Elementary School, previously assistant principal at Rockefeller Incentive Elementary. Faith Donovan, principal at Mitchell Incentive Elementary School, previously curriculum specialist al Dunbar Magnet Junior High. Dr. Ed Jackson, assigned to Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary from Williams. Gayle Bradford, assigned to Mabelvale Junior High from Cloverdale Junior High. Walter Marshalak. assigned to the Alternative Learning Center from Mabelvale Junior High. Linda Watson, assigned assistant principal at J.A. Fair from the student hearing oflicer's position. Othello Faison, assigned to the federal programs office from the Alternative Learning Center. Mary Jane Cheatham, principal on special assignment to the transportation office from the principal's position at Baseline Elementary School. Lavanna Wilson, principal on special assignment to the early childhood education office from the principal's job at Bale Elementary. ArkanMS 0moerat.Qazen Gibbs and Williams jobs for next year but would have preferred the job at Williams. Donna Davis, the Gibbs principal, retired at the end of this school year. Mary Menking, formerly principal at Brady, was assigned to Williams School. Because Williams and Gibbs schools are magnet programs, the principal selection could become an issue before the Magnet Review Committee and Judge Wright. Previous court orders in the districts desegregation case have stated that the Little Rock district must consult with the Magnet Review Committee about staffing changes and get approval from the court. Marcia Harding, a member of the Magnet Review Committee and an administrator in the state Department of Education, said she believed the committee would review the principal selections to ensure that the correct process was followed. She said the committee role is not to select a principal but that it can evaluate how a selection is made and whether it benefits  the magnet program. Disputes ' between the committee and the I school district can be referred I te the federal court. The committees next regular meeting is July 5, but a special meeting could be called. Williams was quoted as suggesting during Thursdays meeting that parental involvement isn't needed to operate successful schools, a remark that shocked members of the audience and even school board members, Jacovelli said Friday. Williams said Friday that Angulo had taken his comments out of context in an earlier meeting between the two. In response to comments that schools must have parental involvement, he said that education literature is filled with cases of schools that succeed without parent involvement. I believe parent involvement is necessary in every district at all levels, he said Friday. I have worked to encourage it and will continue to do so. But he also said parents cant assume his authority to select principals. Williams said he wanted an experienced principal at Gibbs. Ann Brown, the federal desegregation monitor, said she had received calls from people who were concerned about the outcome of the board meeting. She said she has tried to reassure them that the district's desegregation plan as well as the federal courts are insistent about parental involvement in the schools.Arkansas Democrat IJfr (gazette FRIDAY, JULY 14, 1995  2 principals recommended for new posts Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams has more recommended two school principal changes for j the coming school year. If the Little Rock School Board endorses the changes at a meeting Thursday, Betty Raper, principal last year at Brady Elementary School, will become principal at Gibbs Magnet School, and Gwendolyn Zeigler, principal last year at Washington Magnet Elementary School, will become principal at Terry Elementary. The board last month approved eight other new principal assignments. However, four of the principals had been acting principals at their schools for at least part of last year. The vacant Gibbs and Terry positions were advertised, and committees of parents and School District administrators interviewed the applicants. The committees submitted their top three choices for each job to Williams, who makes principal recommendations to the School Board. Terrys former principal, LaDell Looper, resigned to take a job in Hot Springs. The former principal at Gibbs, Marjorie Bassa, transferred to Mitchell Incentive Elementary School. spokesman District Suellen Vann said no principals have been selected to fill the positions at Brady and Washington that will open up if the School Board accepts Williams recommendations.RIGGED DEAL The Little Rock School Board accommodated unhappy parents from Gibbs Magnet School last week and reopened the principal selection process. The parents were steamed because Superintendent Henry Williams had promised parents ey could be involved, then set up what was effectively a sham selection process. Williams drew community-wide attention when he snapped publicly at the Gibbs parents that schools could succeed without parental involvement. The Insider has learned that School Board member John A. Riggs, long one of Williams staunchest defenders, tried to secretly broker an end to this dispute that would have been beneficial to both sides. Riggs telephoned at least one Gibbs parent with an offer to reopen the principal selection process in return for a statement from parents that Williams had been quoted out of conte,\\t in the media. No dice, the Gibbs committee responded. The truth is the truth. But the school board relented anyway.WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1994  School chief confesses he dropped ball Report faults LRSD in moving principals BY DANNY SHAMEER Odmocrat\u0026gt;GazeTte Education Writer The Little Rock School District ignored court-ordered procedures in selecting magnet school principals last spring, a report concluded Tuesday. Report  Continued from Page 1A process at Gibbs Magnet Ele- port said. mentary School particularly upset parents. Superintendent Henry Williams acknowledged that he dropped the ball during the principal-election process, which caused an uproar among parents, a report from the federal Office of Desegregation Monitoring said. Williams said his staff didnt advise him about the need to involve the Magnet Review Committee in changing principals at Gibbs, Carver and Williams magnet schools. Later, when he learned about the obligation to consult the committee about staffing changes, he contacted the group, and, he said, he intends to do a better job communicating with the committee in the future. Some of the problems that arose during the process could have been avoided if the superintendent and his senior administrators had communicated better, the report said. The 26-page report covered the selection process the district used in filling magnet and nonmagnet school principal vacancies in the Little Rock district. Twenty-two principal positions were changed  half because of reassignments. The principal shake-up at Williams Magnet Elementary , School and the ^election See REPORT, Page 9A pointed some principals, and was faced with backtracking to accommodate the need for parent involvement, the re- The Magnet Review Committee first learned about im- U.S. District Judge Susan pending changes in principals Webber Wright, who oversees after members read about it in the Pulaski County school de- the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, segregation case, ordered an ' investigation. the report said. The report cited a Novem- The report  the result of her 1992 court order that the investigation  found\n A communication breakdown affected the selection made the committees supervisory role clear. That order, the report said, process. The superintendent should have served didnt ask his staff about past hiring procedures, and they mittee members, didnt tell him. His deputy su- perintendent, Estelle Matthis, sits on the committee, the report noted. as a 'wake-up call for the com- Dr. Bobby Altom, chairman of the Magnet Review Committee, said Tuesday he had not read the report. He said.  The district lacked writ- though, that the Little Rock ten policies and guidelines for district is working with the eve^one involved in the selection process to follow.  Many people felt committee to prevent a recurrence of the problem. Little Rock is working on a Williams had already decided procedure to select staff memin some cases which principal bers for the magnet schools, should go where, regardless of and the committee will review outside advice from parents that policy when its ready, Al- and others serving on the selection committees. Williams tom said. Williams did not return a acknowledged he had a de- reporters call Tuesday, sired outcome in mind for The magnet schools feature particular schools, and was not special programs designed to willing to compromise his se- lections. attract black and white students from all three Pulaski  The superintendent made County public school dis- decisions without knowing the tricts. history of community involve- ment, the committees responsibilities in the desegregation case, or court orders that re- And the federal-court-created Magnet Review Committee is supposed to oversee the op- eration of the six original Lit- peatedly emphasize the role of tie Rock magnet schools, inparent involvement and the eluding Gibbs, Williams and importance of not surprising Carver. the community. as part of the desegregation By the time he learned that case, the state pays all trans- the district had used interview portation costs for those mag- conimittees in the past, the su- net students, along with half of perintendent had already ap- the cost of educating them. .\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_1250","title":"'Procedures for School Closings and Operations During Emergency Conditions,'' Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["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","Educational planning","School administrators","School employees","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["'Procedures for School Closings and Operations During Emergency Conditions,'' Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1250"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["195 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_635","title":"Program planning and budgeting","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":["1993/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Program planning and budgeting"],"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/635"],"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\nCOORDOl REVISED 21 MAY 93 PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS EXPECTATION WORKSHEET CONCEPT - Do you have a program planning and budgeting process? - Are you satisfied with the process? - What are your expectations of a program planning and budgeting process? -How long has the process been in place? MAJOR PLAYERS - What role should the Board play in planning and budgeting? - What role should the administration play in planning and budgeting? - What role should the school staff play in planning and budgeting? - What role should the public play in planning and budgeting? - What roles should the unions play in planning and budgeting? - Are there other players in planning and budgeting? What are their roles? ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING - Who should be responsible for the planning piece, the budget piece, and pulling them together? - How many people work on the planning piece as a regular assignment? - Who is your chief planner? Background? - Who should be responsible for monitoring the deseg plan compliance? - Do you have a PRE shop? - Where should the planning unit organizationally located? - What should be the functions of the planning unit? PROGRAM COORDINATION - What should the plan cycle be? - How do you coordinate/control the planning and budgeting process? - What type of project status reporting should be available? NEEDS ASSESSMENT - Do you perform regular needs assessments? - What kinds of perceptual (surveys) processes should be used to develop the needs assessment phase? - What kind of empirical (data) processes should be used to develop the needs assessment phase? - Who should be in charge of the needs assessment?- Who should provide input into the needs assessment? - What should be the timeframe of the needs assessment? When? How long? - What should be the output of the needs assessment? - What should the output look like? GOALS AND OBJECTIVES - Do you have well defined goals in writing? - What process should be used to develop your goals and objectives? - What input should be used to determine the goals and objectives? Needs assessment? - Who should be involved with the goals and objective process? -What should be the timeframe of developing the goals and objectives? When? How long? - What should be the output of the process? RESOURCES IDENTIFICATION/SERVICE INVENTORY -Do you perform a regular program inventory and assess its effectiveness? - What process should be used to develop the inventory? - What input should be used to develop the resources/service inventory?- What should be the output of the process? - Who should be involved with the identification process? - What should be the timeframe for doing resource identification/service inventory? When? How long? PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT - Do you set up the plan and the budget based on programs? How do you define the program? - What kind of formal process should be used for developing a new program or major modification of an existing program? - How should you incorporate the desegregation plan requirements into your planning process? - How should you bring in program evaluation to assess continued need for a program? - What input should be used to develop or modify programs? - Who should be involved with the development process? - What should be the output of the process? - What should be the timeframe for doing program development/modification? When? How long?RESOURCE ALLOCATION - What is your budget process? How is resource allocation determined? - Who should be involved in the process? - What input should be used to allocate resources? - Is there a formula for allocating resources? -How should priorities be determined? -How should reductions be handled? -How should outyear projections be handled and documented? - How should plan and budget be linked? -How should you link the budget and the desegregation plan requirements? - What should be the timeframe for resource allocation? When? How long? - What should be the output of the process? PROGRAM EVALUATION - What kind of program evaluation do you have? - What input should be used for program evaluations?- Do you perform a regular staffing analysis? How is it used? - Do you perform a regular capacity analysis? How is it used? -Who should be involved in the process? - What should be the output of the process? How is it used? - Should management regularly review the evaluation material? What do they do with it? -How are program managers held accountable for progress or lack of same? - How are budget managers held accountable for progress or lack of same? - What should be the time frame for program evaluation? When? How long? PLAN/BUDGET FORMAT - Do you have a comprehensive planning document? - What should the plan look like? - What input should be used for plan development? - How should the plan be modified? - How should those modifications be carried forward? - How should outyear program/budget projections be displayed?- Who should be involved in preparing the plan? - Who should be the keeper of the plan? - What should be the timeframe for preparing the plan? When? How long? PUBLIC INFORMATION/PARTICIPATION - What should be the input for the process? - Who should be involved in the process? - What is the best vehicle for input from outside the system? - How would you communicate the completed plan and progress reporting to the public? -How would you communicate the process to the staff? - How would you communicate the completed plan and progress reporting to the employees? - What should be the timeframe for public input? When? How long? PROGRESS REPORTING - Is there regular progress reporting during the year? What kind? Frequency? - What should be the input for the process?- What should be the output of the process? -Who should be involved in the process? - Who should be the keeper of the process? - Are the resulting reports regularly reviewed with the responsible parties? - Are the responsible parties held accountable? - Who gets the reporting, and what do they do with it?DEFINITIONS A CONCPT04 REVISED 02 SEP 93 LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT TERM AND DATA ELEMENT DEFINITIONS TERM DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are provided for general guidance, and will be used throughout the Program Planning and Budgeting Process. Program. A program is an composed of a group or series of established plan of operation, related activities which are carried out to serve a specific area of identified need. is a major undertaking by the district to fulfill executive, and/or legal requirements. A program statutory. methods of implementing goals and objectives. Programs are the district's Programs will be a basis for work progress and fiscal reporting and monitoring. Program Description. Generally, program descriptions do not currently exist on most programs, and will have to be written, program description should include at least three parts: A Purpose. A one or two sentence statement of what the program is designed to accomplish. Scope and Content. activities that A general description of the are to be undertaken to achieve the purpose. description program. This of section the might also administrative include structure a 1 of brief the Participants/Beneficiaries. A specific statement of how many and what kind of persons will be affected by the program during one fiscal year. Program Goal. A program goal is a broad guiding statement and should describe the overall aim(s), purpose{s), or ambition(s) of the specific program. It is ageneral and enduring statement of purpose that expresses the district's fundamental intentions and provides guidelines for planning the future development of the program. What is the program trying to accomplish? must have at least one goal, but may have several. Each program Obj actives. Program objectives present explicitly the desired impact the program should have on a problem. They should provide detail to the goals. .They tell in specific, measurable terms what is to be accomplished to implement adopted goals. statement should: (A) tell what is to be achieved\nThe objective (B) tell when the achievement is to be realized\n(C) tell how the achievement of the objective will be measured. least one objective, but may have several. Each program goal must have at Strategies. Strategies are the jobs. tasks, efforts, oractions undertaken in a program accomplishment of the objective. which contributes to the intermediate steps, A strategy is a combination of and produces a distinct end product - not These intermediate processes which only support other strategies. end products should be measurable or quantifiable where possible, showing how the objective is to be achieved. Each objective must have at least one strategy, but may have several. Evaluation Criteria. Evaluation criteria are statements which specify the end product of an objective or strategy and establish measurable levels for the product. These end products should be of performance measurable These showing how the objective or or quantifiable where possible, strategy is to be achieved. The criteria should measure, if possible, the relative impact of the results on the problem which the objective or strategy is designed tc cclvc. If a strategy or objective cannot be measured in terms to solve. of impact, the measurement can be stated in terms of the level (or volume) of strategy provided and/or the number of persons served. Each strategy must have at least one evaluation criteria, but may have several.DEFINITIONS B PROGRAM PAGE DATA ELEMENTS DATA ELEMENT DEFINITIONS. Page. Each program will have one of these Extensive program narrative will carry-over onto a cover pages. second page. The form is set up on diskette to allow for this carry-over, so you do not have to get everything on one page. Program Seq #. Each program will be sequence number by the district planner. assigned a unique The purpose of this sequence number is to establish a reference for placing programs in order within assembled, the planning document. When the document IS programs are arranged in this sequence. The program sequence number will help facilitate look-up since there is front-to-back page numbering. no This element should be field\nit should not change during the year. a static Revision Date. document was last changed. This date is the actual date this program This date will be entered by the person making the change each time the document is changed. this date will change at performance reporting. least quarterly with As a minimum, the regular Program Name. The district planner established name of the program in this field. will place the Name consistency will eliminate confusion, so try to use the designated name on all documents. change during the year. This element should be, a static field\nit should not Program Code. This is a unique accounting code which will link budget and expenditures to the associated program. The code will be assigned by Financial Services prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, and all expenditures during the year should use this program code. should not change during the year. This element should be a static field\nit Primary Leader. The Primary Leader is the cabinet-level associate responsible for the management and operation of this program. This person should have the authority to ensure all necessary actions are taken to make the program successful, person is responsible for the correctness and timeliness planning document and all subsequent reporting. This of the Secondary Leader. The Secondary Leader is the associate who is back-up to the Primary, and will function in that capacity in the absence of the Primary. Program Description. above, must be placed in this field. The program description. as defined static field\nit should not change during the year. This element should be a District Goal Support. Each program must directly support oneor more district goals. If more than one district goal, the appropriate district goals should be listed in descending priority District goals will be established by. the Board. order. element should be a static field\nyear. This it should not change during the Program Goal. placed in this field, but may have several. The program goal, as defined above, must be sequentially. Each program must have at least one goal, Each goal should be numbered and listed not change during the year. This element should be a static field\nit should Plan Reference. Specific plan and page references will be listed in this section for those programs directly cited in one of the desegregation plans. L= LRSD InterDistrict Plan. Desegregation Plan. The format should be L23 or 113-20. 1 = This element will be left blank if the program is not directly cited in one of the desegregation plans. This element should be a static field\nit should not change during the year, unless by Court Order. FY Program Budget. The total budgeted dollars appropriate fiscal year will be shown in this element. for the The number will be the total for the program code, and will be supplied by Financial Services at the beginning of the fiscal year. element will change only if the budget changes. This FTE. This element reflects the Full Time Equivalents (FTE) budgeted for this program (at the program code level). The number will be the total for the program code, and will be supplied by Financial Services at the beginning of the fiscal year. element will change only if the budget changes. This lst/2nd/3rd/4th Qtr Expend. quarter will be entered The actual expenditures for each quarterly reporting process. into the appropriate field during the Financial Services will provide the information, but the Primary Leader is responsible for entering the information onto the form. Once entered, these fields should entered. remain static unless an error is detected. YTD Expenditures. actual expenditures at the program level. This field is the year-to-date total of departments with expenditures against this program. This will include all Financial Services will provide the information once each quarter is closed, but the Primary Leader is responsible for entering the information onto the form. unless an error is detected. Once entered, these fields should remain static Related Function Codes. This field identifies all function- level accounting codes which combine to make the complete program budget. Each program will have at least one function code, but may have several.  ... . ... Each four digit code should be listed sequentially with one space between them.DEFINITIONS C OBJECTIVE PAGE DATA ELEMENTS DATA ELEMENT DEFINITIONS. Page. This is the relating to the \"program\". the field. sequential page numoer tor all pages number is automatically placed in Thi number for program Program Seq #. page. This This should be the objectives back to the number will link major program. same all number as separate on the program Revision Date. document was last changed. This date is the actual date this document was last changed. This date will be entered by the making the change each time the document is changed, this date will change at least quarterly with performance reporting. that on the program ! person As a minimum, ... 1 the regular The date on this page may be different from more frequenffy^should change Program Name. Thi should be the same name as page. This name is a further link back to the Including the name on this page prevents the the program name. on the program major program. need to refer back for Program Code. This should be the same code(s) as on the program page. is a link back to the major program. Including the code(s) on this page prevents the need to refer back for the program code. This code(s) Primary Leader. program page. Including this to refer back for the leader This should be the same person as on the name on this page prevents the need 's name. Secondary Leader. This name that name on the program page. objectives, the Secondary Leader supporting objectives. will generally be the same as However, if a program has several may be different for those Program Goal. . Include only one of the program goals from the program page in this field. For each orooram ooa1 For each program goal listed on tho program page, there will be at least ^isrec on the one objective page. Plan Reference Page listed for each objective and strategy is desegregation plan related, SlIctivT objective or strategy is found. If the objective or strategy is not related to a desegregation plan urt Order, list whatever source was used. Each reference should correspond to the appropriate strategy. Number. Source references strategy. should be If the objective or list the specific plan and or strategy is found, strategy is not related to be numbered to source was used. or the Objectives. program goal. List all of the objectives required to satisfy Objectives should be listed ' ' in bold face.Wording not taken from a desegregation plan bold fsce within psirenthGses. least one objective, but or court order should Each program goal must have at may have Spacing between several. objectives should allow for all supporting strategics should be numbered sequential 1v nnrter Q n r' Vl rv 1 seguentially under each goal. Objectives Strategies. the related objective. Wording not taken from List all of the strategies reguired to satisfy Strategies should be listed in bold face a desegregation plan within parentheses, least strategy, but may have numbered sequentially under each be in bold face or court order should one Each objective must have several. obj ective. at Strategies should be Beginning Date This is the actual date this particular the following format- \"\" Stated yet, leave this field blank. activity began. This the actual date this If an activity has not Completion Date, activity was completed. This is the actual date this . - For consistency, entered m following format\nactivity has been started but not in the on the percent of started, leave this field blank. Responsibility. particular all dates should be MM/DD/YY, 07/22/93. If an completed, give your best guess completwn (75%). If the activity has not 07/22/93. This If the is the name of the . , . . J- uiit name j. wit., ensuring this activity is accomplished. individual tasked Criteria. hist at least one evaluation criteria for each strateev. Include the specific measure of s^c^Js Should be listed in bold face desegregation plan within parentheses. strategy. Evaluation criteria List specific of taken from a face numbered to Each Wording not or court order should be in bold evaluation criteria should be correspond to the appropriate strategy, numbered sequentially under each strategy. and should beRECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV 3 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S 1993-94 FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its status report for the first quarter of the 1993-94 school year, states: 1. By order dated June 15, 1993, this Court notified the LRSD and other parties to this litigation that hearings would be held on July 7 and July 8, 1993, to review budget matters concerning the LRSD and Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"). However, prior to the hearing, the LRSD was instructed to submit certain information as specified by the Court. 2 . In particular. this Court instructed the LRSD to implement a budgeting process that would yield a budget reflecting the District's careful planning for meeting its Desegregation Plan provisions over the full span of the settlement agreement. Accordingly, the LRSD was instructed, among other things, to submit by July 30, 1993, a written plan for the long-range planning and budgeting process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget. The Order contained detailed and specific instructions regarding the information to be included in the written plan and, thereby. i necessitated the development of a comprehensive budgeting and planning process. 3. The LRSD, thereafter, implemented steps and procedures to allow it to comply with the requirements of the June 15 order. The Court had earlier appointed a person to work with the LRSD, at LRSD's expense, to prepare a budget document that would make it possible for the Court to monitor the myriad of programs that the LRSD agreed to conduct through its desegregation settlement plan. That order was filed on or about February 23, 1993. Pursuant to the February, 1993 order, a budget specialist was selected by the Court to assist the LRSD, while reporting to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"O.D.M.\"). 4. Representatives of the LRSD conferred with the budget specialist and representatives of O.D.M. in early July, 1993. At that time, the LRSD was advised that the budget specialist had reviewed the order of this Court and developed a draft paper detailing how many of the requirements of the order could be satisfied. Attached hereto as Exhibit \"1 II is a true and accurate copy of the draft program planning and budget process document as prepared by the budget specialist. 5. Working from Exhibit \"1,\" the LRSD worked to develop the program budgeting and planning document filed by it on July 29, 1993. Attached hereto as Exhibit \"2\" is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum providing a chronology of the actions taken to develop the document. 6. By order dated July 9, 1993, this Court, among other things, gave notice that hearings on the revised budget of the LRSD) would be held on August 12 and 13, 1993. During the hearing, LRSD presented testimony outlining the process used to develop the long- range program planning and budget document which had been filed on July 29. In particular, the Court, having examined the document. sought to determine whether the LRSD was aware of the responsibilities and commitments made by way of the document. Following the hearing, the Court issued an order on August 26, 1993, wherein it commended the LRSD for initiating, with the help of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, budgeting and long-range planning processes. However, in order to allow it to closely monitor the on-going budgeting and planning processes and their impact on desegregation, the Court ordered the LRSD to submit on a monthly basis, a copy of any project management tool used by the District to guide, monitor and control the development and implementation of its planning and budgeting process. The LRSD has endeavored to comply with this requirement, although it must continue to fine tune that process. 7. Since the submission of the program budget and planning document, the LRSD has been taking steps to inservice those District Administrators, staff and employees who will be involved in the process of reporting or in-putting information into the quarterly program planning and budgeting status report. The Court- appointed budget specialist has been of invaluable assistance in that endeavor. Attached hereto as Exhibits \"3\" and are \"4 , \" memoranda from the budget specialist to various LRSD administrators and representatives. Exhibit II 3\" was the transmittal memo for the listing of all programs in the District directly related to thedesegregation plan. Exhibit II 4\" provides general instructions to support the program budget document, basic definitions needed to facilitate the desegregation programs and a description of the data elements contained in the document. The memo also provided information concerning the computer diskettes which would be used by each person in putting information into the program budget document. 8. Following extensive development. training, and implementation activities, the LRSD received information from the various persons reporting the status of activities and achievements for the first quarter of the 1993-94 school year. However, due to the comprehensiveness of the process, as well as its newness to the LRSD, fine tuning was, and still is, necessary to ensure that the document becomes a useful tool in the budgetary process. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit \"5\" is a true and accurate copy of the District's first quarter status report generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, submits its status report for the first quarter of the 1993-94 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE AND CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR (501) 376-2011 72205Attorneys for Plaintiff, Little Rock School District Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's First Quarter Status Report for the 1993-94 school year has been mailed on this 3rd day of November, 1993, by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid upon the following: 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, (Hand-Delivered) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS DRAFT CONCEPT PAPER PROPOSAL BY BILL MOONEY JUNE 29, 1993 Exhibit \"1 IILRSD PLANNING AND BUDGRING FROCKS A Organization and Staffinsr X J B Prograj, Coordination  Broad-kased Input and Participation a Needs AssessHent C  Prograj, Inventory  D Goals and Ol^ectives E Prograj, Developnent   r Budgeting G  PpograR Budget BccuMent H Monitoring and Reporting I ProyriH valuation 4 L Des tart cycleCONCPTOl REVISED 29 JUN 93 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS CONCEPT PAPER GENERAL CONCEPT A. Purpose. Given the complexity of present and future problems facing the district, it is absolutely essential that the best decision-making processes be in operation negotiate these troubled times. if we are to A comprehensive program planning and budgeting process would improve the chances that our limited revenue would be allocated rationally and would have maximum impact on achieving the goals of the district. By linking program objectives and program expenditures we can see more clearly if our money is being well-spent. B. Description. In this process, we will do the following: 1. Determine the needs of the district, including legal obligations under the desegregation and settlement plans. 2. Define our goals and objectives. 3. Define our programs to achieve those objectives, including those required by the desegregation plans. 4. Measure our performance and expenditures. 5. Prepare information for corrective decision-making.A. ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING 1. Purpose. This sub-process deals with the designation of an organizational structure and the assignment of staff responsibilities for carrying out the planning and budgeting This designation and assignment should be in activities. writing, and should be disseminated to all district employees. 2. Players. Cabinet is in a direct support role. The Superintendent has the lead, and the 3. Input. Look at the job requirements and at the personnel resources available, and make best choice. 4. Description. Organization is the process of establishing lines of authority and assigning responsibility for work tasks to accomplish the objectives of the district. Staffing refers to the skills and background required of the assigned personnel to carry out the various planning activities described by the process. The Superintendent must designate a chief planner who will be responsible for developing and coordinating the planning and budgeting process. This designated planner and staff should be familiar with professional planning concepts and techniques. The designated planner would ensure that the process is followed, provide technical assistance, coordinate the process, prepare the document, collect reports, and advise the Superintendent and Board. The designated planner should also be responsible for ensuring all requirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the planning process. 5. Output. The output is an organization chart, lines of authority, tasking assignment, and general timeframes for the process to be operational. 6. Timeframe. must be designated on front end. The first step in the process. The planner Once done, this sub-process will be revisited annually (preferably in early May) to make sure we are in the best configuration.B. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1. Purpose. In the needs assessment sub-process, the problems of the student/parent are identified. Teacher/administrator problems which are barriers to service delivery are also identified. ft need II from It want II or II desire\". We must be able to distinguish 2. Players. needs assessment process. The designated planner will coordinate the The Superintendent will provide the leadership and direction for the process. The Cabinet will be responsible for directing the staff in the collection of assessment information. The Superintendent and the Cabinet will be the decision-makers for identifying the needs. 3. Input. The data on the accepted planning factors and proportional allocation formula (enrollment projections, staffing criteria, capacity study, material allocations formula, other data) must be collected first. Other needs assessment techniques must be selected and implemented. It is critical that the desegregation plans and court orders be reduced to legal requirements which can be II hard coded II until justification can be made to change them. into the needs assessment 4. Description. Utilizing a combination of perceptual and empirical instruments, a range of input information and collected data would be analyzed to determine the needs of the students. parents, teachers, and administrators. The perceptual instruments might include various surveys, samplings, and hearings. The currently used Community Forums and District Dialogues would be used as the foundation of the perceptual instruments, and would be built on with possibly a selected mail survey. All perceptual issues identified must be crystallized into hard issues and cranked into the planning and budgeting The empirical instruments might include data on the process. accepted planning factors, the proportional allocation factors, various needs indicators (economic patterns, employment patterns, education patterns, family patterns, etc.), and review of other data. The desegregation plans and court orders will be dissected, and requirements will be extracted for incorporation into the needs assessment. The data will be massaged and converted into a listing on data. If needs\", keyed back to supporting 5. Output. The output of the needs assessment is a list of needs/problems, the description of the needs/problem, and supporting information on the needs/problem. These will be inputs to our goals and objectives determination, and will subsequently be the basis of programs. 6. Timeframe. The needs assessment sub-process should begin in May with data collection.     September. Surveys should be completed by An initial needs listing should be drafted byThe final listing October\nthe final listing must incorporate the results from the Community Forums and District Dialogues, should be published in December.c. PROGRAM INVENTORY 1. Purpose. This sub-process will identify all of the current programs and services being delivered and will consider their effectiveness. Ineffective programs can be targeted for modification or elimination. \"   will be pointed out. Gaps and duplications in programs Resources, both inside and outside of the district, which can be utilized will be identified. 2. Players. The Superintendent would provide overall direction, and the Board would review the findings. The Cabinet and staff would collect all the basic data and prepare the data into documents for use in goal setting and program development. The designated planner would play a coordinating role. 3. Input. Current program documents, program evaluations, and various surveys would provide the baseline input data. The desegregation plans and court orders would be reviewed to ensure coverage. 4. Description. This sub-process is mainly a data collection and data manipulation activity in support of other sub-processes. The first phase of this sub-process is to inventory all existing programs to make sure all we are doing is included.    - - This inventory would include a program definition. Program evaluations would be used to flag those programs which are failing to meet current goals and objectives. Staff would begin to compare the current programs with the preliminary needs to identify and flag gaps and duplications. It is most important that programs required under the desegregation plans and court orders be verified and status checked during this sub-process. Surveys would be used to identify all resources which can be used to address identified needs\nthis would become a bank\". tl resources 5. Output. This sub-process would identify the programs and resources available to address the needs identified. The Program Inventory report would be generated, and this status of current programs would be utilized in the Goals and Objectives subprocess, the Program Development sub-process, and the Budgeting sub-process. 6. Timeframe. This sub-process would run concurrently with the Needs Assessment sub-process and the Goals and Objective sub- process. It must be completed before the Goals and Objective sub-process can be completed. completed in August. It would be started in May, and beD. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1. Purpose. The subprocess of setting goals and objectives is designed to establish a vision/mission for the district which would guide all actions by the administration. Supporting goals and objectives further define what the district wants to accomplish for the year, and any activity or expenditure which does not further satisfaction of these goals and objectives should be discarded. 2. Players. Setting the vision/mission and goals would be the purview of the Board and the Superintendent. They would receive assistance and support from the Cabinet members, and the Cabinet members would subsequently define objectives for programs which will satisfy the accepted goals. would coordinate the sub-process. The designated planner 3. Input. The Board and Superintendent should utilize the needs listing generated by the needs assessment sub-process and the program resources generated by the program inventory. 4. Description. vision/mission of the district. The first step is to define the The vision/mission will establish the general value beliefs and educational purposes of the school organization. Given the direction, the needs, and the available services, the Board and Superintendent can determine what goals are consistent with the vision and are realistic with respect to accomplishment. Planning assumptions must be defined which will provide staff with more specific directions and considerations on how to proceed with programming and budgeting. Guidelines for the planning factors (staffing) and the proportional allocation formulas should be established/reviewed. Priorities must be established which will guide staff in program development, and which will be used to help allocate funding and resources during the budgeting sub-process. The latter phase of this sub-process is characterized by the Cabinet working with staff to establish program objectives and evaluation criteria for each program in the district. items. 5. Output. The output of this sub-process consists of two First is the Goals Statement by the Board. This includes the written vision statement, the written goals, the written planning assumptions, and the written priorities. The initial calendar for the FY 93-94 planning and budgeting cycle should be published. This should all be in one document signed by the Board and the Superintendent. Second is the development of the specific program objectives and evaluation criteria for each program, and these will be incorporated into the planning and budgeting document. 6. Timeframe. This sub-process is dependent on the Needs Assessment sub-process and the Program Inventory sub-process, but will run concurrently with them. A preliminary goals statementshould be set by the Board during a planning session in June/July which will also establish the process and calendar for planning and budgeting for the coming year. ~ ----- The final Goals Statement should be issued in October. Program objectives and evaluation criteria should be established by November.E. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 1. Purpose. This sub-process is the decision-making stage where the results of all previous sub-processes are considered in an effort to develop new programs or modify current programs to meet the needs addressed by the defined goals. This is where we decide what we want to do and how we want to do it. This is where 2. Players. The key players are the Superintendent, the Cabinet, and the staff. The role of the Superintendent is to provide leadership and guidance to ensure the goals are satisfied with the best possible programs. The Cabinet's role is to educate the administrative and school staff, and provide direction to those staff in developing and implementing creative, effective, and efficient programs. The designated planner is in a coordinating and monitoring role, and serve as the process advisor to the Superintendent. 3. Input. The sub-process will use the output of the Needs Assessment sub-process, the Program Inventory sub-process, and the Goals and Objectives sub-process. 4. Description. This sub-process is the point at which the district defines what programs will be provided. New programs may have to be developed to address newly identified needs fill gaps. Current programs may have to be modified to or successfully meet objectives. eliminated. Some programs may have to be The Cabinet should outline the tasking and provide direction to the staff. The best results will be obtained by allowing the staff to develop or modify the programs, and roll them up to the Cabinet. Decisions will have to be made on what programs will be provided, what the definition of the program will be, and what activities will be necessary to deliver the program. Since programs are selected to meet assessed needs, this is also a crucial time for designing the framework for program evaluation. The last step in this sub-process should be a final check to ensure all requirements from the desegregation plans and the court orders have been provided for by the program lineup. 5. Output. At this point, all of the elements of a good program planning document have been completed\nvision, goals, programs, program definition, program objectives, activities, and evaluation criteria. This material will be used for budget development, and will be directly input into the program planning and budgeting document. 6. Timefrajne. This sub-process may run somewhat concurrent with the Goals and Objectives sub-process, but cannot be finished until the Goals and Objectives sub-process has been completed. This sub-process should start in September, and be completed in early February.F. BUDGETING 1. Purpose. The Budgeting sub-process is the resource allocation function. Money and other resources are allocated to the programs identified in the Program Development sub-process to address the needs identified in the Needs Assessment subprocess . 2. Players. The Board is the ultimate decision-making authority on the budget.  The Superintendent is the leader of the sub-process by ensuring a balanced budget meeting the needs and goals of the students and parents is presented to the Board. The Cabinet is deeply involved in programmatic decisions and matching the budget dollars to the programs. The Business Manager will coordinate the budget preparation, and the designated planner will ensure the planning and budgeting pieces come together. The budget managers will provide input into the sub-process, rolling the budget up to the next level, budget information. The Controller will produce the 3. Input. Many sources of information will be used in this sub-process: needs assessment information, planning factors, proportional allocation factors, previous expenditures, program requirements, public input, desegregation plan and court order requirements. 4. Description. Budgeting involves allocating money and assigning personnel and facilities to effect the programs and goals set in the previous steps. As a result of the allocations made, some changes in developed programs may be necessary, programs define both current year operations and planning The assumptions for the future. The budget should continue with this by projecting a multi-year revenue and expense picture based on these assumptions. formulas should be reviewed each year, fiscal allocations should be consistent. Planning factors and proportional allocation Planning priorities and Maximum input should be solicited from staff and parents regarding allocations. budget issue and major addition/change/deletion should be Each supported with a written business case outlining the decisionmaking process. Each identified program must be separately coded for expenditure collection so that programs may be monitored by performance and cost throughout the fiscal year. 5. Output. In one sense, the allocation of resources in the Budgeting sub-process ends the planning phase and begins the implementation phase. The output is a multi-dimensional budget document which will be used to satisfy the traditional budgeting and accounting requirements, with a program planning and budgeting component which will link the programs and budget allocations. 6. Timeframe. Nov... financial forecasts for next and out-yearsNov..review planning factors and proportional allocation formula results Decsubmission of budget requests by budget managers Feb complete budget development Mar. Mar. revise financial forecast finalize add/change/deletes and business Apr tentative budget to board Jul.Adopt budget Augsubmit to state casesG. PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT 1. Purpose. The primary purpose of preparing the program budget document (Program Operations Plan) is to develop rational planning and effective resource allocation. The document should provide a road map for getting from needed and required programs, through funding, to the destination of the related goal. 2. Players. The The Board will review the plan in relationship to the stated goals, and give final approval of the plan. Superintendent provides overall guidance for the development of the plan. The Cabinet members provide all the program information for their respective areas. The Business Manager provides the financial numbers that match the programs. The designated planner puts together the work plan and coordinates the documentation into the final product. on work. 3. Input. The initial program budgeting document is built the results of the \"deseg audit It and the program definition The program budget document resulting from this cycle will incorporate this initial document but will be the synthesis of all previous key outputs\nthe needs assessment, the program inventory, the goals and objectives, new program definitions, and budget allocations. 4. Description. Although the preparation of the program budget document is not usually considered part of the planning process, it is included here as the culmination and documentation of the other planning sub-processes. aspects must be mutually supportive. The planning and budgeting We want the plan to be a useful and living document which can satisfy several purposes and be readily changed as the environment changes. While the planning module should remain fixed for the year, the format should be used to facilitate regular monitoring and reporting. An example of some things which might be included in the plan would be: an introduction about the plan\nplanning process description\nidentification of the needs of the district and a description of how those needs were identified\ndescription and objectives of the programs\nactivities/strategies on how the programs will operate\nevaluation criteria of the programs\nanalysis of the needs in relation to the available funding\nbudget allocations for the programs\ndescription of how the plan will be impacted\ndescription of how the goals will be impacted\nand major issues for the future. A Cabinet member will be assigned as the responsible primary leader for every identified program, would also be assigned. A secondary leader The primary leader is tasked with ensuring the program meets its objectives, coordinating the required activities or strategies, and the preparation and submission of regular reporting. 5. Output. The program budget document will be the output.This document will become the basis for follow-on monitoring and reporting, and will become the guide for any interim decisionmaking activity. 6. Timeframe. Development of the document should begin around December, and should be completed in conjunction with the completion of the tentative budget in April.H. MONITORING AND REPORTING 1. Purpose. This sub-process should be designed to provide decision-makers with a regular flow of information on the district's progress toward accomplishing its stated goals and objectives. The reporting should be designed to satisfy both internal requirements as well as the reporting requirements under the desegregation plans. 2. Players . The Board and the Superintendent would be the recipients of the reporting for oversight and decision-making. The designated planner would coordinate the sub-process and prepare the composite report. The Business Manager would supply the matching financial information by program. The Cabinet and staff would prepare all reporting documents falling within their area of responsibility. 3. Input. The program budget document (Program Operations Plan) would be the basis for the monitoring and reporting, and would establish the format and design. Cabinet members will provide performance reports from which the designated planner can prepare the composite report, from the Business Manager. Financial information would come 4. Description. Extending the format and content of the program budget document (Program Operations Plan), a sub-process of regular monitoring and reporting would be established immediately. By using the same format, we can reduce the production overhead of the reporting as well as satisfying all parties. ease of function. The reporting mechanism would be set up on diskette for The sub-process would merge both program performance and expenditure reporting on a quarterly basis. The Board could choose to review in depth a certain program at each Board meeting, but still have performance reporting information on all programs. Programs with poor performance or expenditure problems could be addressed with corrective action during the year rather than after the year is complete. Such a process would also facilitate modification of both the program plan and the desegregation plans. Additionally, performance history will be built as a matter of regular business rather than a situational special effort. We would have a comprehensive listing of all the good things we have done, in addition to the bad, and take some credit along with the blame. 5. Output. A quarterly composite progress report on all identified programs within the district, supported with expenditure information. Would be an extension of the program budget document (Program Operations Plan). 6. Timeframe. Work on the sub-process would begin immediately, with the first set of actual reports generated in early October covering the period July/August/September. quarter reports would be due in January, April, and July. PriorI. PROGRAM EVALUATION 1. Purpose. we are doing. This sub-process is where we find out how well Program evaluation will provide us an assessment of the program's performance for decision-making purposes, will tell us if our program is meeting the stated objectives and having the impact intended. We can go one step further with a It program analysis which would tell us whether the program should be cut or improved, and the best options for achieving the latter. 2. Players. The Board and the Superintendent are the recipients of the evaluations, and will use them in determining direction and resource allocation. The designated planner would coordinate the sub-process and be the keeper of the documentation. The Business Manager would supply the supporting financial information. The Cabinet and staff would prepare all reporting documents falling within their area of responsibility. 3. Input. General directions and targets from the Board\nspecific targets from Superintendent. Program planning information, including evaluation criteria and program objectives will be used in developing the evaluations. 4. Description. At least during the first year of the planning and budgeting process, there should be two, concurrent and parallel program evaluation components working\na regular evaluation component and a fl fast-track fl evaluation component. into each program. The regular program evaluation component would be built As programs are put in place, they would contain program objectives and evaluation criteria. Evaluation would continue to get better as we improve our ability to develop and monitor evaluation criteria. Special or more detailed evaluations might be directed by the Superintendent with the intent of looking deeply into a programs workings. Since little or no program evaluation of the regular type is in operation at this time, information is needed upon which to base critical near-term decisions. information need, tf fast-track fl To address this designated programs which might be suspect. evaluations should be performed on identified for \"fast-track Programs should be if they have high impact on the goals and direction of the district. If ff fast-track fl Some possible candidates for evaluations might be as follows: incentive school operations, school closing, student assignment process, construction of Stephen, outsourcing support services, special evaluations from this year. Utilizing the program evaluation information, business cases would be prepared for decision-making in the areas of program modification, program development, and program elimination. 5. Output. Specific program evaluations. used as input into the next planning cycle as well as These would be input intof business cases for making modifications in resource allocation or totally eliminating the program. 6. Timeframe. This sub-process should begin after the Board defines district goals in July, and should continue until input time into the Program Inventory sub-process. \"Fast-track\" evaluations might continue until the initial decision point in the Budgeting sub-process, in January.J. BROAD-BASED INPUT AND PARTICIPATION 1. Purpose. Broad-based education, participation, re and comment provide an opportunity for persons outside the review immediate planning process organization to assist in preparing the plan\nand to review and comment on the plan, the planning process and decisions such as those that affect the allocation of resources. 2. Players. The Board and the Superintendent should provide direction on the type and extent to which broad-based input and participation should be utilized in the various sub-processes. This should be done at the initial summer planning session. Communications Director, working closely with the designated planner, should develop an input and participation plan and implement it in conjunction with the efforts of the designated planner. The 3. Input. Direction from the Board and Superintendent. 4. Description. This sub-process is one in which we seek to get maximum input and participation from as many informed sources as possible, both inside and outside of the district organization. There should be a plan, developed and coordinated by the Communications Director with assistance from the designated planner, for obtaining input and participation from other sources for each of the sub-processes. participation, the better the buy-in on the back side. The more front-end We should take every opportunity to use information to educate the general public and removed staff on the planning and budgeting process and the contents of the Program Budget Document. There are a number of possible input sources which might be called upon to participate in one or more of the sub- processes. A partial list follows: the Community Forums and District Dialogues for needs assessment, the building coordinating committees, the budget committee, the Magnet Review Committee, the bi-racial committee, the PTA, the ODM, and Joshua. The Communications Director should identify those sources which would be most appropriate for each sub-process, and work with the designated planner on building the best input mechanism. 5. Output. Each source would have a different method of providing participation and input into each of the sub-processes. Thus, the output would vary depending on the situation. 6. Timeframe. Since some form of broad-based input and participation might be solicited in each sub-process. process would be ongoing. this subK. PROGRAM COORDINATION 1. Purpose. The planning and budgeting effort must be closely coordinated so as to maximize the use of available resources in meeting the needs of the students and parents, minimize of duplication and gaps in programs, and ensure all district efforts are aimed at the district goals. 2. Players. The designated planner is the leader in this sub-process, and must be a close advisor to the Board and Superintendent. The designated planner must keep the Board and the Superintendent informed as to what is being done and where  stand relative to achieving our goals. we The Board and the Superintendent must exercise oversight authority on the process and allocate resources accordingly. Additionally, the Superintendent must support the designated planner and ensure all district staff are aggressively working on the completion of the plan. 3. Input. Superintendent. District goals, direction from the Board and 4. Description. Program Coordination is a key activity which relates to all other activities. Each of the planning activities such as needs assessment, program development and budgeting would be coordinated with similar activities in the other sub-processes. Since there would be many participants in the entire process, it is most critical that all of the pieces fit together and support each other. This coordination is achieved by having a designated planner who will develop project plans for the overall process and each sub-process, monitor the progress against those project plans, and provide progress reporting back to the Board and Superintendent. The designated planner is there to make sure everything happens on time, not necessarily to do it. 5. Output. Project plans and status reports. part of the regular monitoring and reporting sub-process. Should be a 6. Timeframe. A start to finish sub-process. Ongoing.L. RESTART CYCLE 1. Purpose. The program planning and budgeting cycle is a continuous process, and would be the heart of the way we manage the business of the district. Once the cycle for one fiscal year is complete, the next cycle begins\nin fact, there is actually some overlap.CONCPT02 REVISED 29 JUN 93 PROPOSED PLANNING AND BUDGET CALENDAR JULY 1993 - Designate planner and job responsibilities - Board/Cabinet workshop on planning and budgeting\ntentative district goals defined, identify It targets, fast-track\" evaluation define guidelines on broad-based input, design planning and budgeting calendar - Proposed planning factors and proportional allocation formulas identified, published, and data collection begins - Planning and budget calendar published - Begin development of the monitoring and reporting procedures - Begin Program Inventory using \"deseg audit\" as baseline - Begin II fast-track It evaluations AUGUST 1993 - Complete Program Inventory - Complete monitoring and reporting procedures, and issue instructions - Board reviews planning factors and proportional allocation formulas Continue tt fast-track II evaluations SEPTEMBER 1993 - Complete needs assessment surveys Continue It fast-track It - Begin Program Development evaluations OCTOBER 1993 - Needs listing finalized - Board approves planning factors and proportional allocation formulas - Enrollment statistics and projections published - First quarter FY93-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report published - Board issues final Goals Statement - Continue Program Development Continue tt fast-track tt evaluations - Begin Community Forum input on programs and budgets - Begin District Dialogues input on programs and budgets NOVEMBER 1993 - Board issues directions and assumptions for budgetpreparation - Initial financial forecasts prepared - Base budgets and budget instructions generated and distributed Program objectives and evaluation criteria finalized each program for - Review planning factors and proportional allocation formula results Continue If fast-track fl evaluations - Continue Program Development - Continue Community Forum input on programs and budgets - Continue District Dialogues input on programs and budgets - Continue Community Forum input on programs and budgets DECEMBER 1993 Complete District Dialogues input on programs and budgets - Complete Community Forum input on programs and budgets - Complete needs assessment listing - Budget managers submit budget requests Continue If fast-track fl evaluations - Continue Program Development - Begin developing program budget document (Program Operations Plan) JANUARY 1994 - Complete \"fast-track evaluations Second quarter FY93-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report published - Continue developing the Program Budget Document - Continue budget request review and budget development - Continue Program Development Begin identification of major budget issues and development of business cases FEBRUARY 1994 - Complete program development - Complete budget development and business case development - Continue developing the program budget document (Program Operations Plan) MARCH 1994 - Revise financial forecasts - Revise the program budget document (Program Operations Plan) Finalize budget issue recommendations and business each issue - Feedback to all input participants case onAPRIL 1994 Complete the program budget document (Program Operations Plan) - Revise budget - Board workshop on budget - Submit tentative budget to Board - Certified personnel reduction deadline - Third quarter FY93-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report published MAY 1994 - Revise budget - Non-certified personnel reduction deadline - Board workshop on budget - Board approves tentative budget - Reassess planning organization for FY94-95 cycle - Begin FY94-95 cycle needs assessment - Begin program inventory for FY94-95 cycle JUNE 1994 - Revise to final budget - Court hearing on budget - Continue FY94-95 cycle needs assessment - Continue FY94-95 cycle program inventory JULY 1994 - Board adopts final budget - Fourth quarter FY93-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report published - FY94-95 cycle Board workshop on planning and budgeting - Continue FY94-95 cycle needs assessment - Continue FY94-95 cycle program inventory AUGUST 1994 - Complete FY94-95 cycle program inventory - Submit final budget to State - Board reviews planning factors and proportional allocation formulas for FY94-95 cycle - Continue FY94-95 cycle needs assessmentLRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM OPERATIONS PLAN Program Seq #\nPage: 1 Program Name: Revision Date: Program Code: Program Description: District Goal Support Program Objective: Primary Leaden Secondary Leader. Plan References: FY Program Budget YTD Expenditures: 1st Qtr Expend: 2nd Qtr Expend: 3rd Qtr Expend: 4th Qtr Expend:LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM OPERATIONS PLAN Page: 2 Program Seq #: Program Name: Program Code: Program Objective: Primary Leader. Secondary Leader. Revision Date: Plan Reference Page Number Objectives Strategies Beginning Date Completion Date Plan Target Responsibility Evaluation CriteriaLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: August 11, 1993 Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent From: Sterling Ingram^ Director Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Planning and Budget Document Chronology- What follow\nis a chronology of the development of the Program Planning and Budget Document. 1. Board Meeting July 9, 1993 7:00 p.m. Draft of Bill Mooney's document distributed to Board and Others 5. 6. July 13-16, 1993 July 21, 1993 July 23, 1993 July 26, 1993 July 28, 1993 Review of Mooney's document. Initial LRSD document drafted Discussed contents of document E. Matthis, B. Gadberry, M. Milhollen, M. Parker, J. Malone, B. Mooney, S. Ingram Work session to refine calendar, tasks and responsible persons. E. Matthis, B. Gadberry, M. Milhollen, M. Parker, J. Malone, S. Ingram Work session to discuss rewrite of LRSD document. Sent copy of document to Board for review prior to the July 28, 1993 meeting. Draft discussed with Board. Walked through the document that the Board would be familiar with the Planning/Budgeting Process. so To: 2 . 3 . 4 . 7 . July 29, 1993 Minor changes made to draft as a result of the Board meeting. Document filed with the Court. bjg cc: Jerry Malone Exhibit \"2 IISTPR0G13 Date: July 19,1993 From: Estelle Matthis Brady Gadberry Sterling Ingram Mark Milhollen Marie Parker Jeanette Wagner Bill Mooney Program Identification and Coding Attached is your copy of the final version of the Program Identification Worksheet. sequence order and in program code sequence. I have provided the listing in plan No further action is required at this time. We will be using these listings to ensure program coverage when we start work on the program budget document. It For your information, am also working on a listing of other\" programs in the district not directly related to the desegregation plan. This draft listing covers the rest of the services in the district, approximately 150 It $100,000,000. These will be addressed later. programs for over To: Sub j : I If you have any questions, or if I can help you in any way, just give me a call. Exhibit \"3\"c CORR25 Date: September 2, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis Sterling Ingram Dennis Glasgow Larry Robertson Margaret Gremillion Brady Gadberry Arma Hart Jeanette Wagner Mark Milhollen Jerry Malone From: Bill Mooney Subj: Completion of the Program Budget Documents Sterling and I have been working on some documentation to support the Program Budget Document, and we think this will help you in your task of loading your initial program data. If you will look at these two documents prior to loading your data, you should have far fewer problems. Attached is a document entitled \"LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT TERM AND DATA ELEMENT DEFINITIONS.\" This document provides some basic definitions you will need as you work with both the desegregation programs and the non-desegregation programs in the next phase of the project. It also provides a description of every data element field on both pages of the Program Budget Document (PBD), including what should go into those fields. The diskette is built using WordPerfect. You will find three files on the diskette\nINSTRUCT, PROGBUD.DOC, and TABLEJFRM. File INSTRUCT contains a complete set of typing and formatting instructions for your clerical staff. This file should be read before opening the other two. If you run into problems, please ask for help. It is very important that you pass on this information to all program people who will be working with the PBD. If you have questions, let us know. The PBD you are creating today will be used for quarterly reporting for the rest of the year. Therefore, maximum happiness will result from maximum communication and understanding. Exhibit 4CONCPT04 REVISED 02 SEP 93 LRSD FY 93-94 PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT TERM AND DATA ELEMENT DEFINITIONS TERM DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are provided for general guidance, and will be used throughout the Program Planning and Budgeting Process. Program. A program is an established plan of operation, composed of a group or series of related activities which are carried out to serve a specific area of identified need. A program is a major undertaking by the district to fulfill statutory, executive, and/or legal requirements. methods of implementing goals and objectives. Programs are the district's Programs will be a basis for work progress and fiscal reporting and monitoring. Program Description. Generally, program descriptions do not currently exist on most programs, and will have to be written, program description should include at least three parts: A - Purpose. A one or two sentence statement of what the program is designed to accomplish. Scope and Content. A general description of the activities that are to be undertaken to achieve the purpose. description program. This of section might also the administrative include structure a J of brief the - Participants/Beneficiaries. A specific statement of how many and what kind of persons will be affected by the program during one fiscal year. Program Goal. A program goal is a broad guiding statement and should describe the overall aim(s), purpose(s), or ambition(s) of the specific program. It is a general and enduring statement of purpose that expresses the district's fundamental intentions and provides guidelines for planning the future development of the s program. What is the program trying to accomplish? must have at least one goal, but may have several. Each program Objectives. Program objectives present explicitly the desired impact the program should have on a problem. detail to the goals. They should provide They tell in specific, measurable teirms what is to be accomplished to implement adopted goals. The objective statement should: (A) tell what is to be achieved\n(B) tell when the achievement is to be realized\n(C) tell how the achievement of the objective will be measured. least one objective, but may have several. Each program goal must have at Strategies. Strategies are the jobs. tasks, efforts, oractions undertaken in a program accomplishment of the objective. which contributes to the A strategy is a combination of intermediate steps, and produces a distinct end product - not These intermediate processes which only support other strategies. end products should be measurable or guantifiable where possible, showing how the objective is to be achieved. Each objective must have at least one strategy, but may have several. Evaluation Criteria. Evaluation criteria are statements which specify the end product of an objective or strategy and establish measurable levels of performance for the product. These end products should be measurable or guantifiable where possible, showing how the objective or strategy is to be achieved. The criteria should measure, if possible, the relative impact of the results on the problem which the objective or strategy is designed to solve. If a strategy or objective cannot be measured in terms of impact, the measurement can be stated in terms of the level (or volume) of strategy provided and/or the number of persons served. Each strategy must have at least one evaluation criteria, but may have several.PROGRAM PAGE DATA ELEMENTS DATA ELEMENT DEFINITIONS. Page. Each program will have one of these Extensive program narrative will carry-over onto cover pages. a second page. The form is set up on diskette to allow for this carry-over, do not have to get everything on one page. so you Program Seq #. Each program will be sequence number by the district planner. assigned a unique The purpose of this sequence number is to establish a reference for placing programs in order within the planning document. When the assembled, programs are arranged in this sequence. document is The program sequence number will help facilitate look-up since there is no front-to-back page numbering. field\nit should not change during the year. This element should be a static Revision Date. document was last changed. This date is the actual date this program This date will be entered by the person making the change each time the document is changed. this date will change at As a minimum, performance reporting. least quarterly with the regular Program Name. The district planner established name of the program in this field. will place the Name consistency will eliminate confusion, so try to use the designated name on all documents. change during the year. This element should be a static field\nit should not Program Code. This is a unique accounting code which will link budget and expenditures to the associated program. The code will be assigned by Financial Services prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, and all expenditures during the year should use this program code. should not change during the year. This element should be a static field\nit Primary Leader. The Primary Leader is the cabinet-level associate responsible for the management and operation of this program. This person should have the authority to ensure all necessary actions are taken to make the program successful. This person is responsible for the correctness and timeliness of the planning document and all subsequent reporting. Secondary Leader. The Secondary Leader is the associate who is back-up to the Primary, and will function in that capacity in the absence of the Primary. Program Description. above, must be placed in this field. The program description. as defined static field\nit should not change during the year. This element should be a District Goal Support. Each program must directly support oneor more district goals. If more than one district goal, the appropriate district goals should be listed in descending priority order. District goals will be established by the Board. -- order This element should be a static field\nit should not change during the year. Program Goal, placed in this field, but may have several. The program goal, as defined above, must be sequentially. Each program must have at least one goal. Each goal should be numbered and listed not change during the year. This element should be a static field\nit should Plan Reference. Specific plan and page references will be listed in this section for those programs directly cited in one of the desegregation plans. L= InterDistrict Plan. LRSD Desegregation Plan. The format should be L23 or 113-20. 1 = This element will be left blank if the program is not directly cited in one of the desegregation plans. This element should be a static field\nit should not change during the year, unless by Court Order. FY Program Budget. The total budgeted dollars for the appropriate fiscal year will be shown in this element. The number will be the total for the program code, and will be supplied by Financial Services at the beginning of the fiscal year, element will change only if the budget changes. This FTE. This element reflects the Full Time Equivalents (FTE) budgeted for this program (at the program code level). The number will be the total for the program code, and will be supplied by Financial Services at the beginning of the fiscal year, element will change only if the budget changes. This lst/2nd/3rd/4th Qtr Expend. The actual expenditures for each quarter will be entered into the appropriate field during the quarterly reporting process. Financial Services will provide the information, but the Primary Leader is responsible for entering the information onto the form. remain static unless an error is detected. Once entered, these fields should YTD Expenditures. actual expenditures at the program level. This field is the year-to-date total of departments with expenditures against this program. This will include all Financial Services will provide the information once each quarter is closed, but the Primary Leader is responsible for entering the information onto the form. unless an error is detected. Once entered, these fields should remain static Related Function Codes. This field identifies all function- level accounting codes which combine to make the complete program budget. Each program will have at least one function code, but may have several. with one space between them. Each four digit code should be listed sequentiallyWording not taken from a desegregation plan or court order should be in bold face within parentheses. Each program goal must have at least one objective, but may have several. Spacing between objectives should allow for all supporting strategies. Objectives should be numbered sequentially under each goal. Strategies. List all of the strategies required to satisfy the related objective.   Strategies should be listed in bold face. Wording not taken from a desegregation plan or court order should be in bold face within parentheses. Each objective must have at least one strategy, but may have several. numbered sequentially under each objective. Strategies should be Beginning Date. activity began. This is the actual date this particular For consistency, all dates should be entered in the following format\nMM/DD/YY, 07/22/93. stated yet, leave this field blank. If an activity has not Completion Date, activity was completed. entered in the following format\nThis is the actual date this particular For consistency, all dates should be MM/DD/YY, 07/22/93. If an activity has been started but not completed, give your best guess on the percent of completion (75%). started, leave this field blank. If the activity has not Responsibility. This is the name of the individual tasked with ensuring this activity is accomplished. Evaluation Criteria. for each strategy. List at least one evaluation criteria Include the specific measure of Evaluation criteria should be listed in bold face. success. Wording not taken from a desegregation plan or court order should be in bold face within parentheses. Each evaluation criteria should be numbered to correspond to the appropriate strategy, and should be numbered sequentially under each strategy.OBJECTIVE PAGE DATA ELEMENTS DATA ELEMENT DEFINITIONS. Page. This is the relating to the the field. (t program\". sequential page number for all pages This number is automatically placed in Program Seq #. This should be the same number as program page. This number will link all on the objectives back to the major program. separate program Revision Date. document was last changed. This date is the actual date this program This date will be entered by the person making the change each time the document is changed. this date will change at As a minimum, least quarterly with the regular performance reporting. The date on this page may be different from that on the program page since this objective page should change more frequently. Program Name. page. This name This should be the same name as on the program is a further link back to the major program. Including the name on this page prevents the need to refer back for the program name. Program Code. This should be the same code(s) as on the program page. This code(s) is a link back to the major program. Including the code(s) on this page prevents the need to refer back for the program code. Primary Leader. program page. This should be the same person as on the Including this name on this page prevents the need to refer back for the leader 's name. Secondary Leader. that name on the program page. This name will generally be the same as objectives, However, if a program has several supporting objectives. the Secondary Leader may be different for those Program Goal. program page in this field. Include only one of the program goals from the For each program goal listed on the program page, there will be at least one objective page. Plan Reference Page Number. listed for each objective and strategy. Source references should be If the objective or strategy is desegregation plan related, list the specific plan and page upon which this objective or strategy is found. If the objective or strategy is not related to a desegregation plan or Court Order, list whatever source was used. be numbered to correspond to the appropriate strategy. Each reference should Objectives. the program goal. List all of the objectives required to satisfy Objectives should be listed in bold face.xT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUEffi^ lW61 z 93 j FEB 1 11994 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WESTERN DIVISION-' Office o' Oesegtegat'on Monitor'''' %FEB-7 PK5:29 PU) a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. HCCORHACK.CLE U.S. DISTRICT COURT. AK U' BY. VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF DEPUTY CLERK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSD^S 1993-94 SECOND QUARTER STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its status report for the second quarter of the 1993-94 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the District's second quarter status report generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. 2. Since the filing of the first quarter status report, the LRSD has continued to meet with and utilize the services of the Court-appointed budget specialist. In that regard, a careful review has been made of the District's desegregation programs as well as its non-desegregation programs. The process of determining all non-desegregation programs is nearly complete and will be used in the District's decisionmaking process regarding the budget. Second Quarter Status Report February 7, 1994 Page 2 An effort IS being made to reconcile the various components. It is presently believed that this will be complete by the time the third quarter status report is filed. If so, the nondesegregation programs will be merged into the District's budgeting process. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its status report for the second quarter of the 1993-94 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By Je^Try L. Maldhe^^ Bar No. I. D. 85096  ' 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's Second Quarter Status Report for the 1993-94 school year has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on February 8, 1994, upon the following, except as otherwise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building Suite 520 201 East Markham Street (Hand-delivered on 2/7/94 pursuant to the order of the Court) Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY 1 3 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSD^S 1993-94 THIRD QUARTER STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its status report for the third quarter of the 1993-94 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the District's third quarter status report of desegregation programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. As evident, the report is much larger than either the first quarter or second quarter status reports. This is because more achievements are listed and also because the document was not printed on both sides of each page. Due to copy machine difficulties, the LRSD Printer was not able to generate two-sided copies. The cut of the paper during its manufacturing process and the moisture absorbed by the paper from the atmosphere were the primary causes of those difficulties. In fact, outside copy outlets were having similar experiences.LRSD's 1993-94 Third Quarter Status Report May 13, 1994 Page 2 2. The status report of desegregation programs has been split into two (2) volumes, as explained in the narrative of the document. However, because of copy/binding difficulties, each volume has also been split into two (2) separate booklets. Thus, volume I has the beginning documents in the first book. The remaining programs under Volume I are continued in a second book. The same is true with Volume II. 3. This report is also larger because additional desegregation obligations have been included. The various phases of the Desegregation Audit enabled the District to identify all of its obligations, compare those compiled through the Audit with those already included in the District's Program Budget Document (First and Second Quarter, 1993-94), determine the redundancies and omissions, and then merge the omitted items into this report. Achievements related to these newly included obligations will be included in future status reports. See memo attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 4. At the suggestion of the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, certain \"clean-up\" modifications were made. Those modifications are outlined in the memo and documents attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 5. The process of determining all non-desegregation programs is complete, and a true and accurate copy of the District's year-to- date status report of those programs is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Beginning with the fourth quarter status report, quarterly nondesegregation expenditures will be reflected.LRSD's 1993-94 Third Quarter Status Report May 13, 1994 Page 3 WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its status report for the third quarter of the 1993-94 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's Third Quarter Status Report for the 1993-94 school year has been Hand-Delivered on May 13, 1994, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone EXHIBIT 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: May 11, 1994 To: Program Managers From: Sterling Ingram\nAssociate to the Deputy SuperJ^itendent Robert Cl Planning/ ers. Director ^search and Evaluation Through: Estelle Matth' Deputy Superintendent Re: Program Budget Document Included on your diskette are additional desegregation This inclusion was necessary to be certain that have identified all of our desegregation obligations. The additional obligations were identified through a comparison between the Desegregation Audit and the Program Budget Document (PBD). The obligations may include expanded program description language, program goals, program objectives, strategies, evaluation criteria.   obligations. and we your diskette. These additional items are underlined on We ask that you do the following: 1. Please review the program description to ensure that the description is consistent with the program goals, objectives, strategies, and evaluation criteria. 2. Develop strategies and evaluation criteria for additional , These items should be listed parenthetically. objectives. 3. For added strategies, develop evaluation criteria and report achievements, where possible. 4 . Develop a separate numerical list of the additional evaluation criteria. Example: 1.1, 2.1, 3.2, 4.2, etc. At the end of the fourth reporting period, please forward these lists by program name to the Planning, Research and Evaluation office. PRE staff will input the reference column information, should review all additions with your primary leader. You The refinement process continues. . . If, in your opinion, any of the additions have been added in the wrong place, Clowers at 324-2120. call Dr.EXHIBIT 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2124 Date: May 11, 1994 To: Jerry Malone, Attorney From: Sterling Ingram,Associate to the Deputy Superintendent Re: Program Budget Document, May Submission At the suggestion of our budget specialist. Bill Mooney, a review of the desegregation and regular non-desegregation program budget documents was conducted. Participants included Mark Milhollen, Bill Mooney, and Sterling Ingram. Our \"clean-up\" work is reflected on the third quarter report. Attached is a description of the major modifications. The third quarter report includes desegregation and non-desegregation programs. bjg cc: Mark Milhollen Robert Glowers Marjorie BassaPROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT MODIFICATIONS The Third Quarter Status Report Program Plarming and Budget Document for Desegregation cites the following modifications in the sequence numbers, goal/objective adjustments, and/or other program planmng information for individual program budget documents. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In-School Suspension, Program Sequence #12, Program Code #27 Modification: Alternative Learning Center (Program Sequence #16) has been merged with In-School Suspensions objectives and goals. Contingency, Program Sequence #31, Program Code #49 Modification: Addition to the Program Budget Document Report. (A new program). Commitment to Desegregation/Leadership, Program Sequence #28, Program Code #35 Modification: Sequence # was changed from 19 to 28. Modification: Prejudice Reduction (Program Sequence #28) has been merged into Commitment to Desegregation/Leadership as an objective. Summer Learning Program - JTPA, Program Sequence #30, Program Code #77 Modification: ASSET (Program Sequence #31) and Special Programs (Program Sequence #32) were merged into the program description, goals, objectives, and strategies of Summer Learning Program - JTPA Extended Day/Week, Program Sequence #47, Program Code #57 Modification: Homework Centers (Program Sequence #49), Homework Hotline (Program Sequence #51), Extended Week (program Sequence #60) were merged into the program description, goals, objectives, and strategies of Extended Day/Week. Modification: The program name. Extended Day, was changed to Extended Day/Week. Staffing, Program Sequence #61, Program Code #72 Modification: Permanent Substitute (Program Sequence #58) was merged into the program description, goals, objectives, and strategies of StaffingPBD Modifications Page 2 7. Other Incentive School Academic Activities, Program Sequence #64, Program Code #75 8. Modification: Peer Tutors/Retired Mentors (program Sequence #52) and Themes (no program sequence #) were merged into the program description, goals, objectives, and strategies of Incentive School Academic Programs. King Interdistrict School, Program Sequence #76, Program Code #49 Modification: Kings budget information is removed and is reflected hereafter in M-to-M Magnets (Program Sequence #82, Program Code #18). 9. Parkview Science Magnet, Program Sequence #81 Modification: Parkview Science Magnet is merged into the goals/objectives of Original Magnets (Program Sequence #80, Program Code #14). 10. McClellan Community School, Program Sequence #15, Program Code #26 Modification: Note added to read the FTEs are included in a separate fund and are not charged against the operating budget. 11. Non-desegregation programs will include related funding function codes which identify and track specific program components.f HUd IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUlWsrE^fg^WCT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By\n___  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF dep VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS clerk clerk LRSD^S 1993-94 FOURTH QUARTER STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\") , for its status report for the fourth quarter of the 1993-94 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the District's fourth quarter status report of desegregation programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the District's fourth quarter status report of non-desegregation programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its desegregation and non-desegregation status reports for the fourth quarter of the 1993-94 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process.LRSD's 1993-94 Fourth Quarter Status Report August 15, 1994 Page 2 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's Fourth Quarter Status Report for the 1993-94 school year has been Hand-Delivered on August 15, 1994, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone IN 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 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS J ( LRSD's 1994-95 FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its status report for the first quarter of the 1994-95 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the District's first quarter status report of desegreqation programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the District's first quarter status report of non-desegregation programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its desegregation and non-desegregation status reports for the first quarter of the 1994-95 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process. LRSD's 1994-95 First Quarter Status Report November 18, 1994 Page 2 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT B Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's First Quarter Status Report for the 1994-95 school year has been Hand-Delivered on November 18, 1994, upon the following\nMr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone p''' 4\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT DATE: January 5, 1995 TO: Bill Mooney, Office of Desegregation Monitoring JAN I 3 1995 FROM: Robert Glowers, Director Office of Desegregation Monito: in RE: Desegregation/Non-Desegregation Extended Program Evaluations Below is a listing of the Desegregation/Non-Desegregation programs that were selected for an extended evaluation. They are listed by program sequence number and program names. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. SEQ # 2 Program Name 4-Year-0 Id SEQ # 15 14 3 227 23 24/23 33 231 07 207 213 215 01 228 Academic Incentive Academic Support Communication Services Computerized Transportation Contingencies Data Processing Facilities Family Life/New Futures Federal Programs Gifted and Talented Guidance Services Health Services HIPPY Human Resource Services 13 226 222 223 224 79 78 25/225 203 05 21 204 08 Program Name McClellan Community School New Futures Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Plant Services Pupil Transport Purchasing Services Rockefeller Early Childhood Romine Interdistrict School Safety and Security Services Special Education Special Education/Learning Staff Development Vocational Education Vocational Educationcr FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-19941 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. DAVIS. 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. WYCKL1FF 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 8. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE 5. MACKEY, b.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 May 19, 1995 MAY I 9 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 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. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR-, P.A. e.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. WRlTEft-S OineCT NO. (501) 370-1 553 Hand-Delivered Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street 72206 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Third Quarter Status Report Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find the LRSD's Third Quarter Status Report for the 1994-95 school year filed pursuant to the Order of the Court. ( l^r/cd I'j Thank you for your attention to this matter. ^Sinoe-rely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney diana\\pcssd\\sta(us.ltrGentlemen and Mrs. Brown May 19, 1995 Page 2 JLM/dtw Enclosure cc (w/enc) : Dr. Henry P. Williams Mrs. Estelle Matthis d iana\\pcxsd\\s tatus. lirIN t\nUNITED STATES EISTRICT 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 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MAY 1 9 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS Office of Desegregation Monitoring LRSDs 1994-95 THIRD QUARTER STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its Status Report for the third quarter of the 1994-95 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (Volumes I and II) is a true and accurate copy of the District's Third Quarter Status Report of Desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. 2 . Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the District's Third Quarter Status Reporc of Non-desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its Desegregation and Non-desegregation Status Reports for the third d iana\\pcssd\\sutus.3rd -1-quarter of 1994-55 school year accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting pr cess. Respectfully submitted, dianiMJcssdMtaaa.Jrd FRIDAY, ELDREDGE Attorneys at Law 04 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201-3493 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Ear I. D. No. 35056 -2-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE , -erry L. Malone, do hereby certify mat a copy of the foregoing LRSD's Third Quarter Status Report f r the 1994-S5 school year has been hand-delivered on May /f1995, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 diana\\pcssd\\sunis.3rd Mr. Samuel M. Jones, WRIGHT, III LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Attorney at Law Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone -3-: ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION re 4 1995 Cffio3 ot Dessgragsiicri wicnaOi':ng LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS I LRSD's 1994-95 SECOND QUARTER STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its status report for the second quarter of the 1994-95 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the District's second quarter status report of desegregation programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. 2 . Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the District's second quarter status report of non-desegregation programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its desegregation and non-desegregation status reports for the second quarter of the 1994-95 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process.LRSD's 1994-95 Second Quarter Status Report February 24, 1995 Page 2 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By. Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that LRSD's Second Quarter Status Report for the 1994-95 school year has been Hand-Delivered on February 24, 1995, upon the following: copy of the foregoing Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 a Jerry L. Malone FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp;. CLARK \u0026lt;3C i HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1 922-1 9941 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. BUTTHY. P.A. FREDERICK S. 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 Hi. 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 Hl. 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 ROBBEN MURRAY, 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 HI. 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 17, AUG 2 2 1995 Office of OesegregaUon Moniiomg 1995 FILED 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, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H . MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY JAMES W. McCOfiMACK. CLERK By\n_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P.A. WAITER'S DIRECT NO. {5011 370-1 553 V Mftsaa. AUG 1 7 OEP CUAK Hand-Delivered Mr, John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street 72206 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Fourth Quarter Status Report C JI Re : Enclosed please find the LRSD's Fourth Quarter Status Report for the 1994-95 school year filed pursuant to the Order of the Court. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, erry L. LRSD Attorney diana\\pcssd\\5iaius.lu I Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown August 17, 1995 Page 2 JLM/dtw Enclosure cc (w/enc): Dr. Henry P. Williams (1 iana\\pcsd\\staatt. 1 irr RSCEiVSO fxj--/ FILED AUG 2'd 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION -V? district court SASTIRN OISTRICTARKANSAR AUG 1 7 1995 JAMES W. McCORMACK. CLERK By\n______________ OEP CLEliK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSDs 1994-95 FOURTH QUARTER STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its Status Report for the fourth quarter of the 1994-95 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (Volumes I and II) is a true and accurate copy of the District's Fourth Quarter Status Report of Desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. 2 . Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the District's Fourth Quarter Status Report of Non-desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its Desegregation and Non-desegregation Status Reports for the fourth d iana\\pcssd\\sutus .4th -1-J quarter of the 1994-95 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201-3493 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT diara\\pcssd\\sanB.4th Jerry L. Malone Bar I. D. No. 85096 -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's Fourth Quarter Status Report for the 1994-95 school year has been hand-delivered on August , 1995, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Attorney at Law Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone (J iana\\pcssd\\sutus .4ih -3- RECEIVED FILED NOV 2 2 1995 Office of Desefiregation Monitcnng IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION hOV 2 1 1995 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSDs 1995-96 FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District {\"LRSD or H District\"), for its Status Report for the first quarter of the 1995-96 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (Volumes I and II) is a true and accurate copy of the District's First Quarter Status Report of Desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. 2 . Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the District's First Quarter Status Report of Non-desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its Desegregation and Non-desegregation Status Reports for the first dtana\\pcssd\\saius. Isi -1-quarter of the 1995-96 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201-3493 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Bar I. D. No. 85096 d iana\\pcssd\\s taius. 1 st -2-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's First Quarter Status Report for the 1995-96 school year has been hand-de live red on November , 1995, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building i\u0026gt;e''t to* K a 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets 211 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street _____ Little Rock, AR 722 ry L. Malone diana\\pcssd\\sutus. Isi -3-FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-19941 ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS WILLIAM H. SUTTi JAMES W. MOORE ON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE D. 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. DAVIS, JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. 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 ROBBEN MURRAY, 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. 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 February 23, 1996 RECEIVF^ FEB 2 3 W96 4^^ Ottice ol Deseijregauon 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. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M.GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (501) 370-1553 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Mr. Sam Jones 72206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM Attorneys at Law Lyon Building, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD, et al Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of the LRSD's 1995-96 Second Quarter Status Report which was filed with the Court on Friday, February 23, 1996. By agreement, three copies of the above documents are being delivered to Mrs. Brown and two copies are being delivered to Mr. Walker. diana\\pcssd\\riling-S.ltrGentlemen and Mrs. Brown February 23, 1996 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney JLM/dtw Enclosures cc (w/enc): Dr. Henry P. Williams, LRSD Dr. Russ Mayo, LRSD Dr. Ed Jackson, LRSD diana\\pcssd\\fil ii^-5. Itr IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECESVPJ' FEB 2 3 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSDs 1995-96 SECOND QUARTER STATUS REPORT Ch'ld l' The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its Status Report for the second quarter of the 1995-96 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (Volumes I and II) is a true and accurate copy of the District's Second Quarter Status Report of Desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. 2 . Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the District's Second Quarter Status Report of Non-desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its Desegregation and Non-desegregation Status Reports for the second diana\\pcssd\\sUtus. ist -1-quarter of the 1995-96 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201-3493 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar I. D. No. 85096 diana\\pcssd\\sutus. 1 st -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's Second Quarter Status Report for the 1995-96 school year has been delivered by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid. unless otherwise stated, on February 23, 1996, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. (Hand-Delivered) Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, TkR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM Attorneys at Law Lyon Building, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street (Hand-Delivered) Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone diana\\pcssd\\sutus. 1st -3- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK C: HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1 922-1 9941 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. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM Hi, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. 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 ROBBEN MURRAY, 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 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 May 28, 1996 RECEIVED 'Dif. Ke J. MAY 2 8 1996 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. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M.GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY Office of Desegregation Monitoring COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A, WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (501) 370-1553 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street 72206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM Attorneys at Law Lyon Building, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD, et al Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of the LRSD's 1995-96 Third Quarter Status Report which was filed with the Court on Tuesday, May 28, 1996. By agreement, three copies of the above documents are being delivered to Mrs. Brown and two copies are being delivered to Mr. Walker. diana\\p*ccc(\\fiHng-6.ltrGentlemen and Mrs. Brown May 28, 1996 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney JLM:fm Enclosures cc (w/enc): Dr. Henry P. Williams, LRSD Dr. Russ Mayo, LRSD Dr. Ed Jackson, LRSD diana\\psccd\\fjling-6.ltrIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT S DISTRICT COURT MAY 2 8 1996 JAMEb . lllbuuiiiairtu.s ulERK By\n..................................... PLAINTIFFDEP CLERK VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. Received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. Office of d 8 199^ ^^segregation Monitoring, INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSDs 1995-96 THIRD OUARTOR ST^TtJSREPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its Status Report for the third quarter of the 1995-96 school year, states: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the District's Third Quarter Status Report of Desegregation Programs generated through the court-mandated program planning and budgeting process as submitted by LRSD administrators. The LRSD has made changes to this document since the filing of the second quarter status report. Some background on these changes is contained in the preface to this document. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its Desegregation Status Reports for the third quarter of the 1995-96 school year in accordance with the District's program planning and budgeting process. diana\\pcssd\\status96 .Ist -1-A Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201-3493 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar I. D. No. 85096 diana\\pcssd\\status96.lst -2-i. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that copy of the foregoing LRSD's Third Quarter Status Report for the 1995-96 school year has been hand-delivered to the following persons on Tuesday, May 28, 1996: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR erry L. Malone diana\\pcss(Astatus96.1st -3- aIN 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 ri' D DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL NOV 2 2 1956 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Offica of Desegregaw f\n,or,INagPRVENORS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with this Court's Order of August 26, 1993, the Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District's 1996-97 First Quarter Status Report Program Planning and Budgeting Document for Desegregation Programs dated November 21, 1996. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 BY: 0. JMN C. 370-3323 FENDLEY, JR. ^9^182) f:\\hcaK\\EaiUeyUnd\\ao(*fil. 112CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the United States mail the following by depositing ail on this day of a copy of same in , 19^4\nMr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (MAILED) Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 (MAILED) Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (HAND DELIVERED) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) j/OHN C. FENDLEY, JR. 6^ f:\\hflDe\\lca(Uey\\lnd\\oiX\u0026gt;fU.l 12 -2-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1996-97 FIRST QUARTER STATUS REPORT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING DOCUMENT FOR DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS a p 0, November 21,1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-86 I, 9 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL NOV 2 c J996 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desegregation Mcnf\n5Mi|ERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with this Court's Order of August 26, 1993, the Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District's 1995-96 Fourth Quarter Status Report Addendum Program Planning and Budgeting Document for Desegregation Programs November 21, 1996. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little R\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_1462","title":"\"Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Evaluation,\" Arkansas State University Center for Excellence in Education, State University, Ark.","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":["Arkansas State University"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Magnet schools","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["\"Pulaski County Interdistrict Magnet School Evaluation,\" Arkansas State University Center for Excellence in Education, State University, Ark."],"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/1462"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["150 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1451","title":"\"Recommendations for Budget Reductions,\" Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["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--Finance","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School boards","School superintendents","School management and organization","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["\"Recommendations for Budget Reductions,\" Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1451"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["162 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_892","title":"Report: Attendance summaries, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["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--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Attendance summaries, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/892"],"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\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 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_736","title":"School buses","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":["1993/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School buses","Transportation"],"dcterms_title":["School buses"],"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/736"],"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\nFROM JOHN W,WALKER P.A, TO 3710100 P. 02 JOHN w. Walker, p.a. AttokxNey At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansa.s 72206 TET.ephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-1187 I I JOHN \\v. walker RAIJH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR ' Also admitted to PracUw iu 4 '-Ik Diskrict yf Colunbia. May 27/ 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 li Re\nBus Route #07D Dear Dr. Bernd: It has come to my attention that there may be problems with Bus Route #07D which covers the Meadowcliff and Highland Court areas. Please advise whether or not you have or someone at your direction has authorized the use of two buses for this route, one for Black students and one for white students. If this is the case, I am concerned that the District is promoting segregation rather than its commitment of desegregating all aspects of the areas. school system. My understanding of our desegregation plan is that every effort will be made to improve race Continued separation of races by allowing separate buses for Black and white students does not fulfill that commitment. Please let me hear from you. incerel^ JCS\nlm John W. walker, Esquire Chris Heller, Esquire Ms. Ann Brown relations. C. Springi r ! i  t I cc\nr RECEIVF.O SEP 2 1994 Dione D. Doty 1510 Hillsborough Little Rock, AR 72212 Office of Desegregation tv'iofii ioi iiig September 1, 1994 Dr. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent Little Rock \u0026amp;hool District Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Mayo: Since your office took absolutely no action to reroute our newly reassigned bus route to exclude violent, crime intensive areas, we have nothing to reconsider. We will NOT compromise on safety issues and denial by your office and others of the existence of safety problems will only speed the exodus from the District. After seventeen years of supporting the Little Rock School District, we have withdrawn that support and enrolled our child in private school. The last 5 stops on this \"safe\" route are through one of the most violent areas in the city. Attachment 1 is summarized from a August 7 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article regarding the 41 Little Rock murders through that date. It only addressed murders, so it is far from being all-inclusive of area crimes. 37% of those murders were in some way related to this area either being the address of the victim, assailant or of the murder (22% of the 37%). Included were 3 drive-by murders (generally being unsolved), numerous shootings, chases, etc., etc. These locations were within blocks of both the bus stops and bus route which you consider \"adequate and safe\" and are certainly an indication of the high probability of being at the wrong place at the wrong time when traveling that route. Also note that the 14 year old assailant in murder # 12 has added a carjacking at gunpoint (3 felonies) and another drive-by shooting to his arrest record between August 14 and August 25. This assailant lives within blocks of one of these \"safe\" bus stops and has not restricted his activities to his home in the past! We understand that the Little Rock School District is large, that it has many students and that transportation is a major logistics problem Reduced bus-time and optimizing student-to-bus numbers were both cited by the transportation department as objectives for splitting the \"Green\" route, which has been our assigned route since 1990. We understand such objectives, but did not notice significant changes in either of these factors. We realize that the needs of the 6 children in this crime intensive area must also be met. We regret that they, or any children, are subject to the daily risk of living in such areas. However, we cannot and will not support ANY decision or ANY objective that would put ANOTHER 14 children at risk by transporting them twice a day through an urban war-zone! We do have choices!!Page 2 of 2 Doty to Mayo September 1, 1994 We certainly do not dispute that Booker Arts Magnet is an excellent school. We have been more than pleased with Dr. Simmons, Dr. Lacey, other Booker administrators, and Booker teachers and specialist. When we visited Booker to let Dr. Simmons know of our decision and to allow our daughter to say goodby to fnends, there were many expressions of regret that she was leaving and best wishes for her at her new school. This decision was not without regrets and tears on our part. However, the magnitude of this safety issue far out weighs the positives that Booker's administration and staff offer. We want to stress that we would NOf have placed our child in a private school had your office, Dr. Cheatham in the transportation department, and/or Dr. William's office indicated any intent to resolve this safety issue. After numerous statements such as \"We feel that the established routes provide adequate and safe service\", there was no doubt that we were being told to \"take it or leave it\"....so we left! We can be contacted at the above address or at (501) 225-6864 if you have questions, comments or would want to further discuss the basis of our decision. Sincerely, (copy) Dione D. Doty Attachment cc (w/attachments): Dr. Henry Williams Dr. Mary Jane Cheatham Dr. Cheryl Simmons Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Little Rock School Board[E^ESibfl - nnm-rar ^tt^atlKat^ J.mHnuoiitKl^fjjeitigaaK)gtt^ Little Rock School District August 23, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Doty 1510 Hillsborough Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Doty\nDr. Henry Williams, Superintendent, routing from your address. School. asked me to review the bus 1510 Hillsborough Lane, to Booker Magnet I personally reviewed the routing with information supplied by the Transportation Department. AAss ooff tthhiiss ddaattee,, wwee ddoo nnoott hhaavvpe aa bus that would follow your requested route to Booker Magnet School. The student population of the district students. We strive to provide both , educational environment for our students. is currently over 21,000 an efficient and safe --- I am unable to honor your request , for alternate -b-us -r-o-u-t-i-n3g at this ti-ijLmieHc.. We feel that the established routes provide adequate and safe service. J reconsider your choice of private school. Booker Magnet is an excellent school. I feel that if given the   ----  --- AAV* 1  v_ j I I I 1^, I I opportunity, Erin will be provided a quality education in a safe environment. Sincerely, Dr. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent RM: dk 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 \"Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2 Details from the August 7, 1994 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article of the 41 Little Rock mundeis (at that date) in 1994. DATE LOCATION DETAILS # BLOCKS TO BUS ROUTE LOCATION # BLOCKS TO BUS STOP LOCATION 1-9-94 2 of 41 2-7-94 4 of 41 2-12-94 5 of 41 2-15-94 6 of 41 3-17-94 12 of 41 **AND MORE! AND3- 25-94 14 of 41 4-17-94 17 of 41 2026 W. 18th Murder location In route from basketball game (Central area) to 2213 Valmar Murder location 3310 W. 16th Assailants address 2421 W. 16th Address of victim of police shooting prosecutors ruled justified 1722 Johnson St. Assailants address Stabbed, CRACK COCAINE in exchange for sex DRIVE BY SHOOTING, FIRED TWO BULLETS, RETRIBUTION FOR AN EARLIER SHOOTING Victim killed by GUNSHOTS in his living room (outside of area) Victim killed after police STAKEOUT, CHASE AND CONFRONTATION. SHOOTING outside of area but stakeout and chase locations not documented Shot victim with .22 CALIBER PISTOL, stolen property sale 4 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Jones 6 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodrow In route = \"in area of 14th \u0026amp; Woodrow In route \u0026amp; \"in area of NA NA NA **This is the 14/15 year old in Arkansas Democrat-Gazette August 26-30 articles. He was arrested \u0026amp; charged with the 3/17 murder, arrested again in August for carjacking at gunpoint ( 3 felony charges), then arrested again for a drive- by shooting in this area August 26. 3 gun \u0026amp; autO related incidents ..MURDER and CARJACKING and DRIVE-BY SHOOTING 2509 W. 13th Murder location GUNMAN OPENED FIRE as victim emerged from house\npolice say murder was GANG RELATED 1 Block 14th \u0026amp; Thayer 5 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodrow 5 Blocks 15th \u0026amp; Schiller AND 5 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodrow 5 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodrow 4 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodrow AND 6 Blocks 15th \u0026amp; Schiller A 4220 W. 12th Assailants address B. 4310 Maryland Murder location Demanded money from victim\nSHOT SEVERAL TIMES with large-caliber pistol A 4 Blocks 10th \u0026amp; Pine/Cedar B. 3 Blocks Maryland \u0026amp; Pine/Cedar A 8 Blocks 10th \u0026amp; Valmar B. 8 Blocks 10th \u0026amp; ValmarDATE 4-26-94 ' Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2 LOCATION DETAILS # BLOCKS TO BUS ROUTE LOCATION # BLOCKS TO BUS STOP LOCATION 20 of 41 16th \u0026amp; Izard Victim's car found at this location Victim strangled in her home outside of area\nno assailant address\nvictim's car in apartment parking lot NA Exact Location 16th \u0026amp; Izard 5-8-94 23 of 41 A.3510 W 14th Victim's address B. 1608 Park Murder location Victim shot with a HANDGUN, ran a short distance and collapsed at 1608 Park NA A. 5 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodruff B. 2 Blocks 15th \u0026amp; Shiller 5-11-94 24 of 41 3515 1/2 W. nth Assailants address (No murder location noted) Assaikint minutes earlier complained to police officer that victim had stolen his tennis shoes\nassailant STABBED victim after a FOOT CHASE. 1 Block 11th \u0026amp; Valmar 1 Block 10th \u0026amp; Valmar 5-27-94 27 of 41 A. 1520 Oak Victim's address B. 3600 Block of W. 16th Murder location Several men in a car fired a DOZEN OR MORE SHOTS from SEVERAL WEAPONS...UNSOLVED MURDER A \u0026amp; B 6 Blocks 12th \u0026amp; Valmar A \u0026amp; B 7 Blocks 10th \u0026amp; Valmar 9 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodruff 5-30-94 28 of 41 A 1914 Ringo Victim's address B. 1422 Chester Murder location DRIVE-BY SHOOTING, three occupants, two gunshot wounds in chest\nUNSOLVED MURDER A. 5 Blocks 16th \u0026amp; Chester B. 2 Blocks 16th \u0026amp; Chester A 6 Blocks 16th \u0026amp; Izard B. 3 Blocks 16th \u0026amp; Izard AND 6 Blocks Dr. Martin Luther King \u0026amp; 15th 6-18-94 33 of 41 6-11-94 35 of 41  7-10-94 37 of 41 1603 Chester Assailants address A. 1911 Cross Murder location B. 1011 W 20th Assailants' address 1000 block of S Elm Murder location Assaikint called police and said had killed a man with a rock after being threatened with a knife (murder outside of area) Victim's neck was broken when choked \u0026amp; robbed at his home DRIVL-BY SHOOTING\nAS MANY AS EIGHT ROUNDS\nSHOOTER GANG-STYLE CLOTHING\nUNSOLVED MURDER Exact Location 16th \u0026amp; Chester 1 Block 16th \u0026amp; Izard NA 2 Blocks PineZCedar \u0026amp; 10th A \u0026amp; B. 6 Blocks 15th Izard AND 7 Blocks Dr. Martin Luther King \u0026amp; 15 th 6 Blocks 10th \u0026amp; ValmarOffice 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 13, 1994 Mrs. Mary Jane Cheatham Transportation Department Little Rock School District 5400 Murray Street Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Mary Jane: At 7:57 a.m. this morning, I had too close an encounter with a LRSD bus. As 1 was driving east on 17th street just past Rockefeller School, bus 40C lOE pulled out of McAlmont Street right in front of me, causing me to slam on my brakes to prevent a collision. The bus was traveling much too fast, and only slowed at the intersection of McAlmont and 17th. At first, I thought the driver had run a stop sign at the intersection, but then I realized that there is no stop sign at the comer of McAlmont and 17th to run, because McAlmont is a one-way street going south-and the bus was headed north! The bus contained no passengers that I could see, but my car certainly did, because I was making my morning rounds to drop my kids off at school. Besides the obviously serious dangers of going the wrong way on a one-way street (and in a big hurry to boot), I believe that that particular traffic violation results in an automatic 3-point ticket, which carries a high fine. I know you'll agree that the LRSD cannot afford the potential expenses in either safety costs, fines, or negative public relations. I trust that you'll instruct the driver of bus 40C lOE to go and sin no more. This incident causes me to wonder anew about the quality and extent of the safety instruction which LRSD bus drivers receive. I'm aware from personnel at the Arkansas Department of Education that the LRSD has sent no representative to the State's summer driver training institute in Hot Springs, even though participation would cost the district nothing because the State pays all costs. As a matter of fact, I understand the district would stand to gain some $31,000 as a result of LRSD's full participation in the State's training programs. That amount of money would enable the district to hire its own full-time safety trainer and supervisor, or it could be put to some other use that would help reassure parents that the LRSD is doing everything possible to ensure the safety of commuting children.Page Two September 13, 1994 Incidents involving bus transportation cause the district much negative and damaging publicity. I believe it would be wise for us to take advantage of every available opportunity to turn those negatives into positives. I know of no substitute for regular, quality, comprehensive, and preventive driver training Because transportation is such an integral part of the desegregation plan, please provide the information requested on the attachment by the end of the month. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours. Ann S. Brown cc\nRuss MayoSeptember 13, 1994 Provide the following written information to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring no later than September 30, 1994: 1. Describe the LRSD's bus driver training program objectives, content, and schedule which the district routinely follows, or at least followed in preparation for this school year. 2. Attach a copy of the curriculum and handouts which accompany the training. 3. List the names of the trainers and their training background or other relative training qualifications. 4. Indicate the number of drivers who received training and the date that they completed the training program. 5. List the number of drivers who have not received training and the date by which these drivers will have been trained\nexplain why any drivers have not completed training. 6. Describe the kind of follow-up training you provide for those who miss initial pre-service training sessions? 7. Explain the district's rationale for not participating in ADE's summer training program and subsequent training activities. 8. Describe any plans for future participation in ADE's training programs. 9. Name who is presently responsible for overseeing safety training and supervision\ninclude the job description(s) for the individual(s). 10. Describe the consequences (sanctions and remedial instruction) given drivers who commit safety violations.RECEIVED DEC 2 7 1991 December 21, 1994 Giiica of Dessgregaticn ...onao.tng Judy Magness Little Rock School Board, Zone 3 708 Hall Dr. Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Ms. Magness: I am writing to let you know about some frustrations with school bus transportation this year not necessarily because it is happening to me and my student but because it may be happening systemwide and may need the attention of our School Board and administration. For six years I have been completely satisfied with the school bus transportation. Other than a few times when the bus was late or failed to arrive, it picked my son up every morning on a corner near our house. The convenience and reliability of the bus was one of the things for which I praised the Little Rock Public Schools - in addition to Carver Magnet School, the best school in the world. THIS year has been completely different. The 2IC bus has been frequently late and has failed to arrive several times each month. Then on November 28, I sent a note to school explaining that we would be moving November 3 0 and requested a new bus stop for my son. The school called and said it might take a week but that the request would be forwarded to the Transportation Department that day. Now it's December 21, more than three weeks later, and we still don't have a bus stop. I have talked several times each week to the school and the Transportation Department and have not received any answer for what might be taking so long - other than administrative approvals. My husband has talked personally with the Transportation Director. A bus stop already is established about a mile from our new house, according to the schedule for Bus 211. One morning we arrived there early and waited for 30 minutes. No other students were at that bus stop, and no bus ever arrived. I have been taking my child to school most days - about a 40-minute round-trip. A few days I have let him stay home. Some mornings he has gone late when my husband went to work downtown.If other parents and students are experiencing similar frustrations, those who can afford other choices would probably choose a private school. I hope that our public school recruiters who try to persuade new residents to choose public schools over private schools do not have to also tell them that it will take a month or more to get their student on a bus. I realize that it is ultimately my responsibility to make sure my especially child gets to school every day. However, when the public school system promotes public school enrollment, it also touts convenient bus transportation - in rhe case of magnet/incentive schools in hard-to-desegregate locations far from the homes of most white families. in public school Although I haven't been directly involved administration for several years, it was always my understanding that the State of Arkansas pays for magnet school transportation and that it's rather expensive. Surely with all the state tax money being spent on magnet school transportation, a more reliable system could be provided for those of us who choose to attend public schools. Respectfully, Scharmel Wilson work: 664-3600 cc: Superintendent of Schools Transportation Director Student Assignment Office Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor Donna Creer, Magnet Review :ommittee Linda Pondexter, School Board President John Riggs, School Board Carver Magnet School?^p,/ SD SEP 2 0 1995 Office of Desegrsgaiiffli Monncnng fyi/ l/^e--i_ 3 o i\u0026lt; p A. fi c\u0026gt; /*T\u0026lt;i t! '/Vv j4^'/'^Qi'i\u0026lt;f^ 'i 'i- Dr. ( \u0026lt;y Oy zO ' w -^^SV xz LiH\u0026lt; R,oci(. Schoo/ Gi^i-i'ci- Ui'l'lx 1^0 c t -) -jL. -ZL.O^ '^4- Uk^ Cixi r ___________ ________5, _ - ____Cc^J 1 ____ 1^Qx:iy\u0026lt;^-k, L_^ c\u0026gt;\\_ Zlo H.Zb LijdiLjz_ , ^\u0026lt;H-e ( fi, tU-OO rec. Sl-r bo-tK, Cii/f . (v. p lt\u0026gt; \u0026lt;y o-p ^cL __Cc, l( ._. ol^o,^ 4- _ ha \u0026amp; ~l^ h\u0026lt;^'^ C\u0026amp;r-'i'Q.cf'efi /I. noui-s^ Cy old .c, -.D. M l_4 _ G $ Si ila __ r^i\\^ _ /3f o IX/ iV\"__ t. 5 c\u0026gt;Aft v k ... -- .'__^: _r___ a rr):iCi, O OAzq., jlf.__Ql( i^ /'Ixj, ei,loi\u0026gt;L\u0026gt;~t } Aj J\u0026gt; b . 1 Ct\u0026lt; iti.II, J.S +hl 4'k\u0026lt; ._Lq:a I'lQ,'* /- 4'0 roult cih-d QysZ-e^ 4o 4-0 33 e s 3C h Po 4'ha4 X 4a\u0026lt;^e I \\je Xz'y 3 Cbu^k^'l-c i~. 6 C Cciu i, t-lVCu^ Kio-Vk t \u0026lt;7 c?p- bos C-A^hz^c. y'iu 'kc s 4% v w ?i iw f' S?r i \" ' f. ) i 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)82^2000 It LriTTE R()('k School Distkkt OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 29, 1996 \" * / : Mr. Spence Holder, Coordinator School Transportation Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall. Room 204-A ! it Little Rock. AR '996 122Q\\ K Dear Mr. Holder\nI am appointing Mary Jane Cheatham. Director of Transportation, as the Little Rock School District's representative to serve on the Interdistrict Transportation Authority (ITA). If I can be of assistance to the committee, please contact me. Sincerely, / Henry P. WJrilliams Superintendent of Schools HPW/ca c: Mary Jane Cheatham Bobby Acklin. NLRSD Ed Hogan, PCSSD Melissa Guldin. ODM Janinne Riggs. Governors Office Cynthia Howell. Arkansas Democrat Gazette HIO West Miu kliain Street Little K\u0026lt;x:k, Arkiui.siw 7221)1 (.501)\nt2t-2IX)t) 8.15 96 14:33 S301 324 2023 LRSD COMMVMCATI ODM @002. 002 LnTLE kocK Scu(joL District For linraediate Release August 15, 1996 For more information: SucUen Vann, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) .and Laidlaw Transit, Inc. are planning bus routes for the 14,000 students who will be traasported to Linle Rock schools beginning Monday. August 19. l^aidlaw i,s mailing letters today to parents to inform hem of assigned bus routes and bus stops. Some parent': will receive a phone call instead of a letter due to some last minute assignments Laidlaw has established a telephone b:inii to provide assistance to parents who have questions related to school bus routes. Ihe ntimbei- for telephone assistance is -6085. It will be staffed Satuiday and Sundav. .August 17 and 18, from 1 p.m. until 5 . \" Beginning Monday. August 19, the phone lines will be staffed from 6:30 a-.m. until 5:30 p.m. If the phone lines are busy, callers may leave a message, and a staff'member will return the call. / 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  \u0026lt;501)834-2000 lPSD AWIIN. BiiLDINS ?4-2032 Sep 20 96 11:49 P. 02/02 fj t I =j I ra' 1-501 Ml I-ii fLF K(){k School District i\" For fm mt'diiitr Rfltase Homemade Mixiure Spifh on school Rus ^epfembtT 20, 1 s\u0026gt;06 for nioie infomiatton. Suellen Vann. 3'24-202(.i sI I I A mnth grade .special education stttaent from Mabelvale Junior High School took a plastic bottle tilled with a homemade bretv onto her school bus this mommg. The bottle conuiinej several household rocks a\nid other items. materials, including vinegar, aspirin witch hazel, aqaariiun The motion of the bus apparent caused the mixture to expand, and rhe top of ihe bottle .amc otf a vapor dowd formed, and foe Lmie Roek Polne and fore Depanrnents were called the scene. No students were injured, although a bus aide later wen, to foe hospital for treatment of her to Mabelvale Junior High. asthma. .All parents were contacted, and students Im, 1 ulfcrton pr,napal pf Mrt,|vrt, Ju,r H.^h. enticed ,h  assigmiients were given which would cau.se the studeni to attempt the home were taken eKperimentation. Transportation officials sard tlie school bus v^ ill be returned to been thoroughly cleaned 810 West Markham Stre ti-rfU: I tie Rofk, Arka. ,n\u0026gt;i TasOl Service after it has  (501 laaAtJOoo 12/04/1996 14:13 FROM JOHN 1.1. W fi L K E R P . fl . TO 710100 F' . 0 2 JOHN W. WALKR, P.A. / 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501)374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. KJ^LBERLYR. DICKSON December 4, 1996 Mr. Fred Smith Executive Manager of Laidlaw Laidlaw Transportation 5400 Murray Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Dear Mr. Smith\nThis is to put you on notice that we are making a claim for damages regarding Laidlaw's failure to deliver Byran Hodges to Washington Magnet School on time for most of this year and thus, for causing him to miss valuable class time. We are also making a claim for Laidlaw's failure to even pick him up and for Laidlaw's frequent return of him to his drop-off point as late as 7:30 p.m. Byran is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Byran Hodges, No. 33 Perdue Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas 72204. He is eleven years old. The damage claim is for $100 per day for each day that he was late\n$200 per day for the days that he was not picked up at all\nand, $250 for each day that he was not returned home by at least 5:00 p.m. This acknowledges for settlement purposes an hour leeway in the afternoon for his return home Would either you or your authorized representative please contact me at your earliest convenience.\nrely. C Id (hn W. Walker JWW\nlp cc\nDr. Don Roberts Ms. Ann BrownI\" PT 12-^04\u0026lt;1996 ri:74 FROM JOHM W.WfiL.KER P.fi. t TO 0710130 r ' / P. 02 r\n\\ i fOHN W. WALKER, Pji. I'  -t-r- 1723 Broadwaji Littli Ruck, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 k LV. /OHN -W. W.4LKSR RAlS-n WASHJNGTOS MARKBUJiNEm AUSTIN PORTSB/B-KIMBTRiyU DICKSON December 4,1996 I?\n/'./ 'I-Ms Ann Brown ' Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg, 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Ms Brown We continue to receive many complaints re\nLaidlaw's transportation practices The primary complaint is that the buses are late in pick-up and delivery and that the children are subjected to loss of school time and are left in. unsafe circumstances both before and after school by the circumstances 1 ask that your office inquire into tins matter. I also ask that you inquire into the accuracy of the record keeping of the schools with respect to transportation, ft is my observation that the schools document earlier arrival times of buses than actual and earlier leave time from schools in the j, afternoons than actual. I believe the situation is so serious that it warrants a review by the Court of the entire matter 'fhank you for your attCDtion to this matter / / . Sincerely, - rhe v. Walker .  t / V s i..l. M \u0026lt; ri ,-i r}  '-.H 41 X' 5 ^ /.'a iHiM I TOTAL r . \u0026lt;5 3received UcC 1 1 1996 Office of Dasegregaiion Momonii^ \u0026amp;4X CITY OF LITTLE ROCK PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET FAX NUMBER: (501) 371-6832 DATE\nTO: FAX#: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (Including Cover Sheet) '1 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES OR IF YOU HAVE ANY TROUBLE, CONTACT AT (501) 371-///^- ^MESSAGE, 10d 2889 US IOS 'ON XVJ 0?d STdW m HUI O 96-lI-O'^E\u0026gt;2' - December 11. 1996 Dear, Mrs. Ann Brown December 16, 1996 there will be an emergency call meeting for concern parents. This organize meeting has been scheduled out of concern for the .safety' and education of oui Laidlaw 'Il'ansportation has breach there contract. On several mornings our children arc being left standing on bus stops for hours at a time, arriving at .school late or missing school. They are returning home late at night. This sendee has been happening children. since the beginning of .school, and we are asking oiir school hoard official and superintendent to attend. Please RSVP by Friday December 13, 1996 at 371-4442. The meeting will take place Mondav December 16, 1996 at 7:00 - S:00 P.M. at the South Little. Rock Recreation Center 2701 Main Street. cc\nJohn Walker,P.A. 0'd 25SlilOS 'ON XVd 03a 3 SHdt 33 IDH 0313 96-U-03C 12 17 1996 17 1 7 FROM JOHN U.WA L K E R P.A. TO 3710100 P.O\nM-' John W. Walker, P.A. Attcr.nty .Xt Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. .-Xkkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. W.aLKER RALPH W.ASHINGTON NL4RKBURNOTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR- . KIMBERLY R. DIUKSO.N via Facsinilo - 371-0100 December 17, 1996 Ha. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Qffice of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Ms Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Laidlaw Transportation Dear Ms. Brown: find ay report of the parent nesting on last Enclosed please tina ay xeyvii. wj. ---- 7\" the transportation of Little Rock students by evening regarding t.----s-- Laidlaw. Hr. Walker asked that I share these with you. Hr. Also by copy of this letter to Dr. him with a copy of the same. Roberts, I aa providing Sincerelv Joy C. Springer JCS/ cc: Dr. Don Roberts, I Z17/I 996 17: IS FROM JOHN IJ, IJ S L K e R P . fl . TO 3'10100 P.O: ot Meeting of Concerned Parents the Little Rock School District Laidlaw's Transportation Regarding of LR8P atudeota The facilitator reported that of this meeting, Ms. Phyllis Hodges, she invited the Superintendent of Little Rock ~ Don Roberts, all members of the Board of school District, Dr. Don Roberts, ail mem^rs or yne nv. Education of the Little Rock School District, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Monitor Ann Brown, a representative from^^idlaw^Transportation, Ed Streeter and m^ers of the Press to this meeting.- There was no one administration present at the meeting. from the LRSD central office Only Dr. Michael Daughtery of thX Little Rock School District Board of Directors member from the Arkansas Democrat\"*Gazette and was present- State Press were also present. he Arkansas A Anecdotal Statements\n1) elementary Parents from Washington, Fulbright, and Rockefeller y schools and Horace Mann and Dunbar junior high schools that their children have waited at the bus stop for reoorted that their children nave waiuea ar we cut. Laidlaw buses as late as 10:00 a.m. and that their children have a-r-rivod as late as 7:00 p.m. from school. These delays have arrived school, occurred on more than one occasion. 2) 2) Several of these parents reported that when they have contacted school district officials regarding their concerns, referred to Laidlaw officials who have either refused their telephone calls or did not give a satisfactory they were to return explanation for the delays. 3) for buses on Several of these parents reported that they have waited several occasions and buses have not shown up to pick up their children. 4) 4) It was reported by at least one parent that inexperienced and substitute drivers accounted for many of the delays. 5) 5) It was reported by at least one parent that they believed that the District was not concerned about these students loosing valuable educational time. 6) 6) Several parents reported that they are being inconvenienced by having to take their children to school because of Laidlaw's failure to pick up their children. 7) Several parents complained that they believed, at one of12- 17 1??6 17: 1 ? FROM JOHN 1.1. M A L k E F P . fl . TO 3710100 the reasons, for Laidlaw's delay in transporting students timely to school was Laidlaw's failure to communicate to the District officials changes in routes and pickups. IN SUMMARY were approximately 30 parents present at the meeting oj^ last evening, one point that I gleamed from the meeting was that Laidlaw was contracted by the Little Rock School District to transport LRSD's students to their respective schools as a cost saving measure, however, the costs being incurred by the District are much greater than actually reported when you make an assessment of the valuable educational time that students are loosina when they are late to school and being returned home late from school. Finally, I believe it is appropriate to make inquiry regarding the District's monitoring and current evaluation and assessment of Laidlaw's delivery of the services. I intend to make this inquiry by separate memorandum. Prepared by Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors  e*. i 1998 1 501-324-2eZ LRSD l'OMM'JNICATZONS PAGE 0'2/02 Little Kock School District For Immediate Release February 17. 1998 For more information: Edward E. Streeter or Lori Howell, 570-4000 Lzaidlaw Drivers Recognized for '\"K.oad-eo W ins School bus drivers from Izaidlax.' Transit, Inc. competed in the first annual .Mid- S'^trth School Bus Road-eo in Mempais last weekend, and on Wednesday drivers will be recognised for their outstan.di.ng nerforniiinee. The purpose of the Road-eo was to provide each driver the opportunity to dentocstrate ,^lis/'her driAinu skills by safely maneuvering a school bus through a challenging course. The competition included the following events\nStudent Leading Student L'nloading Alley Dock Rjuht Ttim R.ailroad Crossina Stop Line Test rite Serpentine Straight I,me Backin.g Diminished Clearance l.aidfaw drivers who demonstrated supenor driting skills were Howard Jones, first place\nSherri Bank,s. second place\nand Dwayne Holmes, third place. Drivers were awarded tropines and cash prizes, and they brought the Grose Cup back to Little P\u0026lt;ock where it will remain until next year's competition. The driver recogmtion will be held on Wednesday, May 20, at 9:30 a m. at the Laidlaw facility 5400 Murray Sueet. 810 Wert 'latHUdti Street Little Kock. .Arkansas 72201  ..501\u0026gt;324-2000 f 5rr .c i\n0: --A \u0026lt;36. 14:38 . 5017324-2023' LRSD communications ' PAGE 0'2/.02 Little Rock School District ll^ )  P J I July 6, 1998 For Immediate Release For more information: Sucllen Vann, 324-2020 I Bus Information Meetings Public Service Announcement Little Rock School District parents can get the latest school bus news by attending one of three meetings scheduled this summer. Laidlaw Transit and the Little. Rock !r 1 School District will host transportation meetings on July July 26*. and August 9*. All meetings will be held trom 3:00 until 5:00 p.m. in the Little Rock School District Administration Building, 810 West Markham. Staff members will be on hand to inform parents and students about school bus transportation and answer any questions parents might, have. Buster the Friendly Bus' will attend the meetings to educate and entertain the children. For more information, please contact Laidlaw Transit at 570-4000 or the Little 1 Rock School District at .324-2000. I  f 810 West Street  Littie Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501)024'2000 id 1 i 01/14/1999 15:56 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/01 I. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: Fax: (501)324-2020 (501)324-2032 DATE\nJanuary 14,1999 TO\nCentral Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Special School Board Meeting MESSAGE: The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting this afternoon in conjunction with its regular agenda meeting. The special meeting will he held to consider proposed Board policies and negotiations with Laidlaw Transit, Inc. for transportation for the 1999-2000 school year The meetings will begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building 810 West Markham. # Pages (including cover) 1 lb Fax# Preparing students for success every dayArkansas Democrat gazette SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1993  1 School bus hits car, injuring 8 LR pupils Bus driver cited for improper turn r ) IIlift* 1 BY OLIVIER UYTTEBROUCK AND DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Staff Writers Eight students were treated for minor injuries Friday after the Little Rock School District bus they were riding in struck a car. The accident comes a week after a Pulaski County first-grader was struck and killed by a bus. And late Thursday, a 15-year-old North Little Rock boy was struck in the head by a brick as he rode a bus from a football game at Central High School. He was treated at a North Little Rock hospital and released. In the accident Friday, Little Rock School District bus driver Tony Darryl Burse was cited for an improper left turn, police said. The bus, en route to Pulaski Heights Elementary School, carried 27 students. Little Rock School District buses experienced 14 accidents in September, said Brad Montgomery, the districts transportation director. Police cited bus drivers in six of those accidents, he said. In September 1992, there were 16 accidents involving buses, three of which involved ticketing the driver. The district hasnt compiled accident reports to date for this school year. The North Little Rock School District has had six collisions involving school buses from July 1 through Oct. 1. Police ticketed bus drivers in three of the incidents. And in the same period, four Pulaski County Special School District buses had accidents, including two in which the drivers were given tickets. In Fridays accident, police said the bus collided with a car as the bus driver tried to turn left onto B Street from Cedar. The driver veered into the right See ACCIDENT, Page ISA fv ii 1\n it .* iO. CHILDREN INJURED  Two students wait for MEMS paramedics to remove them from their Little Rock School District bus after the bus collided with a car at North Cedar Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Steve Kees^ and B streets Friday morning. Eight children were slightly injured. The bus was en route to Pulaski Heights Elementary School. Accident  Continued from Page 1A lane then turned left across the left lane. The car struck the left side of the bus, police said. Burse, 31, told police he swung wide to more easily enter the narrow street and failed to see a 1988 Chevrolet Corsica in his rearview mirror. Burse also said he signaled a left turn. District officials didnt know Friday whether Burse has been cited before. He was hired Aug. 16. Montgomery said that in accidents such as this one, in which there does not appear to be significant property damage or serious negligence, no suspension is warranted. District drivers are allowed three chargeable incidents before they are recommended for termination. The eight injured students were treated for cuts and scrapes at Arkansas Childrens Hospital, then released, a hospital spokesman said. ' The driver of the Chevrolet, Gwendolyn Watson, 23, of 2000 . Rebsamen Road was treated at University Hospital in Little Rock and released, a hospital spokesman said.\nOn Oct. 1, William Cody Wade, 6, a first-grade Bates Elementary School student, was struck by a Pulaski County Special School District bus at an intersection near his home. That accident occurred when driver Kaye Martin, 48, of Mabelvale, accelerated after she let Wade and several other children off the bus at the intersection of Dreher Road and Ada Lane in south Pulaski County. BUS ACCIDENT  MEMS paramedic Pat Bajorek carries injured pupii Jeff McCox, 9. from a Little Rock School District bus after an accident Friday at North Cedar and B Arkansas Oemocral-Qazette/Steve Keesee streets. Eight children suffered minor injuries. The accident comes a week after a Pulaski County Special School District first-grader was struck and killed by a bus. Martin told Pulaski County sheriffs deputies she was distracted by several children who were arguing and didnt see Wade in front of the bus. In the brick-throwing incident Thursday night, Robert Andrew Pugh was struck in the right temple as he rode a bus from Quigley Stadium at 16th and Jones streets, police said. Pugh, a student at North Little Rock High School East, was treated at Baptist Memorial Medical Center in North Little Rock and released after the 10 p.m. incident, a hospital spokesman said. In a similar incident Friday, three Little Rock students told police they were struck by rocks while riding a bus at 23rd and Abigail streets. None of the students was injured, police said. During the 1992-93 school year, there were 158 accidents involving Little Rock District bus drivers, of which 68 involved ticketing the driver. Democrat ^(gazette. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1993  LR School Board ponders plan to Arm itself for bus safety BY KRIS HUNTER Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Concern for the safety of children traveling on school buses has the Little Rock School Board considering the use of the Arm, a guardrail that would be attached to the outside of school buses. Talk of that new safety precaution, expanded bilingual programs and the Stephens Incentive Elementary School site dominated discussion at the boards agenda meeting Thursday. One Arm has been given to the district, with no obligation to buy, officials said. A board spokesman said specifics on how the device works are still not clear, though apparently it is a rail that would protrude from either the side or front of a school bus when it stops, warding off traffic and guarding the children getting on or off. To address the needs of the school districts 400-500 students from other countries, the board is seeking a federal grant to expand bilingual programs. The proposal, which requests $175,000 for each of the next three years, calls for hiring more tutors and buying more instructional materials. Surveys show 66 different languages within the school district, the board was told. The board is also gathering statistical information on student populations in its attempt to resolve controversy over a new site for Stephens Incentive Elementary School, now at 3700 W. 18th St. Though U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled the school could not remain at the 18th Street site, the board is appealing that decision. The ruling stipulated that Stephens would be replaced with a new interdistrict elementary school in the Interstate 630 corridor, between Interstate 30 and University Avenue. Jerry Malone an attorney for the district, said that since the ruling, one source of disagreement has been whether the school would have to be visible from Interstate 630. The information being collected is necessary to determine if enough children live in the 18th Street area to attend the elementary school, whatever the boards stance on the site, Malone said. Stephens has 180 students, from 4-year-oIds to sixthgraders. Since the school has to be rebuilt as an interdistrict school  one close to an even number of black and white stu- i dents  the site has been or- ! dered closed by August 1995. The real issue is whether or not we want to take another school out of a black communi- , ty, Superintendent Henry J Williams told the board. J If we close another school in the black community we are f telling them that their children I dont matter, the boards Linda Pondexter said.Arkansas Democrat (Bazcttc . WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1993 LR school bus driver arrested on warrants Little Rock School District bus driver William Montgomery was arrested on the job Tuesday morning for outstanding warrants. District Transportation Director Brad Montgomery (no relation to William Montgomery) said Little Rock police stopped the driver for speeding. He had just dropped off one load of students at a school and was on his way to pick up another load. After stopping the bus, police learned one or more warrants had been issued for William Montgomerys arrest. Brad Montgomery said police believe William Montgomery had a suspended drivers license. Brad Montgomery said his staff checks drivers for licenses at least twice a year. A check earlier this school year did not show William Montgomerys license had been suspended, he said. Brad Montgomery said William Montgomery was suspended pending a final decision on his employment.Arkansas Democrat (gazette  THURSDAY. NOVEMBER 11,1993 Bus driver for LRSD facet 3 traffic counts, dismissal\n, Little Rock School District bus driver William Montgomery, arrested Tuesday, will stand trial Nov. 24 on charges of driving on a suspended license, reckless driving and speeding, police said. Montgomery also faces a misdemeanor charge in Sherwood for allegedly writing a hot check, Sherwood police said Wednesday. The school board recommended Montgomery be fired. Deputy Superintendent Es- . telle Matthis said Wednesday night. Matthis said the driver was hired based on excellent references. Dr. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said the driver was hired Oct. 29 and the district had not received a response to its request for in- , formation on his driving record at the time of his arre^ Williams said new employI ees are sometimes allowed!.to drive buses even before-a record check is completed if there is a critical need. ' Brad Montgomery, district director of transportation, said Tuesday that William Moii- gomery was arrested after ie delivered one group of students to a school and while-on his way to pick up another group. Brad Montgomery and William Montgomery are not related. William Montgomerys trial will be in Little Rock Munfei- , pal Traffic Court, police said. IArkansas Democrat (Bazctte  WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1993 Insurer to review school bus service 5 I Williams reports BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Districts insurance company will conduct a comprehensive study of the districts transportation department, Superintendent Henry Williams said Tuesday. The Gallagher Bassett Insurance Co., which carries the districts vehicle and property insurance, will look at virtually all facets of the embattled departments operations, including safety records, driver histories, employee training programs, bus routes and stops, and traffic patterns. The department, the drivers and the unruly student passengers on some of the buses have come under scrutiny in recent weeks by various news organizations, including the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The study is expected to begin around Dec. 1. 'The company, which approached the school district about performing the evaluation, is charging a fee of under $5,000, a district official said, but the actual cost could not be determined Tuesday night. Williams made the announcement about the study and responded to questions on such subjects as gifted education, multicultural education, building maintenance and school security at a public forum Tuesday night at Forest Heights Junior High School. About 35 people, half of whom were district employees, attended the session, which was the fourth in a series of forums. The next session will be held at 7 p.m. Nov. 30 at Rockefeller Incentive Elementary School. In addition to the Gallagher study, the district has asked community members to participate on what Williams called a Blue Ribbon Committee to study transportation. Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis said representatives of the teachers, bus drivers, the school board, principals, the PTA and the Little Rock Police Department have been asked to become involved. Letters to those groups were mailed this week, and plans call for the group to begin meeting next month. The committee may visit the bus depot, ride a bus or take whatever steps it thinks necessary to develop recommendations for improving the system. Matthis said she and Williams have met with the bus drivers once and have asked them to propose a schedule of regular meetings during which concerns can be discussed. Williams said improved student behavior on the buses will be encouraged by working with students parents and letting them know their children can lose their bus-riding privileges. Adult supervision on problem buses also may have to be considered, he said. When asked about discipline in general, Williams said he would not tolerate disruptive behavior from students or behavior that endangers other children. Williams said school officials have taken an aggressive stand on behavior, but the media is not kind to the district. Were not as violent a population as depicted, he said, and urged his listeners to write to the newspaper to stop printing detrimental information, to stop printing crap.2B , FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1994   Pulaski Arkansas Democrat ':^azcttc Gunshot from passing car strikes LR school bus\nno one hurt  BY OLIVIER UYTTEBROUCK . Democrat-Gazette PolicB Reporter A gunshot fired from a passing car struck the side of a Little Rock School District bus carrying about 10 students Wednesday afternoon, police said. No injuries were report- edJ .Bus driver Arthur Coleman told police the shot was fired about 4:45 p.m. by one of four men in a tan 1984 Chevrolet Cavalier that passed the bus in the 3000 block of Walker Street. The bullet struck the metal frame of the third passenger window on the left side of the bus, cracking the window and sending glass fragments into the bus, Coleman said Thursday. The bullet wasnt found, he said. I heard the bang  it was awful loud, Coleman said. The driver of the car then passed the bus and sped away. They put the pedal to the metal, he said. Police said they searched unsuccessfully for the car and its occupants. Coleman said about 10 students were in the bus during the shooting. No students were in the seat beside the window, he said. Six students, from 12 to 17, remained on board when police arrived in the 2600 block of Walker Street, where Coleman stopped the bus. All were Little Rock residents attending Oak Grove High School in the Pulaski County Special School District. Coleman said he didnt see the gunman. A 17-year-old student on the bus told police one of the passengers in the car held a 9mm pistol out the window and fired. The four occupants wore red and ranged in age from 16 to 18, the student told police. The bus and car were traveling south on Walker Street, a residential street several blocks west of Boyle Park in west Little Rock, police said. Coleman said the students in the bus appeared to have done nothing to provoke the shooting. All the windows were up, he said. No kids were hanging out, giving gang signs or anything.r Democrat^C^azcttc | SATURDAY, MARCH 5 1994 Cwwt* Lime Rock  NeMfspapers. Inc. Teen on school bus hit by flying brick A junior high school student was injured Thursday evening when someone lobbed a brick through a school bus window, Little Rock police said. Little Rock School District bus driver Carolyn Williams told police she saw an unknown teen throw the brick, which struck Henderson Junior High student Shannon Hall, 15, in the face. Williams told police Shannon suffered a laceration under his right eye and several cuts. WEDNESDAY, MAY 11,1994^ School bus riders stone another bus Students on a Little Rock School District school bus threw rocks at another bus Monday afternoon and cracked its windshield, police said. Johnnette Bumworth. 24. tnlH police she was driving a bus car- ~ rying three children at 1200 Cleveland St. about 4 p.m. when students on a bus from Hall High threw rocks that cracked the windshield. Police said there were no injuries.Arkansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, MARCH 11,1994 * Boy reports attack awaiting school bus A Little Rock teen-ager was attacked by another youth while waiting for a school bus Wednesday morning. Vondrae Hawkins, 14, told police he was waiting on a bus at Ballinger Street and Apple Cove when an unknown youth approached him and accused him of associating with the Crips gang. Hawkins told police the other youth hit him in the face with a crutch the assailant was carrying. Police said^they could find no obvious signs of injury.Arkansas Democrat W? (gazette FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1994 ~ Shotgun fired twice at school bus stop Gunshots were fired near children who had just gotten off a school bus Wednesday afternoon at Tedbum Circle in Southwest Little Rock, but police reported no injuries. A witness told police that someone in a house on Tedbum Circle fired a shotgun twice near a bus stop where children were present. One youth on the bus told police he had fought with another student Wednesday morning at the bus stop. He told police that when they returned from school, someone from the other stu dents house fired a gun at him.'\"j Arkansas Democrat :^C^azcttc [ FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1994 f Copyright 9 UtUe Rock Newspapers, Inc. I Teen gets off bus, injured by bottle Someone threw a glass bottle Wednesday, injuring a student standing near a Little Rock School District bus he had just exited. Police said the 15-year-old student was hurt about 4\n20 p.m. when a glass bottle shattered near bus No. 23 at 13th and Woodrow streets, injuring the students face. , ISATURDAY, MARCH 19,1994  Suit faults drivers in bus, van accident The family of a Little Rock student filed suit Friday against the Little Rock School District, a school bus driver and a van s driver and owner over a September 1993 school bus accident. , . Michael Ford, whose age and address were unavailable, suffered severe cervical neck sprain with muscle spasms in the collision between a school bus and a 1990 Chevrolet van The suit blamed the wreck on negligence by the drivers of both the van and the bus.Arkansas Denocrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 1994  3B LRSD bus drivers, aides warned of possible layoffs i i BY CYNTHIAHOWELL Democrat-Gazette Bucation Writer The Little Rode School District has put its sdiool bus drivers and aides or. notice that they could be laid off at the end of the school year. All but 80 of the driver and aide jobs could be eliminated if the school board decides in May to contract with a private company to operate thebus system, Superintendent Heiry Williams said in a letter to employees dated Friday. Union officialswill meet with bus driver representatives early next week to decide how to respond, said Eleanor Coleman, president of the Classroom Teachers Association. The CTA is the bargaining agent for the transportation employees through June 30, when the contract expires. Williams has not made a formal recommendation to the school board to reduce the size er contracting with private com- of the transportation depart- \"  ment but said in the letter to employees he may do so at the April 28 board meeting. The district would send out layoff notices if the board approves a private contractor, which could occur in May. District staff members have been working with a transportation consultant from Geor- pa to develop a proposal for hiring a transportation company. School board members had asked administrators to consid- panics for some noneducation jobs to save money. The school district must cut about $72 million to balance the 1994-95 budget. Administrators have estimated that they could save about $600,000 by hiring a private transportation company. The districts transportation department has 344 employees and a budget of $6 million this year. That includes 215 regular route drivers, 24 full-time substitute drivers, 41 special-education bus drivers and 41 aides who ride the special-education vehicles. The rest include supervisors, dispatchers, a custodian, eight mechanics, a shop foreman, a secretary, a driver trainer, a director of operations, an administrator-coordinator and a director. The department transports about 14,000 students each day on 558 routes with 306 buses. The department also transports Little Rock students who attend schools in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts as interdistrict desegregation transfer students. Williams said transportation employees with the most seniority would be eligible for the 80 positions the district might retain. Those employees might drive a limited number of routes to meet the needs of students who have special needs, such as children with disabilities. The Pulaski County district also is considering hiring a private company to operate the transportation system. North Little Rock School District bffi-\ncials have said they are interested in a private Ijus company only to the extent of transporting the interdistrict transfer students.. y.Arkansas Democrat (gazette ^DNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1994 Workers picket over LRSD plan to privatize school bus service BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat'Gazette Education Writer About two dozen Little Rock School District bus drivers and aides picketed at the districts Administration Building on Tuesday morning over a proposal to hire private companies to operate most of the bus system next fall. Neddie Nichols, a 10-year driver for the district and head of the local teachers unions bus drivers unit, said the informational picket may continue today if the weather permits. Drivers also are expected to picket before the Little Rock School Board meeting set for 6 p.m. Thursday. Nichols said Tuesday that drivers believe they will lose their jobs or benefits if the dis- j trict proceeds with plans to privatize the transportation department. I dont understand why we are the ones who have to pay for their mismanagement Nichols said. She said the employees have tried to work with the district to cut unnecessary costs and reduce absenteeism._________ I dont understand why we are the ones who have to pay for their mismanagement  Neddie Nichols School district officials are requesting bids from private  companies to take over the department as a way to save money and operate the system more efficiently. District officials must trim next years, expenses by more than $7 million to balance the budget and avoid an illegal deficit In the request for bids on the job, the district is requiring private companies to hire all current, qualified district employees and to pay them their current base wages and benefits as long as the employees work for them. Nichols said the picketing is also intended to tell the public that the drivers care about students and are not, as a group, conducting any kind of work slowdown. Since early this month, as many as 60 of the districts 300 drivers have been absent, making buses and students late in arriving at or leaving schools. Nichols said she believes some drivers are using up their accumulated sick leave days to avoid losing the days if and when the department is privatized. Drivers earn one sick day a month.I Arkansas Democrat (gazette THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1994 Copyright 9 Utte Rock Newspapers. Inc. Driver shortage delays students in LR district District has 42 positions open, making buses up to an hour late BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat*Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District has 20 bus driver vacancies that officials say must be filled immediately to reduce the number of late buses plaguing students, parents and schools. Brad Montgomery, district transportation director, said 22 drivers did not report to work Wednesday morning. Coupled with the vacancies, the department also is 42 drivers short, causing buses to be as much as an hour late getting students to school. Wednesday was typical of the problems faced daily by the transportation department in recent weeks. The district has 22 full-time substitute drivers on its staff of about 280 drivers. The substitutes drive routes when regular drivers dont report to work because of illness or other reasons. The absentee rate among drivers is worse than it was this time last year because the district in 1993 hired more drivers to pick up the stack, Montgomery said. But the response to help-wanted advertisements this year has been slow, Montgomery said. The high absentee and vacancy rates among drivers are attributed to several factors, he said. Drivers often begin taking new jobs in the spring, knowing that bus driving jobs end when school is dismissed for the summer. Also, district employees, including drivers, are speculating that some drivers are taking sick leave days in anger or fear over a district proposal to hire a private company to operate the transportation department next year. If the Little Rock School Board approves the proposal, most drivers no longer would be district employees. The district is trying to protect current employees in the event the department is privatized. Any company given the system contract must hire all qualified, current employees at their current rate of pay and guarantee benefits equal to what the employees get now. Those benefits include health and dental insurance, short-and long-term disability insurance and a retirement plan. People who want to apply for driver jobs should contact the transportation department, which is at 5400 Murray St., at 570-4000 between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Monday through Friday. Applicants must be at least 21, hold a valid drivers license and have no more than one moving violation on their driving records. Applicants must pass a drug test. Once an applicant is hired, the driver will be trained to become eligible for a commercial drivers license. Bus driver pay ranges from $37.13 per day to $57.16. Drivers work about five hours a day, but the work is split into two shifts, one that begins at 6:30 a.m. and ends about 9 a.m. Drivers must return to work at about 1:45 p.m. for the afternoon routes.Aikansas Democrat NiSpais. Inc. L  r:.S Sc btt lib (TW ONE HURT  A Southwest Junior High student peers from a school bus window a few feet away from the win- I* - d IV r* Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Steve Keesee dow shattered Wednesday when someone threw a rock at the vehicle. Student hurt when rock breaks bus window A 15-year-old Southwest Junior High School student suffered minor injuries Wednesday when a rock thrown by another student shattered a school bus window and struck him in the head, police said. The incident was the second in three days when a Little Rock School District student threw a stone and broke a bus window. The rock struck Farley Mosley of 1616 Izard St., Apartment 101, on the left side of the head at 8:10 a.m. Wednesday, Little Rock police said. Mosley was treated at Arkansas Childrens Hospital and released, a hospital spokesman said. Students at the bus stop identified a Southwest Junior High School seventh-grader as the rock thrower. 'The bus driver told police she had just made a stop at 14th and Allis streets when the rock shattered the third window from the front on the bus left side. The incident followed one Monday afternoon when students on a b IS from Hall High School threw rocks that cracked the windshield of another Little Rock School District bus with three children aboard, police said. L Aribas Democrat ^(^azcttc THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1994 Copyngnt  Little Rock Newsoapers. Inc. Truck, bus collide J #'  r f r  fZ |z.\nByij h 3L ^.. jr :ggggt3^ ^*-- f '\n4i.. _?S*p?^v -o- i# s !rf aBBtt t . 2. ^3*\"' iSi\"- T5. WSP w 2^ 3\u0026gt; J3 ^\u0026lt;ap: I g ? \u0026gt;i fi \u0026lt; i?x *:5^ 5 V t rl' r'*\u0026gt;M .Y- .-VrM\u0026lt;\u0026gt; S^Mi it \u0026lt;jS .' L\u0026gt; '.if-* sig t. ^2f:  A-'fe- aiarfc ONE INJUREDA^UtUe Rock police officer directs traffic at University Avenue and Berkshire Drive about 3:30 p.m. Wednesday after a Chevrolet S-10 pickup hit a Lit-\ntie Rock School District bus carrying 25 Chicot Elemen-  tary pupils, none of whom was seriously injured. The Aritansaa DTxx3at-Gaz8art)rtd GoOBcheflc taidts driver, Joseph Vanness, was taken to University Hospital, where a sp^esman said he was in critical condition Wednesday night Bus driver Thomas Campbell said he was turning left onto University when the truck broadsided the bus. No charges were filed Wednesday.SATURDAY, JUNE15?1994 Copynght  Little Rock Newspapefs. Inc. Official fears bus vote will bring dire results'' BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Gazene Education Writer A Little Rock School Board member warned Friday that the decision this week against employing a private company to operate the districts school bus system will have dire consequences. John A. Riggs IV, said he feared the district could be placed into federal court receivership by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright for failing to make a responsible financial decision. The board voted 4-3 Thursday night, with virtually no discussion, against hiring a private bus company for next year. The district goes to court Tuesday for a hearing before Wright on its 1994-95 budget. Wright is presiding in the districts dese^egation lawsuit and is responsible for monitoring the districts budget and its overall compliance with the desegregation plan. The district and other parties in the lawsuit negotiated the settlement plan in 1989. It was approved by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990. District officials announced last winter that they must make more than $7 million in cuts to balance the 1994-95 budget and avoid an illegal deficit. District strategies for cutting costs next year included privatizing the transportation department at a potential savings of $500,000. The judge is looking to make a case about how the district is squandering its money, Riggs said in a telephone interview and added that the transportation decision could be used as evidence. She could say the board is not responsible and is not looking at where it is spending its money, he said. The court hearings could be ugly. Ri^s said a proposal to hire a national transportation company could save the district about $1 million over three years and provide the district with as many as 128 new buses in the first year of a three-year contract. The district asked transportation companies last spring to bid on taking over all of the bus system except the transportation of special education students. Only Mayflower, Vancom Management Services Inc. of Oakbrook Terrace, Ill., responded completely to the proposal. The company, which operates a school bus system in Memphis, said it could do. the job for $6.4 million in the first, year and $7 million the next year. District officials said it would cost them $6.5 million the first year and $7.3 million the second, year to offer the same level of service. Board members Pat Gee, O.G. Jacovelli, Linda Pondexter and Dr. Katherine Mitchell voted to reject the proposal. Board members Riggs, Kevin OMalley and Dorsey Jackson voted against the motion. OMalley said Friday he wasnt sure he wanted time to consider the proposal. He said he and other board members did not get a chance to review the proposal until the board meeting Thursday night. After spending the money to hire a consultant to help find a private company to do the job, he said, the board should have given the proposal more thought.Arkansas Democrat (gazette 1 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1994 School bus catches fire A driver hustled 19 students out a school bus rear emergency door after the vehicles engine caught fire Tuesday morning, police and school officials said. No injuries were reported. The fire, possibly the result of an electrical malfunction, was confined to the engine compartment, a Pulaski County Special School District official said. Bus driver Linda Fisher, 44, of North Little Rock saw smoke wafting out from under the buss hood at about 7:30 a.m. Tuesday, said i I Emanuel McGhee, district transportation director. Fisher stopped the eastbound bus on the shoulder of Maumelle Boulevard on an Interstate 430 overpass, McGhee said. She examined the engine, then told students to exit, he said.4B  THURSDAY, AUGUST 25. 1994 Police beat BY JIM KORDSMEIER Democrat-Gazette Police Reporter Student hit as rock is hurled bus to bus A student riding a Little Rock School District bus Tuesday afternoon threw a rock that sailed through another buss open window and hit a student on the nose, police said. School bus driver Yolanda Strong told police she was driving west on 20th Street when another district bus passed her at Johnson Street, headed east Strong told police someone on the other bus threw a quarter-sized rock that hit Eryn Surrat, 13. The teen-ager told police she wanted to be taken to Arkansas Childrens Hospital to be checked for injuries, police said, though hospital records didnt  show whether she was treated. I THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27,1994 Studentson bus knock window out  IjWe Rock School District bus window out while riding home Tuesday afternoon, police said. Carol Dotson, 23, told police she was driving the bus Lee Street about 4:15 p.m. when shattered a window on the left side of the bus west on as she passed Harrison Street Two men working on the street comer told police that all the students on the bus were in an uproar and someone inside the bus broke the window.Arkansas Democrat C^azettc j SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5. 1994 Brick hits student on LR school bus A teen-age girl threw a brick through a Little Rock School District bus window Friday morning, hitting a student, police said. Bus driver Kim Lockhart, 23, told police she had stopped at her scheduled bus stop at Ma- belvale Pike and Shetland Road about 8:15 a.m. when the teen-ager threw the brick, hitting a 14-year-old passenger. The passenger told police the brick brushed the top of his head without injuring him. He jumped off the back of the bus and asked the girl why she threw the brick at him, then knocked her to the ground, police said. II Arkansas Democrat .^C^azettc | WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1994 J* . X^J7*+ Coovright O Uttle Rock Newsoaoers. Inc. School buses to run snow routes as drill Democrat-Gazette Staff The Little Rock School Districts transportation department will run emergency bus routes Thursday in preparation for any severe winter weather. In preparation for the annual one-day drill, school officials distributed to students earlier this month information showing where their bus stops will be on the emergency routes. In running emergency bus routes, drivers generally stay on main roadways and do not travel into neighborhoods as much as they would when running the regular routes.Arkansas Democrat IS? (5azctk WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21.1994 Bus drivers expected to be on job in LRSD Little Rock school bus drivers are expected to report for duty today despite a few sick-out threats after a Tuesday meeting. Drivers met with Russ Mayo, associate superintendent of the Little Rock School District, to discuss absenteeism. Mayo wanted drivers to suggest ways to prevent high absenteeism. Last Friday more than 50 drivers called in sick, but Mayo said that is common this time of year on Fridays when paychecks are issued. About 10 drivers walked out of Tuesdays meeting with Mayo and threatened to call in sick because he failed to address their concerns about the districts management style. But most of the districts 300 drivers are expected to show up for.work, said Neddie Nichols, a former representative of the drivers union, which is no longer recognized by the district. We have a lot of unsatisfied drivers, said Nichols, noting that shes scheduling a meeting with Mary Jane Cheatham, the districts transportation director. * If several drivers call in sick today, Nichols said, it would not be an official action. Z .Theyll be drivers who just want to be heard, she said.Arkansas Democrat   WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1995  LR school bus ambush, robbery tied to gang BY JIM BROOKS Deinocral-Gazells Stall Writer A gunman stopped a Little Rock school bus Monday afternoon and several gang members searched the bu.s for a student, school officials said. When they didn't find who they wanted, they robbed two Central High School students on the bus, then fled, police said. It apparently was motivated by a group of gang-related people looking for someone, Assis- tanl Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo said. This is the first time I can recall when armed suspects stopped a bu.s and committed multiple robberies, said Lt. Charle.s Holladay, speaking for the Little Rock Police Department. A.s the bus stopped at 17th and Boyce streets about 4 p.m. Monday to let out a student, a man ran into the road, pointed a handgun at the bus driver and threatened to slioot if he tried to drive away, authorities said. They obviously were waiting for the bus to get there, Holladay said. Three unarmed men then boarded the bus while two others walked along outside, trying to find a particular student. Neither investigators nor school district officials would say who the student was or why the group was looking for him. Of the approximately 25 students on the bus, only two were robbed, police said. Robbers took two gold chain necklaces worth about $470 and $56 in cash from the two students, police said. Detectives went to Central High School on Tuesday morning to meet with school security personnel and interview the students who were on the bus. Students identified the ambushers as gang members. See BUS, Page 11A Bus  Continued from Page 1A At this point we have a general idea about the suspects but no names, Sgt. David Ebinger said. Mayo said that late Tuesday afternoon, school authorities had identified one of the men who boarded the bus. Police and school authorities said the robbers apparently were not students and all were above school age. Last year school buses and bus stops were the scenes of numerous crimes. The reports included:  In a February incident, shots were fired at a Pulaski County Special School District bus in the 3000 block of Walker Street.  In March, Little Rock police arrested a 14-year-old boy after a gang-related fight on a Little Police and school authorities said the robbers apparently were not students and all were above school age. Rock school bus.  Also in March, two shotgun blasts were fired near children who had just gotten off a Little Rock school bus on Tedbum Circle.  On Sept. 8 four teen-agers beat a Little Rock girl after she got off her school bus at 13th and Booker streets.  On the same day, police arrested two junior high school students after a gang-related brawl at a Southwest Little Rock bus stop.  Also in September, an 18- year-old Hall High School student leaped from the back door of a moving school bus after a disturbance broke out on the bus.  In December, a man assaulted two J.A. Fair High School students near a bus stop at 26th and Gaines streets. Some Little Rock school buses are equipped with video cameras that are rotated throughout the fleet, school officials said. The bus robbed Monday had no camera on board, Mayo said. There will be one on there today, he said Tuesday.AiLansas Demucratl^($)azdk J SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1995 A M a LRSD again LRSD studies using private buses BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral Gazetta Educalion Writsr Thp T iftio Rppt r.i Contract this year is Still uiicer- The Little Rock School D.s- object trict is trying again to get out of the transportation business. District administrators earlier this month issued a request for bids from private transportation companies to take over the school bus service used by 14,000 ...HHon-operation. The district district by May 3 would continue to operate bus- ................sewing special education The district put out a similar bid request last year and got responses from four companies. However, a divided Little Rock School Board ultimately rejected the idea of privatizing the Transportation Department. Faced with stagnant revenues and escalating costs. Superintendent Henry Williams and his staff are again recommending privatization as a way to replace the districts aging bus fleet and improve service to See LRSD, page 7B  Conlinued from Page IB students. The change could possibly save the district $l(X),006 next year and $1 million over three years. School board approval of any to putting oul the bid request. Specifically, Ihc flistri ct wants a private company to op erate the 197 regular school buses and llie 67 inagncl school/majorityto-minority transfer student buses  a $6.4 es students. One of the main objections voiced about privatization by some school board members and bu.s drivers i.s the potential impact on the more than 3(X) employees who would no longer work for the district. To ease those fears, the district will require any company lliat accepts the job to agree to employ all current Transportation Department employees and pay Ihcni al least the same base wages and benefits they are now gelling for a.s long a.s they work for Ilie company. Current wages for employees range from $27.90 a day for a driver who drives only one Hie inotniiig and route in evening, to a.s much a,s $57.16 a day for full-time substitute drivers who fill in for absent drivers on regular bus routes. Transportation employees get the same health, dental, disability and life insurance bene- fits received by district teachers. However a private company wouldnt be lied to the district's salary scale for any new employees, according to the proposal for a three year contract. Tlie district will rent its fleet of buses for $1 a year to the company that wins the contract. But the winning company must replace any gasoline-fueled buse.s that are more than 8 years old and any diesel powered bus that is more than 10 years old. The average age of buses in the districts fleet is 6.3 years. In the bid request, district administrators said they want to improve service to students. This past year, district buses were on time picking up and de-  livering students 75 percent of the time. Typically, there is a 9 percent absentee rate for drivers. Employee turnover is 30 to 40 percent a year. Late buses are a focus of parental complaints. The district will penalize any private company for late buses al a rale of $25 per incident. The company would be fined $500 for any bus that is operated that is un fit for service. Any contractor would be required to screen all driver candidates  including administering drug testing and reviewing a criminal background conducted by the Arkansas State Police. The district will reserve the right to deny employment to any driver believed to be unqualified or unfit.WEDNESDAY, MAY 10. 1995 Cooyngm O L-nt Rock Newsoaoers. Inc. -{ Arkansas Democrat ^^azette j Cited at flood barricade, LRSD driver rolls on BY JIM KORDSMEIER Democral-Gazerte Police Reporter A Little Rock School District bus driver cited for child endangerment for running a barricade in a flooded section of Boyle Park was still shuttling students Tuesday. Police stopped Roseanne Simmons, 46, Monday afternoon just before she tried to drive a 1991 International school bus across a high-water spot on Boyle Park Road, police said. cident and will be interviewing The only student on the bus the student. The transportation got out to move the barricade so director (Mary Jane Cheatham) the bus could go through, police. has already talked to the said. Officers stopped the bus driver, Vann said. The driver before it got to the high water should not have stopped and and cited Simmons. She (Simmons) is working to- done that\nit was inappropriate. Simmons could not be day pending the outcome of an reached for comment Tuesday investigation, district spokesman Suellen Vann said Tuesday. We are investigating the in- aftemoon. According to a police report, Simmons stopped the bus she was driving about 4:40 p.m. at a barricade set up in the 2800 block of Boyle Park Road. Nioa- mi Rottmen, 16, got out and moved the barricade out of the way, police said. Police assigned to patrol city parks stopped the bus just short of the flooded area. They called district officials and cited Simmons for running the barricade and for child endangerment Apparently the student only knew one way home and they were taking it She was t^ng the driver how to get there:'I'm not sure if its her normal route, Vann said. The student recently switched to the bus and may have been a new stop for the driver, Vann said. Rottmen told police she is a McClellan High student and that she lives on Dorchester Drive in the John Barrow Addition west of Boyle Park. Streets in Boyle Park are regularly barricaded when waters rise in flood-prone Hoek Creek. A spokesman for the city public works department said barricades in the park were set up Monday before 10 a.m. Police issued a number of citations Monday in Boyle Park for similar traffic violations, Vann said. Lt. John Hutchinson, police spokesman, said he didnt know how many citations were issued. \u0026gt;1-I Arkansas Democrat -^ (gazette | SATURDAY?MAY 2U,^re3n------' -  -  Maa^nenAT* IrW*. no.u* Ma\u0026gt;a\u0026gt;nnr Inn. Bus driver pleads guilty to charges Fined for endangering child, moving barricade on road BY PETER ARONSON Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer A Little Rock School District bus driver pleaded guilty in municipal court Friday to charges of child endangerment and moving a barricade. Little Rock Municipal Court Judge Bill Watt gave the driver, Roseanne Simmons, 46, a 90-day suspended jail sentence and fined her $250 for child endangerment and $110 plus court costs for moving the barricade. Police stopped Simmons on May 8 as she prepared to drive her school bus, with one student aboard, through a flooded section of Boyle Park Road. The McClel- Ian High School student, Nioami - Rottmen, 16, got out of the bus and moved the barricade. Police, who had been obse^- ing the barricaded area and issued several citations there that day, stopped the bus just before it reached the flooded area. Watt said that had Simmons continued, she could have put the bus in jeopardy. We have literally had flashflood problems down there where weve plucked cars out of trees, Watt said. Simmons is no stranger to Watts courtroom. Earlier this year, while driving a school bus, she struck a car and left the scene of the accident Watt said he fined her $110 plus court costs. Watt said Simmons has demonstrated a willful disregard for people and property. The judge added that if Simmons receives another citation while driving a school bus, he would suspend her commercial license and shes gonna walk, shes not gonna drive from court. It pisses me off, quite frankly. I dont like people leaving the scene of an accident, Watt said. For now. Watt said he is satisfied that the Little Rock School Districts transportation department can handle any further disciplinary action.40  FRIDAY. JUNE 9, 1995 Idea to reduce school buses given to board BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat'Gazette Educa\u0026amp;on Writer Little Rock School District bus drivers pitched school board members an idea Thursday that drivers believe would save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and eliminate any need for privatizing their department. The drivers, who oppose hiring a company to operate most of the districts transportation department, recommended a plan to reduce the number of buses used daily. Speaking at a special board meeting, Dwayne Holmes, a district driver for eight years, said that enabling each bus to pick up students who live in the same neighborhood but attend different schools would increase ridership on each route and cut the number of buses needed. For example. Holmes said, 24 buses transport an average of 14 students each in west Little Rock to the Carver, Williams, Gibbs and Booker elementary schools. Combining the routes would reduce the number of buses to nine and raise the average number of passengers to 35. he said. Of the total 36 buses assigned to those four schools, combining routes citywide could reduce the number by 15, Holmes said. He estimated that the district could save $1 million for every 25 routes eliminated. Board members asked no questions and took no action on the proposal Thursday night.Arkansas Democrat (Bazcite   WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1995  Transit, fate of schools top agenda BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Qazette Education Writer Alter months of discussion, the future of two Little Rock elementary schools and the district's transportation department could be decided tonight by the Little Rock School Board at a special meeting at 5:30. The meeting'.s agenda says the proposed 1995-96 budget will be discussed. But board members said Tuesday they expect to vote on closing Badgett and Fair Park elementary schools and on hiring a private company to operate most of the school bus system. Those moves are designed to help the financially strapped district cut expenses for the coming school year. Both proposals have been defeated before. The board deadlocked 3-3 in April on a proposal to close Badgett, in extreme east Little Rock, and Fair Park, in central Little Rock's Hillcrest neighborhood. The schools are among the districts smallest, need renovations and are under-enrolled  Badgett with 177 pupils, Fair Park with 282. Closing them could save $1.1 million next year, district officials have said. But staff and parents of children at the schools have begged the board not to close them, saying their smallness meam\nmore individual attention for pupils. Earlier, board President Linda Pondexter and members Pal Gee and John Riggs IV voted against closing the schools. Katherine Mitchell, T. Kevin OMalley and Judy Magness voted to close. Aller that, a seventh board member, Stephanie Johnson, was appointed to the board. Johnson has declined to say how she might vole. District administrators are expected to make a presentation tonight about school bus services that Laidlaw Transit Inc. could provide. Last year, the board rejected a proposal for privatizing the bus system but let district officials ask for bids from companies again this spring. District bus drivers oppose privatization and have proposed their own changes in the transportation system to cut costs. The Laidlaw proposal would save the district nearly $700,000 next year and $1.4 million over the three-year contract, according to school district officials' summary of the contract provisions. Laidlaw, based in Ontario, Canada, and Cincinnati, Ohio, is the largest transit company in North America. It transports 1.8 million students a day in 40 states provinces. and five Canadian .11 llMWH*l*Arkansas Democrat '^ (Ijjazctte [ THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1995 Vote on closing 2 schools put off The Little Rock School Board wont vote until June 22 on closing two elementary schools next fall and employing a private company to operate its school bus service. Board members were expected to vote at a special meeting Wednesday. In fact, representatives of Laidlaw Transit Inc., the company seeking the job of running the bus system, traveled Wednesday to Little Rock to make a presentation to the board. But district officials said Wednesday afternoon that the meeting had to be postponed because board members had questions about the proposal that required further research by Laidlaw. The companys headquarters are in Cincinnati and Ontario, Canada. Also, board member Katherine Mitchell was out of state Wednesday and couldnt attend the special session. That created the potential for 3-3 tie votes on both the bus service contract and the proposal to close the Badgett and Fair Park elementary schools. In April, Mitchell voted to close the two elementary schools. That motion was defeated with a 3-3 tie. She voted against efforts to privatize the school bus system last year, but the contract proposal is different this year and financial problems are more severe. Both proposals seek to cut district expenses in 1995-96. Closing the two schools would save about $1.1 million. Hiring Laidlaw Transit would save about $700,000 the first year of a three-year contract and about $1.4 million over three years. The board will take up the budget at either their 6 p.m.. regular monthly meeting June 22 or at a special meeting right before that.Aikansas Democrat (gazette TUESDAY, JUNE 20,1995 Privatizing buses a $700,000 saving, LRSD officials say BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-GazeWa Edocallon Writer A private company could operate most of the Little Rock School Districts bus service at a savings of $700,000 next year, and of at least $1.4 million over three years, district officials say. At the same time, the contractor could improve service to 12,000 students, upgrade the bus fleet and guarantee 300 drivers and aides their current wages, according to a school administration report. The Little Rock School Board will decide Thursday whether to hire Laidlaw Transit Inc. of Cincinnati and Ontario, Canada, to take over its transportation system for the next three years. If the contract is approved, Laidlaw will provide bus service to most area schools and magnet schools, and to majority-to-niinority transfer students. The board.s vote Thursday could end two years of debate over privatizing the bus system. The vote is scheduled for the day before district officials update U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright on proposed budget cuts for next year Wright enforces school desegregation in the district and must approve budget decisions. A similar privatization proposal was defeated last year, 4-3, without much board discussion. That decision prompted Wright to . with the most seniority would .................. keep their jobs with the district, question the boards reasoning. She urged the district to use its budgeting and planning systems to manage its affairs and keep the community informed about budget proposals. The district would pay the company $6.1 million next year. Laidlaw wouldlease the districts serviceable buses and the transportation facility on Murray Street for $1 each. It also would acquire 39 replacement buses for use in the district for each of the next two years, and 37 buses in the third year of the contract. The bottom line to the community is that the bus system will run more economically and the dollars we save can be used in the classroom,\" said Mary Jane Cheatham, the districts director of transportation. Fred Smith, the districts director of support services, said he had some initial doubts about privatizing but concluded that Laidlaw has the experience and resources to make improvements next year that would take the district up to seven years to duplicate. Smith and Cheatham said Laidlaw can acquire buses and parts at low costs. Laidlaw, the largest student transportation company in North America, can replace 39 buses a year for the district at an annual cost of about $1 million. The district could only acquire 26 buses for the same $1 million. The company also can save money through maintenance, they said. Its preventive maintenance program extends the life of the vehicles, and the company has one mechanic for every 20 buses, compared with the districts ratio of one mechanic for every 39 buses. Bus drivers have opposed privatization and have olTered an alternative plan for saving the district money by combining bus routes. Cheatham said the drivers plan has merit and may be implemented even if Laidlaw gets the contract. Even if bus service is privatized, the 80 drivers and aides which will continue to operate the special education bus service for about 500 students. The remaining district drivers, aides and mechanics are guaranteed jobs with Laidlaw at the same base wages they earn now, plus comparable, but not identical, benefits. The company would conduct criminal background checks and drug tests on drivers. The district can deny employment to people believed unqualified for the job. The school district would have the right to fine the company for buses that are late or early picking up students after the first four weeks of school in September.Arkansas Democrat Sti gazette FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 1995  LR schools hand bus keys to private firm - dents in at least 40 states, five Canadian provinces, and such cities as Memphis, MilwaukeCi Gulfport, Miss., and Huntsville, BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer A divided Little Rock School Board voted Thursday to get out of the school bus business by turning over operation of most of its transportation department to a  Related articles 5B U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright at a hearing at 9 a.m. today. Wright monitors district budget decisions to ensure compliance with the districts desegrega- tion plan. Ala. , The agreement mark.s the end of almost two years of debate ovbr privatizing bus service. District bus drivers and the Classroom privale company. Ill a special meeting on budget issues, board membersi also ap-\n\"'lnVthrVa7geZschool Opposed the move despite assur proved closing the small Badgett transportation contractor in ances that the drivers would Be and Fair Park elementaries b merica. The company, guaranteed jobs with the compa\nsave $1.5 million. N headouarters in Burlington,, ny at their current rates of pay The closings and the bus ser- with headquayers ni Bur ing , See BUSK, Page 14A vice ^lan will be presented to Ontario, transpprts 1.8 million st 1 T  The school board voted 4 3 to enter into a contract with Laidlaw Teachers Association yehementiy I Buses trict employees will have a different pay rate that hasnt been an- nounced. .*unceu. i Gary Whitledge, a Laidlaw?* spokesman, said the company* - pays drivers between $7.50 and $10 an hour elsewhere. He said _ _ ----- he anticipated offering some type contract terms, board members of health insurance package for Judy Magness, Dr. Katherine (bose employees. Mitchell, T. Kevin OMalley and fbe contracts features inJohn A. Riggs IV voted for the olude extensive training pro-  Continued from Page lA and with comparable insurance benefits. After a presentation on the three-year, $19.5 million contract, which could save the district as much as $2.3 million. Board members Pat Gee, Stephanie Johnson and Linda Pondexter voted against it Mitchell, who helped defeat a similar contract proposal last year, said Thursday she changed her vote because she knew more about the contract terms this year and felt confident that the employees would not be harmed. I She pointed out that as Laidlaw ' employees, the drivers would be eligible for unemployment compensation during school holidays  a benefit now closed to them. Little Rock is believed to be grams for drivers and children\nmandatory drug testing and criminal background checks for employees, and fees assessed against the company for buses that arrive early or more than 15 minutes late on their routes. Peter Settle, marketing director for the company, said Laidlaw averages about 1.5 accidents per 100,000 miles, compared to Little Rocks rate of 2.8 accidents per 100,000 miles. The company averages eight out-of-service buses per day, compared to 20 in Little Rock. Laidlaw-managed buses the only district in Arkansas to turn over its school bus service to trict. are on time 99 percent of the time, compared to 78 percent of the time for the Little Rock dis- a private company. Laidlaw will lease 235 Little Rock buses for $1 per bus per year. Over three years, the company will add about 115 new or low-mileage snub-nosed diesel buses of its own to the Little Rock The vote to close Badgett and Fair Park elementaries was 4-3 with no discussion. The decision rescinded a board vote in April that allowed the schools to remain open. The schools are among the dis- fleet. The company buy its buses tricts smallest, said Dr. Russ from the AmTran Co. in Conway. Mayo, associate superintendent Laidlaw will also lease the dis- for desegregation. tricts transportation facility on f.................................... ____ .... . Badgetts student attendance Murray Street for $1. 2one in extreme east Little Rock The Little Rock district will become part of the Washing- operate buses only for about 500 Magnet Elementary School special education students out of attendance zone. Badgett stu- a facility on 21st and Barber jg^ts will be assigned to Washstreets. The 80 drivers with the but some will be able to gboose transfers to Clinton Mag- the opportunity to remain with Oakbrooke and Sylvan Hills gtementaries in the Pulaski The Little Rock district will most years of service will have the district and drive those buses. Laidlaw is expected to hire more than 200 drivers, as well as managers, dispatchers and office staff. District employees will be offered jobs first at the same pay and similar benefits, including membership in the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Drivers and aides will no County Special School District. Fair Parks attendance zone in central Little Rock will be divided among three schools. Pupils living in the Fair Park zone north of Interstate 630 will be assigned longer get one day of sick leave per month but will get incentive pay for perfect attendance. Drivers employed by Laidlaw who are not current Little Rock dis- ementary. to Brady Elementary. Most of the pupils living south of the interstate will be assigned to Franklin Incentive School. Those living in a small area east of Peyton Street will be assigned to McDermott El-2B  WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1995 Pulaski Arkansas Democrat '^(gazette s Hit-and-run 18-wheeler hits LRSD bus, injures 12 on board BYJAKESANDUN Democra-Gazette Staff Writer\nA tractor-trailer rig that smashed into a Little Rock school bus Tuesday morning slightly in- jured 11 children and the bus driver before the rig fled on a downtown interstate. - The unidentified driver didnt ^t away with the hit-and-run. thanks to a man and a woman in a 1991 Honda Prelude who chased the truck from the Roosevelt Road exit on Interstate 30 to the eastbound Interstate 440 exit Ann Vick and her passenger, Willie Harris, both of North Little Rock, returned to the accident scene with the name of the trucking company and the rigs registration and license numbers for police. He looked like he was going to stop, Harris said later from his home. Then the red light changed, and he went right on under it and got on the freeway. Thats when we took off behind him. Vick didnt answer calls made to her home Tuesday, He wasnt thinking about the kids on that bus. There isnt any way someone should do something like that Harris said. Little Rock police will notify two companies named on the truck  Gibson hitemational Truck Co. and D J. International  who can trace the driver, said Terry Hastings, a police spokesman. The truck carried a Texas registration. He was looking at me when I was writing everything down. Harris said of the truck driver. I said I hope hes not going to run over here on us.... He wasnt about to stop or turn around or nothing The Little Rock School District bus was taking 37 children ages 6 to 11 to a summer school program at Washington Magnet Elementary School when the driver, Debbie Barker, exited northbound off 1-30 about 8 a.m. The bus was turning west onto East Roosevelt Road when the 18- wheeler crossed into its lane, with the trailers left side crumpling the right front comer of the yellow school bus, police said. Eleven children who had been sitting on the right side of the bus were taken by ambulances to Arkansas Childrens Hospital with minor injuries. All were treated and released, a hospital spokesman said. Barker. 32. was taken to University Hospital and treated and released before noon, a hospital spokesman said. Everybody on the ri^t side hit the windows. Ukila Witherspoon, 9, said before leaving Childrens with her mother, Yarnell Witherspoon. He was coming at us fast and he hit us. I hit the window, said Ronnie Love, 10, holding an ice pack on his shoulder. It was a diesel (truck). Calvin Tatum. 11. who was also on the bus but escaped injury, went to the emergency room to see Ronnie, his brother, with Karen Greenlee, Washingtons kindergarten through fourth-grade summer school principal. The five-week program ends a week from Thursday. We were getting off the interstate. and the truck came from the side, Calvin said. It tore the front and side off. All that is off. School district officials estimated the damage at a minimum of $1,800. consistent with the police accident reports figure.THURSDAY, JULY 13,1995 FBI hunts owner of rig that hit school bus BY OLIVIER UYTTEBROUCK Democrat-Gazette Police Reporter Investigators searching for the owner of a tractor-trailer that Strack a Little Rock School District bus this week have asked federal officials to help trace a pair of the trucks license numbers jotted down by witnesses. Little Rock police said their initial check showed the rigs Texas registration number didnt exist in the National Crime Information Center, the FBIs nationwide computer data base. Police Wednesday asked the ' information center to search Texas registration records for the number, Little Rock police hit and run investigator Raymond Ferrell said. Police also asked the information center to search registration records in all 50 states for a number on the trailer, he said. Officers hope to learn the trucks owner today. Witnesses said the tractortrailer, which had separate license numbers on its cab and trailer, was marked with the names Gibson International Truck Co. and D.J. International. Neither firm is registered in Arkansas, Ferrell said. The tractor-trailer cut off a Little Rock School District bus with 37 children on board about 8 a.m. Tuesday, striking the bus front right comer. Eleven of the children were treated for minor injuries at Arkansas Childrens Hospital and released. Both vehicles were turning left from Interstate 30 onto Roosevelt Road when they collided. The trucks driver made a second left onto southbound 1-30, then turned east on Interstate 440, police said. Witnesses in a 1991 Honda Prelude chased the truck as far as Bankhead Drive, recording information.[ Arkansas Democrat | MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1995 ' Private bus firm picks up I^SE^ BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer When the yellow school buses roll into the neighborhoods early Monday to pick up Little Rock indents for the first day of school, it wont be business as usual. After two years of debate, this summer the Little Rock School District turned over the operation of a 211-bus fleet to Laidlaw Transit Inc., the largest school bus transportation contractor in North America. The company Edward Streeter, who moved ' , bus drivers will strictly en takes 1.8 million students to and here from Miami to be the new. said, from school in at least 40 states terminal manager, said conver^^.* rripi!d ih , company I and five Canadian provinces. It , See BUSES. Page hS w^^ Buses  Continued from Page 1A sion of the bu.s service has been remarkably smooth. While there is no avoiding the confusion that typ- the district's other buses, feature a studeni continues to misbehave side and roof escape hatches, two- the company will seek a confer- way radios and tlie strobe lights and cnce with the parents before ......crossing arms now required by moving a studeni from the bus ifie.s the first few days of school, slate law. By .lamiary, 50 percent of a last resort. Streeter said he expects to provide the bus fleet will be new as buses Driver supervisors will rou- Little Rock with a system where purchased by the district and the finely drive throughout the city to safe buses run on time, drivers are state will be added. The stale buses monitor buses and will meet with are for magnet school students. principals and assistant princi- Fellow drivers on the morning pals about student discipline 12,000 regular and interdistrict commute may wonder why the They plan to present programs on transfer students. The Little Rock buses operate with their head- discipline and safety to students district will operate a much lights on, and why the buses won't parents and civic groups. The pre- smaller bus service for about 500 make right lurn.s on red traffic trained and students behave. Laidlaw will transport about handicapped students. Streeter alerted all parents, students, teachers, and even fellow rush-hour drivers to some changes in the bus service. For starters, Laidlaw bought 39 ents, teachers and principals will new flat nose buses to be integrat- ed into the Little Rock fleet. The time. Last year, the district reportbuses, made in Conway at a cost j cla.s.se,s 26 percent of the time, r---------------r --------causing classes to be disrupted Winnie the Pooh and has a three-year, $19.5 million- \u0026gt; students to miss instruction. ----- - -  Bus breakdowns and employee absenteeism were blamed. , _ ---------rap music. Laidlaw hired 160 former Little Rock drivers and gave them a system that is expected to save ''\"Thh^vp^^n%'!iiqfr? n r y' the district $2.3 million.  , ahUaw Z 7' 'perience. Some of the former - - I us that IS late drivers are now Laidlaw supeni ' . sors. The firm hired another 80 ^^l^'ng k I ds to be at bu.s drivers at a starting wage of $8 50 in.Q in mintifoe U... ________ r,,. **^*6 wngv UI contract to run the Little Rock JI errrerft^m to ovn/ut^A/l -i The buses that make the rounds today will be Laidlaw- owned or -leased buses. And the . j stop.s 10 minutes before their bus- umformed drivers in yellow d es are scheduled to arrive, polo shirts, dark pants and dark J Streeter said. Bus drivers are inshoes will be Laidlaw employ-\nstmeted to stop at every bus slop ees, even though they may be i - for 30 seconds, then move on if no the same people who drove the\n students board. The buses won't buses last year as Little Rock \u0026gt;J return to pick up students who district employees. '  \"'H \"They have treated u.s real nice, I,ewis said at Laidlaws ------------------------ to belter see children who might buses, Strceler said ........ dis- ''They made sure we had iohs -  Th? buses, larger han oral and then written warnings If she said They sent us cSed letters and called us on the telephone to make sure we knew about the application dates. ,, We will refuse to allow a mi of $2.1 million, will enable drivers nority of students to disrupt the lights  even though the turns are legal. Both measures are designed to keep children safe, Streeter said. Company officials hope parnote that the buses will run on ed that school buses were late to This year, the district will fine i arriving at a school. Misbehaving students will get re- as sentations for students feature an hour. The company i,s still taking applications. All applicants undergo a crime record check and a drug screening. Little Rock drivers opposed privatizing the system, despite guarantees of their same base salaries and benefits. But drivers Connie Lewis and Felicia Smith said last week that they are satisfied, so far, with Laidlaw. tt Lewis said she also appreciates what she believes will be a stronger stand against student misbehavior and that drivers won't retrace their routes to pick up students who missed the bus. Smith said she has no complaints but expects her take home pay to drop. The school district paid drivers for taking on extra routes. Because Laidlaw has changed the workday, it may be harder to earn extra pay. The father of two grown children, Streeter moved to Little Rock this summer from Miami, where he was operations manager for Mayflower Contract Services, a company purchased by Laidlaw. A native of Washington, D.C., Streeter's parents were raised in Crossett and he has relatives there as well as in Pine Bluff and Lake Village. Mike Jones, former operations trict, is the assistant director of the facility for Laidlaw.I I Arkansas Etemocrat^C^azcttc | FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1995 District will return school bus service to some in SWLR BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Board voted late Thursday to restore bus service to some Southwest Little Rock students who lost the service because they were attending schools outside their attendance zones. The decision came at the end of a long meeting dominated by harsh discussion on two subjects\ndistrict bus service and a proposal to hire an Illinois company to manage custodial services in the schools. In a series of votes, the divided board ultimately rejected a pro- portation. adding a bus. John Walker, an attorney for black children in the district, filed a motion Tuesday asking U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to order the district to continue bus service for students whose transfers help desegregate schools. He asked the judge to deciare the district in contempt of court for reassigning Pulaski Heists students from Southwest Little Rock to other schools while allowing other students to continue to attend the school as long as they provide their own trans- posal to sign a contract with Ser- Several Little Rock School DisviceMaster Management Services trict drivers and parents com- Inc. But only six of the seven plained Thursday about the bus board members were present. service in general and special ed- and the issue could be raised ucation buses in particular. ITie again. More than two dozen district operates the special edu- cheering custodial and mainte- cation buses but turned over nance employees attended the transportation of all other students to a private company this meeting to oppose the contract Board members were to conduct year. The Little Rock drivers com- Superintendent Henry Williams annual evaluation 'Thursday, but plained about the special educa- they delayed _that until a special tion buses need for repairs and said the condition of the buses meeting next 'Thursday. 'The boards decision to restore the Southwest Little Rock bus causes them to be late in picking up children. The drivers also said routes could cost the district some of their routes are more $140,000  ^,000 for each of five than an hour long. buses. But the decision also may Freddie Smith, district manag- head off a federal court hearing er for support services, said the set for 3 p.m. today on the issue. Carolyn Rufus, mother of two district and Laidlaw Transit Inc, are continuing to make adjust- Pulaski Heights Junior High ments in services. More than one- School students, told the board third  163  of Laidlaws 453 she and other parents had to miss routes were revised as of 'Thurs- work or change their work sched- day to accommodate students who registered late or whose address- ules to get their children to and from school this week. She said es changed. More route changes her children were transported by will take effect Tuesday and bus last year, but she learned earlier this month that the service would be discontinued. again two days later. Laidlaw had enough drivers to cover all routes 'Thursday but Rufus children are attending didnt on any one day all of last the school as desegregation transfer students. The district has a policy of transporting students who transfer out of their zones only if the service doesnt require semester. Smith said. The company has four weeks to resolve problems before the district starts fining the company for every morning bus that arrives at school late.1OB  FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1995 Arkansas Democrat (gazette Deadline near for contractor to smooth out LR busing problems BY SHAREESE HAROLD Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Last-minute schedule changes, students fighting on buses and complaints about children picked up two hours late have Laidlaw Transit Inc. scrambling to keep its word to improve the Little Rock School Districts bus system. Ed Streeter, Laidlaws terminal manager, said hes optimistic that all of the kinks will be worked out before Sept 18, the end of the companys 30-day probation period. At the end of the probation, Laidlaw will be penalized $25 every time a bus is more than 15 minutes late picking up students. In the meantime, west Little Rock resident Bobby Hacker said, his son is the one paying for the problems the district and the company are having. We have an 8-year-old who has been left waiting for a bus each morning that has never come since last Wednesday, said Hacker, whose son Joseph is one of the last students scheduled to be picked up on a Elementary School Dodd route. Hacker and his wife work and are concerned that when the bus fails to pick up their son, Hes just left waiting around wondering how hes going to get to school. The bus company told Hacker the driver of his sons bus quit Thats not our problem, Hacker said. They should be able to get someone to replace drivers who dont show up or who quit The district signed a three- year, $19.5 million contract with Laidlaw during the summer. Officials expect to save $2.3 million by allowing the company to transport about 12,000 regular and interdistrict students. The districts 227 buses travel 454 routes each day. Despite problems with driver absenteeism and with overnight changes in schedules and routes, Streeter said, students fighting on buses may be an even bigger problem. Twelve Mabelvale Junior High students were sent home for fighting on a bus en route to the school Tuesday morning. Three students were arrested on assault charges. Thursday, four more students involved in a fight were sent home. Jim Principal Mabelvale Fullerton will decide whether the students will be allowed to ride the bus again. We have video cameras on some of our buses, Streeter said. .And this Mabelvale group has been having problems since school started. Thursdays fight was caught on video camera. Thatll help us target the troublemakers, Streeter said the company expects to live up to the terms of its contract We have resolved some of those problems, and were working on resolving more, he said.I Arkansas Democrat 7^ (f^azcHc ( SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1995 Williams champions bus service System improving, school chief insists BY JAKE SANDLIN DeniocrB|.GazelIe SlaS Wilier Little Rock Superintendent Dr. Henty Williams on Friday defend ed the private firm mnning the school district's bus system and assured parents that service is improving despite early problems The Little Rock School Board lured I.aidlaw Transit Inc. last June to take over bus service to most district schools, ending almost two years of debate over whether the city's school bus .system should be privatized. However, I.aidlaw's first three weeks have been bumpy. Williams acknowledged receiving about 100 complaints from parents concerning missed stops, late nins, bus breakdowns and high driver absenteeism. But Williams added that many of the complaints were from parents who did rtot know who to call about a problem \"All of the problems that we've had are not Laidlaw problems, he said. \"There have been Little Rock School District problems.\" fhc district still handles bus h ai^portalion for its approximately .100 special education students, IjRidlaw has a tliree-year, $195 million contract with the district Ilie deal is supposed to save the district as much as $2.3 million. Tlie contract also provides a 30-day probation period that ends Sept. 18, stipulating a $25 penalty for every lime a bus is more than 15 minutes late picking up students after tliat date. We're not holding it over their heads,  Williams said. But he added, Our expectations are if they don 't do their job, they have to suffer the consequences.\" Iliree fights on school buses this week helped draw attention to bus problems. Williams said he is aware of five serious incidents on buses during the past three weeks, three fewer than the eight reported in the first two weeks of school last year. Two fights occurred on a Mabel vale Junior High bus this week. That bus now has a district security ofiicer on it, Laidlaw Terminal Manager Ed Streeter said. He said buses identified as problems are followed and monitored closely. more \"We believe that the children are safe, Streeter said. Problems with bus routes have resulted in more than 500 route clianges to better accommodate parents and students, Williams said. Those changes include altering routes for address changes, and moving bus stops from \"comer A to comer B. Our transportation system is improving,\" Williams said. At least one problem Laidlaw has IS new: It hasn't obtained a busines privilege license from Little Rock. The city Revenue Collection Division sent I.aidlaw a letter Friday giving it 10 days to fulfill the requirement it has \"obviously chosen to Ignore or face possible legal action and fines for violating a citv code. re- Streeter said Laidlaw has t check ready to pay for the license. aArkansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 16,1995 . . Copyright O Lfttki Rndc Newwwwi bw._ School bus drivers dont get paychecks Some Little Rock School District bus drivers finished their routes Friday and left without the paychecks they were anticipating at the end of the day, a school spokesman said. A payroll sheet containing checks for some Laidlaw Transit Inc. employees was either lost or stolen, and company employees worked into the night to figure out the problem. This is Laidlaw's first year as a subcontractor handling bus service for the school district \"Everybody will get paid. district spokesman Suellen Vann said. \"Some of the drivers just decided to leave and come back (today) to pick up their checks. Laidlaws terminal manager, Ed Streeter, was still working at 8:30 p.m. Friday to straighten out the payroll problem. Vann said. Streeter could not be reached for comment.j Arkansas Democrat (gazette TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19. 1995- LRSD buses getting on track Routes continue to change, but complaints about service down BY SUSAN ROTH Democrai-Gazette Education Writer The private company running the Little Rock School Districts bus system steadily continues to improve its service after a rocky start, officials said Monday. We've had no more problems than we usually have, said Mary Jane Cheatham, the districts director of transportation. Private contractor Laidlaw Transit Inc. is an extension of her department. Many parents have complained that buses were late, broke down . interdistrict transfer schools. or never came for their children. Cheatham and Laidlaw officials said the complaints have dropped dramatically in the past week. Monday was the first day for which Laidlaw will be fined for buses that arrive at school more than 15 minutes late or early. The company had a 30-day grace period to get routes in order. Monday afternoon, district officials said they did not yet know of any late buses. One bus was early, but it arrived at school within 15 minutes of its scheduled time. But Cheatham said the driver had missed some students and another driver had to go back and pick them up. But since routes are continuing to change  97 more changes went into effect today and another 30 will occur Thursday, officials said  the district is phasing in the penalties over the next two months. \"rhe first set of buses being held to the 15-minute rule are those serving the schools that are a critical part of the districts desegregation plan: the magnets and Cheatham said those also happen to be the most stable routes, because children tend to stay at thosQ schools. The 80 buses will be monitored daily for the.- next two weeks through reports from each of the schools, Cheatham said. After that, Laidlaw will be able to respond to the reports. 'The company will be fined $25 for every time a bus is more than 15 minutes late or early. Cheatham said her goal is to get students to school on time and to administer the contract in a fair and consistent manner, not necessarily to penalize the bus company. Some problems are their fault and some lie with the district she said. We are looking for long-term solutions. We are sharing information and workii^ out solutions every day, she said. This is not about finger-pointing. Officials didnt have recent reports on bus arrivals, but in the first two weeks of school, 723 out of 2,441 were late. Cheatham said she used last years definition of late in arriving at those figures, not the new 15-minute rule. She said only about 15 percent of the 723 would have resulted in fines. Laidlaw is transporting stur dents under a three-year, $19.5 million contract that is supposed to save the district up to $2.3 million. 'The company serves about 12,000 interdistrict and regular students, while the district retains responsibility for transporting about 500 special education students. Laidlaws 220 buses travel about 450 routes, Cheatham said. About 500 changes have already been made to the routes.Arkansas Democrat 19? (gazette FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1995 LR school bus driver dismissed A Little Rock school bus driver was fired this week for hitting a student, school officials said. Kyan Harris, 23, allegedly hit and cursed a pupil while substituting on the Ish Elemental School route Sept 13, officials said. The childs parent brought authorities a statement signed by other witnesses parents. Laidlaw Transit Co., the private company under contract to the Little Rock School District to run the bus system, suspended Harris without pay the following day pending an investigation. Company officiais completed their investigation a week ago and fired Harris on Monday. Harris drove for the school district last year. Laidlaw hired him Aug. 21 to drive this year. Ed Streeter, terminal manager for Laidlaw, said Harris did not usually drive the Ish route and those kids wouldnt normally come into contact with him.\" Harris had not had any other problems since August, Streeter said.rAikansas DemocraT^^azc^ FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, School buses carry tax shock LRSD told it must pay $87,000 on purchase by private operator BY CHRIS REINOLDS Oefnocrat-Qazette Staff Writer The Little Rock School Dis- trict must pay $87,000 in sales\ntax for a private companys new school buses, officials told the more unforeseen costs. I dont want any more sur- nal bid or contract. Smith said. The district hired Laidlaw -  this year in a three-year, $19.5 pnses, Pondexter said, million contract that is supposed school board Thursday night The law exempts school dis- to save up to $2.3 million. The company serves about 12,000 interdistrict and regular students, while the district retricts'from paying sales tax, as tains responsibility for transwell as license and registration porting about 500 special educa- fees. on school buses only if the tion stude^^ _ _ _ district owns the buses, said Freddie Smith, the districts Board President Linda Pon- dexter and board member Pat Gee were surprised and angry at manager of support services. . Laidlaw Transit Inc., the pn- the oversight. You mean we pay the taxes vate company that provides most * actpH of the districts bus service, on their buses. Gee asked olans to buy a total of 150 buses Smith. ir the next three years in the next tnr y experiences we didnt think we had to pay sales tax, Smith said. Pondexter asked district attorneys to review the Laidlaw contract to find if there were any Thirty-nine buses are new this year. Laidlaw has agreed to pay $2,500 for licenses and registration but will not pay the sales tax since it was not in the origi- This was considered up Superintendent Henry Williams suggested that the district ask the sUte Legislature to revise the law so any entity including a private company that owns and operates a school bus would be exempt from state sales tax. Despite the costs, Williams said the district will still save about $570,000 a year using Laidlaw. new Arkansas Democrat ^(^5azellcJ SATURDAY. MARCH 2, 1996 LRSD driver charged in beating of son BY OLIVIER UYTTEBROUCK Democrat-Gazette Police Reporter A Little Rock School District bus driver on probation for a misdemeanor weapon conviction now faces a charge of second-degree batteiy for allegedly hitting his son with an extension cord, police said. , Harold Waj-ne Brown. 35. of 11019 -Mara Lj-nn Road was released on $5,000 bond Friday after pleading innocent to tlie misdemeanor battery charge. Investigators said he grabbed an extension cord and struck his 17- year-old son numerous times on the \"back after the boy returned home from school about 6 p.m. Tuesday. The boy was treated by a school nurse. A Little Rock municipal judge convicted Brown on Aug. 18. 1995. on a misdemeanor charge of cariy- ing a weapon, fined him $901 and placed him on probation for a year. He previously had been convicted of two other misdemeanors  a 1994 charge of loitering for the purpose of narcotics and a 1993 charge of obstruction of governmental operations. The Little Rock School District hired Brown as a school bus driver March 3.1994. a district spokesman said Friday. As a Little Rock driver, he would automatically have qualified to be hired by Laidlaw Transit Co, when the district turned over its school bus operations to the private com- pany in 1995. -Another school bus drivers arI rest in the reported rape of a 16- year-old student last month prompted Laidlaw to pertbrm back^ound checks on as many as 130 drivers. Mike Jones, an employee at Laidlaw's terminal in Little Rock, said Friday that the company had finished the checks on all its drivers. But Jones said he couldn't\ncomment on specific employees  and referred additional questions i to terminal manager Ed Streeter, i Streeter could not be reached  for comment late Friday. | Pulaski Count)- sheriffs deputies arrested Laidlaw driver .Artie Lam- i ont Tucker. 22. on a charge of rape ' Feb. 7.Arkansas Democrat TUESDAY. MARCH 26, 1996 I iHlo Hock Inr Truck rams school bus, sending 10 to hospital Nine schoolchildren and their bus driver were taken to Little Rock hospitals Mondav afternoon after a truck hit their bus while it was stopped on Chicot Road, police said. The children were taken to Arkansas Children's Hospital and Southwest Hospital after the wreck at 3:55 p.m. The southbound bus was stopped on Chicot Road at Shady Grove Lane in Southwest Little Rock when a large flatbed truck driven by William Perez rammed the bus from behind, police said. Perez. 37. of Shannon Hills was cited for following too close, police said. The children and the driver were complaining of neck pain and backaches and were being X- rayed for injuries Monday night, said Suellen Vann, the school districts spokesman. All were treat-IO ll n 7 J I \u0026gt;1 I WSOWMS: Lund hod School boWo, Laidtew H Arkansas Dmocraf-Ga20He I Arkansas Democrat^()p\u0026gt;azctk , - , -MONDAY, APRIL 1,1996 Laidlaw beating LRSDs record with buses BY JULIAN E, BARNES Oemocral-Gazelte Staff Wrifar Three bus accidents with ac- companying TV reports in one week left the manager of the private bus company that transports Little Rocks public school students shaking his head. The accidents, Fortunately most of the accidents have been fender\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_710","title":"School closings","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":["1993/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School buildings","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["School closings"],"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/710"],"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\nFILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 4 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 0 2 1993 O\n!\nCS 0! Dese3f5'' Ki AonAonng EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK DSP. cLenx LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER By Order dated June 11, 1993 [doc.#1848], the Court approved the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School on condition that the Ish Incentive School remain open unless the LRSD establishes that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. this regard, the Court directed that within 10 days from June In 9, 1993 , the LRSD submit to the Court its proposed survey of potential Ish students' along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. The LRSD complied with the Court's directive and, by Order dated June 30, 1993 [doc.#1873], the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. None of the parties objected. Now before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1908] on grounds that the survey process has The Court determined that the 100 students who will decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the following groups: (1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones\n(2) students not attending Ish but nrhA lit,A *1..* T_l. * . . ..a. who live within the Ish attendance zones\nand (3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones.indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by this Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") have responded in opposition to the motion. Having carefully considered the parties' pleadings, the Court finds that the goals of the settlement plan will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School, and that the motion should be and hereby is granted. Joshua objects to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted on grounds that (1) the survey did not consider preschool children who may have desired to attend pre-school programs at Ish, and (2) it is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of the students who did not respond to the survey would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, i.e. 55.4%, and on that basis. presumed is 145.^ the actual number of preferences which may be Joshua further states, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that \"[t]he process was designed to fail.\" Joshua's objections to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted are denied as untimely. In the June 11, 1993 order, the Court specifically stated that \"[t]he Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan.\" In the June 30, 1993, I Order, 2 conclusion. the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, in Joshua has not submitted a brief in support of its response setting forth any authority that would support such a -2-part because no objections had been filed. Joshua has not attempted to explain its neglect of the Court's deadlines, and it is now far too late to ask this Court to consider objections to the survey and its process. Joshua also objects to the closing of incentive schools which are located in predominately black neighborhoods. While such concerns are certainly valid, the Court notes that the King Interdistrict school, which will be desegregated, is a new school in a black neighborhood and, indeed, is in close proximity to Ish. There thus is no net loss of schools in predominately black neighborhoods with respect to the closing of Ish. The Court would also note that the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish due to an insufficient number of students does not conflict with the terms of the settlement plan, states the following with respect to incentive schools: The plan There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending those schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with variance of 5 percent. to these elementary The recruitment of white students area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to maximum percentage of 60 percent. The incentive schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens. ___ incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive The schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school\nany -3- a arecruitment and/or any assignment shall be in accordance with each district's student assignment plan. Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. shall utilize the demonstrable implementing To meet that goal, the parties services of a consultant who has experience in developing and successfully such programs in a majority-black educational setting. Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, pg. 4. According to the desegregation plan. the double funding allotted the incentive schools is intended to help alleviate the racial-isolation of the children attending these predominately one- race schools. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stressed the importance of this incentive school feature: It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the i989i_plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to ..1 1. __ retreat should be approved. They are as (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools ... which no follows: They are Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991). However, in accordance with the aforementioned survey process, the LRSD gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood. King offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists. a 56 station computer lab, electronic-assisted instruction. and an automated media center. Also, as previously noted by the Court, if Ish were to close and its students transfer to King, the LRSD committed to -4-increase the total number of four-year-old classes at King from two to four. Nevertheless, to the extent the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish is a disputed modification of the plan, the Court finds that such modification is in compliance with the standards for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: To modify [a] consent decree[] io decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions its it either 1 effective have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree, modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. A Id. at 258, quoting with approval Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). Here, the Court finds that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100) is changed circumstance which a constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein. Furthermore, the Court finds that the circumstances and conditions thus have changed which warrant \"fine- tuning\" the plan. The closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict School, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Although the Court grants the LRSD's motion to close Ish, it does not excuse the LRSD from its obligation to recruit white -5-students to desegregate the remaining incentive schools, reiterates that it will closely watch all proposed school The Court closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens, not evidence such a pattern. The motion to close Ish does IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD's motion to close the Ish I Incentive School be, and xt is hereby, granted. Dated this 2nd day of August 1993. UNITEO states'DIsTRIC' 'RI CT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON -6-iL NOV 2 1995 OBice Oi Dssegrsaa-ion rvicruicnng IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION .x7 2 d 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants. * * * * * *  it 4r * A A A No. LR-C-82-866 6y\n^Pt^'URiwyACK, CLERK CLftK ?_S Ois\nI cSN c:s 'C| ,^,:y^,\\s^g ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) for modification of desegregation plan, filed on June 30, 1995. At that time, the LRSD was seeking the Court's permission to close Fair Park Elementary School and Badgett Elementary School beginning the 1995-96 school year. The motion is now moot, the LRSD having withdrawn the request. Also before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD\") for approval of new school sites. filed on July 21, 1995. The PCSSD was seeking the Court's permission to build a new Daisy Bates Elementary School and a new junior high school at Crystal Hill. This new construction, as well as the purchase of computers for use by fifth and sixth grade students in the PCSSD, was to be financed from a millage increase the PCSSD intended to ask the voters to approve. Because the PCSSD determined not to ask for a millage increase, the motion for new construction is moot. 2 5 6 6 LBecause these motions (docket entry # the Clerk is directed to 2432 \u0026amp; # 2443) are moot, remove them from the pending motions report. SO ORDERED this day of November 1995.\nt judge PHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON JANCE 2. 20 o.  OJU. UxL cc,^^  C^cx^j iLctp. i \u0026lt;'(zp'-^ 2\u0026gt;-Z9-(^3 C/0^'' C~ '7- / -Z- ^3 Drc/e iH i i ZZ i- C/o),/'. u1 From: John W. Walker To: Anr' Brown Date-1/9/96 Time: 17:17:4S Page 2 of 2 DRAFT Bob Morgan Member of the Finance Committee Little Rock Strategic Planning Committee Little Rock. AR C'O Dr. Henry Williams Dear Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your talking to me today regarding your committee's plans for closing schools and saving money. I was somewhat surprised to find that you believe that I have been an inadequate representative of the Joshua class by my advocacy to keep older schools in minority neighborhoods open and to have them enhanced in accordance with the plan. You acknowledged that while you were at the ODM you proposed and pormoted the same philosophy with respect to school closing and cost savings and that you sought to have the p jns modified to reflect you ideas. That causes me a great deal of distress because the ODM is not authorized to change the olan nor to substitute its judgment or that of its staff for that of the parties. I can see now why we experienced such difficulty in making the incentive schools work. If as an ODM monitor, you actively sought to undermine those schools, as you apparently did, and shared your ideas with the Little Rock school administrators, that undoubtedly sent a strong message from the Court to those administrators through you as a court agent. 1 do not believe that Judge Susan Wright was aware of this. But I am putting her on notice of my comments to you by copy of this letter with a request that we meet with the Court to determine the extent to which your influence was extended. I requested any writings that you may have to support your proposed further school 'closings and your argument to the Strategic Planning group regarding v/hich schools should be retained and which sections of the city should be favored. Fearing that 1 may have misrepresented our conversation, I invite your immediate response prior to the 7:30 Thursday morning meeting of the committee where I plan to be present. Thank you for your attention to this matter. i r Dr Henry Williams Mr. Fred Smith, Financial Director LRSD Ms Linda Pendexter Ms Ann Brown Honorable Susan Webber Wright - From: John W. Walker To: Airn Brown Dale: 1/9/96 Time: 17:37:32 i, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. } 1 1 I Page 2 of 3 t.-'i-.' . 51'.' ' ATTORNEY AT 1723 SRQADVtkY LITTLE ROCK, ARKAN^,S 72206 TELEPHONE (^1) 374-3768 FAX (501) 374-4187 J-*.  JOKWW. WALKER  RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE \" AUSTIN PORTER JR. [Delivered by Fax 324-2146 \u0026amp; U.S. Mall] January 9. 1996 V k Mr. Bob Morgan Member of the Finance Committee Little Rock Strategic Planning Committee c/o Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your talking to me today regarding your committee's plans for closing schools and saving money I was somewhat surprised to find that you believe that I have been an inadequate representative of the Joshua class by my advocacy to keep older schools in minority X'J\nI IV : : k lt' A I.-- neighborhoods open and to have them enhanced in accordance with the plan. You acknowledged that while you were at the ODM you proposed and promoted the contrary philosophy with respect to school closing and cost savings and that you sought to have the plans modified to reflect your ideas. That caLises me a great deal of distress because the ODM is not authorized to change the plan nor to substitute its judgment or that of its staff for that of the parties. I can see now why we experienced such difficulty in making the incentive schools work. If. as an ODM monitor, you actively sought to undermine those schools, as you apparently did and shared your ideas with the Little Rock school administrators and public opinion makers, that undoubtedly sent a strong messagejromlhe Court to those administrators (through you as a court agent). I do not believe that Judge Susan Wright v/as aware of your efforts to change our agreement: but I am putting her on notice of my comments to you, by copy of this tetter with a request that we meet with the Court to determine the extent to which your influence was extended and whether any corrective action is in order.  A( 1 RR  i Prom: John W Walker To: Ann Brown Date\n1/9/96 Time: 17:38:32 Page 3 of 3 Page Two Mr. Bob Morgan January 9, 1996 I also requested any writings that you may have to support your proposed further school closings and your argument to the Strategic Planning group regarding which schools should be retained and which sections of the city should be favored for money saving reasons. You indicated that you did not provide any. Fearing that I may have misrepresented our conversation, I invite your immediate response prior to the 7\n30 Thursday morning meeting of the committee v/here I plan to be present. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, [Original Signed By Undersigned Counsel] John W. Walker JWWJp cc: Dr. Henry Williams Mr. Fred Smith, Financial Director LRSD Ms. Linda Pendexter Ms. Ann Brown Honorable Susan Webber Wright Bl i !KJOHN W. WALKER. PJL ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Ja.M 1 i Office of Desegregahcn Wonaoruig JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. [Deiiverad by Fax 324-2146 \u0026amp; U.S. MaiQ January 9,1996 Mr. Bob Morgan Member of the Finance Committee Little Rock Strategic Planning Committee c/o Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your talking to me today regarding your committee's plans for closing schools and saving money. I was somewhat surprised to find that you believe that I have been an inadequate representative of the Joshua class by my advocacy to keep older schools in minority neighborhoods open and to have them enhanced in accordance with the plan. You acknowledged that while you were at the ODM you proposed and promoted the contrary philosophy with respect to school closing and cost savings and that you sought to have the plans modified to reflect your ideas. That causes me a great deal of distress because the ODM is not authorize to change the plan nor to substitute its judgment or that of its staff for that of the parties. I can see now why we experienced such difficulty in making the incentive schools work If, as an ODM monitor, you actively sought to undermine those schools, as you apparently did, and shared your ideas with the Little Rock school administrators and public opinion makers, that undoubtedly sent a strong message from the Court to those administrators (through you as a court agent). I do not believe that Judge Susan Wright was aware of your efforts to change our agreement\nbut I am putting her on notice of my comments to you, by copy of this letter, with a request that we meet with the Court to determine the extent to which your influence was extended and whether any corrective action is in order.Page Two Mr. Bob Morgan January 9,1996 I also requested any writings that you may have to support your proposed further school closings and your argument to the Str^egic Planning group regarding which schools should be retained and which sections of the city should be favored for money saving reasons. You indicated that you did not provide any. Fearing that I may have misrepresented our conversation, I invite your immediate response prior to the 7:30 Thursday morning meeting of the committee where I plan to be present. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, [Original Signed By Untfersigi John W. Walker /\nJWWJp cc\nDr. Henry Williams Mr. Fred Smith, Financial Director LRSD Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Ann Brown Honorable Susan Webber WrightJI. frt'^ Ah BEcervED DEC 13 2001 DATE: TO: OmEEOf OESGGR^or^ONms December 13, 2001 BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSURES FOR THE 2002-2003 ACADEMIC YEAR BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As you know, Board Policy FBC outlines the procedures for school closures. Current policy states that closures will be based upon the following factors:  Excessive cost of operation due to enrollment\n Excessive cost of renovation and repair due to the age and physical condition of the facility\n Inability of the district to deliver the required curriculum in the facility\n Any applicable federal court orders. The policy further states that a public announcement of the proposal to close a school will precede the closing date by at least twelve months, except in cases of extreme emergency. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 3.6, 3.7 and 4.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan must be considered in determining whether to close schools. Section 3.6 reguires that we, not seek to close schools in African-American ^ighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new ool will be located in the same general area. We do not intend to nmend the closing of any school solely because of age or poor nance, \"so this section of the Plan will not come into play.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 2 Section 3.7 of the Plan reads as follows: 3.7 Modification Standard: During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a school other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: 3.7.1 Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable\nor, 3.7.2 The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. Section 3.7 applies during the term of the revised plan. According to Section 9 of the Revised Plan, the term of the plan is ended. Section 9 - Term\nThe term of the Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 School Year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2001 School Year. Given our Covenant and the uncertainty of the federal court proceedings, however, it would be wise to consider the closing of schools, only in cases where the Board can make the determinations required by Section 3.7.1 or 3.7.2. Section 4.3 of the Revised Plan describes the ideal racial composition of the Interdistrict schools as being as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School. Although the Plan describes the ideal racial composition and not the required racial composition, the Board should be - aware that the impact on Washington would be to move further from the ideal composition while the impact on Romine would be to move closer to the ideal composition.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 3 statewide Budget Reduction: As a result of the recent budget reductions statewide, we anticipate losing between $2.3 million and $2.4 million dollars in expected revenue this year. It is important to note that this loss will automatically be carried forward to the 2002- 2003 fiscal year. There is also the distinct possibility that additional reductions in revenue could take place prior to the end of this fiscal year, unless the state revenue forecast rebounds quickly. ! The district currently has two (2) schools with enrollment below 200 students, and thirteen (13) schools with an enrollment below 300 students. Staff has prepared background data and information for two schoolsBadgett Elementary and Dodd Elementary, as current enrollment falls below 200 students. We have also included enrollment data for the Charter Program, which is housed at Badgett. A. ENROLLMENT DATA: Badgett Elementary: Enrollment: 153 = 64% usage Building Capacity: 239 # of Certified Staff: 11.8 # of Non-Certified Staff: 7.40 Enrollment w/o 5 grade: 130 students-required to move, of which 85 students are in the Badgett zone, \u0026amp; 45 students will go back to AZ school Building capacity is based upon average class size. IRegular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Meeting Page 4 In the event that Badgett is closed:  All non AZ students at Badgett will return to their AZ schools.  Rockefeller and Washington students currently attending Badgett would return to their attendance zone school.  Students within the East 6 and 9*^ street corridor would be assigned to Rockefeller. Net impact on Rockefeller would be an increase of 68 students (65 B, and 3 NB). In this scenario, Rockefellers total enrollment would increase from 389 students to 457 students. The percent of Rockefellers African American enrollment would increase from 64% to 70% (K-5). The building capacity at Rockefeller is 481 students.  Students south of the airport would be assigned to Washington. Net impact on Washington would be an increase of 55 students (49 B, and 6 NB). In this scenario, Washingtons total enrollment would increase from 459 students to 514 students. The percent of Washingtons African American enrollment would increase from 57% to 61%. The building capacity at Washington is 678 students. B. ENROLLMENT DATA: Dodd Elementary: Enrollment: 188 = 69% usage Building Capacity 271 # of Certified Staff 17.5 # of Non-Certified Staff 10.3 Enrollment w/o 4yr olds, b* graders, and Spec. Educ 140 required to move, of which 120 students are in the Dodd zone \u0026amp; 20 students will go back to AZ school *Buiiding Capacity is based upon average class sizeRegular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 5 Kenwood Subdivision: The Kenwood subdivision is currently in progress. There are 210 lots in this subdivision. We have obtained information from the City of Little Rock Planning Commission, which indicates that 150 lots will be developed over the next five years, with the remaining 60 lots being developed at a later time. These are single-family homes to be developed in phases. According to information obtained from the developer: Phase 1 will have 49 homes with a target date of August, 2002. Phase 2 will have 53 homes with a target date of January 2003. Phase 3 is too far out to project and is dependent upon interest and demand. Potential Impact: Based upon a formula used by the Planning Department, the anticipated impact for the 2002-2003 school year would be 14-20 elementary students. The anticipated impact for the 2003-2004 school year would be 11-15 elementary students. In the event that Dodd is closed:  All non-AZ students at Dodd will return to their Attendance Zone schools.  Students north of Colonel Glenn would go to Romine. Net impact on Romine would be an increase of 45 students (16 B and 29 NB). In this scenario, Romines enrollment would increase from 284 students to 329 students. The percent of Romines African American enrollment would decrease from 70% to 64%. The building capacity at Romine is 403 students.  Students (east of Shackleford Road) from the Pecan Lake/Tall Timber subdivision would go to Western Hills. Net impact on Western Hills would be an increase of 46 students (40 B and 6 NB). In this scenario. Western Hills enrollment would increase from 277 to 323 students. The percent of Western Hills African American enrollment would increase from 72% to 74%. The building capacity at Western Hills is 320 students.  Students from the lower quadrant of the present Dodd zone (south of Colonel Glenn and Lanehart), would go to Otter Creek. Net impact on Otter Creek would be an increase of 46 students (20 B and 26 NB). In this scenario. Otter Creeks enrollment would increase from 397 students to 443 students. The percent of Otter Creek's African American enrollment would decrease from 55% to 53%. The building capacity at Otter Creek is 415. Special Note: Four classrooms are to be added to Otter Creek by the start of school in August. In the event that the classrooms are not available by the opening of school in August, it would be necessary to relocate a couple of classes. iRegular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 6 C. In the event that the Charter Program is closed:  All of the 83 students at the Charter School will return to their AZ schools. This will have limited space impact upon the receiving schools. D. EDUCATIONAL DATA: I have attached an academic school profile for the two school sites, and the Charter Program. Dr. Bonnie Lesley will provide an overview of the academic performance at each campus. E. FISCAL IMPACT OF POTENTIAL CLOSINGS: I have attached a complete cost breakdown for the three potential closings. In summary, we are projecting the following savings: BADGETT: 536, 048.68 DODD: 738, 909.39 CHARTER: 479, 669.98 TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS: $1,754, 628.05 $ $ i It is anticipated that the district will be able to absorb the majority of the certificated teaching staff from the two sites and the Charter program, given the normal attrition rates of the district. The non-certified staff will be absorbed across the district as needs dictate.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 7 F. ADDITIONAL ENROLLMENT HISTORY-ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cost analysis sheet 2. 3. 4. Educational Assessment Information Six Year Enrollment Comparisons of Schools with Less Than 250 Students, I Elementary Enrollment Sorted by School Totals. G. CONCLUSIONS:  The loss of approximately $2.4 million in revenue this fiscal year has created an emergency financial situation in the district. It is important to note that this is not only a one-year loss in revenue.  There is the possibility that we will lose additional revenue this year if the economy continues to decline, thus creating an additional financial hardship.  The District must reduce expenditures for the 2002-2003 fiscal year if we are to meet contractual obligations and remain financially responsible and solvent.  It is evident that the cost to operate a facility with declining enrollment is significantly higher. The cost per child to operate Badgett, Dodd, and the Charter Program is significantly more than the average of other similar area school facilities.  If the District is to close any school, the Board must take action on or before the January 10*^ Agenda meeting, in order to properly notify parents and provide ample time for students to complete the registration process for the 2002-2003 academic year.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 8 I In closing this informational report, it is important to note that the Superintendent brings forward this information after careful analysis and much deliberation with senior administrative staff. While our current financial situation has been exacerbated by the largest reduction in state revenue in the history of the State of Arkansas, it is important to note that the current enrollment situation also dictates that we examine the cost effectiveness of operating facilities that are experiencing declining enrollment now and in the future. We are charged with being good stewards of the taxpayers resources and maximizing our efficiency. We are in the process of reviewing other potential areas of reduction for the 2002-2003 fiscal year and will bring forth additional recommendations after the first of the year. H. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors review the data as presented and provide the Superintendent and staff with direction on potential school closures for the 2002-2003 academic year. Attachments:r:L_:r iz_:cz: I JJTTL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SELECTED BUDGET INFORMATION ____ 2001-2002 Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed GfT' _ Counselor Library Princip^ Office Upkeep of Bldg Total T 1st Quarter 7^ Four Year Old Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed___ G/T 1_ Counselor Nurse Library Principal's Office Upkeep ofBIdg Total { Gluafterl Classroom Music Supervision Transportation Total FTE-Cert Cert__ 1.00 P2 0.40 l.bo ____0.4b' 1.00 'i.ob 'too N-Cert 4.00 11.80 1 BADGETT 1-40 2.00 140 FTE-Cert Cert TOO ___2.00 ___2.bo J____ojq 2-2O 0-5b TOO FTE N-Cert l.bo 5.50 1.00 1.00 17.50 0.40 0.40 TOO lob 10.30 Salary 129,773.00 291,417.00 \"18,831.20 _31916.0b _17,3bl4b 44,313.00 41691.54 103,713.80 36,150.00 618,113.94 Salary_ 146,723.00 '66,271.00 347,673.00 15,48100 129,400.20 21,635.50 _47,9iTqq 6,996.20 56,531.67 96,951.00 '31876'00 871,450.5'7 .M -183.37 4^19138 ' FTE-Cert Cert 5.50 ' 0.20 1.00 N-Cert 3.00 6.70 74.38^ Grand Total 36.00 3.00 94^ Salary 151,889.00 -Z'^il 22 1087810.50 _43,20b.0b 31'1,640.50 20.70 1,801,205.01 Ringe Purch Ser Supplies Capital 8,058.80 79,442.21 ' 4,479.87 8,810.76 4,203.47 io\n697.8i 10^40351 25,196\nb5 ^1'1,871.23 163,163.71 350.00 8,572.00 1,473.00 Other DODD Fringe 113,790.23 ' 17338.19 ' 96,290.17 13,871.98 122244.15 15\n254.35 1'11,^0.85 2,331.21 i2'2ZZ 50 22,906.61 11,821.50 231,977.34 2,000.00 26,8^.00 27,209.00 1,498.00 11,5'43.00 2,000.00 0.00 __ __ 237,831.80 381.78T2T 23,311.07 1_42J26\n76 21,511.87 55,010.81 54,568.b5 _ 128,909.85 ' 7Q,373.23 822,02965 Estimated Sav^ings_ _ -37,831.80 _J5b,ooq.qq -23,311.07 -P-22 - :21^1f87 -55,010.81 -53,095^05 -128,9b9.85 -66,378.23 -536,b48.68 Remainjng Itos^__ _______o.ob ' 231,781.21 _____o.bb 42,726.76 2 __ P-22 12-00 _1,473.00  o.oq -lZi2,bMbq 285,980.97 Purch Ser 1,900.00 48,3^.00 51,435.00 CHARTER Fringe 142,170.36 _1,936.00 _3q,369J2 16,454.00 90,929.48 Purch Ser io,7oo\nbb 17,500.00 28,200.00 486,070.53 106,844.00 Supplies 3,200.00 \"\" 300.00 3,728.0b 1,748.00 100.00 1,609.00 10,685.00 Supplies 23,200.00 19,000.00 41200.00 64,428.00 Cai^ital 1,400.00 1,400.00 Capital__ 10,500.00 10,500.00 13,900.00 Other 67 00 350.00 417.00 Other 1,200 00 1,200.00 1,617.00 Totai 63780.23 ' ' 83,909.19 450,991.17 __19,353.98 162,444.35 26,^9.85  59,^1.85 9,328.01 17125717 121,507.61 j7,64T5b 1,167,364.91 Savirigs -63,780.23 ' -38,562.92 -251074.27 -19,353.M _l_2 92j -22,889.85 -59,261.85 ' -9,328,01 -70.509.j7 -121,507.61 -77,641.5b -738,909.39 Remaining Costs___ \" 0.00 45,346.27 198,916.9 b - o.ob 162,444.35 _ IJP-OO O.bb 0.00 _1,748.00 QOO 2o,boq.qb '_428,455.52 Total 239,659.^ 9,677.00 139.179.6'2 96,154.00 484,669.98 Savings -234,659.36 -9,677.00 -139,1/9.62 1j96,1 54.00 Remaining ' 5,bob.b'o _ _ obb b\noo b.oo 479r669.98 \" 5,000.00 2,474,064.54 1,754,628.05 719,436.49Principal: BADGETT ELEMENTARY PROFILE Mary Golston Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 46.20 6.23 8.60 8.77 14.53 47.14 12.21 10.79 13.29 10.14 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.43 14.38 17.95 21.24 20.75 53.42 14.97 17.13 27.1 28.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 17.08 13.57 20.19 31.38 43.43 29.85 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24 Grade Level Grade 2 Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 1.23 21.6%' 6.24 ~5.9%| 7.62 11.8% I 1.78 50.0% 12.71 26.5%l 17.71 42.9% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 2051 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 161 196 198 194 165 189, 193 201 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 27 -3 3Achigygrngnt Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 197 200 199 169 192 200 204 Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 T arget 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 ________19 3 4 Spr, 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 169 190 201 198 171 191 201 201 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr, 2001 Spr, 2002 Spr. 2003 22 10 0 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 0% 12% 12% 76% 0% 27% 27% 45% 0% 15% 15% 69% 2001-02  2002-03 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 0% 0% 18% 82% 2001-02 2002-03 0% 5% 27% 59% 0% 23% 23% 54% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1998-99 1999-00 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 14% 16% 14% 19% 20% 16% 18% 12%, 20% 19% 11% 10% 7% 12% 13% 2000-01 2001-02 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 22% 25% 13% 22% 21% 11% 20% 7%, 13% 13% 2000-01 2001-02Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5Principal: DODD ELEMENTARY PROFILE Faith McLaughlin Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 51.35 13.32 14.41 22.15 21.65 52.00 13.70 15.00 22.06 21.52 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.95 17.33 18.86 46.48 33.71 52.47 17.63 22.63 50.59 35.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 19.67 19.96 65.40 60.93 69.91 59.32 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24 Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 6.32 86.5% 19.76 58.3% I 32.8 51.7% I 5.24 80.0% 21.2 73.5% 32.64 82.8% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 205 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 187 198 205 181 183 198 202 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 10 11 4Achigygrnent Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 179 190 202 206 183 182 201 208 Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr, 2001 3 11 6 Spr, 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 181 187 202 205 182 194 201 205 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 Spr, 2002 Spr, 2003 13 14 3 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 0% 35% 35% 30% 3% 21% 42%| 33% 0% 24% 29% 48% 2001-02  2002-03 ^^j^^^sas^^BenchrTTark_ExarnjnationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 5% 14% 29% 52% 2001-02 6% 21% 15% 58% 5% 5% 14% 76% 2002-03 Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1998-99 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 26% 34% 22% 30% 29% 35% 44% 25% 34% 35% 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 30% 36% 28%, 32% 32% 42% 55% 33% 40% 39% 26% 31% 14% 26% 25% 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 I I ri^-gTiMCHARTER ELEMENTARY PROFILE Principal: Krishna Young Obsgrvation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 'S 'Ka Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 a Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary' Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 TiV s\nTC j'i Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24 Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004\nkj2i3feste ?T/ In Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 198 205 212 -Sfa-//. 3?-\n5j ri' :si? \u0026gt;4 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A N/A 178 182 192 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 7.Q 6.6 N/A N/AAchieygment Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 199 207 213 N/A N/A N/A 172 174 199 Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 N/A N/A Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 200 208 215 N/A N/A N/A \\77 192 196 I Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth ordUcS Z,5 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 ----------- ...w. WIWVUI i?s5Bsw!sprwsa3!S^5SS5 X _______87 8 N/A N/A Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. Level Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. .....* 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 3 i'*'. 1999-00 2001-02  2002-03 0% 0% 25% 75% Grade 4 Mathematics 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 0% 6% 0% 94% Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1998-99 1999-00 Retention Rate Grade (Kinder 7% 6% 10% 9% 8% 1997-98 I 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 7% 8% 10% 9% 8% 11% 8% 5% 10% 10% 2000-01 2001-02Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent TO: Dr. Ken James FROM: Junious Phone: (501)324-2272 SUBJECT: Requested Information DATE: December 10, 2001 In response to information requested in the December 6**' board agenda meeting, the following report is provided: I. SIX YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS OF SCHOOLS WITH LESS THAN 250 STUDENTS 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 BADGETT B VJ/0 TOTAL DODD B TOTAL 185 214 \"79 233 200 \"76 216 179 \"77 796 174 13 146 7 153 156 86 145 79 224 162 131 \"72 145 \"77 114 74 FAIR PARK B W TOTAL 193 62 255 188 60 165 63 160 6T 167 57 164 \"\"45 WILSON B W TOTAL 294 68 297 329 53 278 35 MS 257 3T 2^ 232 2M Redrawn school attendance zones were enacted during the '99 - 00 school year When comparing the 98-99 \u0026amp; 99-00 school year, the key reduction piece is removal of 6th grade classes.  Opening of the new Stephens school January (2001) provided impact by way of Badgett no longer serving as an Alternative School Site for the Washington AZ. II. ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT  sorted by school totals LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT - October 1,2001 (official) SCHOOL 1. Badgett 2. Dodd . 3. Fair Park 4. Wilson 5. Woodruff 6. Rightsell______ 7. Mabelvale 8. Western Hills 9. Meadowcliff 10. Baseline 11. Pulaski Heights 12. Romine 13. Mitchell 14. Forest Park 15. Gibbs 16. Geyer Springs 17. Bale 18. Brady________ 19. McDermott 20. Wakefield 21. Franklin 22. Rockefeller 23. Otter Creek 24. Cloverdale 25. Jefferson______ 26. Williams______ 27. Watson 28. Washington 29. Fulbright______ 30. Carver 31. Terry_________ 32. Chicot 33. Stephens______ 34. King_________ 35. Booker 01-02 ENROLLMENT _________153_________ _________188_________ _________209_________ _________252_________ _________267_________ _________268_________ _________271_________ _________277_________ _________280_________ _________282_________ _________282_________ _________284_________ _________298_________ _________305_________ _________307_________ _________320_________ 330 _________332_________ 374 _________384_________ _________388_________ ________389_________ ________397_________ ________426_________ ________426_________ ________446_________ ________452_________ ________459_________ ________466_________ 495 507 508 545 571 575 Average Elementary School size: 363 Largest Elementary School is Booker with 575 students. Smallest Elementary School is Badgett with 153 students. CAPACITY BEING USED 64% ________________________ __________69%__________ __________74%__________ __________85%__________ __________91%__________ __________61%__________ __________87%__________ __________78%___________ __________78%___________ __________81%___________ __________70%___________ __________100%__________ __________76%___________ __________95%___________ __________89%___________ __________86%___________ __________81%___________ __________83%___________ __________92%___________ __________73%___________ __________81%___________ __________96%___________ __________87%___________ __________90%___________ __________91%___________ __________85%___________ __________68%___________ __________95%___________ __________89%___________ __________85%___________ __________99%___________ __________84%___________ __________80%___________ 89%Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT December 14, 2001 RECEIVED DEC 1 4 2001 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OfflCtOf DESKfiEGAPOW MQNIT3fi0ia FAX: 371-0100 Re: Possible School Closings Dear Ms. Marshall: We are in the process of presenting information to the LRSD Board of Directors to allow the Board to determine what budget cuts must be made in response to the reduction of State funding for education. As a part of this process, we have presented some very preliminary information to the Board of Education concerning the savings which can be achieved by closing certain schools. At our meeting last night, the Board indicated that it would continue to consider the possibility of closing schools as one way to make necessary budget cuts. Now that we know that the Board will continue to consider the possibility of school closings, we would like to share and discuss with you the information we have and to hear your views on this issue. Time is very short because school registration is scheduled for January 28 - February 8^, 2001. We would like to meet with you, if at all possible, on Wednesday, December 19, 2001. Please call me as soon as possible so that we can confirm a time or. if necessary, arrange a different date for a meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of School TKJ/bjg 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT December 14, 2001 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 I 1 1 FAX\n371-0100 Re\nPossible, School Closings Dear Ms. Marshall\nallow tte tn H P of presenting information to the LRSD Board of Directors to of ft determine what budget cuts must be made in response to the reduction of State funding for education. As a part of this process, we have oresented some vir? Board of Education concerning the savings which can bl leved by closing certain schpoooslssl.b iAlitty oouf rd moseinetgin sgk laoslts n iagVhto t^hwe 7Byoard indicated that it Now that we know that the Board will continue to consider the Dossibilitv of school informafio^^ January 28 - FebruaT8^?o1)rWe'X'TkZ?^^ school registration is scheduled for CcoonnfLirdme 9ra fti^rrn^n sa sdcif fCearlel nmt dea ates fsoor oan m aese tpinogs.s ibTlhea snok tyhoaut fwoer ycoaunr meet with you. if at all possible, on Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of School TKj/bjg 810 Wejt Mazkhazn Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (SOI) 324-2012 a 810 West Markham flt? ^Or DATE: Phone\nFay\n(501) 324-2020 (5011 324-2032 January 7, 200z f on+rai V..K.J IKI V41 Ariziir\u0026gt;coc Cyi iihia KuWcib AfkunSuS Deinu(.rui-Gu/.^iiS FkOm: Sueiien Vann, uirector of Lommunicatons SUBJECT: Special Si.huoi Buard Meetings MESSAGE\nThe Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special Board meeting Tuesday, January 15, at 6 p.m. to discuss proposed school closings related to budget reducions. Please note that this issue will not be on the agenda on Thursday, January 10, at the Board's agenda meeting. The reason for the change is that one Board member will be out of town on Thursday, and Superintendent Ken James and Board members felt that the entire Board should be present for the discussion and decision. Additionally, the Board will gather on Thursday, January 17, at noon at Metropolitan Career/Technical Center to have lunch and tour the district's new technology center. The center will house the district's upgraded computer network and telephone systems which are funded through the 2000 capital improvement millage. The network will support the installation of new computers in schools throughout the district. # Pages (including cover) TO Fax# 1 An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge5013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM P02 JAN 03 02 16:52 JOHN W. WALKER SH.WN CHILDS JuH.k W. XAalker, P.A. Atoeney At Law 1723 Broadway Liitu Rock, .AaituNSAS 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile\n324-2146 OK COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKJ, PA. donna J, Mr HENRY 8210 Hindesson Road tnTLs Rock, .uikansas 72210 Phone: (SOU 372-3425  Fax (601) 372-3428 tUAii\nmdieiiryd@Awbell.aet January 8, 2002 Ms. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Judy Magness Ms. Sue Strickland Mr. Michael Daugherty Mr. Baker Kurrue Mr. Larry Berkeley Mr- Terry Rose Little Rock Board of Directors Little Rock School District 310 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: School Closing Dear Board Members\nIn that I will be unable to appear before the board at the Tuesday meeting to represent the viewpoints of Joshua, I wish to inform you of the Joshua position with respect to the proposal to close Badgett, Dodd and Fairpark Elementary Schools, brief. I will be First. The Revised Rian (para. 3.6) provides in substance that there will be no school closing of schools in majority black areas absent reasons of compelling nece.s.sity. ______... ... administrators' position the closing is dictated by concerns of ('para. As T understand the economy, i.e., the district is in dire economic .strait,s and simply cannot afford to maintain small schools that are far below capacity in student enrollment. under situation. ordinary circumstances, The argument of economy while a valid one it should not be applied in this years. Badgett has been the subject of closing for We opposed the closing each time. at least ten The staff and board determined to shore the .schoni up with charter school programs and with great fanfare and costs created expectancies that the charter50137441S? WALKER LAW FIRM 225 P03 JAN 08 02 Page iwo January 8, 2002 school idsi was a good one and that the boara would support it by allowing time for it to develop and by giving it the support that it would need to overcome doubts from persons like myself about the propriety and efficacy of charter schools. Thsrefore, to close Badgett would be a breach of faith and commitment as well as of the plan and/or the covenant. Moreover, closing of a black school with the it would constitute the transportation burden upon black students. attendant increase in the Second. David 0. Dodd's closing is also based upon reasons of The Revised Desegregation Plan was based upon geographic attendance zones which were presented to the public as neighborhood schools. economy. Joshua has expressed its concern about the manner in which the neighborhood school zones were drawn and that is record. on Dodd seems to fit the standard submitted to the Court of the desired objective of neighborhood schools. one of racial balance by a zoning plan. That standard was It would seem that Dodd's racial balance is better than that of most schools in the district and that Dodd should be maintained for that reason alone. There are many students who live in the Dodd area who attend private schools. Most of those students are white. district would find ways to attract those enhancement of programs and considerate of their parents. activ.ities It would seem that the students to Dodd by and by- being more Your proposal has a promise not only of closing Dodd but of driving appro.ximately 100 more white children out of the district when those students and parents to remain in the di.strict. wsnt. If economy is indeed the reason for the closing, losing 100 students at per student aid of approximately $5,000 per student,' will take, within a year or two, annually from, the district's at least revenue stream. five million dollars That in turn will increase the district's need to close more schools in order to meet current budgetary considerations. The board has said that It parent? out of the district\nits is not trying to drive white actions appear otherwise. These parents may not be the white parents to which the board refers when the board members discuss student retention. middle to lower income. Ths Dodd parents ara I mention this factor because while Dodd is being mentioned for closing, ths district, without approval, has actually added classrooms at Otter Creek, Court a more middle class economy is neither Dodd. community in the district. Thus, the reason\nonsistent nor logical when applied to David 0.58137441S7 WALKER LAW FIRM P04 JAN 0S '02 Fags Three January 8, 2002 Finally, with respect to Dead, you have a supportive set of parents who actually proKiote the idea of good education and good race relations simultaneously. Those factors have importance when the history of this community is taken into account and when the Revised Plan and Covenant are considered. Third. With respect to the proposed closing of Fairpark, I do not oelievs that the administration Is serious about this closure. It/ 1 believe, is being submitted to deflect attention from the closing of the two lower income schools. income schools, Badgett But like the two lower closing are not substantiated. and Dodd, the justifications for the If economy is the reason for the closing the board may wish to revisit some of the decisions to add administrative staff which were recommended by Superintendent Les Carnins and approved by the board. It IS my belief that a large number of administrative staff were added by Dr. Gamine which were not economically justified at the time. I realize this IS a sensitive area since the board recommendations. approved each of those For example, you approved substantially enhanced pay increases for all the administrators at the associate and assistant superintendent level. While I do not oppose fair pay for administrators, these adminxstrators' pay is comparable to the pay that superintendents receive in other district, and in some cases IS even greater. category, not nine or ten. You expect to find one or two people in this position of Chief Financial Another example is the creation of the Officer, a position which explicitly created to obtain the services of Or. Don Stewart. was It is ironic that the chief defender of the economic basis for the school closings is Dr. Stewart. If the district had maintained its structure without adding Dr. Stewart, it would have saved at least 5100, 000 per year. Stewart, but this example is glaring. I don't want to be personal regarding Dr. I submit that it is more important to actually maintain the \"neighborhood schools\" that the board championed than to hire a person simply because the superintendent likes that person's experience.s and abil ities, The 5100,000 administrative costs associated with that salary would be more than sufficient to continue, on a operation of either Dodd or Badgett, sound economic basis, the assessment is anywhere close to being correct. or perhaps both. If this the district would take time to reevaluate its overall needs and then make some cost, judgments regarding them. it would seem that staffing Administrative costs are but one item. I have previously brought to your attention the large number of small classes in the advanced placement area and have pointed up the lack of econom.ic justi fication. for small classes for .A.P. students. The educational501374413? WALKER LAW FIRM PQ5 JAM OS '02 16:54 Page Four January 8, 2002 justification is students, made takin Sut in any strongest for small classes of underachieving ass, the appropriate assessirient should be I must a note into account all components of the district's business also 35 we consider closing three schools the district IS still planning to build a new school in an upper middle class area in west Little Reck. schools in The poor areas can simply reason of economy in closing not be j ustifred under circumstances where you are opening new schools without regard tor the same concerns for economy. school in the west. You plen to open an expensive new Nor can reasons of econom.y for school closings be justified when there are so many staff members on the payroll whose work is being duplicated unnecessarily by Others. Lastl J  These viewpoints have not been publically discussed by the board members in a public forum. Because they have not and because your procedure does not lend itself to dialogue in public board meetings, may I suggest that before you close any school the board create a committee, rather small, with representatives from the Joshua Intervenors, the teacher's union and the seven school zones, and which includes Dr. James and Dr. Stewart, district's financial circumstances. to review the be simply a resource available to the committee. I would ask that Dr. Stewart I note that Pulaski County School District, In this respect. there. while Dr. Stewart was always had more money than Dr. Stewart said it had. his leadership, Under the district was always very solvent while it clairaed that it was on the verge of disaster. idea, Please consider these views and if you reject my committee I ask that you take no action until Mr. Heller has hjid an opportunity to discuss this matter with Joshua to see if there is some way to avoid any school closing. If this is not possible. Joshua has no choice other than to file formal objections to the anticipated and recommended school closings with the Court. Thank you for listening to me. Sincerely, Johpl^W. Walker Or? Behalf of the Joshua Intervenors JWW\nip5?' iii LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED JAN 1 8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SPECIAL MEETING January 15, 2002 6:00 p.m. Consideration of School Closing Options for 2002-2003 school year DATE: January 15, 2002 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSURES FOR THE 2002-2003 ACADEMIC YEAR BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As you know, Board Policy FBC outlines the procedures for school closures. Current policy states that closures will be based upon the following factors:  Excessive cost of operation due to enrollment\n Excessive cost of renovation and repair due to the age and physical condition of the facility\n Inability of the district to deliver the required curriculum in the facility\n Any applicable federal court orders. The policy further states that a public announcement of the proposal to close a  school will precede the closing date by at least twelve months, except in cases of extreme emergency. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 3.6, 3.7 and 4.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan must be considered in determining whether to close schools. Section 3.6 requires that we not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. M's do not intend to recommend the closing of any school solely because of age or poor maintenance, so this section of the Plan will not come into play.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 2 Section 3.7 of the Plan reads as follows: 3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 Modification Standard: During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a school other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable\nor. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. Section 3.7 applies during the term of the revised plan. According to Section 9 of the Revised Plan, the term of the plan is ended. Section 9 - Terrn: The term of the Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 School Year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2001 School Year. Given our Covenant and the uncertainty of the federal court proceedings, however, it would be wise to consider the closing of schools, only in cases where the Board can make the determinations required by Section 3.7.1 or 3.7.2. Section 4.3 of the Revised Plan describes the ideal racial composition of the Interdistrict schools as being as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School. Although the Plan describes the ideal racial composition and not the required racial composition, the Board should be aware that the impact on Washington would be to move further from the ideal composition while the impact on Romine would be to move closer to the ideal composition.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 3 statewide Budget Reduction: As a result of the recent budget reductions statewide, we anticipate losing between $2.3 million and $2.4 million dollars in expected revenue this year. It is important to note that this loss will automatically be carried forward to the 2002- 2003 fiscal year. There is also the distinct possibility that additional reductions in revenue could take place prior to the end of this fiscal year, unless the state revenue forecast rebounds quickly. The district currently has two (2) schools with enrollment below 200 students, and thirteen (13) schools with an enrollment below 300 students. Staff has prepared background data and information for two schoolsBadgett Elementary and Dodd Elementary, as current enrollment falls below 200 students. We have also included enrollment data for the Charter Program, which is housed at Badgett. The Superintendent has also included similar financial data and information about Fair Park Elementary, per the Boards direction. A. ENROLLMENT DATA: Badgett Elementary: Enrollment: 153 = 64% usage Building Capacity: 239 # of Certified Staff: 11.8 # of Non-Certified Staff: 7.40 Enrollment w/o S* grade: 130 students required to move, of which 85 students are in the Badgett zone, \u0026amp; 45 students will go back to AZ school Building capacity is based upon average class size.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Meeting Page 4 In the event that Badgett is closed:  All non AZ students at Badgett will return to their AZ schools.  Rockefeller and Washington students currently attending Badgett would return to their attendance zone school.  Students within the East 6* and 9* street corridor would be assigned to Rockefeller. Net impact on Rockefeller would be an increase of 68 students (65 B, and 3 NB). In this scenario. Rockefellers total enrollment would increase from 389 students to 457 students. The percent of Rockefellers African American enrollment would increase from 64% to 70% (K-5). The building capacity at Rockefeller is 481 students.  Students south of the airport would be assigned to Washington. Net impact on Washington would be an increase of 55 students (49 B, and 6 NB). In this scenario, Washingtons total enrollment would increase from 459 students to 514 students. The percent of Washingtons African American enrollment would increase from 57% to 61%. The building capacity at Washington is 678 students. B. ENROLLMENT DATA: Dodd Elementary: Enrollment: 188 = 69% usage Building Capacity 271 # of Certified Staff 17.5 # of Non-Certified Staff 10.3 Enrollment w/o 4yr olds, 5* graders, and Spec. Educ 140 required to move, of which 120 students are in the Dodd zone \u0026amp; 20 students will go back to AZ school *Building Capacity is based upon average class sizeSpecial Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 5 Kenwood Subdivision: The Kenwood subdivision is currently in progress. There are 210 lots in this subdivision. We have obtained information from the City of Little Rock Planning Commission, which indicates that 150 lots will be developed over the next five years, with the remaining 60 lots being developed at a later time. These are single-family homes to be developed in phases. According to information obtained from the developer. Phase 1 will have 49 homes with a target date of August. 2002. Phase 2 will have 53 homes with a target date of January 2003. Phase 3 is too far out to project and is dependent upon interest and demand. Potential Impact\nBased upon a formula used by the Planning Department, the anticipated impact for the 2002-2003 school year would be 14-20 elementary students. The anticipated impact for the 2003-2004 school year would be 11-15 elementary students. In the event that Dodd is closed:  All non-AZ students at Dodd will return to their Attendance Zone schools.  Students north of Colonel Glenn would go to Romine. Net impact on Romine would be an increase of 45 students (16 B and 29 NB). In this scenario, Romines enrollment would increase from 284 students to 329 students. The percent of Romines African American enrollment would decrease from 70% to 64%. The building capacity at Romine is 403 students.  Students (east of Shackleford Road) from the Pecan Lake/Tall Timber subdivision would go to Western Hills. Net impact on Western Hills would be an increase of 46 students (40 B and 6 NB). In this scenario. Western Hills enrollment would increase from 277 to 323 students. The percent of Western Hills African American enrollment would increase from 72% to 74%. The building capacity at Western Hills is 320 students.  Students from the lower quadrant of the present Dodd zone (south of Colonel Glenn and Lanehart), would go to Otter Creek. Net impact on Otter Creek would be an increase of 46 students (20 B and 26 NB). In this scenario. Otter Creeks enrollment would increase from 397 students to 443 students. The percent of Otter Creeks African American-enrollment would decrease from 55% to 53%. The building capacity at Otter Creek is 415. Special Note: Four classrooms are to be added to Otter Creek by the start of school in August. In the event that the classrooms are not available by the opening of school in August, it would be necessary to relocate a couple of classes.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 6 C. In the event that the Charter Program is closed:  All of the 83 students at the Charter School will return to their AZ schools. This will have limited space impact upon the receiving schools. D. ENROLLMENT DATA: Fair Park Elementary: Enrollment: 212 = 70% usage Building Capacity 304 # of Certified Staff 18.1 # of Non-Certified Staff 10.8 Enrollment w/o 4 yr olds, and 5*^ graders 164 required to move, of which 121 are in the Fair Park zone. 43 students will return to their AZ school In the event that Fair Park is closed:  All non-AZ students at Fair Park will return to their Attendance Zone schools.  Students south of 1-630 would go to Franklin. Net impact on Franklin would be an increase of 84 students (75 B and 9 NB). In this scenario, Franklins enrollment would increase from 385 students to 469 students. The percent of Franklins African American enrollment would decrease from 97% to 96%. The building capacity at Franklin is 532.  Students east of McKinley, North of Markham and South of Cantrell would go to Brady. Net impact on Brady would be an increase of 38 students (29 B and 9 NB). In this scenario, Bradys enrollment would increase from 338 students to 376 students. The percent of Bradys African American enrollment would decrease from 81% to 80%. The building capacity at Brady is 409.  Students east of Mckinley, South of Evergreen, and North of 1-630 would go to Forest Park. Net impact on Forest Park would be an increase of 17 students (5 B and 12 NB). In this scenario.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 7 Forest Parks enrollment would increase from 307 students to 324 students. The percent of Forest Parks African American enrollment would remain at 39%. The building capacity at Forest Park is 400 students. E. EDUCATIONAL DATA: I have attached an academic school profile for the three school sites, and the Charter Program. F. FISCAL IMPACT OF POTENTIAL CLOSINGS: I have attached a complete cost breakdown for the three potential closings. In summary, we are projecting the following savings: BADGETT: 536, 048.68 DODD: 738, 909.39 CHARTER: 479, 669.98 FAIR PARK: $ 749,692.03 TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS: $ 2,504,320.08 $ $ $ It is anticipated that the district will be able to absorb the majority of the certificated teaching staff from Badgett, Dodd and the Charter program, given the normal attrition rates of the district. If Badgett, Dodd, the Charter Program, and Fair Park Elementary are closed, all of the certified staff could not be absorbed, thus additional reductions in personnel would be necessary. The non-certified staff will be absorbed across the district as needs and resources allow.Special Board Meeting, January 14, 2002 Board Report Page 8 G. ADDITIONAL ENROLLMENT HISTORY-ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cost analysis sheet 2. 3. 4. Educational Assessment Information Six Year Enrollment Comparisons of Schools with Less Than 250 Students. Elementary Enrollment Sorted by School Totals, H. CONCLUSIONS:  The loss of approximately $2.4 million in revenue this fiscal year has created an emergency financial situation in the district. It is important to note that this is not only a one-year loss in revenue.  There is the possibility that we will lose additional revenue this year if the economy continues to decline, thus creating an additional financial hardship. Even if we do not lose additional revenue this fiscal year, it is still essential that we reduce expenditures to balance the 2002-2003 budget.  The District must reduce expenditures for the 2002-2003 fiscal year if we are to meet contractual obligations and remain financially responsible and solvent. At this time, I have targeted a $6.5 million dollar reduction as a target for the 2002-2003 fiscal year.  It is evident that the cost to operate a facility with declining enrollment is significantly higher. The cost per child to operate Badgett, Dodd, the' Charter Program, and Fair Park is significantly more than the average of other similar area school facilities.  If the District is to close any school, the Board must take action at the January 15' Special meeting, in order to properly notify parents and provide ample time for students to complete the registration process for the 2002-2003 academic year.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 9 In preparation of the consideration of any school closures, the following activities took place:  During the week of December 10-14.1 faxed and mailed a letter to all of the parties involved in the Desegregation case.  During the week of December 17-19.1 met with the following to ensure their understanding of our exploration of school closures for the 2002- 2003 academic year: Dr. James Smith, Superintendent. North Little Rock Schools Dr. Carl Brown. Assistant Supt. Pulaski County Dr. John Archetko. Assistant Supt. Pulaski County Ms. Clementine Kelley. CTA President Mr. Frank Martin. CTA I met with Ms. Ann Marshall on Friday. January 4, 2002. I did not receive a response from Mr. Walker, during this timeframe, but Mr. Walker has written a letter to the Board of Directors.  On December 19*^, letters were mailed to all parents/guardians of students currently attending Badgett. Dodd. The Charter Program, and Fair Park. Informing them of Community Meetings on the following dates: Badgett Elementary/Charter Thursday. January 3\"* Dodd Elementary Monday. January 7^ Fair Park Elementary Tuesday. January 8^ 6:00 p.m.  6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. In closing this informational report, it is important to note that the Superintendent brings forward this information after careful analysis and much deliberation with senior administrative staff. While our current financial situation has been exacerbated by the largest reduction in state revenue in the history of the State of Arkansas, it is important to note that the current enrollment situation also dictates that we examine the cost effectiveness of operating facilities that are experiencing declining enrollment now and in the future. We are charged with being good stewards of the taxpayers resources and maximizing our efficiency. We have prepared other potential areas of reduction for the 2002-2003 fiscal year and submit same for your review and consideration.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 10 1. RECOMMENDATION: A. B. After careful analysis and processing of all information gleaned as a result of our community meetings, it is the recommendation of the Superintendent that Dodd Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School remain open during the 2002-2003 school year. It is also the recommendation of the Superintendent that the Board consider revoking the charter of the Charter school and reassign the students to their respective attendance zone schools, for the 2002-2003 school year. Projected Savings: $479,670.00 C. It is also the recommendation of the Superintendent that the Board consider closing Badgett Elementary School under the provisions of 3.72 of the Revised Desegregation Plan, effective at the close of the current school year. Projected Savings: $536, 049.00 Attachments:I FTE-Cert FTE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SELECTED BUDGET INFORMATION 2001-2002 BADGETT I I Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed G/T Counselor Library Principal's Office Upkeep of Bldg Total I i Cert 1.00 6.00 0.40 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 I N-Cert ! 4.00 'ri 11.80 1.40 2.00 7.40 1 st Quarter 1 ADA ' ADM ^52.05 167.95 Salary 29,773.00 291,417.00 18,831.20 33,916.00 17,308.40 44:313.00 42,691.54 103,713.80 36,150.00 618,113.94 % Attend \n90.53% Fringe 8,058.80 79,442.21 4,479.87 8,810.76 4,203.47 10,697.81 10,403.51 25,196.05 11,871.23 163,163.71 I Purch Ser 350.00 26,859.00 27,209.00 Supplies 8,572.00 1,473.00 1,498.00 11,543.00 Capital i Other 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 Total 37.831.80 381.781.21 23.311.07 42.726.76 21.511.87 55.6l6.81 54.568.05 128.96'9.85 76,378.23 822,029.65 Estimated Savings -37,831.80 -156,606.06 -23,311.67 ...........6.00 -21,511.87 2 -55,010.81 \"-53,69'5:65 -128,909.85 ' '-66,378.23 -536,648:68 Remaining Costs 0.00 231,781.21 0.00 42,726.76 0.00 0.00 1,473.00 0.00 10,006.00 285,986.97 Four Year Old Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed G/T Counselor Nurse Library Principal's Office Upkeep of Bldg Total 1st Quarter r FTE-Cert Cert 1.00 2-00 7:66 0.40 3.60 0.50 1.00 FTE N-Cert ' 1.00 5.50 DODD 1.00 1.60 17.50 0.40 0.40 1.00 2.00 10.30 li 93,38 Classroom Music Supervision Transportation Total 1st Quartet^ Grand Total FTE-Cert Cert ' '5.56 0.20 1.00 FTE N-Cert 3.00 6.70 3.00 .D\u0026gt;^\\AdM': Salary 46,723.00 66,271.06 347,673.00 15.482.06 129:466:26 21,635.56 47,911.00 6,996'.26 56,531.67 96,95i'.'66 35,876.66 871:456.5'7 % Attend , Fringe 13,790.23 17,338.19 96,290.17 3,871.98 _33,044.15 5,254.35 11,350^85 2,33T81 13,977.50 22906.61 11,821.50 23i\n977.34 Purch Ser 1,900.00 1,200.00 48^335.00 51,435.00 : /O/MIOIIU' \u0026lt; 94,82% 222 Salary__  151,889.06 7,741.06 \u0026gt; 108:816.50 43,200.06 311,640:6'6 % Attend 174^3833\n85.63 86.86%\n36.00 CHARTER _ Fringe 42,170.36 1,936.00 30,369.1'2 ' 16,454.06 90,929.48 Purch Ser '16,700.00 17,500.00 28,260^00 20.70 1,801,205.01 486,070.53 106,844.00 Supplies 3,200.00 300.00 3,728.00 1,748.00 100.00 1,609.00 10,685.60 Supplies 23,200.66 19,000.00 42,200.00 64,428.00 Capital 1,400.00 1,400.00 Capital 10,506.66 10,500.00 13,900.00 Other 67.00 350.00 417.00 Other 1,200.66 1,200.00 1,617.00 Total 63,786?23 83,969.19 45'6:991:17 19,353.98 2162,444:35 _ 26:889.85 ' '59:261.85 9:328.61  _72,257.i'7 i2i.567.6l  '97,641:50 i,167,364:'9T Savings -6'3,780.23 -38,562.92 -252,074.27  2:-i9.353.98 _ 2 0.00 226,8'89.85 -59,261.85 1 _:9'328:6i 2270,569.17 \" -121,507.61 '\" -77,641.50 -738:'969':39 Remaining Costs 0.00 45,346.27 198,916.90 0.00 162,444.35 ......... 0:00 ............6.00 6:06 1,746:00 0.00 26,666.00 428,4'55.52 Total '239'659.36 '9,67'7.00 139.179.62' 96.154.00 484 669.96 Savings _ -234,659?36 '2-9,677.00 -139,179:62 ' -96.154.00 -479,669.98 Remaining Costs 5,000.00 \"6.06 Qoo 0.06 5,006:60 2,474,064.54 1,754,628.05 719,436.49Principal: BADGETT ELEMENTARY PROFILE Mary Golston Observation SurveyKindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 46.20 6.23 8.60 8.77, 14.53 47.14 12.21 10.79 13.29 10.14 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.43 14.38 17.95 21.24 20.75 53.42 14.97 17.13 27.1 28.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print 'Vocabulaiy Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 17.08 13.57 20.19 31.38 43.43 29.85 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24 Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 1.23 21.6% 6.24 5.9% I 7.62 11.8% I 1.78 50.0% 12.71 26.5% 17.71 42.9% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 205 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 161 196 198 194 165 189 193 201 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 27 -3 3Achievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 197 200 199 169 192 200 204 I Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 T arget 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 19 3 4 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 169 190 201 198 171 191 201 201 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 22 10 0 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02  2002-03 0% 12% 12% 76% 0% 27% 27% 45% 0% 15% 15% 69%, Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 1999-00 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 0% 0% 18% 82% 0% 5% 27% 59%, 0% 23% 23% 54% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 1998-99 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 14% 16% 14% 19% 20% 16% 18% 12% 20% 19% 11% 10% 7% 12% 13% 22% 25% 13% 22% 21% 11% 20% 7% 13% 13% 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02Principal: DODD ELEMENTARY PROFILE Faith McLaughlin Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999:2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 51.35 13.32 14.41 22.15 21.65 52.00 13.70 15.00 22.06 21.52 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.95 17.33 18.86 46.48 33.71 52.47 17.63 22.63 50.59 35.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test  Letters Word Print Vocabulary' Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 19.67 19.96 65.40 60.93 69.91 59.32 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24, Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 6.32 86.5%' 19.76 58.3% I 32.8 51.7%| 5.24 80.0% 21.2 73.5% 32.64 82.8% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 205| 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 187 198 205 181 183 198 202 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 10 11 4Achievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 179 190 202 206 183 182 201 208 I Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target Spr. 2001 8.9 5.7 4.8 3 11 6 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 181 187 202 205 182 194 201 205 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Grovirth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 13 14 3 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-gg iggg-oo Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2000-01 2001-02  2002-03 0% 35% 35% 30% 3% 21% 42% 33% 0% 24% 29% 48% Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level iggs-gg iggg-oo Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 5% 14% 29% 52% 6% 21% 15% 58% 5% 5% 14% 76% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test iggy-ga igga-gg Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete i9gg-oo 2000-01 2001-02 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 26% 34% 22% 30% 29% 35% 44% 25% 34% 35% 30% 36% 28% 32% 32% 42% 55% 33% 40% 39% 26% 31% 14% 26% 25% iggy-ga igga-gg iggg-oo 2000-01 2001-02CHARTER ELEMENTARY PROFILE Principal: Krishna Young Observation SurveyKindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 S'\n(SSP, Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary' Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 - Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24. Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 'Si * Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 198 205 212 -kV w - Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A N/A 178 182 192 rST^ Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 safe 7.9 6.6 N/A N/AAchievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 199 207 213 N/A N/A N/A ?72 174 199 [Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 T arget 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 200 208 215 N/A N/A N/A Ml 192 196 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 0% 0% 25% 75% 2001-02  2002-03 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2001-02 2002-03 WSsW 0% 6% 0% 94% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 1998-99 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Retention Rate Grade 1997-98 1998-99 [Kinder I 7% 6% 10% 9% 8% 7% 8% 10% 9% 8% 11% 8% 5% 10% 10% 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 iPrincipal: Samuel Branch Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 47.03 13.03 16.76 30.73 19.97 51.55 15.40 20.80 33.50 19.00 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 53.70 17.44 22.56 28.11 22.22 52.92 17.43 20.78 39.51 29.62 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 19.79 17.73 68.79 38.86 47.69 45.50 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24, Grade 2 Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 3.54 68.3% 22.44 62.5% 29.07 62.9% 4.75 75.6% 18.16 72.7% 28.56 67.7% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 192 198 205 212 177 190 193 177 174 196 194 205 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Target Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 12.6 7.9 6.6 19 4 12 Achievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 193 199 207 184 197 201 183 196 194[Grade 5 I Inf 212| 20^ I Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 12 -3 5 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 192 200 208 215 173 189 195 203 179 195 192 207 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 T arget 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 22 3 12 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 0% 20% 30% 50% 0% 21% 50% 29% 0% 35% 24% 41% Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 5% 5% 25% 65% 0% 0% 7% 93% 6% 12% 18% 65% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 17% 18% 12% 19% 20% 34% 42% 19% 34% 34% 28% 29% 15% 26% 26% 25% 31% 15% 24% 22% 24% 17% 12% 21% 21% Retention Rate Grade 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Kinder Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5'A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Juiiious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent TO: Dr. Ken James Phone: (501)324-2272 FROM: Junious B SUBJECT: Requested Information DATE: December 10, 2001 In response to information requested in the December 6* board agenda meeting, the following report is provided: I. SIX YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS OF SCHOOLS WITH LESS THAN 250 STUDENTS 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 BADGETT B vwo TOTAL DODD B W TOTAL 185 21^ 214 233 200 216 179 \"77 174 13 146 IM 156 242 145| 79 162) 89j 131 \"72 2W 145 ~T1 114 74 188 FAIR PARK B W TOTAL WILSON B \\N TOTAL 193 62 188 60 165 63^ 160 167 ~T7 2^ 164 294 68 3W 297 \"65 3W 53) 3^ 278 313 3? 232 20 252 Redrawn school attendance zones were enacted during the '99 - 00 school year When comparing the 98-99 \u0026amp; 99-00 school year, the key reduction piece is removal of 6th grade classes.  Opening of the new Stephens school'January (2001) provided impact by way of Badgett no longer serving as an Alternative School Site for the Washington AZ. IL ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT  sorted by school totals LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT - October 1, 2001 (official) SCHOOL 1. Badgett 2. Dodd 3. Fair Park 4. Wilson 5. Woodruff 6. Rightsell______ 7. Mabelvale 8. Western Hills 9. Meadowcliff 10. Baseline 11. Pulaski Heights 12. Romine 13. Mitchell 14. Forest Park 15. Gibbs 16. Geyer Springs 17. Bale 18. Brady________ 19. McDermott 20. Wakefield 21. Franklin 22. Rockefeller 23. Otter Creek 24. Cloverdale 25. Jefferson 26. Williams 27. Watson 28. Washington 29. Fulbright______ 30. Carver 31. Terry_________ 32. Chicot 33. Stephens______ 34. King_________ 35. Booker 01-02 ENROLLMENT 153 188 209 252 267 268 271 277 280 282 282 284 298 305 307 _________320_________ 330 332 374 384 388 389 397 426 426 446 452 459 466 495 507 508 545 571 575 Average Elementary School size: 363 Largest Elementary School is Booker with 575 students. Smallest Elementary School is Badgett with 153 students. CAPACITY BEING USED 64% __________69%__________ 69% __________74%__________ __________85%__________ __________91%__________ __________61%__________ __________87%__________ __________78%__________ __________78%__________ __________81%__________ __________70%__________ 100% 76% __________95%__________ __________89%__________ __________86%__________ __________81%__________ __________83%__________ __________92%__________ __________73%__________ __________81%__________ __________96%__________ __________87%__________ 90% 91% __________85%___________ __________68%___________ 95% __________89%___________ __________85%___________ __________99% 84% 80% 89%POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION (2002-2003) (1-14-02) TARGET REDUCTION: $6.5 MILLION PROJECTED SAVINGS SCHOOL CLOSINGS: A. CLOSE CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAM: $479,670.00 B. CLOSE BADGETT ELEMENTARY PROGRAM: $536,049.00 C. CLOSE DODD ELEMENTARY PROGRAM: $738,909.00 D. CLOSE FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY PROGRAM: $749,692.00 ELIMINATE THE TOTAL ATHLETIC PROGRAM: $ 1,874,205.00-2- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION ELIMINATE MIDDLE SCHOOL ATHLETIC PROG $ 378,669.00 ELIMINATE THE 6^^ GRADE ATHLETIC PROGRAM: $ 56,062.00 CONSIDER PLACING ATHLETICS OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL DAY: $ 360,000.00 ELIMINATETHETRANSPORTA TION PROGRAM: $5,724,168.00 REDUCE THE DISTRICTS FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE FINE ARTS PROGRAM: $ 405,263.00 ELIMINATE ALL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS: $ 3,541,514.00 ELIMINATE TWO SECONDARY AND TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS: $ 300,000.00 ELIMINATE ALL SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS $ 438,560.00 ELIMINATE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER-MIDDLE SCHOOL-SHARE: $ 100,000.00 ELIMINATE THE EXTRA DAYS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING PAID DURING THE SUMMER FOR THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS: $ 174,375.00-3- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION ELIMINATE ONE POSITION IN THE HUMAN RESOURCE OFFICE: $ 40,000.00 ELIMINATE THE UNFILLED POSITION OF ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT: $ 121,500.00 ELIMINATE THE UNFILLED POSITION OF ASST. SUPERINTENDENT-PRE: $ 86,693.00 ELIMINATE THE POSITION OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR AND REDUCE # OF CLASSES $ 150,000.00 ELIMINATE TWELVE POSITIONS IN THE HIPPY PROGRAM (FIVE ARE CURRENTLY VACANT: $ 220,914.00 ELIMINATE 2 STUDENT RECRUITER POSITIONS: $ 114,000.00 ELIMINATE 2 POSITIONS ON SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT: $ 39,323.00 REDUCE OVERTIME COST BY 50%: $ 150,000.00-4- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION: ELIMINA TE THE DAIL Y MONEY PICK-UP AT THE SCHOOL SITES AND REPLACE WITH IN-DISTRICT OPERATION: $ 80,000.00 ELIMINATE THE VIPS PROGRAM: $ 268,141.00 ELIMINATE TWO POSITIONS FROM VIPS OFFICE: $ 40,000.00 REDUCE THE FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM BY 14 CLASSES: $1,124,000.00 ELIMINATE 50% OF CONSULTATION FEE FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SER VICES $ 13 ,000.00 ELIMINATE .50 POSITION OF DROPOUT COORDINA TOR $ 41,000.00 ELIMINATE 4 SCHOOL NURSES $ 154,400.00 ELIMINATE 4 SCHOOL COUNSELORS $ 199,000.00 REDUCE TRAVEL EXPENSE FROM OPERA TING BUDGET BY 50% $ 156,054.00-5- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION ELIMINATE DISTRICT CONVOCATION $ 30,000.00 ELIMINATE 30.0 FTE- CERTIFICATED STAFF-SECONDARY: $1,380,000.00 ELIMINATE 50 AIDES: $ 600,000.00 ELIMINATE ONE READING SPECIALIST: $ 62,000.00 ELIMINATE 1.0 LIBRARIAN: $ 45,877.00 REDUCE ALL DISTRICT FUNDED BUDGETS BY 7 72 %: $1,688,000.00 ELIMINATE THE COORDINATOR OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT: $ 86,754.00 ELIMINA TE TWO FTE FROM PRE: $ 92,218.00 ELIMINATE ONE ACTIVITY DIRECTOR AT PARKVIEW: $ 33,000.00 -6- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION REDUCE THE BUSINESS OFFICE BUDGET BY: $ 39,000.00 ELIMINATE TWO FTE INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES FROM THE IRC: $ 31,128.00 ELIMINATE ONE PROG. EVAL/ESL FROM IRC: $ *61,069.00 (Title I and District Funds) ELIMINATE ONE FTE SPEC. EDUC. ADMINISTRATOR: 67,045.00 ELIMINATE TWO ADAPTIVE PE POSITIONS FROM SPEC. EDUC. PROGRAM: $ 96,000.00 ELIMINATE ONE FTE CUSTODIAN AT THE IRC: $ 18,740.00 REDUCE THE CONTRACT OF THE DISTRICT OMBUDSMAN FROM 12 MONTHS TO 11 MONTHS: $ 12,420.00 REDUCE THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH PROCESSING PURCHASE ORDERS, BY IMPLEMENTING A PURCHASE CARD SYSTEM: (WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE IMPLEMENTED DURING THE 2002-2003 SCHOOL YEAR). $ 100,000.00 REDUCE MAIL DELIVERY TO SITES TO EVERY OTHER DAY: $ 21.500.00-7- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION REDUCE THE FACILITY SERVICE BUDGET BY: S 100,000.00 REDUCE THE COMMUNICATION DIVISION BUDGET BY: $ 25,500.00 ELIMINATE TEN FTE POSITIONS AT THE END OF THE 2002-2003 FISCAL YEAR-THE FUNDING SOURCE (GRANT) WILL EXPIRE: $ 395,048.00-8- VARIED SCENARIOS TO OBTAIN TARGETED REDUCTIONS SCENARIO #1: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close Badgett Elementary Close Charter Program Close Dodd Elementary Close Fair Park Elementary $ 536,049.00 $ 479,670.00 $ 738,909.00 $749,692.00 $2,504,320.00 reduction The remaining $4.0 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed. SCENARIO #2: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close Badgett Elementary Close Charter Program Close Dodd Elementary $ 536,049.00 $479,670.00 $ 738,909.00 $1,754,628.00 reduction The remaining $4.74 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed. SCENARIO #3: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close Badgett Elementary Close Charter Program $ 536,049.00 $479,670.00 $1,015,719.00 reduction The remaining $5.48 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed.-9- SCENARIO #4: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close No Schools and make all Target reduction of $6.5 million reductions from the items listed. SCENARIO #5: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close No Schools Reduce 60 FTE Certified Staff Reduce 100 FTE Non-Certified Staff $2,760,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $3,960,000.00 reduction The remaining $2.54 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed.John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (601) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Via Facsimile - 324-2146 January 16, 2002 Mr. Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr Babbs: I understood Dr. Mitchell to say last evening that 78% of the students who attend Badgett Elementary were bused to the school. After the Board meeting, I inquired where she obtained her information and she indicated that it came from you. Would you, therefore, please provide clarification of her comments by providing the following information seriatim: 1) Does the 78% include students in the Charter program and in the school? 2) How did you arrive at your 78%? 3)1 suspect that 78% of the students who attend the Charter program are, in deed, bused there due to the nature of the program and services provided. Is that correct? 4) (a) How of the of the 81 Charter school students (raw number) are bused? (b) How many of these students reside in the Badgett attendance zone? 5) (a) How many of the 153 regular school students (raw number) are bused? (b) How many of these students reside in the Badgett attendance zone? 6) (a) What is the mile(s) radius of attendance zones for Badgett? zone blocks? (b) In other words, how many miles away is the nearest street? The farthest street? 7) Please identify the streets that are in the Badgett attendance zone. 8) Based upon the answer in number 5(a), how far do these students travel to get tothe school? 9) Dr. James report to the Board indicates that 65 black students would be transported to Rockefeller, (a) Please identify the zone blocks where these students currently live and distance Badgett compared to the distance to distance to Rockefeller. (b) In other words, how many additional miles will these students have to travel after being assigned to Washington compared to Badgett? 10) Dr. James further reported to the Board that 49 black students would be transported to Washington, (a) Please identify the zone blocks where these students currently live and the distance to Badgett compared to the distance to Washington. (b) In other words, how many additional miles will these students have to travel after being assigned to Washington compared to Badgett? Finally, would you also please advise whether any of the FTE - certified staff (11.8- Badgett and 6.7 - Charter) members have communicated intentions of retirement, resignations, etc. in order to help confirm the Districts reported approximately million dollar savings by closini the school and charter program. Ig Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, r' /Joy C. Springer* On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ cc: Dr. Kenneth JamesJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Via Facsimile - 324-2146 Januaiy 16, 2002 Dr. Kenneth James Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. James\nThis is to request a copy of the Board minutes from last evening along with a tape recording of the meeting. I will provide a cassette tape to Ms. Beverly Griffin on my way into the office on tomorrow morning. Thank you for your attention to this request. r / Joy C. Springer' On Behalf of Joshua JCS/Arkansas Democrat (gazette | FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 History saves Central High from consultants hit list BY CYNTHIA HOWEIX Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Central High, the Little Rock School Districts flagship school, needs almost $6 million in repairs and renovations and even then it perhaps wont meet the educational demands placed on schools in the 1990s. Those are the findings of a San .Antonio consulting firm hired last February to evaluate the condition of Little Rock schools and make recommendations on the districts building needs. In ail. the firm found that the districts schools and administrative buildings need more than W million in renovations and repairs over the next several years. The consultants. 3D/Intemation- al. described 70-year-old Central as uniquely imposing, a fine old structure and a landmark, but they ranked the school fifth among the citys five high schools in terms of building condition. Generally, restrooms are inadequate, classrooms vary in size and are rated poor to fair, music is in the basement, science facilities need upgrading to be state-of-the- art, traffic and parking conditions are poor, tennis courts are now unusable and the wooden structure previously used as the 'Tiger Den needs to be removed, the consultants said. The school did not appear well- maintained, especially its mechanical systems, the consultants said. Inspectors said the plaster walls and ceiling are deteriorating, and moisture is seeping throu^ the outside walls. Windows need replacing, and acoustical ceilings are needed. Other needs include new I hardware, plumbing repairs, a new I fire alarm system, extensive work ' on the ventilation systems, and an elevator to provide disabled people with access to each of the schools five floors. Repairs also are needed in the library, in the gymnasium and in Quigley Stadium, where the running track should be replaced. \"The last-place ranking of this facility indicates the extent of work required, which, when completed, may not serve the district as a high school of the 1990s. the consultants said in their report. The consultants acknowledged that because of Centrals history and its reputation for high-quality academic programs, closing the building is not really an option. They did suggest that the building might be better used as a community college. .A. second alternative would be a super magnet program high school for accelerated programs and adult education. The consultants said the school needs S3.2 million worth of work in the ne.xt two years to solve immediate problems and meet safety codes. In subsequent years, electrical wiring systems need to be installed to support technology programs. Central, which is listed as a National Historic Landmark, was built in 1926 and early in its history was designated as the countrys most beautiful school. In 1957, Central High attracted international attention when federal troops were called to maintain order as nine black students integrated the previously all-white school. Of the five high schools, the consultants said Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School, built in 1968, was in the best shape, followed by J.A. Fair, Hall High and McClellan High. The consultants based rankings of schools on physical condition, size, location and capacity to support educational programming. Central isnt the only building with problems. The consultants recommended closing from eight to 11 of the citys elementary and junior high schools. Following is a list of those schools and some of the prottems found by the consu^ tants: Fair Park Elementary  Built in 1929, the school tanks 33id of the 35 elementanes. Ifs heating and air-conditioning system needs replacement as do the plumbing arxf electrical panel boards and al interior finish. Rerxjva- tions would cost $714,626. Woodruff Elementary  Bull in 1911, the school ranks 31st out of 35. Plumbing work Is needed as is repair of the plaster walls. Classrooms and the library are small. The consultants said the fine old building' has outlived its usefulness. Renovation costs total $212,098. Wakefield Elementary  Built in 1959. the school ranks 34lh of 35 and needs plumbing and electncai work along with complete renovation of interior surfaces. The school grounds also need improvements of fencing, sidewalks, paved areas and playground equipment. Protected renovation costs are $1.2 million. Pulaski Heights Elementary  Built in 1925. the school ranks 27th. Needs include new floor tiles and ceilings, replacement of doors and the venolanon system, plumbing and the fire alarm system. The projected cost is $1.4 million. Mitchell Incentive Elementary  Bunt In 1908. the school ranks last among the ele- mentaries. The school f^is structural problems and outdated plumbing, ventilation and electncai systems. The projeraed cost is $580,000. Jefferson Elementary  Constructed in 1950. the school tanks 30th. The school has the typical electncai. mechanical and plumbing problems. Also, the library and offices are small and load-bearing walls are damaged. The school, already undergoing expansion, would take $1.8 million to renovate. MeadowdHI Elementary  Built In 1956, the school tanks 28lh. Virtually all the plumbing and electrical systems need replacement Exterior work is needed. The cost of renovation would ba $1.1 mlKon Ish Elemerttary  Built in 1964 and closed by ths district in 1993. the school Is used on a temporary basis for children who attended Chicot before it was damaged by fire last year. Repair would cost $656,776. GatlaiKl Elementary  Built in 1922, the schrxil tanks 291h. The district has had longstanding plans to dose the school, which needs about $1.4 million in work to its plumbing, heating and electrical systems. The library and cafeteria are too small. Wilson Elementary  Built in 1927, the school tanks 18th out of 35. The school needs about $723,963 in work. Mabelvale Junior High  Built in 1952, the school stands last among the eight junior highs. The heating and air-conditioning equipment on the school roof need replacement, as do the field house and stadium bleachets.Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Committee to review LRSD study Will do the legwork oh school closings BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Oazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District will rely on a committee of patrons, employees and school board members to suggest how the dis-  Irict might use a consulting compa- riys recommendations for closing or renovating schools. Tile 3D/Intemational Co. of San Antonio presented its 13-volume, $^,000 study to the board in September. It projected that the district will lose 3,6()0 students by 2005, making school closures necessary. The consultants evaluated each building and estimated costs of repairs, additions and modernization. They presented the district with three options for dealing with the student loss and recommended closing as many as 10 elementaries and one junior high, and building one new elementary school. Doug Eaton, the district's direc- , lor of plant services, told school I board members Tuesday that an | implementation committee will\nmeet for the first time at 9 a m. Thursday to begin considering each proposal'.s possible impact on student assignments, the curricu- 1 lum, personnel, the district budget,  property tax rates and the districts desegregation plan. The committee will make its ! recommendations to the district administration, which will make recommendations to the school board. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said Tuesday that any recommendations for closing schools in 1996^97 should be presented to those schools communities in January. Before then, though, Williams and members of his staff will meet with parent and community groups to explain the study and to emphasize that no decisions on closing schools have been made. Eaton said closing schools and reassigning students will be complicated and must be phased in over several years. Board member Judy Magness said on Tuesday that the consultant's recommendations could leave more students attending schools closer to home, which many parents say they want She alsb said the recommendations coitld lead to more modem schools thiM will better prepare students forlhe 21st century. Board member Michael Daugherty asked why the district should consider closing so many elementary schools when junior highs are losing more students. Board member Linda Pondexter asked what the schools' racial composition would be under a new student assignment plan. The number of predominantly one-race schools would increase, Williams said. Among the schools that could be closed or used for other purposes If the consultants recommendations are accepted are Fair Park, Garland, Ish, Jefferson, Meadowcliff, Mitchell, Pulaski Heights, Wake- field, Wilson, WoodnilT eiemen- taries and Mabelvale Junior H igh ' FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14. 2001  Parents plead cases, but two schools stay in budget axs reach LR board hears of virtues of smallness, then adds Fair Park to possible closures Qnhflfllc for closing because of eir small wUllUUId enrollments. Badgett, at 6900 Pecan Road near the citys air-  Continued from Page 1B port, has 153 students in its regarea for potential budget cuts, ular program and another 80 en- and that he and his staff are rolled in the districts charter preparing recommendations for program, which is housed in the more reductions. same building. Dodd, 6423 Stage- In response to School Board coach Road, has 188 pupils, members who said they cant de- which is 69 percent of the build- cide on closing schools with- mgs capacity. out knowing what their other op- The average elementary tions are, James said he will give school in the district has about them some proposals after the 360 students. The average elementary first of the year. The district would save BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Were going to refuse to let Dodd close, Tiwana Noon- Faced with the possible loss er, a parent of three Dodd of their neighborhood schools pupils, said, Were going to next year to budget cuts, par- fight. Dodd parents and commu- ents and others from the Bad- gett and David O. Dodd ele- nity members pointed to the mentary school communities number of grants that the school Thursday extoUed the virtues has received in recent years to of their small schools to the Lit- restructure the way reading and tie Rock School Board. language arts are taught. Those James, who has been Little $536,048 by closing the regular Rocks school superintendent for Badgett school and another about six months, just last week $479,669 by closing the charter raised the issue of closing one program, plus $738,909 by closer more of the districts small- ing Dodti est schools next faff as a way to By closing the schools, the help offset escalating costs and number of teaching positions in a declining revenue forecast that the district could be reduced by is already affecting the districts about 20. A similar number of $224 milhon budget. support staff positions also could The district is getting $2.4 be reduced. Board members were sym- grants and programs may not pathetic and made no final de- all be transferable to other million less in state funding this cisions. schools, they said. Additional- However, by the end of the ly, they argued that the special- meeting, the School Board not ly trained staff members will be only directed Superintendent scattered across the district, diKenneth James to continue luting the effectiveness of their planning for the possible clos- training. District officials speculated, year than initially budgeted be- however, that most of the peo- cause of shortfalls that were an- pie in jobs at the affected schools nounced last month in state tax could be absorbed into other collections. That loss is expect- schools as vacancies occur be- ed to be earned forward into the cause of retirements and resignext school year when the dis- nations. ing of Badgett and Dodd as a Diane Krippendorf, a com- trict must meet contractually obligated teacher pay increases. way to save about $1.7 million, munity member, also pointed but also asked him to prepare a out that as many as 200 new feasibility study on closing a homes are planned for the Dodd third small school. Fair Park El- attendance zone, which should ementary at 616 N. Harrison St, boost the schools enrollment where about 200 pupils attend over the next few years. District According to preliminary - . plans, Badgett pupils would be The School Board must make assigned to Rockefeller and a decision on the school closings Washington elementary schools, by Jan. 10 to be able to notify Charter school pupils, who at- affected parents of the changes tend the school by applying, before registration starts for the would return to the schools that  2002 school year. That regis- serve the attendance zones in classes. officials said the new homes tration period  when parents which they live throughout the The presidents of the parent- might bring in 14 to 20 new chil- teacher associations from both dren for the school in each of Dodd and Badgett presented the the next two years. can make a variety of school district. choices for their children  begins Jan. 28. As for Dodd pupils, they School Board with petitions James has said that the pos- Thursday pleading to keep their sible school closings are just one schools. See SCHOOLS, Page 9B would be divided among West- James repeatedly acknowl- ern Hills, Romine and Otter edged that the district is decid- Creek elementary schools if their ing the issue on a very fast time school is closed. line that is contrary to districts Two bands of small children - policy that calls for school clos- set the tone for Thursdays meetings to be considered for at least ing, marching in two circles on 12 months, except in emergen- the administration buildings cies. front steps, waving posters and James assured the board that chanting in support of their is entering dire financial straits, schools, as board members ar- You dont take the largest cut rived for the meeting. Dont in state aid in the history of the close Dodd school, yelled one state and think it is business as group. usual, he said. Please dont close Badgett Badgett and Dodd are targets school, the others said.J a n u a r y 3, 2 0 0 2 District sets sessions on closing 3 schools ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School District will hold a series of public meetings, beginning today, at three low-enrollment schools under consideration for closing. The meetings are scheduled at:  Badgett Elementary, 6900 Pecan Road, 6 p.m. today. J  Dodd Element^, 6423 Stagecoach Road, 6 p.m. Monday.  Fair Park Elementary School, 616 N. Harrison St., 6 p.m. Tuesday. The meetings-are open to the public. The district proposes closing schools beginning July 1 because of state budget cuts. The Little Rock School Board will consider the proposal during its regular meeting Jan. 10 at 5 p. at the School District headquarters at 810 W. Markham St.F  Arkansas Democral-Gazette/STEPHEN B. THORNTON Badgett Elementary School parent Jerry Peters (left) Zeigler (center left), Rockefeller Elementary Principal asks Little Rock School Superintendent Ken James a Anne Mangan, and Sadie Mitchell (right), the district's question Thursday night during a public hearing at associate superintendent for school services. Mangan Badgett to discuss the schools possible closing. Lis- and Zeigler attended because Bad^tt tening are Washington Elementary Principal Gwen would attend their schools if Badgett cldses, cIroes students LR parents face closing of 3 schools Badgett meeting held\n2 more set BY PATRICK HEALY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT (JAZETIT As solemn-faced parents, teachers and administrators discussed the fate of Badgett Elementary School with urgent voices, the children played. Arm in arm, they pranced across the schools packed gym. inspected TV cameramen and galloped through the banana-yellow hallways while adults discussed shutting down Badgett, in east Little Rock, and two other Little Rock elementary schools. The 'Fliursday meeting was the first of three meetings scheduled before the School Board votes whether to close Badgett, Dodd and Fair Park elementary schools. Other meetings are scheduled at Dodd on Monday and at Fair See BADGETTj^age 4B Badgett  Continued from Page 1B Park on Tuesday. Tlie meetings are designed to let school officials explain the shutdown proposal and hear community concerns. Were still in shock, and we still dont want it to happen, said Kim Dunahay, Badgetts Parent Teacher Association president. Even if they vote to close the school, the fights not going to stop. The School Boards vote, rescheduled from Jan. 10 to Jan. 15, comes at a time of financial crisis, said Sadie Mitchell, the districts associate superintendent for school services. In addition to rhe $2.4 million state funding cut, the school district must pay $3 million in promised raises. Altogether, the school district fiiust slice $6 million from its annual budget ol $220 million. Superintendent Ken James Pb-S ! Proposed Wlendance Zones k rl \u0026amp; 31 Arkansas Democrat-Gazetle/STEPHEN B. THORNTON students if the school is closed. The informational meeting Thursday night at the school was the first of three meetings to discuss potential school closings. said, Were going to have to junious Babbs, associate superintendent for deseg-make some tough decisions. regation for the Littie Rock School District, discusses The board is considering clos- proposed attendance zones for Badgett Elementary ing Badgett, Fair Park and Dodd elenientaries primarily due to nickel-and-diine that to death. applauding when parents praised ular elementary schools, their low enrollments, James Normally, a proposal to close Badgett and spoke against its Weve tried regular schook said. This year, 153 students at- schools must be announced one closing. said Carrie Igwe, whose fourth-tend Badgett, 188 go to Dodd, and year before the shutdown date. I like it here because most of grade son, Caleb, has attention tend Badgett, 188 go to Dodd, and year before the shutdown date. ------------- 200 attend Fair Park. But with the budget cuts, James the teachers are nice, and they deficit hyperactivity disorder The average Little Rock ele- said, schools must act fast. let you come into their class- and attends the charter school.  Everybody has to be rooms and they give you treats, He has special needs    ' '  1 Igwe said her son did poorly mentary school has 363 students. ____------- ,  If the tliree schools are closed, touched, James told the crowd. 10-year-old Kenetra Lowe said . . their students would attend dif- Tliis is not a win-win situation. after the meeting. Id rather stay in his classes until he came to The one-hour meeting went here. I may be shy to go to an- Badgett. Igwe said she doesnt the next school year. more smoothly than past dis- other school. I wouldnt have any want her son to return to regu- Some teachers would find cussions about closing Badgett, friends on the first day. lar classes, and she balks at pri-     Parents and educators ex- vate school tuition. ferent schools at the start of other jobs in the district, but oth- In 1995, a proposal to close Bad- ' ers could be laid off, James said, gett met with parentsprotests pressed concern about the 83 It certainly seemed reason- and a court challenge that forced students who attend Badgetts money to send him to a private able to me, board Vice President the School Board to back down, charter school. The students, school, she said, unless the Lit- But on Thursday, audience many of whom have learning dis- tie Rock School District is going '     ......  '  to pay it for us. Judy Magness said. When youve _________ got to cut $6 million, you cant members listened quietly, twice abilities, would be sent to reg- We dont have the kind of Z 0 0 3 V A J enuBp I January 1 5. 2 0 0 2  I Some proposed cuts, such as U C n 0 01S eliminating the districts year- '*'*\"\"**** opening ceremony, reducing mail  Continued from Page 1B delivery and removing one hu- The schools have been con- man resources job, dont direct-sidered for closure primarily ly target classrooms. because of their low enrollments. Others da They mclude cutting This year, 153 pupils attend Bad- school police officers, eliminating gett, 188 go to Dodd, and 200 at- r.----------- , v tend Fair Park. The average Lit- letic programs and scaling back the middle-school or sixth-grade ath-tie Rock elementary school has fine arts budget by $400,000. 363 pupils. We will do whatever they If the three schools are closed, hand out to us. said Athledc some teachers would find other Director Johimy Johnson, who positions in the district, but some oversees the districts $1.8 milhon could be laid off James said. Because ofstate funding cuts, stone yet. the district must slash $6.5 nul- The Volunteers in Public lion from its annual budget of Schools program and its budget $220 million. Besides closing of $270,000 also could be cut Smce schools, board members are con- 1972, the program has connected sidering broad cuts to staff, trans- volunteers with schools for tutor-athletic program. Nothing is in portation, athletics, pre-kinder- ing, mentoring and field trips, garten and other programs. Debbie Milam, coordinator of * Ideas range from cutting one the program, said she under- 1 librarian to eliminating the trans- stands the budget crisis but hopes ' portation and athletic programs, her program is left alone. Such sweeping cuts probably They would lose aa wweellll-- would be pared down over time, trained, experienced staff, Mil- \u0026lt;James said. am We^U stiU volun- Some of those things you teers. We just wont have Kcant do, James said Monday, re- screened volunteers or trained fferring to the prospect of cutting volunteers. said. Well still have volun-a11 of the $5.7 million transportation program. School Board member Tony Rose said the board can tweak the 11 piu^cuil. - ----------------------------------- . James and board members will budget proposals. Instead of tnm-  meet in coming months to dis- ming the budgets at all schools cuss the 50 listed options and how by 7.5 percent, for instance, the they would affect students. board could pass that cut at 4 per- You try to get the majority [of cent or 5 percent. cnuittss]l aass ffaarr aawwaavy ffrroomm tthhee ccllaassss-- Therell be tradeoffs, he said. room as said. you possibly can, James If we cut this, then we 11 keep this. ZX* o D CfTs C5m^ o 5 33. SCT' a g\u0026lt;1 5 Sc O= 7fi - ?o a2. qgq . oS :G ^53 \"a   S g 3 ' S?! E\u0026lt; 2fl tRr 0w \" oM (Z3 f6 \u0026gt;  \u0026lt; B (/) o z cz\u0026gt; \u0026gt; co q n m aS W o 1 C3 I o \u0026lt; 5. r s ., 00  \"R Em M \u0026lt;! n O  rt rt 5 2. 2 Egmi^o-EnW  ft 3 O. m 00 OoQq O co \u0026lt;! \"R3 S2P. r* S Cu O o S CL E S 3  2. fl CL o OQ '**  \u0026lt;D  m C. \u0026lt; oE. 3 S 1 \u0026gt;1 !I\u0026lt;3 ft 3*23 0   2. a R- 3 'm' P.O !R'\"-2.3 o' r^\u0026gt;-rT r* n\u0026gt; o ..... V' n\u0026gt; O 5 LrS\nf  Q- cr w CT j \" foqft no wj [- rti w o ft -I w 3 n oq r. S' n w n K - o a R Q S S3 \" S 33 e ft 9S - - - 2 3 R- . o T 3 \u0026amp;. ? r 7 S o S n n O O o n\u0026gt; c*-  o 3 o a nj ^3 p- C. CT 0^ T o gJls-o 8\nH-S's i-- \"  3 2.-^0/ S\no o o  g -o G- 5  2. o 8 (A r V! r.   o 3 ~ 2 . -cJ rr^p Ct* w s CD CD C/3 05  CD Q CZ\u0026gt; C9 \u0026lt;\"-f \u0026lt;c/3 o n w o t3 c 2. 5=^ 3 BI I a oO ' C2T 3o C3T- o fwl a. S  a 5^ o J o S' S    5 e- M E o 5 w ^'^8 M R- OS !. o ftj \u0026gt;-: LL  n 5^ n o {r 2. 55* 1 X 3 S co CD 00 3 o Ct* a S' 5 5\" S' . R' f  s f CL n 55 c S S-g a 3  qr rse S s  \"a . S d5q ' S' B G',^3 o\u0026gt; 2. b -a S. n 1\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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":110,"next_page":111,"prev_page":109,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1308,"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}}]}}