{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_280","title":"Budget, court filings","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":["1992/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education and state","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Budget, court filings"],"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/280"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\"'''^'- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION y: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS i MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On November 14, 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded the cause to the Court to review the parties' proposed modifications [May submissions] to the 1989 plans. 1 Little Rock School District, et al., Nos. 91-2640EA, 91- 2648EA, 91-2655EA, 91-2683EA, slip op. (8 th Cir. November 14, 1991) . In response to the order of the Eighth Circuit, the Court scheduled a hearing to begin on December 18, 1991. It informed the parties involved that. prior to reviewing their proposed modif ications, it would ask. the Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD] to report on its financial situation and hear a ^The three school districts involved. Little Rock School District [LRSD], Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD], and North Little Rock School District [NLRSD], and the Joshua Intervenors submitted proposed modifications to the settlement plan approved by the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990).report from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the budgetary processes for desegregation expenditures which are employed by the three school districts involved in the matter. The Court determined that before it could consider proposed modifications to the settlement plans, it needed to learn whether there are district budgetary processes in place which will enable the Court to monitor the implementation of the plans. At the conclusion of the second day of the hearing, the Court expressed concern about its ability to effectively monitor the settlement plan without budgets that reflect the three school districts' intentions. goals, and priorities regarding their desegregation efforts. The Court specifically mentioned the state of the Little Rock School District's [LRSD] budgetary process. In its opinion approving the settlement plans of the three districts, the Eighth Circuit noted the parties have committed to \"solemn undertakings\" and stated: We accept these undertakings, again with the reminder that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Eighth Circuit further directed the Court to \"monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and agreement. -2-and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\" Id. at 1394. The Court monitors the use of settlement monies through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring [ODM]. In October 1991, the ODM informed the LRSD that it must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. a [Document # 1517] Pursuant to the directives from and the considerable latitude and discretion given the Court by the Eighth Circuit, the Court finds that the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites and that it is necessary for the LRSD to submit revised cost figures to the Court. 2 Therefore, (1) The LRSD must submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan and which are reflected on updated implementation timelines contained in the plan. 2 In a note to its May submissions, the LRSD indicated that the cost figures originally submitted with its desegregation plan were outdated and it would provide revised cost figures in a separate desegregation budget. To date, the Court is unaware of any such revised figures having been submitted or filed. -3-a (2) The LRSD must submit a long-range budget projection on per annum basis which covers all anticipated desegregation expenditures over the entire term of the desegregation agreement. (3) The LRSD must submit.a long-range revenue projection covering the same period of time, which includes revenues anticipated not only from the settlement monies and settlement loan, but also from state and millage revenues and any other money sources. This long-term projection will provide a clear picture of the district's financial future and, thereby, enable the LRSD to predict with accuracy if and when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any anticipated millage increase is to be indicated along with the date when the district will present a millage increase to the voters. (4) The LRSD has maintained that a significant portion of desegregation expenditures are \"start up.\" The district must specifically identify which desegregation costs are \"start up\" and when these start up costs will terminate. (5) The revised budget shall be prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and shall be submitted to the Court within thirty (30) days after the Court rules either from the bench or in a written order on the proposed modifications. - By this Order, the Court confirms its oral approval of the construction of the interdistrict school at the Crystal Hill site. Further, the Court confirms oral instructions made to the parties to explore alternative sites for the construction of King -4-Interdistrict School along the 1-630 corridor. DATED this ^/^^dav of January, 1992. '1^. trNlTED STATES DISTRICT J JUDGE r : OtJ ,PL!A\n2V...,^. - -- .. 1-,3-h '1?^ BHEET IN i) FRCP -5-4- oirsidTSSaSBAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT may -1 199\nEASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court held hearings on the parties' proposed modifications (May submissions) to the 1989 settlement plans on December 18-19, 1991\nJanuary 21-23, 27-28, 1992\nand February 6-7, 1992. This Order addresses those proposed changes. In its order approving the individual settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that ''[i]t may be necessary. in order to make a smooth transition. for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Court rejected the parties' May submissions. finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991).4 The parties' motion for reconsideration was denied. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special Schools District No. 1, 769 F. Supp. 1491 (E.D. Ark. 1991). remanded the case and stated: On appeal, the Eighth Circuit The 1989 settlement which we approved last year should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case. The parties are not authorized to modify it at will Further, we agree, for the most part, that any changes approved should be concerned only with the details of plan, affecting it only at the margin, so to speak, wish to dispel, in particular, any notion that asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction i.. commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan . . . The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed. in particular, the We an in their The If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major substantive commitments to desegregation. District Court has the authority to consider it. such changes, for example, as the District Court noted? may have merit, either because they advance desegregation, or for other reasons. they the Some Even changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover, could be approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including lack of funds) for them. It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows. (1) double fundinc for stuHont'c: arronH-i-nrr retreat should be approved. They are as . funding students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools\nincentive (virtually all-black) schools\n(2) operation of the a^eed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable\n(3) operation of the agreed number of i^terdist.-ict schools according to the agreed timetable\n(4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable\n(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\n(6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools\nand (7) appropriate involvement of parents. Appeal of Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special -2-School District No. 1, North Little Rock School District, cLnd Mrs. Lorene Joshua, 949 F.2d 253, 255-56 (Sth Cir, 1991) , In remanding the case to the District Court, Circuit further stated: the Eighth The parties' agreement should be upheld if 1^ constitutional, workable, and fair to class members, vu the other hand, the application of this test is affected by the new procedural context in which we now find the The 1989 settlement is a benchmark. if it is On case. xue xaay Although changes can be made, the District Court and we must take into account the potential for confusion, that constant change creates. ' even chaos, , - The parties and the public deserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or aeserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or at the margin, will not seriously interfere with this goal. Changes of greater significance, however, may well do so, and that fact must be taken fully into when such changes are proposed and considered. goal. account We recognize that the language somewhat general. of this opinion is It leaves a considerable degree of latitude District Court. That Court must determine in the first instance, using criteria we have suggested, what changes are mere details and what changes are outside that category. 7^ --_ _i__ ____ its own best judgment, what changes should be~approved\"\" notwithstanding their going beyond the level of detail* because they would advance desegregation or for other- sound reasons. The District Court should proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity. . . .[W]e will give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. to the That It must also determine, in Id. at 257. With this background in mind, the Court addresses the parties' proposed modifications. The changes that the Court approves will not be enumerated or addressed, for the most part. The Court comments on changes it approves subject to certain conditions and discusses in detail the substantive changes it will not approve, generally following the order of the provisions and their section -3-headings as they are found in the plans. are attached to the Order. INTERDISTRICT PLAN Baker and Harris Elementary Schools The 1989 plans require the Pulaski The plans as approved County Special School District (PCSSD) to establish interdistrict schools at Baker Elementary School and Harris Elementary School. The PCSSD now proposes to modify the settlement plan and eliminate Baker Elementary as thematic interdistrict school with expanded seating. According to the proposed modifications, the 200 a additional seats originally planned for Baker the new interdistrict school at Crystal Hill. would be placed at The PCSSD proposes to eliminate Harris Elementary as an interdistrict school and establish a new interdistrict school to be built along the Highway 67/167 corridor. The PCSSD claims that Baker has been desegregated without having to convert it into an interdistrict school,  the reason for its becoming an interdistrict school. thus obviating However, the Court finds that Baker's designation as an interdistrict school was intended not only to desegregate that school but also to aid in the desegregation of three additional elementary schools: Romine in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Lawson and 1, Other changes such as historical background and context, timelines, changes to correct language discrepancies and inconsistencies, and other changes which contribute to clarity or support intent, are not discussed. language discrepancies -4-Robinson in the PCSSD. Testimony and figures presented at the bearings indicate that failure to designate and promote Baker as an interdistrict school as originally planned may be impacting desegregation negatively in schools having difficulty achieving or maintaining compliance with the minimum required racial balance of their student enrollment. Because of the Court's concern about difficulties with racial balance at Baker, Romine, Lawson, and Robinson, and in the interest of adherence to the agreed number of interdistrict schools, the Court finds that Baker should interdistrict school. remain an The Court requires the district to look carefully at the quality of the programs at Baker, particularly the extended day program which was intended to attract students who would promote desegregation of the school. The extended day program must be expanded as necessary to accommodate additional students, particularly those transferring from the Romine area as emphasized in the plan. As promised in the original language of the plan. the PCSSD shall continue to provide its full compensatory education program at Baker so long as 35 or more black students have transferred from LRSD to Baker. The Court approves that portion of the modification that deletes the required addition of 200 seats at Baker. regard to Harris, testimony at the hearings convinced the Court that deleting the designation of Harris Elementary as an 2 PCSSD Superintendent Mr. Bobby Lester stated at the hearings that Baker is considered to be an interdistrict school. -5-interdistrict school and establishing instead a new interdistrict school in an easily accessible location is wise decision. a Because the Court finds that this proposed change will likely advance desegregation, it adopts the modification but delays until a later date ruling the PCSSD ^s motion to postpone for five years the construction of the new interdistrict school. The Eighth Circuit ordered in November 1991 that the agreed number of interdistrict schools be operated according to the agreed timetable. However, in a number of instances it was impossible to adhere to that order. For example, under the 198 9 plan. Crystal Hill was scheduled to open in 1990-91. It is now scheduled to be ready for the 1992-93 school year. Romine did not meet the original date but it is now open. As with the new interdistrict school to take the place of Harris, the dates for the establishment of Stephens and King are the subject of a pending motion and will be determined at a later date. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT As with the interdistrict plan, the Court determines that the ^^jority of the modifications proposed by the PCSSD are concerned with details and. therefore. are approved. However, certain modifications the Court finds substantive of two of the primary goals of the and student achievement. case. and unsupported in light i.e. racial integration PATWICK The PCSSD proposes to eliminate PATWICK, a program established -6-to enable parents to meet and work activities designed to aid their cooperatively with teachers in children's progress in school. Dr. Bobby Altom, the PCSSD's Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, testified that other parental involvement programs are being planned but are not identifiable at this time, of the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on parental involvement. In light the Court determines that PATWICK should remain in the plan until the district has designed, and the Court has parental involvement program that holds approved, a comparable promise of meeting the goals PATWICK was expected to achieve. Special Education The parties propose to delete certain language in the plan regarding the reduction of disparity between black and white students and the elimination of disproportionality within races in special education. While the Court approves the addition of new language regarding the relationship between disproportionality in special education. social deprivation and the original language regarding long-range goals must remain in order for the Court to monitor progress toward the goal of reducing achievement disparity between the races and reducing over representation of black students in special education classes. In the plan section dealing with special education screening and internal monitoring. changes have been proposed that would eliminate the requirement for a central office review committee. thereby reducing from three to two the levels in a screening process intended to prevent black students from being referred for -7-special education indiscriminately. At the hearing, a PCSSD witness testified that meaningful changes in the referral process should come from involvement at the local school level and that building practitioners should bear the burden of responsibility and accountability for the initial special education screening and review. The witness stated that the district will require those schools with over representation of black special education students to submit plan for correcting the placement disproportion. The Court is reluctant to condone alteration of a process which should prevent special education placement problems and obviate the need for process to correct such problems after they have materialized. However, the Court agrees that site-based decision-making may encourage accountability and responsibility at the local school level by increasing the involvement of those closest to the children. The Court approves the change in the number of review levels from three to two with the may require the district to restore the third\ncaution that it review level if monitoring reveals ineffective efforts to eliminate special education placements. disparity in Information/Special Services The parties propose to strike references to each school having programs which include school volunteers. parent advisory committee. parent/teacher/student discipline committee. a a a a a school/community partnership arrangement, and \"any other organized structures which the principals and their respective communities feel necessary for positive schoolcommunity relations. Because -8-the Eighth Circuit considers parental involvement crucial to the success of the desegregation plan, the Court does not allow the change. Parent and community involvement in education must be enthusiastically invited and carefully managed throughout the district to sustain the interest and continued activities of parents, business people, retirees, and others in the schools. The district must strive to maintain positive relations with the public, supporting those efforts through such organized groups and programs as school/community partnerships. school volunteers. parent advisory committees, Biracial Committees, in the plan. and others named Secondary School Curriculum Coordinators The parties propose a modification that reduces the number of PCSSD secondary curriculum coordinators from thirteen to six.^ The 1989 plan promised that an instructional coordinator would be provided to support every discipline and that every teacher would have a coordinator to provide materials, demonstration teaching. instructional supervision, moral support, of each school's program effectiveness. and an annual assessment The Court is concerned that testimony regarding the curriculum coordinators indicated that the figure of thirteen was placed in the plan even though the PCSSD failed to consult with the district's assistant superintendent for instruction. In addition. Dr. Altom testified that the PCSSD did not believe that by was Testimony at the hearing was that seven and one-half curriculum coordinators presently were employed by the PCSSD. -9-describing thirteen positions in the plan it was committing to always having thirteen coordinators in place, testimony is combined with that heard during\nWhen Dr. Altom's a hearing on August 7, 1991, on the parties' joint motion for partial stay pending appeal, the Court is particularly disturbed. In August 1991, the PCSSD lawyer stated that the PCSSD did not intend for the number of curriculum coordinators to be a component of the settlement plan and that the district was merely \"loading\" its plan. In spite of the discrepancy between the plan language and subsequent testimony, the Court approves the reduction in the number of secondary curriculum coordinators from thirteen to six in light of Dr. Altom's testimony that the reduction was made in the firm belief that removal of the positions would not result in substantial change in student performance as measured by the district's standardized tests. the exit exams at the secondary a level, and the MPT exams at the third. sixth, and eighth grade levels. However, the Court recognizes the significant role of curriculum coordinators in providing important services to teachers and in the development, implementation, and maintenance of quality academic programs. When a reduction in the number of coordinators results in shifting many duties to a smaller group of employees. there is a danger that the increased administrative and supervisory responsibilities will yield inadequate support for personnel and programs that directly impact student performance. If disparity in student achievement does not improve or if test scores decline. the Court may require that the full number of curriculum -10-coordinator positions be restored. The Court also notes that the parties propose to delete in the Compensatory Education section the full time instructional specialist at the elementary level and assign the specialist duties to the assistant principal or Chapter 1 coordinator at schools where black student enrollment exceeds 40%. ] the instructional specialist position at each Elsewhere in the plan, elementary school has been deleted and the assistant principal is referred to as assistant principal/Chapter coordinator or assistant principal/instructional specialist, Once again, the parties seek 1 to saddle one individual with multiple duties and accept the risk that all duties will not get done. While the Court approves the modifications, it will carefully monitor student achievement and the district may be required to restore the Minority Facilitator Recruitment Program deleted positions. The PCSSD also proposes to change certain features of the Minority Facilitator Recruitment Program, a program designed to recruit black teachers as facilitators in the district's Talented and Gifted Program. As the Court understands it, the proposed changes concern that portion of the program which offers tuition assistance for black teachers who work for the district and who are interested in completing graduate courses which will qualify them to teach gifted and talented students (TAG and ALPHA programs). The program provides that for every one year that the teacher works for the school district. the PCSSD will fund six hours of coursework. If the teacher does not maintain a certain grade point -11-average, he or she must refund the money. Also, if the teacher does not complete the program, the debt must be repaid. The PCSSD proposes to lower the grade point average (GPA) these black teachers must maintain from a 3.0 to a 2.8 on a four-point scale and to forgive the debt for black teachers who are fired. The Court is troubled by these proposed modifications and declines to approve them. Lowering the GP.z^ requirement for black teachers receiving district-subsidized tuition for the gifted education courses they take sets a separate and inferior standard of performance for black teachers. The proposed change suggests that minority teachers either will be unable to maintain a 3.0 grade average or will be attracted to the program by a substandard achievement requirement. In addition, at a time when national and local emphasis is focused on higher expectations for student performance and the importance of educators as role models responsible for leading children to meet those increased expectations, it is inappropriate to lower the achievement standard for any group of teachers. of debt for teachers who Furtheirmore, the proposed forgiveness fired is illogical and inconsistent with the requirement that the tuition money be repaid the district by any teacher who chooses not to continue the program or who fails to fulfill the obligation to work in the district for one year for every six hours of coursework funded by the district. Air Force ROTC Program The parties proposed in the 1989 settlement plans to move the PCSSD's Air Force ROTC program from Jacksonville High School to -12-North Pulaski High School. In its modifications, the PCSSD deleted the proposed transfer and stated in hearings that the Air Force refused to grant pemission to move the program. In this Court's Stay Order of August 22, 1991, transfer of the ROTC program was \"stayed pending appeal, effective upon receipt by the Court of documentation of the PCSSD's efforts to move the program and the Air Force's denial of that move.\" To date, the Court has not received the information requested last August, obligated to furnish the required documentation Early Prevention of School Failure Program The parties remain to the Court. The Court approves the modification of language concerning measurement of the effectiveness of the Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) program and agrees that the Biracial Committee may have the opportunity to review and make recommendations regarding the effectiveness of such programs. Any decision regarding the effectiveness of the EPSF program is a curriculum issue, however. and not one within the exclusive province of the Biracial Committee. Furthermore, the Court understands that EPSF is a nationally validated program which is based upon young children's developmental stages. Any program which might replace EPSF, in whole or in part. must be comparable in validation scope and developmental grounding. Biracial Committee The Court notes that the parties have included a new plan subsection describing in some detail the composition and role of the PCSSD Biracial Committee. The Committee is to have 14 members -13-who are representatives of the district 's population and geography with each election zone to have two representatives, one black and one \"other member. The parties have agreed that the Joshua Intervenors will appoint half (seven) of the Committee members, four of whom will be black. In another area of the plan, new language regarding the Biracial Committee has been introduced. providing for a 30 day period for the \"advise and consent\" of the Biracial Committee regarding unresolved desegregation grievances. While the Court approves the changes concerning the Biracial Committee, it understands that the primary role of this volunteer group is to monitor the progress of the district toward the goals of the desegregation plan. If the Committee is asked to take on additional duties. the members must be recruited with full knowledge of the scope of their responsibilities and the time required to fulfill them. the Biracial Committee with new duties and allowing a 30 day period for the group's action must not be allowed to detract from the basic monitoring function of the Committee. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan Under the terms of the 1989 plan, all schools in the LRSD were to implement a four-year-old program by the 1993-94 school year. The May submission deletes that commitment and proposes to replace it with provisions contained in a long-range implementation plan which was filed with the Court on October 1, 1991, and discussed -14-in the February 6 hearing. During the hearing the Court expressed specific concerns with certain of the modifications proposed in the LRSD Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan (Long-Term Plan) and questioned the impact upon the implementation of early childhood education programs, a provision of the desegregation plan which the Eighth Circuit has identified as a crucial feature. The Court agrees with the parties that four-year-old programs are both compensatory and desegregatory in nature since they impact disparity of academic achievement by better kindergarten and also act to attract white preparing children for children to the public schools. The parties have convinced the Court that, as a desegregation tool, it is wise to place four-year-old programs in those schools or areas which have Therefore, the LRSD will not be proved difficult to desegregate, required to place four-year-old programs in every elementary school. However, the parties have made solemn promises regarding early childhood education. The Court views the four-year-old program as a substantive component of the settlement plan which holds achievement disparity between black promote racial balance in the schools. great promise to reduce and white children and to The Long-Term Plan does not satisfy the original intent of the parties regarding the scope of the four-year-old program. The Court will not release the parties from serving the number of children who would have been served had every school offered a four-year-old program as agreed in the 1989 plan. Also, the Long-Tenn Plan contemplates converting Ish incentive school to an early childhood center. The Eighth Circuit -15-has said that the incentive schools are crucial and stressed the importance of a period of stability. Closing an incentive school altering the function of such a school is a highly disruptive event which the Court would be reluctant to approve absent compelling evidence that such a change would better of desegregation. serve the goals The LRSD Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan is not approved. The parties are required to refine the provisions of the Long-Term Plan and again petition the Court for approval within 30 days of this Order. The revised Long-Tera Plan must: 1) identify the precise number of children to be served by the LRSD using the standard of 18 classroom, as agreed by the parties\nstudents per 2) accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\n3) place four-year-old programs in locations which will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance\n4) eliminate the closing of an incentive school\n5) follow a time schedule in which implementation of four-year-old programs is completed by 1994-95, completion date identified in the Long-Term Plan\nthe and 6) limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through agencies, such as Head Start, which the -16-district does not control and the goals of which do not parallel the settlement agreement goals of program scope, racial balance, location. and so forth. While the district IS encouraged to continue its cooperative relationship with agencies such as Head Start and the Cii.y of Little Rock Day Care Center, the parties may not shift to such programs the obligation the parties themselves assumed when they wrote the Special Programs 1989 plan. The LRSD proposes to eliminate Little Rock Job Corps Alternative Program from the settlement plan. Mr. James Jennings, LRSD Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services, testified that the Job Corps Center no longer offers the Alternative Program and that there are other programs in place that deal with high school students who are at risk of dropping out of school: the LRSD Alternative Learning Center in the old Carver building, the JTPA Summer Learning Program, and a Changing Directions program. Additionally, Mr. Jennings and Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs for the LRSD, mentioned programs such as New Futures for Little Rock Youth and the Cornerstone Project with which the district collaborates to provide various services which promote student success. The district also proposes to delete the Homework Telephone Hotline for English, math. establishment of a science, and social studies. (This phone service is not the same homework hotline -17-which the district is required to provide for incentive school students.) Mr. Jennings testified that the funding for this Hotline, which was to be provided by the business community, had not materialized. Instead, some students who attend the four LRSD junior highs involved in the New Futures program can phone a recorded homework assignment message and can participate in an after school tutorial program. There is also a corporate-sponsored state telephone homework line which Little Rock students The Court approves the changes regarding the Little may use. Rock Job Corps Alternative Program since Job Corps no longer offers the program. However, the district must continue to provide students who are experiencing attendance or disciplinary problems with other programs similar to the Job Corps Alternative Program, such as this may wax and wane but the district remains Programs obligated to assure that there are ongoing comprehensive and effective services for students needing specialized support. The district is expected to make wise use of all available community resources. to maintain strong coalitions with such organizations as Job Corps, New Futures, and Cornerstone, and to seek new resources to take the place of those no longer available. The Court will carefully monitor the district's use of community resources and the LRSD's programs, policies, and practices which are designed to enable students to remain in school, promote their academic success, alleviate behavior problems. and The requirement for the Homework Telephone Hotline, other than the homework phone line which serves incentive school students. may -18-be removed from the plan because similar services are being provided by other organizations. However, the Court may restore the requirement for the district to implement a homework hotline if comparable services become unavailable elsewhere and students are not receiving adequate help with homework through hotlines other means. or New Futures The 1989 plan contains certain references to operations of the New Futures program which largely have been deleted in the May submission. The Court understands that the program as originally described in the plan is now outdated, operations of the program have changed. as certain features and At the hearings, several references were made to New Futures by two district witnesses. This testimony indicated that the district continues to depend upon New Futures, especially in four junior high schools, to provide such services as after-school tutoring centers, phone recordings of homework assignments, and extended day programs. Also, LRSD financial statements contain New Futures budget allotments and debits which attest to the district's ongoing relationship with the program. It IS incongruous to remove plan references to New Futures while continuing to rely heavily upon New Futures as a partner. The Court will not approve deleting from the plan language which describes New Futures' functions in LRSD schools at the time the plan was written until the parties provide the Court updated information which will replace the obsolete description of New Futures and its role in the LRSD schools. -19-Academic Support Programs In the 1989 plan, the LRSD approach to academic remediation was largely embodied within a program known as Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL). When PAL was incorporated into the plan, there was general understanding among the parties as to what the program entailed because the LRSD had developed an extensive written description of PAL and had begun widespread inservice training on its implementation. Mrs. Matthis testified at the January 23, 1992 hearing that there has been dissatisfaction with the results of PAL as it has existed and that the district desires to modify PAL and change the district's overall approach to remediation. The parties proposed to delete PAL from the language of the plan, replacing it with generic reference to an a unspecified number of unnamed \"LRSD academic support (remediation) programs.\" The Court is convinced that PAL as it has been implemented is an inadequate approach to remediation and does not wish the district to continue investing resources in an ineffective program\nyet the Court cannot sanction a complete abandonment of PAL or deletion of all references to it in the plan until the parties are able to replace it with an interrelated, programmatic approach to remediation that is sufficiently detailed for the Court to monitor. Therefore, the parties must submit within 60 days a written plan for the entire academic support program that is proposed to replace PAL. The plan must include the following\n1) the name and location of each academic support program\n-20-2) Clearly stated goals and objectives for each program\n3) a comprehensive description of each program's components and activities, including those which may be \"extended day\" in nature\n4) an overview of how all the individual academic support programs will be coordinated for continuity of services to children and efficient use of resources\n5) the number of students targeted for participation in each program by school and grade level\n6) the number of teachers or other staff (identified by position) responsible for delivering each of the academic support programs\n7) 8) implementation time lines\nanticipated costs\n9) an overview of the necessary staff training by content, by year, and by number of training participants\n10) evaluation criteria that will indicate how effectively teachers are implementing new instructional approaches. an element termed \"critical\" by the LRSD witness at the hearings\nand 11) evaluation criteria that will measure the degree to which each academic support program is successful in meeting its particular programmatic goals and objectives of remediating student achievement and contributing to the overall reduction -21-of disparity between black and white students/ According to LRSD financial data, materials and personnel for PAL have been underwritten by millions of dollars in settlement money. The district must salvage to the extent possible what has been invested in the PAL remediation approach. Staff positions, computer hardware, software programs. and other equipment and materials previously devoted to PAL should be properly reallocated toward the new approach to remediation. Additionally, in the LRSD remediation programs designed to address students' learning deficiencies, the parties propose to delete science and social studies as \"core areas\" through which requisite skills are maintained and reinforced at the secondary level. In their joint motion for partial stay pending appeal and during the hearing on the motion. the parties contended that science and social studies were deleted from the list of discrete academic support programs in order to emphasize remediation in the areas of English, reading, and math rather than \"diluting\" the program by including science and social studies.- At the hearing in January 1992, Mrs. Matthis indicated that removing students from class for remediation in social studies and science as well as for reading and math would result in increasing the isolation of students from the regular classroom, decreasing the cooperative *If it appears that the Court is being too particular in setting forth required components of proposed programs such as the academic support programs and the Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan, it is because the parties have failed to provide the Court with well thought out, comprehensive program plans which can be closely monitored. -22-learning interaction among regular students and those participating in remediation programs, and decreasing the ability of these students to complete the number of courses required for graduation. (See Exhibit 19A, attached.) Mrs. Matthis also testified that remediation in math and reading would benefit student achievement in both science and social studies since math and reading skills are prerequisites to success in other curricular areas. She stressed that it is \"critical\" that the district provide the staff development necessary to ensure that teachers are able to assume greater responsibility for the total educational experience of students rather than only specific subject-oriented content. The Court allows the change regarding science and social studies as proposed and requires the district to provide all teachers with ongoing training to meet students' need for academic remediation in the most inclusive setting and comprehensive manner possible. The Court will closely monitor student progress on test scores in social studies and science. If students fail to progress in these areas or if improvement is not made in reducing overall achievement disparity between black and white students, the Court may require changes in the plan. The parties propose to modify the plan by adding language that gives the LRSD an option of merely informing parents rather than actively involving them in each identified phase of the remediation programs in which their children participate: individual assessment, individual improvement planning, formative assessments. -23-workshops, and. summative evaluations. Given the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on parental involvement, the Court denies the modification. Focused Activities Testimony indicated that approximately 8 0% of the black elementary students in Little Rock do not attend an incentive or magnet school but are educated instead in area schools. In order to advance desegregation and reduce achievement disparity among the large number of students served by area schools, the plan gives each area school the option of developing a program of focused activities which may center around a theme. The goals of focused activities are to promote a community of learning among parents, staff and students\nto provide enrichment opportunities at the schools\nand to ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the area schools. The parties also wish to continue a related program. the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program for the area schools. The Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program provides up to $75,000 for each area school over a three year period to fund programs which will improve the education of all students and reduce student achievement disparity. The Court approves continuing the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program, which the district will evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognizes the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of. the original focused activities feature of the plan. Focused activities will -24-continue to be an option for area schools, may center around a theme, and will operate according to the original plan which provides for community and parental involvement and allocation of funds. an annual Junior High Schools The parties propose to eliminate from language concerning the possible construction the settlement plan of a new junior high school, leaving only \"planning\" for additional junior high capacity. Evidence presented at the hearing indicates that the LRSD is experiencing serious capacity problems at its junior high schools, with four of the district's eight junior highs at or above 100% capacity. (See Exh. # 27, attached). When this case began. there were three junior high schools located in the eastern or central sections of Little Rock: Booker, Dunbar, and Mann. Within the last few years, all of these schools have been converted to magnet schools. Dunbar and Mann have remained junior highs and Booker is an elementary magnet. Consequently, those children (most of whom are black) living in the east and central city have been largely displaced from that area's junior highs and must bear an unequitable burden of transportation to attend high schools in the western sections of town. nonmagnet junior Moreover, when capacity of the junior high schools is inadequate for the number of children eligible to attend them and the buildings become overcrowded, these schools are rendered unattractive to parents who hesitate to place their children in an environment that offers less than optimal learning conditions. -25-The Court does not approve the modification. The language of the plan does not require the LRSD to build immediately a new junior high school but it does obligate the parties to conduct careful review of junior high capacity and its immediate and long term impact on programmatic needs and/or intradistrict and M-to- M needs, If results of the study, based on current and complete information, indicate that construction of a new LRSD junior high school is necessary, the Court will require the district construction timGlinss and. procGdurss  Incentive Schools to submit Reserved Seating and Parent Recruitment - The parties propose change in the plan that would allow the district to place black children in vacant seats which had been reserved for white children at the kindergarten and pre-kindergarten levels in the incentive schools. Mr. James Jennings testified that the district now fills a a any unclaimed reserved seats after the first week of school. The Court is concerned about the impact of this change. When seats intended for white children are instead filled with black children, desegregation at the incentive schools is seriously impeded. No matter how successful subsequent recruitment might be, once seats at a particular grade level are filled with a racially imbalanced enrollment, the imbalance tends to persist at that grade level as those students matriculate from one year to the next. The parties have pledged to desegregate the incentive schools with aggressive and sustained recruitment of white children, including the strategy of targeting geographic neighborhoods for recruitment -26-to a specific incentive school and stressing group preference as an assignment option. In order for this type of group recruitment plan to work, there must be seats available at the incentive schools. In their June 1990 Joint Brief for Appellants, the parties explained to the Eighth Circuit that the incentive schools would be desegregated in phases \"through combination of white recruitment into the Incentive Schools. and by reserving a a ^.siqnated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. Joint Brief for Appellants at 36, Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89- 2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 90-1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90- 1580) (emphasis original). First of all, the number of black students identifiable schools will be reduced in racially automatically through the plan. Our target is to reserve fifty percent of the seats in the incentive schools for white students each year, beginning with next year's kindergarten class. A certain number of those seats will be reserved whether or not the white students show up. And that number, we have discussed in the past with the Joshua Intervenors. The fifty percent target will work if all of our schools are allowed to go forward with the construction schedule of inter-district schools. If not we would still retain, at least, the district average of whi\u0026lt;.e students who would reserve, at least, that many seats throughout the entire six years, so that if, three or four years from now, a group of white students decided to go to the fourth grade at Rockefeller School, would be available for that purpose. That is our target. show up. If not. seats Id. at n.64. Provisions of the interdistrict plan target the ideal racial balance of the various types of LRSD schools: interdistrict schools -27-at 50 percent black/white with a variance of 60 to 40 percent of either race\nmagnet schools at between 50 and 55 percent black\nand area schools at an enrollment of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. While the plan does not identify a specific target racial balance in the incentive schools, the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit require that a racial balance at the incentive schools be 50 percent of each race, at least in the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten levels. This proportion is to guide the district in the number of seats which are initially reserved for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. The Court will reluctantly allow seats reserved for white students to be released after a reasonable period only if timely. vigorous, and sustained recruitment efforts to fill the seats with white children are unsuccessful. These recruitment efforts must be thoroughly documented by the districts to the extent that the Court can determine that--the parties are diligently trying to recruit white students to the incentive schools before any reserved seats. releasing The parties also propose to modify their plan language so as to limit the LRSD's incentive school recruitment efforts to potential kindergarten students. Such a change would allow the _ ^The Court, recognizes that the Eighth Circuit has defined racially identifiable black elementary school in LRSD as\nelementary school that is 81% or more black (rounded in LRSD \"a any uuc is ex-5 or more black (rounded up or down to the nearest whole number) .\" _ Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 339 f 2d 1296 1988) . ' 1307 (Sth Cir. -28-LRSD to diminish efforts to recruit students into grades one through six and the four-year-old program in the incentive schools. Such a restriction would place a heavy burden for desegregating an entire school upon only one grade level. Given the plan's emphasis upon desegregating the incentive schools and the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit of the plan's \"automatic\" desegregation features, the Court does not approve restricting recruitment to potential kindergarten students. The Court is mindful that all parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregation of the incentive schools. Although the Court will carefully monitor interdistrict collaboration in support of desegregation of all schools, it will pay close attention to the efforts directed toward the incentive schools and particularly scrutinize the LRSD's efforts to carry out diligently the incentive school recruitment activities as outlined in the plan and detailed in the LRSD Incentive School Marketing Plan, a strategic plan referred to by Mr. James Jennings at the hearing. The Court encourages the parties to implement any additional recruitment measures that will aid desegregation of the incentive schools as a whole. The Court is pleased to note that marked progress is being made in desegregating Rockefeller where the school's overall student enrollment is 31% white for the current year. Also encouraging is the present racial balance of the four- year-old classes (48% white) at Franklin. Progress at these two schools holds forth promise that desegregation of the incentive -29-schools ultimately can be achieved or at least significantly increased. The Court encourages the district to analyze the success factors that are contributing to the desegregation of these two schools to enhance desegregation of the remaining incentive schools. Pupil-teacher ratio and classroom aides ~ The plan describes in detail a wide range of special features which are unique to the incentive schools. These enhanced programs, activities, support systems, and funding levels are compensatory and remedial in that they are intended to help children overcome past discrimination and boost student achievement. They also are designed to promote racial desegregation by attracting white children to these predominately black schools. The Eighth Circuit has underscored the importance of the many special incentive is important for the settlement plans to be school aspects: \"It scrupulously adhered to and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools...\" 921 F.2d at 1386. Among the distinctive incentive school features is a pupilteacher ratio that is lower than that of other LRSD schools. In the 1989 plan, the parties promised that the incentive schools would have a maximum pupil-teacher ratio of 20 to one. This ratio is consistent with the February 9, 1988 opinion of the Eighth Circuit which states that \"the most important element of the compensatory and remedial programs should be the reduction of class size in the racially identifiable black elementary schools to 20 -30-pupils per teacher,\" Little Rock School District v- Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296, The low incentive school pupilteacher ratio 1307 (Sth Cir. 1988) . was again stressed by the Eighth Circuit in its order of December 12, 1990: \"A salient feature of these [incentive schools] would be a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one.  921 F.2d at 1379. The school district has used this reduced ratio in marketing the incentive schools, promising a \"low pupil/teacher ratio: small classes of 20:1 which provide more time for teacher interaction with students\" in a LRSD recruitment brochure which was used to attract new students to the incentive schools for the 1990-91 school year. The LRSD's Incentive School Strategic Marketing Plan for 1992-1997, published in May 1991, enumerates the many strengths and benefits of the incentive schools, listing among them smaller class sizes, lower student-adult ratios. and an instructional aide for every classroom. Clearly the LRSD has represented to the courts and to the community that incentive school students. teachers, principals, and parents could expect that the children would be taught in smaller classes with pupil to teacher ratios lower than that of other schools, indeed lower than that by state accreditation standards. required Yet language in the plan creates confusion about the twenty to one ratio and the number of students that actually will be seated in a classroom. The 1989 plan states that \"there may be more than 20 students per classroom. however, there will be certified aide in each class and possibly a second teacher in those -31- aclasses.\" (LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan, May 1, 1991, p. 256) In their June 1990 Joint Brief to the Eighth Circuit, the parties reaffirm their commitment to a \"specific and detailed\" plan for the incentive schools and state that \"Incentive Schools would have a maximum effective pupil/teacher ratio of 20:1 by placing a second teacher or certified instructional aide in each class with more than 20 pupils (where classes of that size were permitted by state law).\" Joint Brief for Appellants at 43, n.76. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89-2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90-1580). 90- Earlier, in its Objections to the Findings and Recommendations of the Special Master, filed with the district court in May 1989 and included in the Joint Designated Record on Appeal, the LRSD had addressed the ambiguity of the plan that promised a 20 to 1 pupilteacher ratio but also allowed more than 20 students to a classroom: The Special Master expressed concern at an off-the- record conference that the pupil/teacher ratio was beina rnanrrorl 4_____ . _ . . changed to twenty-five to though the maximum class one. LRSD explained that even size would be twenty-five students, the pupil/teacher ratio would remain at twenty to one. LRSD provided the example of four classrooms with twenty-five students and one full-time teacher in each classroom. A full-time language arts teacher would be assigned to work with those four classrooms, overall ratio of one hundred students to five teachers or twenty to one. The Special Master indicated that such an arrangement would be acceptable provided that teachers and not certified aides were used to achieve the to one ratio. for an twenty Joint Designated Record, Vol. II at 2767, Little Rock School -32-District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89-2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90-1580). 90- At the January 1992 hearings on proposed 1989 plan revisions, this Court noted Eighth Circuit orders which specifically refer to the twenty to one ratio. Responding to this Court's concern about what the parties had represented to the Eighth Circuit regarding the incentive school pupil-teacher ratio, the LRSD lawyer indicated that the Eighth Circuit's order of December 1990 was based in part upon oral arguments made before the judges in June 1990 when the parties explained the difference between a class with a maximxim of 25 students and a pupil-teacher ratio of twenty to one. The lawyer stated that \"Judge Arnold is not a judge to waste words in an opinion, and the issue was before him concerning the difference between class size and pupil-teacher ratio. And we explained that we would have a class size with a maximxim of 25 students but an effective pupil-teacher ratio based on a total staff devoted to those students of 20 to one.\" However, this Court's review of the Eighth Circuit's own audio tapes of those oral arguments reveal that. while there was discussion of double funding and other aspects of the incentive schools, there was no reference whatever to the size of incentive school classes nor the pupil-teacher ratio. The numerous extraordinary features of the incentive schools have been represented to the Court and the of substance and not of mere semantics. community as a matter This Court finds that -33-sBBsasiQ^sssEaEgB^e^s^E Si providing a smaller-than-usual class size in the incentive schools was intended in the settlement agreement as a means to promote both academic achievement and racial balance in the schools. The Court notes that to have anticipated placing up to 25 students in each incentive classroom would have been a violation of Arkansas accreditation standards which permit an average of 25 students per elementary classroom only in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. Recognizing that language in the settlement plan allows for more than twenty children in a classroom. the Court orders that the maximum individual classroom enrollment at incentive schools will be as follows: 18 students in four-year-old classes. as agreed by the parties\n20 students in kindergarten, 23 students in grades one through three. and 25 students in grades four through six. class sizes which are consistent with certain of the state's accreditation standards. fi This Court is mindful of the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on the reduction of class size in the incentive schools to 20 pupils per teacher and that Court's caution about reducing the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools without significant justification. In order to effect a low pupilteacher ratio as provided in the settlement plan, the Court orders that there be at least one full time instructional aide per incentive school classroom in those schools where any classroom contains more than 6 The table on page 254 of the LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan concerning capacity at incentive schools is being modified in accordance with this Order. -34-20 students. the district should choose to reduce class size to a maximum of 20 students in kindergarten through sixth grade classroom in an entire incentive school, the Court will allow that school to have two instructional aides for every three K-6 classrooms. In any case, an appropriate number of supervision aides will be provided at each incentive school, regardless of whether there is one instructional aide per classroom or, in those schools which elect to have no more than 20 children per K-6 classroom, two instructional aides per every three K-6 classrooms. Infomnation presented at the hearings indicated that over half of all incentive school classrooms presently have more than 20 students. The Court is sensitive to the tremendous disruption that changing schools causes for children and their parents. In adjusting to reduced class size for the 1992-93 school year. the Court will not require that students currently enrolled in the incentive schools be transferred mandatorily to some other school. Children attending an incentive school during the 1991-92 school year may remain at that school until they move on to junior high or voluntarily transfer to another school. No new student shall be enrolled in an incentive school if that student's enrollment would cause the ordered class size limits to be exceeded. However, the Court is willing to permit an exception if the new student's enrollment would improve racial balance. Academic Programs - Given the importance of parental involvement. the Court does not approve a change that would remove the requirement for the district to develop a parent component model -35-and incorporate it into the district's four-year-old program. The Court will approve a proposed change in the four-year-old program content model from the designated High/Scope Curriculum only if the shift is to comparable developmentally appropriate curriculum model which continues to foster the active and independent of each child. learning The Court is not convinced that school themes at the incentive schools should be deleted from the 1989 plan and does not approve their elimination. The Eighth Circuit has stressed the importance of parental involvement. School themes, developed at the local level by parents and staff, provide an important avenue for community participation. Themes have proven their value in magnet schools as successful desegregation tools which offer a focus for enrichment activities. help give schools an identity and individuality, and provide parents with more options for their children's education. Moveover, considerable money, materials, and personnel already have been invested in thematic development at the incentive schools\nit will be a wise use of resources to continue to build on the thematic foundation which has already been laid. The parties propose to modify the plan to allow science laboratories to be either mobile or permanent. The modification would release the district from the requirement to have traditional laboratory in separate room reserved for that purpose. The district has cited lack of adequate space for housing permanent laboratories in some of the incentive schools as the basis of this proposed change. The Court is reluctant to approve a a a -36-modifications in the plan that stem from lack of planning foresight on the part of the parties, as is evident with the science laboratories, but will allow mobile science laboratories in those incentive schools where adequate space for a full size permanent science lab is not available. The mobile labs must be fully equipped so that students using them receive the same range and high quality of experience as students who are taught in permanent labs. At the August 1991 hearing on the motion for partial stay. LRSD Superintendent Dr. Ruth Steele stated that preparation of Parent Home Study Guides was linked to the completion of the district's new Computer Managed Instructional Technology and related cxirriculum reform. The Court allows the modification to delay development of Parent Home Study Guides. However, the guides must be completed and ready for parental use at or before the beginning of the 1993-94 school year, the date the district has indicated it will complete the guides. The LRSD seeks to eliminate its commitment to establish foreign language laboratories at each incentive school. Because children cannot be expected to achieve a degree of foreign language proficiency without the practice and reinforcement afforded by a language laboratory, the modification is not allowed. The Court notes language contained in the parties' joint brief filed in June 1990, enumerating the wide array of activities, enhanced programs, and support mechanisms that would be available at the incentive schools. The Eighth Circuit has emphasized the importance of the -37-incentive schools and this Court will not allow the district to diminish the scope and quality of the schools' instructional programs and enrichment activities. Year Round School The 1989 agreement offered year round school and summer school at all incentive schools. The parties propose to modify the settlement plan by replacing year round school with an extended-year program and providing summer school at possibly only one site. The Court approves the change but notes that there is a significant difference between a traditional summer school which emphasizes academic remediation and an extended-year program which may include remediation but also adds a variety of enrichment opportunities that enhance and extend children's learning beyond the regular school year. The parties remain obligated to provide incentive school children with summer learning experiences that go beyond the customary basic curriculxim of an ordinary summer remedial school. The extendedyear program for incentive school students must be located in a facility or facilities with \u0026lt; sufficient to accommodate all of the eligible students who attend the program. capacity wish to Washington Attendance Zone - The parties propose to add language offering certain incentive school educational services, such as extended day activities, extended year activities. and a scholarship program, to students who reside in the Washington attendance zone but cannot attend that school. The parties' July 25, 1991 stipulation indicates that these services are available to students who are enrolled in Washington. The parties' positions -38-are unclear. Before the Court will approve the modification, the parties must provide more details, such as: 1) the status of the LRSD's plan to include these newly- eligible children in the incentive school extended-year, and scholarship programs\nextended day, 2) whether the LRSD has budgeted the money to underwrite incentive school services for additional students. e.g., transportation. after-school snacks. materials and supplies, additional personnel to satisfy the staffing requirement for Homework Centers, and so forth\nand 3) how communication will be coordinated among the staff at Washington, staff at the incentive schools. and parents in order to develop individual Student Education Plans and otherwise assure continuity of services for the Washington students who elect to take advantage of proposed provision. this The Court will not approve the modification until details are forthcoming. Camp Pfeifer - Provisions throughout the parties' plans obligate , them to make use of community resources (such as New Futures and the Cornerstone Project, discussed above) which aid overall progress toward desegregation goals. Camp Pfeifer is a type of residential alternative program for children needing additional assistance in order to be successful students. The parties propose to add wording to the effect that district students will participate provided the funding of the Camp Pfeifer continues and -39-the program meets the needs of the students. The Court allows the new language with the understanding that the change does not relieve the parties from their obligation to manage their relationship with community agencies in all good faith with careful attention to maintaining ongoing communication, cooperative teamwork, and complementary support. The parties are wise to join with the community in strong working partnerships to build a solid support network for children. The Court will monitor changes which the parties may wish to make in their relationship with such community resources as Camp Pfeifer, New Futures, Cornerstone, and others to determine the impact of those changes on desegregation. In further considering the parties' reliance on various community resources, the Court notes that the parties have added language making the continuation of several programs contingent on the availability of outside funding. For example, in the Interdistrict May submissions (p. 415) and in the LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan (pp. 10, 41, 46, 166, 304) , programs and services provided through such agencies as JTPA, HIPPY, Camp Pfeifer, and local cable education access channel are to continue only if other funding is available. The Court allows the modifications but stresses that funding availability refers only to the particular programs. The parties' obligation to provide comparable services is not negated by the unavailability of other funding. -40-Program Specialists and Other Recommended Positions - The parties propose to delete the positions of specialist for alternative classroom and program specialist and to base the position of assistant principal on enrollment. The Court disapproves the deletion of the program specialist in each incentive school as the position is necessary to support the thematic emphasis required in each school. In addition, the Court does not approve the language which would make student enrollment the sole determining factor for including an assistant principal as part of an incentive school's staff as there are other indicators of a school's need for the position. The district must place an assistant principal, or any other staff position which has been recommended in the plan. in accordance with equitably meeting the identified needs of the staff and students in a particular school. For example, an assistant principal may be needed to help with the additional documentation. services. and enhancements that are required at the incentive schools. An assistant principal can serve as a classroom observer and program monitor to assure the sustained quality of the incentive schools. As stated in the plan, positions recommended for each school are not all inclusive since additional or different positions may be identified during the needs assessment process. The district must make decisions regarding recommended staff positions based upon criteria linked to a current needs assessment of an individual school. this vein, the Court does not approve removing an alternative classroom specialist from the list of recommended staff and requires the district to determine the need -41-altsmativs classrooms and establish them where necessary to serve students who will benefit from the specialized alternative setting. staff Development - The parties propose to create at each incentive school a staff development committee composed of Instructional Resource Center specialists, teachers, parents, principals, and other administrators as appropriate. Because there is great value in parents' taking active part in all aspects of the incentive schools, the Court approves the school-based staff development committees. This change will provide an avenue for frequent parent input into the operation of the schools since the plan requires the committees to meet on a monthly basis to plan activities related to meeting the needs of students who are achieving below acceptable levels of mastery. The functioning of these school committees will be supported by the incentive school coordinator and staff development department which must ensure that there is a smooth transition from the LRSD Staff Development Planning Committee as originally provided in the plan to the individual development committees. school staff Incentive School Curriculum - The Court allows the deletion of the requirement to develop curriculum specific to the incentive schools. but if the regular core curriculum is used in the incentive schools, it must be amplified as necessary to properly incorporate and support the thematic emphasis of each incentive school. It will be appropriate for the district to seek parent. teacher. and other school staff input into the development of -42-curriculum that will incorporate individual school themes and serve the specific needs of students attending the incentive schools. Consultant/Monitor The original plan called for the Special Master to appoint a consultant/monitor to make quarterly- evaluations and recommendations to the Special Master. changes replacing the Special Master with The Court approves the the Court. It does not approve the language requiring the Court's Monitor, who directs the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), to make at least quarterly visits to all schools in the three districts nor to report to the Court on a quarterly basis. The ODM is an arm of the Court which is responsible only to the Court. Its schedule and activities are not determined by the parties. None of the language in the plan's Consultant/Monitor section shall be construed as a comprehensive description of the appropriate function of the Monitor nor shall it limit the activities of the ODM. Such determinations are reserved for the Court. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Court determines that the modifications proposed by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) the guidelines set forth by the Eighth are in conformity with Circuit. The changes concern details and adapt the original plan to existing circumstances. The Court notes, however, that the NLRSD plan makes reference to and includes a voluminous appendix. While the Court -43-questions the current significance of some of the documents included in the appendix, the NLRSD plan attached to this Order includes the appendix as presented by the parties modified plan. as part of their SUMMARY The Court hereby approves the revised plans as attached to this Order. The Little Rock School District is ordered to file with the Court, within 3 0 days from the date of entry of this Order, a Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan. It is further ordered to file within 60 days from the date of entry of this Order a plan for the entire academic support program that is proposed to take the place of PAL. In addition, as this Court previously ordered on January 21, 1992, the LRSD must submit within 30 days from the date of entry of this Order a revised budget. The parties must file any motions for clarification and/or modification of this Order by May 14, 1992. DATED this 29th day of April, 1992. JNITED STATES DISTRICT JI UNITED JUDGE -44-TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS December 18, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs SUBJECT: Remediation - Reading/English, Math, Science, and Social Studies Provided is additional information to suppon our argument for providing remediation within the regular classrooms and reducing pull-out programs 9 . Students educational programs should not be implemented in isolation. . Facilitates the reinstitution of tracking of students by their supposed academic potential as most remedial classes are more than 90% black. . Proposal institutes more cooperative learning among groups of young people with varying abilities. . Allow teachers to team teach in more flexibly-designed curriculum blocks that integrate several disciplines rather than presenting students with disconnected, rapidly separated 50-minute subjects. . Train teachers to acquire a repertoire of teaching strategies that will enable students to acquire skills in learning how to learn, problem solving, and communication skills. . Existing staffing decisions and the program deliver/ model need to be reviewed and revised in accordance with our revised curriculum. . Existing compensatory and remedial programs rarelv teach the development of higher-order skills. . The amount of time recommended in each content area bv ADE and National Association for Accredited Schools is prohibitive to student mobility in completing course requirements for graduation (20 credits) as well as devoting recommended time in each elementary discipline. EXHIBIT 19 ARemediation - Reading/English, Math, Science, and Social Studies Page 2 . Students are prevented from benefiting from panicipation in electives. Remediation becomes punitive and is resisted by students and their parents. Remedial and compensatory education services must be provided as additions, otherwise, providing remedial services in lieu of would be considered supplanting by our accrediting agencies (ADE and NCA). SCHEDULES Elementary Level Subject Recommended Time Grades 1-3: Language Arts Mathematics Social Living (science, geography, history, economics, health/safety Creative Recreation (art, music, P.E.) 180 min. daily - 900 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly 60 min. daily - 300 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly Total 330 min. daily - 1,650 weekly Grades 4-6: Language Arts Mathematics Social Studies Science Creative Recreation 150 min. daily - 750 weekly 60 min. daily - 300 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly 30 min. daily - 150 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly Total 330 min. daily - 1,650 weekly Secondary Level A minimum of 50 minutes per class is required with the exception of some vocational courses. Most of our classes are 55 minutes in length. Students must acquire a minimum of 20 credits to graduate and, by ADE statute, must exit school by age 21. The amount of time allocated to complete course work will not allow pull-out programs in all core areas.TO\nFROM: SUBJECT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 11, 1991 Ruth Steele, Superintendent Long Range_Building Planning Committee James Jennings, Associate Superintendent BradyGadberry, Labor Relations Specialist Sterling Ingram, Director, Chip Jones, Manager of Planning, Support Services Research \u0026amp; Eval : ucng Range Building Planning Coanittee As we have considered the building dis.._c. schools, recommended uses of vacant buildincs. and secondary capacity. of buildings, X . School Sites The District currently owns-- four properties pouentia_ as sites for new or expanded schools, have Deen held with Philander that have fifth site. Smith College for Discussions a possible (a) One site is located at th e present Westside camous. Westsioe property is only a few blocks from 1-630 areas of the City and County acjacent to Arkansas Childrc ' \"   - accessible to all t: ve and o (b) c: ,inc-n\ns\\ already expressed located near them. xs xas en's Hospital (ACK). AC.H r enthusiastic support for a school support for xOr joint use of the prooertv develop a partnership to needs of children. They also would like to develom olans _ sc that LRSD and AC.H  serve educational and health , . P-p-iininary site plans indicate that f a capacity of 656 K-6 students and 40 four-year-olds for a total located on the sit two-story building with e. use of space, but offers exiting facility. w 11 or 696 students can be This plan will require efficient the potential for a unique Rockefeller School is located on a tract well-suited for expansion. and of land that is Ample space is available for P-vide seats for students , school is also easily accessible and has been successful in attracting student Citv. east s from all over the EXHIBIT 27Ruth Steele June 25, Page 2 1S9 1 ! II. (C) (e) The current Stephens site is adequate to support a school for approximately 656 K-6 students and 40 four- students for a total of 696 students. The year-old current Stephens building would be replaced with a new structure. Rebuilding Stephens on the current site enables a site significant number of black students .to attend school without being bussed out of the neighborhood. to The site the former Kinc/Oakhurst physically attractive location situated east of Field . fortner School is a of Curran- Conway Field. The King site is also large enouch to accommodate approximately 840 K-6 students and 40 feur- .year-olds .fo-r a total of S80 students. The King site is also attractive because of its proximity to Curran-Conway Field. The District would seek to enter into a joint-use agreement with the City so that the students will develop interests in a variety of extra-curricular activities. Field. st In order to populate a school on the King site, it be necessary to transport some black students from predominately black will one attendance zone to predominately black attendance zone which would i the burden of busing-for-black students. another ncrease Philander Smith College has expressed an interest in developing a model teacher education training orocram and would like to develop a partnership with the District. They have rejected cur proposal to build a school on their campus, but we should continue to plan to develco cooperative efforts with Philander Smith'. Attendance Zone Data - Elementary Schools This section will address the attendance zone changes that are needed to objectives. First, King phens Schools will be rebuilt in the 1-630 Corridor. \u0026lt;St comply with two First, and schools will become interdist These Ct schools, and they will have a racial balance of 60 percent blac.k and 40 percent white. The white population in these schools will come primarily f^cm PCSSD. Second, bussing the District on zones as possible. is seeking to reduce the burden black students by eliminating as of many satellite The fulfillment of this objective is restricted by the minimum black percentage that is required in tul elementary area schools. As a result, some schools in all west satellite Little Rock must maintain some, if zone blocks in order to comply desegregation requirements. not all, of their with court-ordered c:\\fnemos\\: . wodRuth Steele June 25, 1991 Page J two objectives x..ese zwo cojectives are interrelated. The construction projects will make it possible for students who live attendance zone of incentive/interdistric in the --- schools to attend these These projects will also, to some reduce the burden of bussing on black students. schools. extent, A zotal of 2190 students currently reside in the attendance zones of the incentive schools. The total capacity of the seven incentive schools is 2405, r*' of 1:25. Although 215 vacancies will The total 1:25. using a teacher/pupil ratio exist if all azzendance zone students attend the incentive schools, of the vacancies can be filled by students who currently nearby satellite.^ zones.   reside in satellite these zones allow the respective attendance zone A total of 281 students that can be eliminated reside in currently and s i 1 1 0 minimum desegregation schools to comply with This requirements. situation is complicated by the fact that 200 of the 281 satellite students live near the Stephens/Garland area. Ar her se azzendance zone. rious problem involves the Washington Magnet School Washington is the only elementary magnet zone,- This zone was drawn initiallv to accommodate 1050 incentive school students. school with an attendance converted to a Desegregation Plan. magne school The Diszric under the The school^was Tri-Distric,t recently received czu^z oval to continue to operate Washington as a magnet school. T..e attendance zone for Washingzon is too large to accommodat an of e the black students. Washington's capacity is are 892 black students who reside in the Washington The desegregation requirement for Washingt,.. As a result, only 60 percent '(488) of the black- a zendance zone studenzs nay attend Washington. 404 students must reassigned to non-attendance schools.  from eas e Washington's azzendance zone. is 60% black. 404 mus be 814 . ^n to The remaining zone These reassignments usually involve busing students t Little Rock to southwest Little Rock. Most of the 404 students from the Washington attendance (235 studenzs) reside on the northeast edge of the District. The closest elementary schools to these students are Carver- Magnet School, Booker Magnet School, and Rockefeller Incentive School.  zone The magnet shadow preferences for Carver and Booker (25 percent of building capacity) are too small to accommodate these students. percen the are small c: \\fnemos\\blscf\u0026gt;r.2. wpdRuth Steele June 25, 1991 Page 4 Ill. Attendance Zcne Data Secondary Schools In a separate process, calculate capacities for from' fomnula has a formula been developed secondary schools. to It is apparent .the study that very little capacity exists currently che junior high level and a significant amount of caoac at  , . - -----wt caoacitv exisus the highs. However, the District seems ti n.aye reached the peak of junior high enrollment in 1990-91 and that enrollment will decrease for a couple of years begin to increase again slightly in 1993-94. indicate that senior high enrollment will in the senior highs. However of the Distric and then IV. 'ext five years but not to the extent . The projections increase over the is required. required in 1992-93 that additional capacity However, adjustments to attendance zones mav be iQ-)Lno _'_______ or subsequent years. (See Attachment 1) While educational trends indicate that articulation between seventh grades, eighth to ninth grades, and ninth to sixth o tenth grades is best with a grade s 9-12, appears that the it District ucture of K-6, changing its secondary grade struc secondary capacity problems. should not 7-S, and consider re as a means for solvin Junior high enrollment will range, from 93% without the additional seats for' the juni 90% to 94% rest r to 102% of capacity .------- junior high schoois\"an,d with the proposed construction. Heights is expected to exceed the The enrollment a ... - - -- ----- -- current building capacity in 1993-94 and continue to increase in 1994-95 1995-96. Tne enrollment will range from capacity with the proposed construction. At The 37% to 97% and of Southwest Junior gh iu appears' that replacing 4 portable classrooms, 2 classrooms, . , - - ----------, adding and utilizing 3 classrooms in.the PDC will be the maximum advisable construction and-will provide additional space for attendance zone students. The other junior high school that should be expanded is Mabelvale. - -  Replacing the pori.able c...assrooms and building 4 new classrooms will provide adequate space for Mabelvale and southwes much of the growth is occurring. Little Rock, where 1990 Census The Office of Desegregation is presently involved in analyzing A map overlay has been prepared that black/white population count for each census tract. The 1980 Census data will be added to the facilitate comparisons of data by race and each census tpact. the 1990 Census data. map overlay to tn a total population in Preliminary comparisons the population trends that expected to continue. were evident seem to indicate In particular, in 1930 can be the. population in c: \\memos\\i:l dcomZ. updRuth Steele June 25 Page 5 1991 central and east Little Rock will continue to decline, and the population in portion of southwest and northwest Little Rock will continue to increase. it 1 did was recently announced that the original 1990 census count include 5.3 million ..persons. Our analysis of the no original census data for Little Rock Our analysis seems to confirm that ese figures are too low. We are in the process of obtaining e revised census counts. It should be noted, however, that e revised counts have not been.,approved by the U. Bureau. S. Census Further analysis,\nwill be needed to identify trends in specific geographic areas. each census block. The next step is to analyze the data for several census blocks. (Note: Each census tract is made uo of The census block data report * has approximately 700 pages.) In addition to examining census block data, another map overlay will be drawn for the attendance zones. There will probably be numerous discrepancies between the boundaries for the census tracts and the boundaries for the attendance zones. In such cases, the census block data will be usedto determine the exact number V. of students in a particular attendance zone. T.ne census map for 1990 is not the same as the census 1930 . Most of the changes in map for he boundaries for the census tracts occurred in southwest Little Rock and the western edce of the City. These differences will have to be reconciled in order to be able to make valid comparisons. Professional Development Cente For many years, SU I oort tie the District's instructional specialists and functions have been spread across Little Rock with chance for a coordinated instructional management The Math, Reading, Science, Staff Development, Social and English Departments are currently located in the former Lee School Building, now called the Instructional system. Studies, Resource Special Education, Gifted and Talented, Pupil Services, and the Student Hearing Officer, are located in the District's Annex Building on West Markham, and Library Media Services is currently located at Franklin School. Center (IRC). Health Services, Markham, c: \\mcmos\\blscom2 . upd Ruth Steele June 25, Page 6 1991 For several years, the District has been concerned about the physical condition of the IRC building, but the District has not bad opportunity to provide a satisfactory solution^ Trr Dictritt Desegregation Plan In the Tri-District    i I f d Magnet was proposed for Southwest Junior High. a University Lab -  . . -  As a result of ...IS proposal, the District chose the Southwest site for a new professio.nal development center that would provide state-of- the-art administrators. drawings of instructional space for students, teachers, and An architect for the District has develooed students, VI. provide a two-level 45,000 s\u0026lt;^are foot building which will - uf instructional specialists, a space for all of the multiple purpose auditorium, ctional specialists, . a professional library, wcrk/production r^ooms for teachers, classrooms, instructional classrooms, generous techrtology labs,\"an instructional management - . center, and many Ou.'er functions. The professional development center will be located south of Southwes er functions. Street. facility (PDC) Junior High along Sryant The District considers the construction of critical to improving the potential this new ,  -  r--------- for sLal cevelopment for the District's teachers and administrators. (The PDC has been designed so that it \u0026lt;__ additional junior high seatsif necessary. Dcr-.-icus currently occupies Services School. can be converted three classrooms The relocation of Library Media to Library Media at Franklin Services to the Professional Development Center will'allow Franklin's caoacitv to increase by 75 students.) Other Properties The^ District currently has several buildings that are not suited to meet the instruction goals of .the District, buildings or sites that do not fit several buildings tha The into the long range plans of the  are the former Gillam School, Eastside ' Auditorium, the former King/Oakhurst School, and the fonaeT- Lee School (the current IRC).  he orium, District School, and the (a) Gillam School - The District currently leases of the building to Watershed, Inc. a majority . - - Rental income oavs approximately 66% of the operating cost of the building. The is located on Confederate Boulevard in Little Rock. Preliminary Requests for Proposals being developed to attempt to sell the property to site Preliminary Requests east are profit agency. a non( b) Eastside Auditorium - The auditorium a Eastside has not ysed^ for many years. The other portion of the building is used primarily for Adult Education. The auditorium is in very poor condition and is not been for Adult Education. of without significant and very expensive habitable renovation.Ruth Steele June 25, 1991 Page 7 Eastside Rockefeller. is located near 1-630 and 1-30, not far from (c) Lee School^ (IRC) - The Lee School Building is in very condition, and the District should find new the staff housed there as soon as The site would not be appropriate for a school because of traffic congestion and its limited poor facilities possible. VII. Recommendations  1) Direc - The Lee School Building is the District housed find soon size. our attorney to prepare stipulations to proceed .with rebuilding Stephens School at its present location and new King school at the old Westside site (14th Marshall Streets). and Stephens will have a capacity of 696 (including 40 four-year old students). addition to the present attendance area of zone blocks 0573, 0441, 0572, 0574, 0583, part of the McDermott lite zone (zone block 0562) will be added Stephens School. During the construction of the students four-year old In 0441, 0574 , 0583 , part 0562) Stephens, the const current students reassigned to the closest schools will to new be available. temporarily The new attendance zone for Stephens will have approximately.. 370 K-6 students. The new King School will have a capacity of 69 6 students (including 40 four-year old students) .* zone for King School will The attendance blocks: consist of the following zone 0442, 0443, 0445, 0446, 0459, 0458, (from the current Mitchell attendance zone). 0444, 0457 0439 (from the current Rightsell attendance zone) 0438 (from the current Jefferson satellite zone) The boundaries for the new King School are 12th, High, 16th, and State attendance zone Streets. The new attendance zone for King School will have approximately 380 K-6 students. In order to comply with the racial balance requirement for interdistrict schools, 40 percent of the seats at the ' r    ..w s, (,.1C new Stephens and the new King Schools have been reserved for white students.. This primary responsibility for recn at each school. means that PCSSD will have ting 40% of PCSSD will have he stude recruitment efforts to meet t' to s goa 1 . implement In addition s ma] or toRuth Steele June 25, Page 8 1991 recruitment to interdistrict schools, PC serious attention to the recruitment of PCSSD needs to give 2) the elementary magnet ipulation allows PCSSD to fill current s schools. more students to The magnet elementary magnet seats. 33.7 percent of the During the 1990-91 school year, PCSSD represented 23 percent of the total elementary magnet population. students percent the If PCSSD is unsuccessful the District will Garland school(s). in fulfilling its obligation, recomme^id closing Rightsell afford to reseirve seats The Distric will and/or not be able to for more than a year once the new _sc..ools .are* constructed. The number of seats to be reserved is approximately 500. The number of If PCSSD sends 500 M to M students to LRSD, approximately $2.0 million of will be generated to pay for school coeraticns. tesezrved seats are not filled by MtoM students. District will not be able to schools when school. seats are revenue If the the afford operating separate available to absorb an entire When the new King School is close Ish School and Mitchell and Rightsell. revise available for occupancy, the attendance. zones_^for The new attendance zones for Mitchell will be the following zone blocks: 0472, 0485 0451, 0452, 0453, 0476, 0477, 0479 , 0430, The boundaries' for 'the new Mitchell School attendance zone are 28th, Wolfe, 37th, and State Streets. Also, small area bounced by Roosevelt Road, Battery, 29th, High Streets, and a small area bounded by 22nd Street, a and Howard Street, Roosevelt Road, and High Street. ' attendance zone for Mitchell School will approximately 340 K-6 students. The new have The new attendance following zone blocks: zone for Rightsell will be the 0448, 0450, 0449, 0454, 0464, 0473 The boundaries of the new Rightsell 16th, High, 28th, and State Streets. a zone students. for Rightsell will have ttendance zone are The new attendance approximately 282 .X-6 Assign zone block 0553 to Jefferson and zone block 0552 to Forest Park.Ruth Steele June 25, Page 9 1591 4) Add approximately 270 seats to Rockefeller classroom addition. Move zone blocks 0210, and 0121 from the Washington with an 11 5) 6) 7) 8). 9) . Rockefeller attendance attendance 0111, zone 1 to 0112, the zone. The boundaries for this area are the Arkansas River, Interstate 30, part of East 13 Street, and part of East 6th Street. This area has approximately 135 K-6 students. ill be districts. filled by white The remaining 135 seats students from the three During the construction of the new Stephens, the curre students will be temporarily reassigned to the closest ,available.schools . For the schools that are vacated or for sites no longer utilized by the district, we will issue offering circulars to established non-profit organizations to seek we issue competitive proposals for the buildings. tr.d intended use -  Offering price 2nd of the property will be among the evaluation factors. The sites that should be offered immediately _ for sale or lease are Gillam School, Lee School (subject to court ^approval for building the FDC) and Pankey. * ors.  among the Direct attorney to prepare stipulations approval for a building replacement at Forest Junior High (as previously submitted to the Court) with a net increase of 6 classrooms, a 6 classroom addition to Southwest Junior High to replace 4 portable classrooms :or a net increase of 2, and a classroom addition, with a net increase of 4 classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High. our prepare seeking Heights ted to the Court) wi Direct attorney to prepare a stipulation approval the construction of a professional development center near Southwest Junior High. our for a a seeking LRSD, the other parties, and the Magnet Review Committee will study the of shadow preference for Booker, Carver, Consideration will be given to reducing the number of neighborhood students who are displaced by the current assignment process used for use and Gibbs. will be given students who these schools. assignment process usedMann jr.it i\u0026gt;iaoN4\u0026gt; P-.a*K K\u0026gt;\nnt6 Ss-iiwes\nM am Cemal UsCella.') r aif\\-e* Cent! al Fair Kall McC)i:an Parkvt* Aeiossaae Cioacify 733 959 59* 692 702 *50 S.656 67 653 959 i,7\u0026lt; 692 603 751 *50 6.C39 1.691 934 1.218 1.085 5.5*6 1.891 90* 1.216 1.065 450 400 5.9*6 LRSO long-Sange Ar.encance Zone Pi Conaifwo^n 0\u0026lt; Nw Seal* 1W2-93 1993*M 795 74 9 1.C21 M9 702 631 764 0 5.SS1 795 7*9 1.C21 6t9 7Z2 -/A 831 764 0 5,551 1.751 918 1.088 1.221 0 *.966 1.751 918 1.066 0 4.966 1 C2 1 CJ 1 0 1 ifi 1 01 1.C2 0.00 0.96 0.93 0.56 1.06 1.C2 1.01 1.03 1.02 0.39 0.92 74 7*2 977 641 679 BM 605 0 5.5*9  Cl , Cl 1 02 ns 0.96 1.2 1.07 0.00 0.96 f? 799 1 C?3 Ml MS 914 627 0 5.701 CcMiucJier Ne* Statt 781 7*2 977 681 679 66* ks 0 5.\u0026lt;37 0.91 0.67 1.02 1.01 0.96 1.10 1.07 c.oo 0.90 612 799 1.023 661 665 91* 627 0 - 5.701 VAihout Conciruetion ot A\u0026gt;o*eact Snio( H^h Sctiooit C.93 1.C2 0.69 1.13 e.c: 0.90 0.93 1.02 0.89 1.13 0.00 0.90 1.825 1.C2 1.916 985 1.09 1.C26 1.069 1.339 5.338 5.90 1.23 5.00 0.96 1.0*3 l.*C2 0 5.38* Win Conatrueiion ol Aiopaee Snor Hifh Senoo)* 1.925 1.02 1.916 965 1.09 1.C26 1.389 1.339 0 5.338 - Sai.o on cu.i.nt ntoUm.nn 0. an.noanc. ion. (so,, noi \u0026gt;.ll.ct .nioUmani, Oy icnool). - S.ai, lo\u0026gt; Im.ioiatnot Uagn.i Scnoo at. count.d in io\u0026lt;al caoacily. Out no .luo.nt. at. .non lot in, - No .iio.anc. Ka, o..n mao. lo. u-io-u iiancl.i, a iniiaamtnci o.\u0026lt;.g..gatK\u0026gt;n i.an.l.... =age 1 0.90 1.23 0.00 0.96 1.0*0 1.402 0 0 5.36* 'jec'.icns  09 1 C7 C.9 1.30 0.00 1.01 5.95 1.07 0.96 0.9 1.10 c.oo 0.94 1.01 1.13 0.5S 1.29 c.oc 0.97 1.01 1.13 0.86 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.91 1.C35 *53 697 919 634 0 5.759 634 1.C35 653 657 919 0 5.759 1.530 1.439 0 5.451 1.561 1.030 1.021 1.439 0 0 5.451 995-S t C3  .C 1.0* 1.13 1 Cl 0.00 1.02 C.96 1 06 0.97 1.01 c.oo 0.95 1.C4. C.F* 1.33 5.03 0.98 1.0* 1.1* 0.6* 0.00 0.00 0.92 1.X7 1 35 6*3 7C3 6*9 612 0 5.M9 626 1.0C7 5*3 703 6*9 612 0 5.\u0026amp;9 1.973 1.03* 1.573 1.034 1.001 0 0 5.4*9 1 Zt 1 Z2 0.00 1.00 C '^7 0.95 1 22 1.38 C.9* 0 2 0.58 0.62 0 00 0 05 ) achooi* \u0026amp;cau they n* nc aiienaance\none.XiX. Timeiifies Litiie Hock School District Building Plan Timeline Court AppfcvaJ qI Building Plan AMtgn arehiiectc RockalatUr Stephan* King Fores Haighla Southwest Mabalvala POC Working Drawings Prepared Aockelaiiar r Stepheng Xing Forest Heiphts Southwest MaOeiviJa POC Cpoiracts Awarded Rockaiallar Sephans King ....... Fores\nHeights Southwest Mabalvaia Relocation of Saphang' Sudanis Consinjclioo Phaea Rockelailar Saphans King Forest Haights Southwest MaPalvaia POC Occupancy Rockefeller Saphans King Forest Heights Souihwast Mabaivilia POC Spring Fail Winiw XXX XXX  XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 1M1 XXX XXX XXX XXX  XXX XXX XXX 1M2 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Spring 1602 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Summer 1M2 XXX XXX XXX XXX Fll 1002 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX \\Vinier 1003 XXX XXX XXX Spring 1003 XXX XXX XXX Sommor 1003 XXX XXX . Fall XXX XXXIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 93 JU 30 PH 5: IP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPL : HTS.CL.\n: PLAINTIFF V. BY_ _ _ _ LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the following budget documents required by the Court's June 15, 1993 Order: 1. An updated 1993-94 tentative LRSD budget document which includes: A. By school or department, budget detail showing function code, object code, and FTE that incudes any changes from the 1992-93 budget as to additions. deletions. and i reinstatements\nB. Also by school or department, 1991-92 actual expenses. the 1992-93 budget, 1992-93 unaudited actual expenses. and the 1993-94 budget\nC. Any other summaries and budgets shown in the table of contents of the tentative budget document. 2. A LRSD budget summary projecting revenues and expenses for each of the next five fiscal years which reflects annual incoming settlement monies (and any settlement loan funds the district anticipates drawing). The summary must also include anticipated yearly M-to-M revenues. 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 Bar No. 8108 .ristopher CERTIFICATE 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 30th day of June, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ristopher Hell . -X ' * .it'- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1592 Offics of Qessgi yui !n Mor:'ior-t'} LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING On January 21, 1992, this court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit certain information concerning its desegregation budget. The required budget information was filed on June 1, 1992. The budget projections which were previously submitted have now been revised based on current information. The revised budget projections are attached to this Notice of Filing. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Helfer Bar No. 81083 kaihyiNoticB of FilialCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992: 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 #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher He knihy'Noikx of Filing 2 LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Revised 7-30-92 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation Monitoring (ODM). with the Office of Desegregation Although the LRSD implemented the TriDistrict Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. 2. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD committed to the programs of Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed is 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. the as precise commitments of funds. it is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more costeffective ways. It The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be Consequently done with certainty. For the purpose of these projections, it is assumed that annual step and experience increases will be provided to all employees. We have also used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. The LRSD Board of Directors adopted a balanced budget for 1992-93 on July 23, 1992. None of the budget reductions will prevent LRSD from implementing its Desegregation Plan. modifications to the Desegregation Plan proposed by LRSD and The approved by the Court for Henderson and McClellan, however, will have to be adjusted in order to implement the proposed budget reductions at those schools. At this time, the LRSD takes no position as to the necessity for a millage increase. The reasons for taking this position are as follows: A) B) C) It is not practical to rely on a millage increase in the near future to balance the budget. The LRSD's ability to fund long-range capital improvement projects is linked to the issue of extended millage. The LRSD Board of Directors must set its priorities and develop a long-range plan priorities. and budget around these It is assumed that capacity for the incentive schools will be limited to a ratio of 20 students to 1 teacher. The projections show in summary the revenue and expense of the most significant federal programs.LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 8. Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. 9. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. We believe most of this is planned for. covered with second-lien issues possible extended millage. Any additional improvements will be or from bonds secured by 10. The 1993-94 reduction 11. 12. 13. Programs, equipment. reflects in program Some funding the completion #10, Academic Support is maintenance of this equipment. added of payments for PAL for replacement and The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not provided separate accounting codes at this time. This means that cost information for implementation must be extracted from other budget line items. The opening dates of the new King and Stephens Schools shown as approved by the Court. are The fifth and sixth positions (from the left) of the LRSD standard account code desegregation expenses. will be used for identifying The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. 14. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified, known \"start up\" costs are as follows: The A. Academic Support Program $1.0 million ends in 1992-93 B. Data Processing $.25 million in 1992-93 and $.50 million in 1993-94 through 1996-97 C. Four-Year Old Programs $34,500 for five new programs and $30,000 for playground equipment No other significant \"start up\" costs are projected. 15. Because of the new reporting codes used for 1992-93, reconciliation between 1991-92 and 1992-93 program budgets is The District will provide any specific answers which may arise because of the change in accounting coding imperfect. structure.Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. Each budget manager will submit a proposal for spending allotted funds. These proposals will be conjunction with the Desegregation Plan audit. reviewed in Once specific plans for spending have been proposed, the Superintendent will prepare a proposal for Board approval. In addition the Superintendent will prepare a process for requiring Board approval for changes in planned expenditures above a to-be determined spending authority. Once the types of expenditures have been programmed, the Purchasing Department will not be authorized to issue a purchase order except for those items programmed and approved. D. The Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process. E. The Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct a proposals. Desegregation Plan audit and related budgetLITTLE FIOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN UEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 39,088,120 21,694,578 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 40,093,227 22.453,744 4,577,692 144,200 309,000 226,914 484,050 309,000 102,874 41,416,117 23,196,645 4,615,022 148,526 318,270 229,183 508,253 318,270 104,932 42,786,512 23,966,307 4,753,473 152,982 327,818 231,475 533,665 327,818 107,030 44,206,276 24,718,335 4,896,077 157,571 337,653 233,789 560,348 337,653 109,171 TOTAL 64,998,181 66,559,408 68,700,700 70,855,217 73,187,080 75,556,873 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,419 15,350 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 TOTAL 88,769 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 28,394,849 8,094,112 73,419 1,500,000 903,594 240,873 3,000 3,300,000 575,436 3,600,000 718,517 29,814,591 6,042,591 73,419 1,545,000 993,953 252,917 3,000 3,564,000 604,207 5,200,000 740,072 31,305,321 3,829,942 73,419 1,591,350 1,093,349 265,563 3,000 3,849,120 634,418 5,460,000 762,274 32,870,587 683,125 73,419 1,639,091 1,202,683 278,841 3,000 4,157,050 666,139 5,733,000 785,143 TOTAL 48,670,683 46,367,563 47,403,799 48,833,751 48,867,755 48,092,076 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 9,385 129,428 394,675 40,000 262,000 600,000 35,000 272,480 400,000 30,000 283,379 300,000 25,000 294,714 200,000 20,000 306,503 100,000 TOTAL 533,488 902.000 707,480 613,379 519,714 426,503 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,291,121 113,913,390 116,896,398 120,386,766 122,658,968 124,159,872UTTLEFIOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-37 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996-97 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER 3,272,693 224,423 558,810 1,076,226 4,474,288 215,020 569,986 1,097,751 4,563,774 219,320 581,386 1,119,706 4,655,049 223,707 593,014 1,142,100 4,748,150 228,181 604,874 1,164.942 4,843,113 232,745 616,971 1,188,240 TOTAL 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL REVENUE 119.423.273 120.270.435 123.380.584 127.000.636 129.405.115 131.040.941LITTLE KICK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 072992 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994- 95 1995 - 96 1996- 97 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES, SUPPLIES, EQUIP. DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 66,364,271 9,208,546 19,148,407 14,972,774 9,090,123 600,000 67,691,557 9,254,588 22,515,161 15,421,957 8,845,248 700,000 69,045,388 9,300,861 23,246,037 15,884,616 8,258,921 800,000 70,426,296 9,347,366 23,732,324 16,361,155 8,041,468 900,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 112.604,098 115,872,561 119,384,121 124,428,511 126,535,823 128,808,608 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL EXPENSES 131,624,091 136,395,260 140,317,274 145,780,327 148,314,675 151,023,037 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,687,023 (1,959,171) (2,487,723) (4,041,745) (3,876,855) (4,648,736) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,321,865 362,694 (2,125,029) (6,166,774) (10,043,629) ENDING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 (2.125.0291 (6.166.7741 (10.043.6291 (14.692.3651 FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 3.874.971 5,833.226 6.956.371 INCREASE(DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE RECORD LOAN REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTIONS (1.959.171) (2.487,723) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (4,041,745) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (3,876,855) 2,000,000 3,000,000 (4.648.736) 3.000.000 ENDING FUND BALANCE 362.694 3.874.971 5.833.226 6.956.371 5.307.635 * $1.5CX3.OOO recorded as revenue in 1992-931105 1110 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA KINDERGARTEN 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 2410 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 3000'S 4000 5100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER SALARY 138,077.08 2,760,904.00 28,381,519.29 3,989,261.59 4,023,283.53 1,013,772.90 1,143,799.80 2,570,622.02 2,667,369.46 198,491.86 3,895,984.12 287,255.96 COMMUNITY SERVICES NON PROGRAMMED BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OPERATING FUND 79,415.14 347,089.07 6,024,779.24 1,354,685.45 1,158,370.16 697,588.87 253,127.76 183,211.79 1,174,153.77 1,631,966.93 446,175.31 1,983,094.66 19,318,518.35 2,161,066.34 740,723.24 32,450.45 7,950,100.01 DESEG 94,937.48 6,072,099.95 10,538.70 107,559.18 35,631.06 1,589,524.16 309,073.21 1,479,959.60 441,244.35 107,262.02 1,041,101.85 465,561.53 504,079.83 3,738,667.07 TOTAL FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL 302,717.88 338,788.30 130,394.89 3,123,267.62 55,541.49 371,072.25 301,061.72 88,318.56 429,905.44 8,567,902.51 276,198.03 592,044.13 5,333.69 181,901.87 658,847.84 414,539.17 4,792.23 302,192.60 114,004.58 1,207,390.15 1,050,413.66 503,364.75 51,070,341.61 45,536,516.54 15,997,239.99 5,132,152.12 13,887,841.24 312,429.70 3,537,898.51 49,046,300.99 5,933,401.65 6,220,045.30 863,614.82 5,985,026.13 1,564,454.95 5,083,769.09 6,494,896.88 1,174,230.08 7,193,730.95 21,414,826.09 2,913,883.83 1,546,995.67 7,950,100.01 131,624,091.50Prg # Pa# Description 1 5 2 5 5 28 6 28 7 39 Hippy 4 Yr Old Programs Student Hearing Officer Office of Desegregation Extra-Curricular 8 44 Teacher Recruiter 9 46 10 48 12 63 13 82 Staff Development Academic Support Multicultral Programs Incentive Grants 14 86 15 114 16 129 17 129 18 143 19 148 21 148 22 224 24 227 25 1-9 Original Magnets Sp Ed Learning Center Security Data Processing System M-to-M Magnet Schools King School Stephens School Monitoring Activities Computerized Transp Romine Theme 26 93 27 34 28 35 Community School In-School Suspension Job Fair 29 28 32 106 33 1-56 34 131 35 125 Testing Assistance Library Services Parent Recruiting VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction Plant Services 49 00 To Be Allocated Incentive Schools: 51 149 Office of Incentive Schools 52 152 53 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 54 153 55 153 56 153 57 154 59 158 61 171 64 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 65 172 Extended Year 66 176 72 190 73 193 74 194 75 153 Incentive/Recognition Staffing Staff Development TeK:her Stipends Other Academic Programs SUB-TOTAL INCENTIVES GRAND TOTAL SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET Unaudited 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 214,295 278,772 284,347 290,034 295,835 301,751 811,591 88,332 452,998 31,072 45,924 400,069 2,846,490 164,490 658,575 3,738,667 56,291 703,830 200,727 354,920 0 0 373,686 0 17,267 295,276 914,101 4,063 0 588,441 22,367 62,714 0 268,247 0 13,314,433 261,482 1,096,193 1,325,132 2,682,807 15,997,240 1,202,033 1,238,094 1,520,236 1,810,843 1,847,060 99,087 101,069 103,090 105,152 107,255 433,133 441,796 450,632 459,644 468,837 0 0 0 0 0 42,204 43,048 43,909 44,787 45,683 447,446 456,395 465,523 474,833 484,330 2,785,221 1,840,925 1,877,744 1,915,298 1,953,604 240,315 320,000 3,800,000 110,307 617,038 411,583 721,442 0 0 391,495 10,000 85,816 115,000 748,258 1,500 11,350 716,504 27,000 65,863 5,000 200,000 13,886,365 63,147 15,000 15,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,500 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,664 17,013,029 245,121 320,000 3,876,000 112,513 629,379 773,930 543,085 2,603,300 0 399,325 10,200 87,532 115,000 763,223 1,530 11,577 730,834 27,540 67,180 5,000 200,000 15,927,943 65,041 15,450 15,450 15,450 7,725 5,150 868,890 38,625 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 61,285 231,750 56,650 3,220,464 19,148,407 250,024 255,024 260,125 320,000 320,000 320,000 3,953,520 4,032,590 4,113,242 114,763 117,058 119,400 641,967 654,806 667,902 789,409 805,197 821,301 553,947 565,026 576,326 2,655,366 2,707,000 407,311 10,404 89,283 115,000 778,487 1,561 11,809 745,451 28,091 68,524 5,000 200,000 19,198,082 66,993 15,914 15,914 15,914 7,957 5,305 915,557 39,784 21,218 583,171 275,834 22,809 970,535 63,124 238,703 58,350 3,317,078 22,515,161 2,708,473 2,761,140 415,457 10,612 91,068 115,000 794,057 1,592 12,045 760,360 28,653 69,894 5,000 200,000 19,829,446 69,002 16,391 16,391 16,391 8,195 5,464 943,023 40,977 21,855 600,666 284,109 23,494 999,651 65,017 245,864 60,100 3,416,591 23,246,037 2,762,643 2,816,363 423,767 10,824 92,890 115,000 809,938 1,624 12,286 775,567 29,226 71,292 5,000 200,000 20,213,235 71,072 16,883 16,883 16,883 8,441 5,628 971,314 42,207 22,510 618,686 292,632 24,198 1,029,641 66,968 253,239 61,903 3,519,088 23,732,3243 NOV IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION filed NOV 0 51992 0iiiC3 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK By.. DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 26, 1992, the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") submitted to the Court for review and approval a budget for the 1992-93 school yeeir for the six original magnet schools. (Document #1609.) On July 31, 1992, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a Special Status Report setting forth its operating budget for 1992- 93. (Document #1649.) At a hearing on August 3, 1992, the Court heard testimony on budget reduction proposals by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Some of those cutbacks resulted in staff reductions at the magnet schools. The Court, with some exceptions. approved the LRSD's proposed reductions in an order filed on August 4, 1992. On September 28, 1992, the MRC wrote the Court, expressing its concern about certain LRSD budget cuts. It also addressed staffing changes at two of the magnet schools which resulted in a white principal and assistant principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School and a black principal and assistant principal at Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet ElementarySchool. (Document #1693.) The MRC complains that the LRSD failed in its obligation to work with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. The LRSD filed a response to the MRC's letter, basically arguing that the role of the MRC has changed since the establishment of the magnet schools during a period of the \"controlled choice desegregation plan. It contends that the MRC's role now is to recommend policy decisions which must be communicated in writing to the par\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_267","title":"Budget, court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Western District)"],"dc_date":["1992/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Budget, court filings"],"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/267"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["prints (visual works)"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER filed 1993 OARL fl, Sy.-. / clerk oep. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS During a hearing on July 8, 1993, the Court asked the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to provide an update on the status of the district's desegregation plan audit. The Court has repeatedly l expressed concern about this audit because of its crucial relationship to the district's planning and budgeting processes. The audit. which is an inventory of all the district's obligations contained within the desegregation plans and related court orders, is to serve as a basis for the district's long-term program and budget planning. It will enable the district to determine not only what it is required to do, but also to ascertain the status of progress toward implementing each requirement. In response to the Court's inquiry at the July hearing, Mr. Sterling Ingram, Director of the LRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, testified that he is in charge of conducting the desegregation audit. a task which was assigned him by the superintendent in March 1993. He stated that he expected the desegregation audit to be ready by August 1993. At the hearing, the Court once again stressed the importance of the audit and expressed  9 -1 J concern that it would be as late as August before the audit's completion. The Court directed the LRSD to provide the audit as soon as possible to the Court, the LRSD Board of Directors, and the other parties. The Court also directed Mr. Ingram to meet immediately with the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, Mr. Bill Mooney, to discuss information that would expedite audit completion. Again, at a hearing to consider the LRSD budget on August 12, 1993, the Court inquired about the status of the district's desegregation audit. In response. the district offered a memo (Exhibit 164), dated August 3, 1993, documenting that the meeting with Mr. Mooney had taken place. The LRSD also submitted a Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report (Exhibit 162) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors at its regular monthly meeting on July 22, 1993. The progress report indicates that the audit was not yet complete at the time of the board meeting. Mr. Ingram, whom council identified as the district's lead planner. testified that the plan audit was still not complete as of the hearing date, but that he expected to finalize it soon. This important audit process is taking far too long to conclude and is, thereby, impeding the progress of other critical program and budget planning processes. Superintendent Mac Bernd told the Court on February 1, 1993 that the audit was underway. although later evidence revealed that Dr. Bernd did not even commission the audit until March 1993. Now, almost six months later, the audit still is not complete despite assurances from the district in both July and August 1993 that its conclusion was imminent. Even though the Court -2-recognizes that certain follow-up aspects of the audit will be ongoing, the initial audit must be complete before other aspects of program and budget planning can be developed. During the August 12, 1993 hearing, the Court praised the LRSD for beginning to make planning headway, all the while stressing that the district had only made a beginning and that diligent follow- through and continuous execution would be necessary. The LRSD does not appear to have take that admonition to heart. The Court hereby reguires the district to submit immediately the desegregation audit it has promised for so long. If the audit is still incomplete at this time, then by 5:00 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of this Order, the district must file the following: (1) a complete and succinct list of the audit process steps that are complete and those that remain to be completed\n(2) the precise timeline for completing each of those unfinished steps\n(3) the person(s) responsible for each of those steps\nand (4) firm a completion and submission date for the audit. The Court reminds the LRSD that it and the other parties are reguired to provide simultaneously to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring a copy of any submission to the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of September 1993. ^ITED STATES DlSTRICO\nt judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP -3- ON BY_Vreceived IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coOfeG 3 ^993 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF LRSD BOARD INVOLVEMENT The plaintiff. Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or District\"), for its Notice of LRSD Board Involvement, the order of this Court, states: pursuant to 1. On November 16, 1993, an order was issued and filed directing the Board of Directors of the LRSD to file a report outlining how the Board was being involved in the LRSD budgeting process, how the Board was preparing itself to make specific budget decisions, how the Board's approval was being sought and received, and outlining which specific line item budget transfers the Board had approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August, 1993. This filing is intended to be responsive to that order. 2. As an attachment to the order. the Court included excerpts from the transcript of a July 8, 1993 budget hearing. In the order, this Court specifically referred to comments by a Board member that he hoped the Board would know by Christmas 1993 what Irsdpul.notbudget cuts to make in order to address the anticipated deficit for the 1994-95 school year. However, by virtue of the manner in which personal and real property taxes are assessed, collected and paid in the State of Arkansas, and the manner in which Pulaski County administrators notify school districts of the funds which will be available to them from those tax collections, District administrators are not in position to provide the initial a financial forecast until after that information has been obtained from the County administration. assessed and analyzed. The information from the State of Arkansas regarding minimum foundation program aid to the respective Districts will not be available until even later in the 1993-94 school year. It is also necessary to place the referenced comments by the Board member into the proper context. Mainly, by order dated June 15, 1993, this Court required the LRSD to begin the development of a planning process that would be used by the District to develop its 1994-95 budget. Prior to the July 8 hearing, the LRSD had been required to submit certain information responsive to that order. The June 15, 1993, order also required the LRSD to develop a written action plan to demonstrate how it would develop a long- range planning and budget process. That action plan had to be filed on or before June 28, 1993. The action plan was timely filed and the LRSD was in the process of developing a written plan for the long-range planning and budgeting process at the time of the July 8 hearing. The Court had required that written plan to be Iradpul.iKX 2filed by July 30, 1993. Accordingly, at the time of the July 8, 1993, hearing the LRSD had neither developed, analyzed, adopted nor submitted its written plan for the long-range planning and budgeting process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget. Subsequent to the July 8 hearing, the LRSD continued its efforts to develop a written program planning and budgeting process. 3. In developing the planning and budgeting process, representatives of the LRSD conferred with the budget specialists which had been appointed by the Court to assist the LRSD in budgetary matters. Those conferences took place in early July, 1993. At that time. the LRSD was advised that the budget specialists had reviewed the order of this Court and developed a draft paper detailing how many of the requirements of the order could be satisfied. Working from that draft paper. and in conjunction with the budget specialist, the LRSD developed the program budgeting and planning document eventually filed by it on July 29, 1993 . During hearings on August 12 and 13, 1993, regarding the LRSD budget, the LRSD presented testimony outlining the process used to develop the long-range program planning and budget document. Additional background on this process can be found in the LRSD's 1993-94 First Quarter Status Report filed November 3, 1993. on 4. The program planning and budgeting document filed on July 29 constituted the LRSD's response to the June 15, 1993 order of this Court requiring a detailed written action plan for the Indpul.mM 3long-range planning and budgeting process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget. That order specifically required the LRSD to \"clearly describe the roles in the planning and budgeting process of the School Board, the superintendent, the superintendent's cabinet, and any other key participants. 11 Prior to the document being filed, the LRSD Board of Directors met on Wednesday, July 28, 1993, for the purpose of assessing, analyzing and adopting the process as developed from the budget specialists' draft paper. 5. Since adopting the program planning and budgeting document, and explaining its workings to this Court during the August 12 and 13 budget hearings, the LRSD has endeavored to utilize that process to develop the 1994-95 budget. In fact. pursuant to the order of this Court, the LRSD has now worked with the Court-appointed budget specialists to identify and purchase software and put in place a project management tool to guide. monitor and control the development and implementation of its planning and budgeting process. The District has filed monthly reports with this Court for the months ending August 31, September 30, October 31 and November 30. To its knowledge, the LRSD is on target with the timelines established in the program planning and budget document as further refined by the project management tool. 6. In assessing Board involvement in the budgetary process, the LRSD would submit that the Board has been involved in accordance with the process outlined in the program planning and budget document as well as in accordance with the refinements made 4 IrtdpuJuK*through the project management tool. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is true and accurate copy of a report submitted by the a superintendent of the LRSD on behalf of the Board of Directors. The response attempts to address each guestion posed by this Court as well as provide listing of the Board's activities and involvement in the planning and budgeting process, is incorporated herein by reference. That document 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum reflecting the budget activities which occurred immediately after the July 8, 1993 hearing. As reflected in that memorandum, the Board of Directors met at 7:00 a.m. on Friday, July 9, 1993, for purposes of providing the administration with a direction and guidance for budgetary revisions to be presented by the administration to the Board. That document is also incorporated herein by reference. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum to the LRSD Board of Directors dated July 28, 1993, giving notice of certain matters regarding the budgetary process. This memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. Of significance to this filing. please note that in the second paragraph, it is reported that the LRSD Board of Directors decided to meet each Thursday during the month of July for purposes of budgetary matters. This is merely illustrative of the commitment this Board has demonstrated during the budgetary process. In fact. the Board has continued to devote a substantial number of hours to the District and its operation. lndpul.oo( 59. It is anticipated that the Board of Directors will continue to be involved in the budgetary process as outlined in the program training and budget document, the project management tool and as circumstances otherwise permit or require. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of LRSD Board Involvement has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3^ day of December, 1993. --- Jerry L. Malone 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 Irsdpul.not 6 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 Jerry L. Malone IradpuJ.oM 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 30, 1993 TO: Jerry L^J^lnne FROM\n1. tarns, perintendeni SUBJECT: Response to Recent Court Order The Board of Directors remains committed to quality implementation of the Court- approved Desegregation Plans, Monitoring Reports, and other Court Orders which include our July 30, 1993, filing. The July 30, 1993, filing presented the districts long- range planning and budgeting process. The Board thoroughly reviewed and examined this document prior to the filing. District staff were questioned extensively by Board mernbers to ensure staff had outlined a planning and budgeting process that would the Board to be involved on ........ .................................... an allow ongoing basis in developing the 1994-95 budget, as well as future district budgets. The document was basically an adoption of a process suggested by Bill Mooney, the Court-appointed budget specialist. Questions Posed by the Court 1. 2. Report on how the Board is being more involved in the budget process. The Board is following the process as adopted in the July 30, 1993, Court filing (see Attachment A for specific activities). Report on how the Board is preparing itself to make specific budget decisions. Board members have requested specific reports and information from the Superintendent and staff in order to stay fully informed and involved. A special report is to be provided during our December Board meeting. Staff has been asked to review the planning and budgeting process that is outlined in the July 30, 1993, filing (see specific activities in Attachment A).Response to Recent Court Order Page 2 3. 4. Report on how the Boards approval is being sought and received. The Superintendent keeps the Board informed of all major activities that have implications for the existing budget and the projected 1994-95 budget. The Superintendent and Board President either meet or confer on a regular basis to address desegregation and budgetary issues, as well as the routine day-to-day activities of the district. Staff provide assistance and information to various Board members through routine written and/or oral requests. Identify which specific line item budget transfers the Board has approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August, 1993. Three specific line item budget transfers will be considered for approval by the Board during a special meeting on December 2, 1993. Business cases have been developed for review and approval by the Board to allow the budget transfers for the following programs to be implemented: Program/Project Amount Transferred Truancy Reduction Program Special Assistant to the Superintendent Garland Multimedia Technology Theme - $ 58,943.00 $ 60,000.00 Phase One S 75,000.00 These programs will be funded as follows: Truancy Reduction Program: The police resource officer program was not fully implemented. The projected increase in students attendance will have a positive impact on funds received by the district from the state through an increase of student average daily membership. (Students will benefit academically and socially by attending school on a regular basis.)Response to Recent Court Order Page 3 Special Assistant to the Superintendent: Funds currently budgeted for positions not filled will be used pay for this position. A projected increase in federal funds to the district will pay the future salary of this employee. Indirect costs generated by the acquisition of federal funds should allow the district to expand the grant writing team. Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme: Garlands staff has been advised to develop a proposal for the expansion of this project that can be presented during the budgeting process for the 1994-95 school year. Funds were generated from a one-time only carryover, plus existing funds in Garlands incentive school budget. Future phases of this program will follow the process outlined in the July 30, 1993, filing to the Court. The Board remains committed to living up to its obligations as identified in the planning and budgeting document.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS DATE July 8, 1993 7 a.m. July 27, 1993 ______ activities/INVOLVEMENT Discussed with Cabinet, Bob Morgan and Bill Mooney (Office of Desegregation Monitoring) in order to givedirections to staff for reduction of three million dollars from 1993-94 budget. Designated the lead planner from Planning Research, and Evaluation ' Discussed/reviewed approved July 30 uxscusseu/reviewed approved July 30, 1993, Court submission and \"Program Planning and Budget Document, II including the budget calendar RESPONSIBILITY Board of Directors Board of Directors Board of Directors August, 1993 Appointed two Board members to participate in work sessions to establish Mission Statement and tentative goals I Dorsey Jackson August 31, 1993 Participated in the work session Board of Directors Developed Mission Statement and tentative goals Dorsey Jackson/ Katherine Mitchell September 9, 1993 Participated in work session - Board Agenda Approved Mission Statement/tentative Meeting. Board of Directors goals.  Reviewed: issues related to needs assessment Desegregation Program Inventory Report Mission Statement/Goals Established guidelines for determining written priorities for the annual budget (1994-95)  Reviewed and provided guidance related to proportional allocation formulaLittle Rock School District Board of Directors Program Planning and Budgeting Process Page 2 September 9, 1993 cont'd Considered strategies for funding shortfall  Identified/approved program for \"fast track evaluation\" Provided input regarding public forums September 15, 1993 September 23, 1993 November 18, 1993 October 11 October 26 November 10 November 16 November 30 Participated in planning and budgeting activities: support I Little Rock School District/City of Little Collaborative Effort Rock Raised issues/gave additional direction to staff regarding Desegregation Update (School Operations section of Program Budget Document) to staff Raised issues regarding the resolution of financihq projects with Office of Deseoreaation Mnniiny-inrr and district staff of Desegregation Monitoring Raised issues regarding a comparison of staffing and staffing patterns for 1992-93 and (numbers, costs) 1993-94 Requested a report for our December 17, meeting on the projections for the as well as deficit shortfalls 1993, Board 1994-95 budget, Requested a review of the Budget Planning Document for December 17, 1993 Board Meeting Attended Public Forums: Cloverdale Elementary School Parkview Magnet High School Bale Elementary School Forest Heights Jr. High School Rockefeller Incentive School I Board of Directors John Riggs Katherine Mitchell Bill Hamilton Board of Directors T. Kevin O'Malley Pat Gee Dorsey Jackson John Riggs John Riggs Board of Directors ITo: From: Subj ect: Date: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR Board of Directors 72201 'Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent LRSD 1993-94 Budget Revisions July 22, 1993 Thursday, July 8, 1993, the United State District Court, instructed the Little Rock School District to revisit the 93-94 LRSD Budget to consider further reductions through adjustments to recurring expenditure budgetary items. The District was also advised to reductions through adjustments to if any. The District was also advised to consider reducing the reliance, if any, placed on non-recurring revenue sources used to achieve the balanced budget submitted to the court by the LRSD. Prior to the Court adjourning on Thursday, July 8, a rccccc was taken to allow all of the parties, in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to meet and confer regarding a schedule for considering and making the requested budget revisions. A timetable was discussed and agreed upon whereby the LRSD (in consultation with representatives from the O.D.M.) could make the necessary budget review and revisions, if any, obtain LRSD final Board members actions and file any revised document with the court by 6 p.m. on Monday, August 2, 1993. a recess was any Hearings on the LRSD budget were set to resume on August 12-13, 1993. announced Still under the impression that the court would meet regarding the LRSD budget on Friday, July 9, as had been previously announced, the LRSD Board of Directors, administrators and representatives of O.D.M. agreed to begin their meetings on Monday, July 12, 1993, at 7 a.m. Upon returning from the recess, the court was advised of the schedule which had been agreed upon by the parties and O.D.M. In consideration of that schedule, the court, thereupon, announced that the hearings which had previously been set for Friday, July 9 would be canceled. Acpordingly, the parties and O.D.M. agreed that the meetings between and among them would begin on Friday, On Friday, July 9, 1993, the Board of Directors met with me and other administrators to provide direction and guidance for the additional budgetary revisions to be presented to It by the administration. Also in attendance were Mr. Bill Mooney, Court-appointed budget specialist for the LRSD, and Mr. Bob Morgan, with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. July 9 at 7 a.m. \u0026lt;2.Board of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 2 with the advice and input of representatives from O.D.M. ----------------------------- v^.r^.ri., the LRSD Board of Directors instructed the administration of the LRSD to consider ways to reduce or eliminate, if possible, the LRSD's need to rely upon the proceeds from the desegregation loan (a recurring revenue source) in the 1993-94 budget. To accomplish this, the Board directed the administration to consider approaching Rock Classroom Teachers Association regarding the possibility of a one percent salary roll back during the 93-94 The administration was also directed to consider whether across-the-board cuts could be made in the areas of materials/services/supplies (i.e. four percent or less). Other the Little school year. could made four percent or less), areas to be considered were identified as follows: - Abacus Program - Staffing Efficiency - Ish Closing - Reinstatements non- Following the two-hour meeting with the Board of Directors, administrators held various other meetings during the day to consider the LRSD budget and various other desegregation related , Particularly, Sterling Ingram and LRSD attorney, Jerry Malone, met with Bill Mooney regarding the LRSD desegregation plan (On Thursday, July 8, the court directed Mr. Ingram and Mr. Jerry Malone to meet with Mr. Mooney to provide a status update From the meeting, it was apparent that Mr. Ingram and Mr. Mooney had already reached agreement on various matters relating to the program inventory needed for proper implementation, evaluation, and monitoring of the desegregation plan process. The program inventory will also play a critical roll in the development of the LRSD budgetary process in accordance with the process outlined in the June 15, 1993 order. issues. audit. regarding the audit.) Board General consensus was reached regarding the purposes to be achieved through the audit procedure developed by Mr. Ingram to accomplish those Ingram reported that inquiries have gone out to the purposes. various program managers to establish the status of implementation on the various program elements. This information is now being returned and compiled by the Office of Planning and Evaluation. On Thursday, July 8, ,1993, the court suggested that the LRSD , uLixy o, uiie court suggesrea mat the LRSD now has an opportunity to consider ways to become more efficient in its staffing and, thereby, achieve significant cost savings. Board also the administration to consider staffing efficiency as an element in the budgetary review process. In accordance with those instructions, on Friday, July 9, 1993, the LRSD administrators (along with Bill Mooney) met to finalize the plans which were already in process to fill the Human Resources Director position. directed to The LRSD 1993, the I also announced other efforts being made to ensure that a greater staffing efficiency is achieved during theBoard of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 3 93-94 school year. . - Particularly, I have enlisted the services of Victor Anderson, principal of Hall High School, to address staffing issues at the secondary level, an expertise in this area. Dr. Dr. Anderson has exhibited Brady Gadberry, our current Human Resources/Labor Director, will continue his efforts to obtain the current Relations continue his efforts to obtain maximum benefit from transfers, reassignments, and new hire process. Your were to make every effort to staff based on This will be particularly critical in meeting the s affing needs of the new King Interdistrict Magnet School. Hopefully, this process will become somewhat instructions enrollment. 4.-  , - , , --------- ---more clear now that District knows that Ish Incentive School will be closed during trie 93-Qd cnbnnl mu-\u0026gt;4- ______t j ____ ___ _ _ _ the 93-94 school year. process. That could play an important roll in this Later on Friday, July 9, Mr. Malone and I met with Mrs. in the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. i:__ in agreement that the LRSD could not and would Ann Brown Mrs. Brown and I were 1 could not and would not seek to delay Its efforts regarding the Desegregation Plan during the interim I Superintendent. In fact, due to my long-term tenure with the LRSD and my administrative background with the District . . obtain the level of team support necessary to implement the process for opening schools. In addition, my familiarity with the Desegregation Plan, will serve to ensure that no loss of momentum occurs. Mrs. Brown and I also discussed matters such as: - Incentive Schools - Staff Organization - Attendance Zones - Position Control - Magnet Schools - Staff Development - Curriculum - Monitoring/Reporting Procedures ' 1553, I convened the LRSD Council to continue revision process. I gave instructions to those in assigned tasks to be accomplished in accordance with the schedule imposed by agreement of the parties and O.D.M. process. Based on the foregoing, it appears that we consider whether any further budget reductions\nthat we are on target to ensure that a revised document, along with any necessary business it are on target to It also appears that are possible for the cases, willBoard of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 4. be filed by Monday, August 2, 1993. Since being appointed Interim, I have also held conferences with various program managers, Directors, and other administrators including, not limited to. Director of Plant Services Procurement Directors, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation' Desegregation Facilitator, Director of Planning, Research, ' Evaluation, Director of Transportation, I__ Director of Human Resources/Labor Relations\" u..i We all understand the immediate, critical needs of the District and are working together to move us forward. I have also had a meeting with representatives of the LRCTA and the Joshua Intervenors. Services, Controller. but Director Director Plant of Planning, \u0026amp; Director of Information and LRSD I have also initial principals' meeting was held on Monday, July 19, ___ Attached you will find an agenda from that meeting. We are off to a good start. 1993. On Wednesday, July 21, 1993, an extended work session was held for the purpose of further refining the elementary school staffing needs for 1993-94. We are hooeful that thp nmrpqq n-i-i i i i i result resources. available. We ere hopeful that the process utilized will  efficiency and utilization of our limited More information will be provided as it becomes in greater of as c: Sterling Ingram Mark Milhollen Marie Parker Brady Gadberry Chris Heller Fred Ursery Jerry L. MaloneTo: From: Subject: Date: Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School Board of Directors Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. July 28, 1993 This memo is to notify you that the hearings before Judge Susan Wright regarding the 1993-94 LRSD budget was recessed on Thursday, July 8, 1993. Pursuant to the agreement reached and accepted by the Court, the hearing will resume on Thursday, August 12, 1993 and Friday, August 13, 1993. calendars. Please place these dates on your If anyone has a conflict with these dates, we must know immediately so that requests can be made for excused absences. Judge Wright has given word that she will no longer tolerate untimely requests to be excused. A' ccordingly, i' t is my request that each of you give immediate consideration to this matter. As instructed by the Court, a meeting was held with board members and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on Friday, July 9, 1993. The meeting opened at approximately administration building. 7:00 a.m. at the LRSD As a result of the time constraints within which we are working, the board members decided to meet each Thursday for the rest of this month. Accordingly, the Board will meet at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 15\nThursday, July 22\nand Thursday, July 29. The Court has indicated that although the budget for 93-94 is balanced on paper, she fears that the use of non-recurring revenue sources (i.e., the desegregation settlement loan, desegregation settlement proceeds, transfers and other funds, etc.) to cover recurring expenditures (i.e., teacher's salaries, utilities, etc.) will create an iimmppoossssiibbllee situation when the 94-95 budget is prepared. Pursuant to the board's instructions, the administration is now pursuing various options to present to the Board. The Court has instructed the LRSD to file a revised budget by Monday, August 2, 1993. It is imperative that this deadline be met, as the Court has indicated that no variance whatsoever will be allowed. To meet this schedule, it is our hope that final board action can occur on Wednesday, July 28, 1993 . Should there be no drastic changes from the proposals as submitted by the administration to Board of Directors July 28, 1993 Page 2 the Board, we are hopeful that the necessary revisions and updates can be made to allow the budget to be timely filed on August 2. Judge Wright indicated that she is pleased that the District has begun using business cases. Although we have submitted business those cases for the budget documents currently before the Court, iluse business cases may or may not support the revised budget document to be filed on August 2. Accordingly, it is my request that the administration review the business cases already submitted and provide appropriate revised business cases or new business cases to support the recommendations to be made to you. *      Again, please review your schedules to determine whether the August 12 and 13 hearing dates pose a conflict. If so, please notify me immediately. Should any conflicts arise later, each of you must notify us immediately so that a determination can be made whether Should later to request an excused absence from the Court. Please recall that Judge Wright has become very impatient with what she perceives an efforts to flaunt the authority of the Court in attendance requirement. imposing the Let's make an effort to establish a tract record of cooperation and good-faith attention to the requirements of the Court-approved desegregation plan. By doing so, we will be able to develop a factual trail to overcome the conclusory statements placed on record regarding receivership.Board of Directors July 28, 1993 Page 3 Thank each of you for your kind attention Hopefully, future correspondence will not be to this remember that Z am a lawyer.) as verbose. matter. (However, JLM:nr Mrs. Estelle Matthis Mr. Sterling Ingram Mrs. Marie Parker Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Brady Gadberry Mr. Mark Milhollen c:cews O'lhts o' OeseQ'\"\"- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: February 25, 1994\nApril 6 and 7, 1994\nand May 25 and 26, 1994. These hearing dates coincide I I J with the schedule embodied in the LRSD's latest Project Management Tool filed November 30, 1993. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. Subsequent orders pertaining to the information required for each hearing may follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December 1993. NITED STATES JUDGE 'HiS DOCI n -'OMPLIANf nr' CM CCCXuT SHEET IN B'/ n :D/OR 7S(a) F.'iCP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER rled'OUfiT 'fiKANSAS By: plaintiff'^ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), and without objection from any of the parties to this action, the time in which the LRSD must file its proposed 1994-95 budget is hereby extended to and including April 15, 1994. The hearings on the W4R 1 8 J594 vs. budget originally scheduled for April 6-7, 1994, will be continued to a date after April 15, 1994. The Court will reschedule these hearings by separate order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of March 1994. UNITED SPATES 'DISTRICT .JUDGE FHIS DOCUMENT ENTEAED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 50 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY 1/1 tr- 1 -Xw-fe. V J MP?r2:-\u0026gt;9'4 MON 9:36 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C' eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION COURT t, Hi 1 f. } LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. J./ 'PLAINTIFF NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL district no. 1, et al. SCHOOL MRS. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS notion TO EXTEND TIME AND,TO RESCHEDULE HEARING For its motion, the Little Rock School District 1. (LRSD) states: The court has established deadlines which a schedule of hearings and development corresponds with key dates in LRSD-s budget process. LRSD is budget to the presently scheduled to submit a Court on March 24, IS scheduled for April 6-7, 1994 and a hearing on the budget 2. Several 1994. important components of LRSD's uncertain at this time for budget are various reasons. in the process of For example, LRSD is with the Little negotiating a professional negotiations agreement Rock Classroom Teachers reluctant to Association and is the project a budget for teachers' salaries thia early in negotiating process. - LRSD is also in the determining process of whether to outsource certain Finally, LRSD support functions. expenses. is continuing to look for ways to reduce its On the revenue side of the budget. funding and the amount the method of state LRSD will likely receive under a new fundingi M??-21-P4 HON 9:37 SUSAN M WRIGHT fomiula remains uncertain. time within which to FAX NO, 5013246576 LRSD must therefore present to the court budget for the 1994-95 school year. 3. LRSD must make decisions certified personnel P. 02 request additional a Complete and balanced concerning the contracts of no later than May 1, 1994. the court sufficient time to In order to provide ot that date, lrsd requests an extension review its proposed budget in advance it must submit its of the time within which proposed budget to and including April lrsd also 15, 1994. be rescheduled to requests that the hearings scheduled for April 6-7, 1994 a date after April 15, I994. 4. counsel for PCSSD, NLRSD, the Joshua Intervenors Knight Intervenors have been they do not oppose it. contacted and the concerning this motion and WHEREFORE, for the order extending the time reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an within which it must 1994-95 budget to and including April 15, file its proposed hearing on the 1994 and rescheduling the proposed budget to a date after April 15, 1994 . Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg 400 West Capitol Street Little Rocky AR 72201 Christofer Heli Bar No. 81083 2MAR-23-94 WED 9:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 us DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS MAR 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT m,cqRMACK,CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DIVISION By:, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The hearings previously scheduled for April 6 and 7, review the Little Rock School District (LRSD) proposed 1994 to 1994-95 budget are hereby rescheduled to begin at 9.00 a.m. on Friday, April 22, 1994. By April 15, 1994, the LRSD must submit to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring the district's proposed 1994-95 budget, along with business cases for programmatic additions, deletions, or modifications that are reflected in the budget. The district must also identify each major budget adjustment, including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions. and proposed deficit reduction measures. Each deficit reduction Strategy must be accompanied by a rationale for the assumptions underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of March 1994. 'ATES .-4/^ CT JUDGE RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 1 5 1994 Office ol 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 1994-95 BUDGET STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report, pursuant to the order of this Court, states: 1. The LRSD, pursuant to the order of this Court, developed and adopted a program, planning and budgeting process to guide the development of the District's 1994-95 budget. Also in accordance with the orders of this Court, the LRSD developed and adopted a Project Management Tool process to set out the respective tasks necessary to develop a budget and impose timelines on those persons responsible for the various tasks identified. Both the comprehensive budgeting process and the management tool process were developed and implemented at or near the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. The LRSD has been operating in accordance with both the planning document as well as the management tool throughout this 1993-94 school year. Further, the LRSD has provided the Court with quarterly status reports as well as monthly management tool reports.LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 2 2. The Program Budget and Planning Document came into being as outlined in the LRSD's 1993-94 First Quarter Status Report filed herein on November 3, 1993. That filing is incorporated herein by reference. Further, the Notice of LRSD Board Involvement, filed on December 3, 1993, touches and concerns this development. It too is incorporated herein by reference. 3. The LRSD submitted project management tools, as ordered by the Court, for the months ending August 31, 1993, and September 30, 1993. However, beginning with the Project Management Tool filed on October 29, 1993, the LRSD used a format which more closely resembled the format desired by the Court. For each month thereafter, the LRSD has submitted its Project Management Tool to the Court. The tool, among other things, identified the various tasks necessary to plan, prepare and present a budget on behalf of the LRSD. The tool also identified the responsible persons for the various tasks. the percentages of completion and the proposed completion dates. Recognizing the newness of this effort to it, the LRSD placed the Court and the parties on notice that it would continue to fine-tune the process so that the monthly reports would become more accurate, timely and informative. 4. Among the many categories of tasks to be completed was that of \"Budgeting. Beginning with the Project Management Tool filed on November 30, 1993, the budgeting category of the tool outlined those steps necessary to build the budget document theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 3 District is obligated to submit to the State of Arkansas. As indicated by the November filing, the proposed budget would be submitted to the Board of Directors of the District on March 24, 1994, revisions would be made, the budget would be submitted to the Board for adoption at its July 28, 1994, meeting and would be submitted to the State of Arkansas on or before August 26, 1994. The time frame outlined was developed based upon the District's knowledge and awareness of the infonnation and steps necessary to arrive at the various components of the budget as well as in recognition of the time when various pieces of information become available to it. For instance. certain steps and procedures necessary submitted before a final balanced budget can be prepared and are not determined until accounts can be reconciled. certain information is received from the State of Arkansas, accounts properly closed out and an ending fund balance determined. 5. The District continued to refine and revise dates it found to be out of sync with the facts and circumstances as they were being developed or less reliable based upon knowledge acquired through the planning and development process. However, the projections regarding the submission of a proposed budget to the Board, the revision process. Board adoption and submission to the State remained in tact. This is so for the Project Management Tools filed on December 28, 1993, January 31, 1994, February 28, 1994, and March 31, 1994. Based on reasonable information and belief, theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 4 LRSD has remained on schedule as reflected in those documents. 6. The Project Management Tools, as suggested by and developed with the assistance of the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, has consistently contained the District's best estimates of when the various tasks and activities outlined would occur. However, realizing that the District had embarked upon a process vastly different from and more expansive than the process that had been used by the District in prior years, the LRSD continued to notify the Court, as matters became more apparent to it, when and where refinements to the process had to be made. As evident from the recitals above, the critical tasks in the budgeting component remained as established in November, 1993. 7. The LRSD submits that it is still on schedule to present the final budget to the Board of Directors for adoption by the July Board meeting and to submit a balanced budget to the State of Arkansas by August 26, 1994. However, as evident from the Project Management Tool filed on March 31, 1994, the LRSD has further defined those constraints (both internal and external) with which the District is faced and which must be overcome in order for the District to meet these goals. In particular, the Court will note that the tasks between ID #193 and ID #220 of the March \"tool\" contain greater detail on the items which must come together prior to completion of the process. Notwithstanding, this expanded list is not fully exhaustive of those tasks which must be undertaken andLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 5 completed. Rather, they represent most. if not all, of the substantive events along the way. 8. On March 24, 1994, the LRSD administration submitted to its Board of Directors the proposed annual budget for the 1994-95 school year. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of that budget. Similar to the 1993-94 budget filed herein on December 17, 1993, this budget reflects the financial structure of the LRSD by school and department and shows detail through function codes. object codes and FTE's. The document also reflects the actual revenues and expenditures for 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. It also includes the projected budget for 1993-94 and the proposed budget for 1994-95. The Board conducted a work session on this document on March 29, 1994. 9. Under Tab 2 of Exhibit 1, a budget summary appears which identifies proposed revenues and expenditures for the 1994-95 school year. Based upon the proposals identified, the District would experience a deficit in the amount of $7,099,292 at year end. 10. By order dated March 22, 1994, entered on March 23, 1994, this Court directed the LRSD to submit its proposed 1994-95 budget by April 15, 1994. Exhibit 1 is submitted in compliance with that directive. 11. The Order also required the District to make additional submissions. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of a Court submission dated April 15, 1994, which contains theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 6 required business cases for programmatic additions, deletions or modifications reflected in the proposed budget, a schedule of major budget adjustments (including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions and proposed deficit reduction measures). Further, the document contains various appendices which provide the rationale for the assumptions underlying each deficit reduction strategy and the steps and timelines the District will follow in implementing the various strategies. Both Exhibits 1 and 2 are incorporated herein by reference as fully as if set out word-for- word herein. 12. The budget summary contained under Tab 2 of Exhibit 1 is repeated on pages 204-205 of Exhibit 2. Although a deficit is reflected, the LRSD hastens to point out that the proposed deficit reduction measures identified on page 208 of Exhibit 2 exceed the proposed deficit contained in the budget summary. Accordingly, full implementation of the proposed deficit reduction measures causes the deficit to be eliminated and a positive ending fund balance to be realized. Given the foregoing, the LRSD provides the documents and information submitted herewith in accordance with the directives imposed upon it by the Court to this date. The LRSD is continuing its pace to ensure that the timelines identified by it through the project management tools are maintained. In fact, the Board of Directors continued to guide and direct the budget developmentLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 7 process through a special Board meeting on Thursday, April 14, 1994. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District does hereby submit this filing in accordance with the order of this Court\nit prays that it be granted any and all legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled either now or as influenced by future circumstances. 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. 85096CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on April 15, 1994, upon the following, except as othervise 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 (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET 1994 - 1995 DRAFT 1 MARCH 24, 1994 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY budget summary line item summary (Object) PROGRAM SUMMARY BUDGET (Function) program budget (Object Within Functions) DEPARTMENT BUDGET DESEGREGATION X c Vi c 2 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT u COURT SUBMISSION April 15, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page No, Executive Summary 1 Review Process For Program Development 2 Business Cases: Category I - Incentive Schools 4 Franklin Incentive School Communications Technology Theme Franklin Incentive School Spanish Program Implementation Rockefeller Incentive School Alternative Room Specialist Rockefeller Incentive School Spanish Instruction Rockefeller Incentive School Computer Science Theme Rightsell Incentive School Spanish Instruction Rightsell Incentive School Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme Mitchell Incentive School Foreign Language Program (Spanish Teacher) Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme - Phase II Stephens Incentive School Spanish Teacher 6 16 22 25 30 43 46 60 64 70 80 Business Cases: Category II - Desegregation Plan/ADE 82 English As A Second Language (ESL) Program Language Arts and Mathematics Applied Biology and Chemistry Science Cumcuium Revision Foreign Language Program Science Program 84 97 106 113 118 126 Business Cases: Category III - Related Desegregation/ADE 134 Science, Mathematics, and Reading: Statewide Systemic Initiative Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation Social Studies Department Secretarial Position Romine Interdistrict School Theme Specialist Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program - First Grade Pilot Project Executive Assistant for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Student Assignment Office Reorganization 136 144 150 156 160 165 174 1990-95 Revenue and Expenditure Projection (Draft 1) 204 Schedule of Major Budget Adjustments 206 Proposed Deficit Reduction Measures 208 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F 209 210 211 212 213 214-f./tj /i'n FILED K. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTg^g^gjfifJ^A^jTS^^^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY 1 8 1994 JAMES W. MCCORMACK. CLERK Cy. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLERK 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 1994-95 BUDGET PRE-HEARING FILING The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing, states: 1. By Order dated May 9, 1994, this Court required the LRSD to submit all written information and exhibits (including business cases) which the LRSD expects to discuss at the hearing set by this Court for May 25, 1994 (to be continued on May 26, 1994, if necessary). 2. Attached hereto as Attachment 1 is a true and accurate copy of the 1994-95 budget information required by Order of this Court. 3. The information submitted herein reflects the LRSD's progress toward meeting its desegregation obligations through the Program Planning and Budgeting Process developed with the assistance of the Court-appointed Budget Specialist.LRSD'S 1994-95 BUDGET PRE-HEARING FILING May 18, 1994 Page 2 WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District sxibmits its 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing in accordance with the Order of this Court and prays that it be awarded any and all legal and equitable 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 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 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 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on May 18, 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 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED COURT eastern district ARKANSAS JW I 0 1594 JAMES By.-. 5W.McGURMACK,CLERK AZ-v  OCP ClRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The Court has previously scheduled hearings on June 28 and 29, 1994 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) 1994-95 budget development process. Listed below is the information which the Court will review at that time. The parties must submit all requested information. along with any other submissions they expect to introduce during the hearing, to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) by the end of the workday on Monday June 20, 1994. 1, Latest revision of the projected LRSD 1994-95 budget. including revenues and expenditures by department and line item category. 1993-94 budgeted expenses. and projected year-end actual 1993-94 expenses. 2. Identification of any budget revisions, which have been made since the last Court submission, that the district has based upon subsequent re-examination of projected enrollment, the employee Reduction In Force, the early retirement program. ? 2 2 16transportation outsourcing, and school closings. 3 . Updates on the status of specific budget-balancing measures which the district has previously identified in submitted documents, such as the Early Retirement Program, salary freezes, use of settlement loan monies, etc. 4. Status of employee salary negotiations and Reduction In Force. 5. Identification and explanation of any new budget-balancing measures introduced since the last submissions. The explanation must include a rationale for the assumptions underlying the measure, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing it. 6. Revised five year revenue and spending projections and anticipated budget balances or deficits by each of the next five fiscal years. 7 . Any new business cases or revisions of earlier business cases for anticipated changes, additions, or deletions in programs, operations, or staffing. The business cases must clearly show the budget impact including department. function, and object assignment. 8 . Update on the timeline for budgeting decisions and actions. The timeline must reflect the July 1994 hearing dates and deadlines for submitting the final budget to the school board, the parties, the Court, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Additionally by the same date, the district must provide the -2-following information which is listed in the LRSD May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool, and which comprise tasks which will have been completed by June 20, 1994: 1. Copy of the Facilities Study (per Tasks 62-66 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 2 . Copy of the completed Needs Assessment listing (per Task 77 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 3 . Copy of the Program Inventory Report for 1993-1994 (per Task 97 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 4. A list of the Desegregation and Non-Desegregation related programs (as shown in the Third Quarter Program Budget Document) which were actually evaluated, annotating those selected for downsizing, deletion. or modification (per Tasks 184 and 329 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool) . 5. A copy of the Board-approved tentative budget for 1994-1995 (per Task 207 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool) . 6. Copy of the Incentive School program modifications (per Task 228 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). According to Task 5 in the district's May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool, the LRSD began in July 1993 to reassess its planning organization and structure. That reassessment is scheduled to be complete on June 30, 1994. Also on that date, the district is scheduled to complete Task 6, which is any necessary restructuring and modification of the planning organization and structure. Along with the Project Management Tool items listed -3-above, the district must submit documentation of Tasks 5 and g to the extent to which they are complete on June 20, 1994. Through the ODM, counsel for the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) has conveyed a request, and the Court has agreed, to review the NLRSD budget at the June hearing instead of the July hearing as originally scheduled. The NLRSD must submit its revenue and expense projection for the 1994-95 budget cycle and a five year projection of revenues and expenses. The district must also submit business cases for anticipated changes, additions, or deletions in programs, operations, or staffing. The parties should also be prepared to discuss any other items not specifically listed in this order but which were itemized in the May 9, 1994 order that scheduled a budget hearing on May 25, 1994.* IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of June 1994. UNITED STATE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ___Ot 1 / * That hearing was subsequently cancelled by the Court. -4-CC- / FILED O'STI^'CTAR'i^^lSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 06 1994 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMESCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT \u0026lt;Z OEP clerk PLAINTIFF 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 The Court is charged with monitoring the districts' compliance with their Settlement Agreement and making sure that they don't waste desegregation funds. In order to fulfill this charge, the Court keeps a close watch on the districts' budgets. Accurate and complete budgets are important to making sure that the parties keep their desegregation commitments. In this regard, the Court has vs. held hearings on February 25, April 22 and June 28 and 29, 1994 to determine progress being made by the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD on developing their 1994-95 budgets. During the June 28-29, 1994 hearings, the districts told the Court that, in order to complete their 1994-95 budgets in balance. they need to know the level of state support to anticipate through Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). Until the districts know the amount of MFPA for 1994-95, they will not know what additional expense restrictions to implement for next year. The parties have told the Court that the State has been vacillating for some months on the amount which it may place in theMFPA fund, citing amounts that have varied from $50 million down to $0. The Court hereby requests the State to submit the following information: A. Whether the State intends to put additional (new) money into MFPA. B. The amount of any additional monies it intends to place in the MFPA fund. C. The date it will notify the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD of their total individual MFPA allocations for 1994-95. D. The steps the State will take in making the decisions to determine its contribution to MFPA and the accompanying timeline for each step. The Court will hold hearings on July 27-29, 1994 to review the parties' final, balanced budgets for 1994-95. Anticipating those dates, the Court has required the parties to submit their budgets and related information to the Court and ODM by noon on July 18, 1994. Therefore, the Court and the parties must have the above requested information from the State no later than 5:00 p.m., July 13, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of July 1994. UNTTED STATES DISTRI .IT JUDGE rnIS CXXUM9\u0026lt;r EWTlfO 0 tXJCRET SWEET IN COMPUTE MTH_RUL 58 AND/OR 75(a) FRCP ON 7- 6- -RECEIVEO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1 8 1994 Office ol Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the following documents required by the courts July 6, 1994 order. 1. LRSD's current 1994-95 budget document is attached. The budget document includes current revenue and expenditure projections, a line item summary, a program summary by function, a program summary by function and object, department budgets by function and object, a Magnet School budget, and the budgets for federal programs, food service. capital projects. and desegregation. 2. Also attached are documents showing LRSD's actual expenditures for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years. and the budgeted expenditures for the 1993-94 school year. LRSD's books are not entirely closed for the 1993-94 school year and the attached list of 1993-94 actual expenditures is not a completely final tally of actual 1993-94 expenditures. kathy^'Heaiwg.Budget3. LRSD has separated and identified funds according to their intended use. State reimbursement for Workers' Compensation and Magnet indirect costs are listed as separate revenue items. LRSD is continuing the process of adding necessary function and object codes to separate and identify funds according to their intended use. 4. LRSD has attached revised five year revenue and spending projection with the anticipated budget balances or deficits for each of the next five fiscal years. 5. LRSD has attached business cases for outsourcing of transportation, academic progress incentive grants, the Incentive School Spanish program, and a modification of the business case for desegregation facilitator. Each business case shows its impact on the budget. 6. Because LRSD's books for 1993-94 school year are not yet closed. because some budget issues for the 1994-95 school year remain unresolved (e.g. outsourcing of transportation), and because posting of budget revisions (e.g. early retirement, reduction in force) is not yet complete at the detail level, LRSD is unable to provide a final program summary by function and object and a final department budget by function and object. LRSD has provided a 1994-95 budget for food service, but cannot provide final 1993-94 actual expenditures. Finally, LRSD cannot provide final 1994-95 budgets for federal programs and for desegregation. LRSD's planning documents show a July 21, 1994 deadline for preparation of a final 1994-95 budget, which is scheduled for presentation to the kad^XP-Hcarii^.Budgel a 2board of directors on July 25, 1994 and for approval on July 28, 1994. LRSD expects to have each of the required documents in final form before the scheduled budget hearing begins on July 27, 1994 and will provide those documents to the court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as soon as they have been completed. 7. The attached budget reflects a reduction in Incentive School expenditures of $2,000,000.00. The amount budgeted for Incentive Schools for the 1994-95 school year is the amount necessary to provide double funding at each Incentive School. LRSD is in the process of preparing a business case which will show whether or not the Incentive School budget can actually be reduced to the double funding level. Because of the need to meet with each Incentive School principal and the Joshua Intervenors as a part of this process, the business case will be submitted to the court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on Thursday, July 21, 1994. 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 efiristopher Hell Bar No. 81083 lathy \\P-K6anng.Bud get 3CERTIFICATE 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 18th day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 ristopher Helleg^^ kalfayXP-Hcanng.Budg^ 4FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS FEB 0 7 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER Informational hearings on the Little JAMES By:_ W. McCOiRflNMACK, CLERK AX BtP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Rock School District (\"LRSD\") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 24, 1995\nJune 8 and 9, 1995\nand August 1 and 2, 1995. These hearing dates coincide with the schedule for budget development which appears in the LRSD's most recent Project Management Tool, filed on January 31, 1995. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. Subsequent orders pertaining to the t information required for each hearing may follow. DATED this day of February 1995. TED\nt judge rws DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FCP ON BY l/r^^ 2 3 5 0 si IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED B* Ji:5-O'STR'CT court eastern district ar Kansas FEB 2 4 1995 JAMES Vl/. ,McCMMACK. CLERK -i u 0 \\ OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) filed February 21, 1995 for a continuance of the budget hearing set for March 24, 1995 by Court Order dated February 7, 1995. The LRSD states that several of its administrators, whose participation is necessary at the hearing, have made travel plans during that week, which is the LRSD spring break. In order to avoid placing a hardship on those administrators, the LRSD asks that the hearing be rescheduled. The Court has carefully considered its own calendar as well as that of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in an attempt to accommodate the LRSD's request for continuance. Unfortunately, the Court is unable to come up with a new date that will fit its calendar and that also will be timely as far as the budgeting process is concerned. It regrets that the motion for continuance 2 must be denied. DATED this 24th day of February 1995. -N CM- WlTEly^ATES DISTRICT JUD JUDGE 6 DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ILE 58 AND/O^9(aj FRCP -BYI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED STRICTCOURT eastern district ARKANSAS MAfi - 3 1995 JAMES 'Rmack. clerk llA OEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER By previous Order, the Court has scheduled a hearing to begin at 9:00 a.m. on March 24, 1995 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") in developing its budget for the 1995-96 fiscal year. No later than March 14, 1995 at 5:00 p.m.. the LRSD must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties, all of the documents, budget material, business cases. and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. These submissions must include at least: the district's proposed 1995-96 budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual (August 1994)\nand business cases for programmatic additions. deletions. or modifications that are reflected in the budget. Also, the district must identify each major budget adjustment, including projected revenue increases. projected revenue reductions. projected expenses, and proposed deficit reduction measures. Each deficit reduction strategy must be accompanied by a rationale for the t assumptions underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy. The Court expects the LRSD to present business cases which the district has thoroughly constructed in the context of the desegregation plans and related court orders. For example, if the LRSD were to consider changing the McClellan Community School Program, the district would have to do so in light of the desegregation plan and this Court's orders regarding McClellan. In orders of December 30, 1992 and August 26, 1993, the Court cautioned the LRSD against changes that would negatively affect the district's ability to desegregate McClellan. The Court directed that the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council \"must be meaningfully involved in all changes at McClellan, including budget planning and adjustment, because the Council is a means for promoting community input so that any changes proposed for McClellan reflect the community's needs and wishes. As another example, if the district were to consider proposing to eliminate the seven period day in its junior high schools, it would have to build a strong business case that takes into account this Court's December 30, 1992 order regarding the seven period day, especially in relation to magnet programs. The Court will expect the district to show that any budget cuts under consideration are \"as far away from the children and the desegregation plan as possible.\" (See Order of December 30, 1992.) SO ORDERED this \u0026lt;3 day of March 1995. U^r^TED ST DISTRICT (JUDGE rHJS DOCUW.i\u0026lt;. UH , .r: -- Ut CVCKET SHEET HM COMPLIANCE With RUlE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP Ji 1 \u0026lt; Tv IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION mar 2 V 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER ey.jZ ^inCK, CLcSK 1. iC OEP CLcftK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The hearing to review the progress of the Little Rock School District in developing its budget for the 1995-96 school year. which began on Friday, March 24, 1995, will resume at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, April 10, 1995. Any revisions in business cases or other new information must be submitted to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties by noon, April 3, 1995. DATED this 29th day of March 1995. ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE . 58 AND/OR79(a) Ff^P BY 79(a 3 u 3\n3 M N 2 3 9 1c , HA MOn \"10^45   'SUSAN K WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 FILED us fiSTOiCT CO'J.'I' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN,SA5 WESTERN DIVISION I 1995 JAMfS W. WcUUHMACK, CLERK By\n-d..i20uV..rn_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OsfCiEMX , PLAINTIFF V. KO, LR-C82-86e PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFEN DAI^TS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIOHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS OR PER Through an earlier Order, the Court has scheduled hearings to begin at 9:00 a.m, on June 8 and 9, 1995. The purpose of these I ,.\n6f-.\u0026lt; i.  L  hearings is to review the progress of the Little RocR School District (LRSD) in relation to its 1995-96 budget, and to determine 4 the extent to which the district has fulfilled certain orders of the Court. 1 By 5:00 p.n. on Friday, May 26, 1995 the district must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the !\u0026gt; parties all documents, budget material, business cases, and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. As at the last budget hearings, f -f these submissions must include at least: the district's tentative budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual of August 1994\nand any new or revised business cases for programmatic or position additions, deletions. or modifications that are reflected in the budget. The district must also identify 11 71 any major adjustments it has made in the budget since submitting A? V. . otilMiK 7, .y MfeFEB-15-96 THU 9:51 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 FsLED u s DISTRICT COURT EASTc.RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1996 JAMES! p//J.. McckkuuhkmmAaCcKK,, ccllerk DE? CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-a6b PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER , Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996\nJune 6 and 7, 1996\nand July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. Subsequent orders pertaining to 2y.__i VS . the information required for each hearing will follow, IT IS .10 ORDERED this day of February 1996. I '^\"UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ,D Oi . DOCKEr SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RU' ON -- BY_2 D/OR 79(a) FRCP rH'S DOC'J^'^T SNi u : L- FiLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS j\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1996 OffiCS 0\u0026gt; Dece^-iya\njiiHG JAMES By\n_4 !J IVIc^HMACK. CLERK OE? CLERK  little rock school district PLAINTIFF 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 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996\nJune 6 and 7, 1996\nand July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski 1 District. Subsequen Oxders pcrtaj.ning 3 I J vs. the information required for each hearing will follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1996. STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CHS POCL'J/EN COMPLIANCE WITH RL'L ON 5 ON DOCKET SHEET IN C AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BY 77? -______ Ai f ?. 01 FEE-15-36 THU 9:51 SUSAN N NRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 FsLED U3 Oia',\"ICT COURT\nTE.R,J CISTRICTA.RKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF .ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1596 u'Al'ES Mc^UnMACK. GLt.HK ViC^UnMACK. G OEr CLSnK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-S2-a66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996\nJune 6 and 7, 1996\nand July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD 3oard of Directors are required to artend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the Norrh Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. Subsequent orders pertaining to vs. / the information required for each hearing will follow, IT IS .10 ORDERED this day of February 1996. .) U.,'/ '\"^'UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE rH!S DQC!JV.E\u0026gt;T NT COMPLIANCE Y/iTH PCI' DON DOCKET SHEET IN .AND/OR 73(a) FRCP BY ________ 2 6 2ia ^3. JUL-13-95 THU 11:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol FILED CAS-JiS DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTj^j^^gg EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Sy\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER 2, JUL I 3 1995 McCormack, clerk OEP CLEW PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has previously scheduled hearings for August 1 and 1995 to consider Little Rock School District (LRSD) budget matters for FY 1995-96. On those dates, the Court will also review the 1995-96 budgets of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Listed below is the information the court will review during the hearings. The parties must submit the requested information, along with any other submissions they will introduce during the hearings, to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) by 12:00 P.M. (noon) on Monday, July 24, 1995. I. A. LRSD must furnish its final 1995-96 balanced budget document, including final revenues and expenditures projections. line item summary, program summary by function, program summary by function object, department budget by function and object. magnet school budget, and the budgets for federal programs, food service, capital projects, and desegregation.JUL-13-95 THU 11:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 S. In each of these categories above, include actual expenditures for 1992-93 and 1993-94, and budget and actual expenditures for 1994-95. C. Add function codes and object codes as necessary to separate and identify funds according to their intended use. Commingling of disparate funds will not satisfy the Court's need for budgeting information that is specifically identified D. E. A. according to its planned use. Also, identify all revenue items as revenue items and all expenditures as expenditures to provide an accurate representation of each item. Submit a revised five year revenue and spending projection and anticipated budget balances or deficits for each of the next five fiscal years. Provide any new or revised business cases for budget balancing measures and for changes, additions, or deletions in programs. operations, or staffing which are reflected in the final budget, the Each business case must clearly show its impact on budget including department. assignment. II. function. and object The NLRSD and PCSSD must furnish their respective final 1995-96 balanced budget documents. including final revenues and expenditures projections. salaries and wages by object within function, other expenditures by -2-JUL-13-95 THU 11:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 B. C. object within function, federal programs, and other supporting information the districts may provide. Submit a revised five year revenue and projection and anticipated budget balances for each of the next five fiscal years. Provide any new or revised business cases spending or deficits for budget balancing measures and for changes, additions, or deletions in programs. operations, or staffing which are reflected in the final budget. Each business case must clearly show its impact on the budget including department, function, and object assignment. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of July 1995. ISTRICT JUDGE -3- FaLD U S OISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DIVISION By\n. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER MAR 1 2 1996 3 W. McQUHMAGK, CLEi RK OeP CLhRK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS By previous order, the Court has scheduled a hearing to begin at 9:00 a.m. on March 26, 1996 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) in developing its budget for the 1996- 97 fiscal year. No later than noon on March 18, 1996, the LRSD must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties. all of the documents. budget material, business cases. and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. These submissions must include at least the following: 1. The district's proposed 1996-97 budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual\n2. Business cases for programmatic additions, deletions, or modifications\nAn identification of each major budget adjustment. including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions, projected expenses, and proposed deficit reduction measures, be accompanied by expenses. Each deficit reduction strategy must rationale for the assumptions 3 . a 2 6 4 1 underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy\n4. An itemization of year-to-date expenditures by object code through the end of January 1996, along with a forecast of expenditures by object code for the balance of the 1995-96 fiscal year. In earlier hearings, the Court has admonished the LRSD to abandon its old practice of basing new budgets on the amounts the district has allotted within discrete categories in preceding annual budgets. (The Court has referred to this procedure as \"budgeting on budget.\") Instead, the Court has advised the district to build its new budgets on the actual expenditures incurred within the various budget categories during the previous year. (The Court has referred to this practice as II budgeting on expenditures\" or \"budgeting on actuals.\") During the hearing, the Court will ask the district to explain how it is working to construct its 1996-97 budget on actual expenditures, rather than on previous budgets. Further, the Court expects the LRSD to present business cases which the district has carefully constructed in the context of the desegregation plans, related court orders, and the realities of the district's financial condition. For example. the Court will require the district to show that any budget cuts under consideration are \"as far away from the children and the desegregation plan as possible. It (See Order of December 30, 1992.) The Court will also expect that any proposed new expenditures will be counterbalanced by similar reductions elsewhere in the budget. For example. it the district were to propose adding an -2-administrative position in one area, the Court would expect to see reductions in another area of the administrative budget to accommodate the proposed change. IT IS SO ORDERED this - /o\u0026lt; aay of March 1996. UNITED STATES^IST] 'RJCT JUDGE rmS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITy RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FRCP ON IPUANCE WITH RL BY -3-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING ei\u0026lt;u '-97 MiR 1 8 J^^^ntiff JAMES w McCormack, By\nCLERK DEP. CLERK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In accordance with this court's order of March 12, 1996, the Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District 1996-97 Proposed Budget and Little Rock School District Business Cases For Proposed Budget FY 1996-97. The budget documents reflect the following significant changes in state funding: 1. twelve Beginning with the 1996-97 fiscal year, LRSD must pay a percent (12%) teacher retirement matching contribution. previously paid by the state. which results in an increase to I fringe benefit costs (object 0220 in the line item budget) of $8,371,294.00\n2. Beginning with the 1996-97 fiscal year, LRSD must pay what was previously the state's share of health insurance costs which results in a $3,501,056.00 increase in LRSD's fringe benefit costs (object 0240 in the line item budget)\nk\u0026gt;ihy\\MoU*Fil.3183 . Some of the increased costs described above are offset by an increase in state aid, but based on the most current information the impact of the change in state funding will be a net loss to LRSD in the amount of $226,804.00. A chart comparing state aid for the 1995-96 fiscal year and projected state aid for the 1996-97 fiscal year is attached to this Notice of Filing\n4 . LRSD will pay twelve percent (12%) retirement a contribution plus additional health care costs for its food service workers in the amount of $486,000.00\n5. The changes described in paragraphs 3 and 4 above result in a net loss to the operating fund of $712,804.00\nand 6. LRSD will receive its final fixed settlement payment in the amount of $683,125.00. 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:7^__ Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083 lathy \\Nou*Fil.318 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of March, 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 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 Christopher Hell^ knhy\\^ou-FU.318 3 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MEPA^*S^?.3HfK LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STATE AID COMPARISON 3-14-96 BUDGET 1995-96 REVISED 1995-96 DRAFT 4 1996-97 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS___________________ SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD_________________________ ORPHAN CHILDRENMMiiP8B@SS)Wt^1%\n^^ TRANSPORTATION -REGULAR TRANSPORTATION -M TO M COMPENSATORY,EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION ALTERNATIVEEDUCATIONMB818BS3jmS 27.023.348 3.829,942 2.500,000 0 1.100,000 1,444,499 233,992 7,000 3.850,000 AT RISK FUNDING SUMMER'SCHOOlBatiOfeWiaBa^iiSS^ WORKER'S COMPENSATION TOTAL 285,000 2,800,000 790,466 0 0 399.350 430.542 44.694.139 STATE FORMULA AID TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING CONTRIBUTION HEALTH INSURANCE MATCHING CONTRIBUTION 27,012,642. 3,829.942 500.000 0 1.100.000 1.444.499 233.992 ?yS3,066/ ^1,656\n540i 2.195.910 --9246,030 2.607.195 808.523 . 222\n134\n5{3a 67,044' 399.350\n501.193 42.828.059 29.606.806 s-29.606,806\n39,595,812\n683,125 0 0 900.000 1,444.499 245.000 m1\n656,540 2.500.000 .19ss.a.O' 3.641.000 810.000 FORMUIA\" FORMULA^ FORMULA?\n? FORMULA - TORMU13V FORMULA'^ 405.275 51.881.251 41.252.352 (8,371.294) (3.501.056) a29.380,a02i FORMULAE ^1226,804)\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eUnited States. District Court (Arkansas: Western District)\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_284","title":"Budget cuts","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":["1992/2002"],"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","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Budget cuts"],"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/284"],"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\nGibbs Magnet School PTA 1115 West 16th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 324-2490 'Working Together for a Better Future received May 25, 1993 JUN 3 '3 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Federal Court P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, Arkansas OliiCS of Desegregation Moiwcnng 72203 Dear Judge Wright: The patrons of the Gibbs International Magnet School very concerned about the proposed elimination of the computer lab attendant position from our school. are Since our teachers do not have time to assume the responsibilities of the computer lab, this decision could result in an inferior program in which our children might not receive the full benefits of the lab. The computer lab attendant is the heart of our computer progreun. Therefore, we strongly urge you to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position. At a recent meeting, several of our patrons wanted to show their support by signing a petition urging the Little Rock School Board to reject the proposal, your information. A copy is attached for Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Willie J. les Co-Pres iaent Attachment Annette Thomas-Jones Co-President Wright 7993 judge Petition to the Little Rock School Board y^e, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs Intenaationat Magw\u0026lt; urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the districts proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. , / // -^d-kjLay\u0026lt; JMWk C^C^C lat the pe / -7/'. tk / d c, I Sil ?\\ 1aj~^ r (X\\aA$s.4jrCi ^2Zz2 L/'7\\J.^'k ' dub/ ,- ut^ ahA^ j2p2DE54 'J^^g-TUr Cdcbczl7\u0026gt; -XH-Jk-\" -- A-k fe Ax' / Petition to the Little Rock School Board y^e, the undersigned patrons of 6ibb lateniational MagneC Schaol, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. c :iCi. .4- I ,1 r C' /\u0026lt; t A- 1 fX / MJU, -\"P-' F 2. ~n.Lj^^ ( \"r fzt,46^S\u0026lt;(y nK:: 'i ,7 Petition to the Little Rock School Board SI y\\/e, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs In^ai'natiawai Magnet School, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly tr without-a computer lab attendant. i n 64\u0026lt;.z^ \u0026lt;1 O/iAPetition to the Little Rock School Board y^/Q, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs International Magnet Scbool, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the districr's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. .I f.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States Oistrict Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building LftHe Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 June 16, 1993 Mr. Willie Jones and Ms. Annette Thomas-Jones, Co-Presidents Gibbs PTA Gibbs Magnet School 1115 West 16th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Annette and Willie, I hope you both remember me. I taught kindergarten at Franklin when your older daughter was in Louise Carpenters room, about ten years ago. Of course, I also remember Annette from the AEA, during years I was active in the LRCTA. I recently received a copy of the letter you sent Ann Brown and she asked me to respond to your concerns regarding the elimination of the computer lab attendant position at Gibbs. I realize this response may not reach you until the opening of school, since the above is the school address. I sincerely regret the delay. Any budget cuts the district recommends for the magnet schools must be made in consultation with the Magnet Review Committee (MRC). Im sure you remember the attempt to eliminate Gibbs music teacher last year, and the later reversal of that decision. This years proposed budget reduction will also be given close scrutiny by the court and. Im sure, the MRC. A budget hearing is scheduled for early July and the eliminated positions will be discussed. We appreciate receiving your input and the attached petition from other concerned patrons. Thank you for taking the time to speak out. Sincerely, Melissa Ripling Guldin Associate Monitor122 P02 SEP 03 93 13:08 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO\nFROM: SUBJEC July 29, 1993 A Estelle Mathis, Interim Superintendent, LRSD ^m\u0026lt;ala :T.^- 93-9 Daggett, Community Education 93-94 Budget Cuts Thank you for requesting my input and for your willingness to negotiate regarding the amount of cuts in the Community As I explained over the phone, we Education 93-94 budget. have planned our 93-94 programs in relation to our originally budgeted amount of $220,000. For that reason, X wanted to talk with the CE staff to determine whether or not we would need to cut programs if we cut $50,000 as you requested. I reported to you that we could probably make it fine if the cuts ranged from $30,000-$40,000. However, we discovered just yesterday afternoon that about $14,000 worth of purchase orders approved in 92-93 have been charged to our 93-94 budget. I have spoken with Mark Milhollen regarding these charges, and he assured me as did you that you all would cover us on these shortfalls. I appreciate your support. cc: McClellan Community High School Advisory Council Jodie Carter, McClellan PrincipalSeptember 28, 1993 SUSAN JRBCEIVso SEP 3 0 1933 Judge Susan Webber Wright Federal Building Fifth and Gaines Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 us. district judge Dear Judge Wright: This letter expresses the sentiments of nurrierous LRSD employees..Even'though'we feel it would be unwise to sign our names, please do not let the lack of signatures lessen the attention that you give to the matter. We are aware that you conducted budget hearings and directed the LRSD Board of Directors to review its proposal and determine if additional cuts could be made, which indeed was possible. However, we are not aware if you have given your approval to a final budget for 1993-94, thus the basis for this letter. In the spring of 1993, teachers and all administrators except 12 month administrators, were given three percent raises. package: 1, Twelve month administrators received the following 2. 3, 4. 5. Contract days per year extended from 240 days to 250 days Pay raise set at 1 1/2% instead of 3% Paid vacation days granted on the basis of: 0-7 years experience - 15 paid vacation days per year 8-14 years experience - 20 paid vacation days per year 15+ years experience - 25 paid vacation days per year Sick leave days may be accumulated equivalent to the total number of contract days. When/if the 12 month administrator leaves the district, he/she will be compensated for any accumulated vacation days. We think that you should know that by granting the above package to 12 month administrators, they become the only employee group in the LRSD to receive even one paid hoiiday/vacation. Every other group is paid solely on the basis of days worked - NO PAID HOLIDAYS, NO PAID VACATION DAYS. Furthermore, the fact that they received a 1 1/2% raise instead of a 3% raise was almost immediately made up for by the provision for paid vacation days\nbecause, with the high salaries they receive, it will only take three or- TUE 11'27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX in luiyyibbib four days onehalf percent. for most of them to recoup the other one and we strongly feel^ administrators LRSD employees and bears a copletely district, costly granted to 12 month  . __4 ^,4 of that the package unfair to the 1 total lack of equity. . for the _ district, m good remainder of the It is also wellbeing -- conscience, grant such a , monetarily speaking -  How can this benefit to these financial administrators. investigate this package Please . fAirfip.^s and finfinc J:ilS S indebted to you for your i.l intel and question pubHcly the a rtftr.ision, of such decision. this matter.  Sincerely, A CONCERNED GROUP OF EMPLOYEESRECEIVED FSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 1 8 ^993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NOV 1 S1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring WESTERN DIVISION CARL H. BRENTS, CLERK By: CEPTeLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER During a budget hearing on July 8, 1993, representations were made by certain members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to the effect that they understood the financial peril of the district. specifically an anticipated $11,000,000 deficit despite a budget that was technically balanced, and that the board would take steps to deal with the problem. It was suggested by one member that the board would need to know by Christmas 199 3 what budget cuts to make in order to address this problem. In addition. there was a discussion concerning the board having to approve $25,000 line item budget transfers before such transfers were made. A partial transcript of the budget hearing during which these representations were made is attached hereto. Because it is not clear if the board has begun to consider specific budget cuts or if it is in fact approving $25,000 line item budget transfers, the Court hereby orders the board to file with the Court a report on how they are being more involved in the 3 0 2 0budgeting process, how they are preparing themselves to make specific budget decisions, how their approval is being sought and received, and which specific line item budget transfers the board has approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August 1993. This report must be filed with the Court on or before December 3, 1993, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED this /6 day of November 1993. UNITED STATES DISTR^zCT J JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79/a) FRCP ON lANCE Wl WITH RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FRCP BY -2-NOV- 5-93 FRI 14:49 FAX NO. 5013710100 p.02 but I just wanted to point out that what was submitted, and, of course, it s not July 30th yet - THE WITNESS\nI understand. a THE COURT\n- what was submitted was not what the Court had in mind, and I do think that it would be very beneficial if you talk to the monitors, specifically to Mr. Mooney, and flesh this out  MR. MALONE: Right. THE COURT: - as to what we meant. MR. MALONE: And - and, your Honor, but we have, in fact, had some of those conversations and well continue to have those, and thats what were planning to do when we meet with them and talk with them next week is to continue that dialogue regarding an action plan and the budgetary process and what it should be. THE COURT\nI know that Dr. Bernd also indicated last summer that he was going to include the board in these budget decisions to a greater extent than they had been. In other words, in the budget process to a greater extent than the board had been included previously. What action has been taken on that front? Is there now a policy in place so that the board considers certain budgetary actions as part of this process other than just approving the whole document? MR. MALONE: Your Honor, I wouldnt say that there is a policy. leant speak to that, but I do know that the outline contains certain things that will occur or proposals about what will occur in terms of cabinet work session and board work sestons and how that will be worked Into the process. And, also, in the discussions weve had regarding the budgetary process in general, theres some ideas about how that process ought to work. Some of these things as the Court noted that there are some stipulations at one of the board meetings about certain things being on hold until certain business cases were presented to the board. I think that is the start of  of the board involvement in the entire process, and I think thats some - all of what will be worked out in March, THE COURT: All right. MR. MALONE: Mr. Milhollen had some comment. THE WITNESS: There - there was one policy that was  was instituted recently, and I - I cant quote it exactly, but it has to do witli when budget managers want to have funds transferred between budgets, and there is now a dollar limit thats been set that exceeds that dollar limit, and I believe it's $25,000. It must come before the board and be approved before the transfer can be effected. So, that is one policy change that - that has been made, THE COURT\nAll right. I dont have any of the board members on tlic stand right now, but Mr. Jackson has been very kind about offering what he remembers. And 1 know that Mr. Jackson Is an accountant. Mr. Jackson, how do you see this problem of the current budget being balanced with funds that are nonrencwable and with having expenses that are recurring? Do you have any professional opinion on that or a particular concern? MR. JACKSON: I - Ive got a lot of concerns and I think Ive expressed diose concerns publicly and privately in our meetings. And Mr. Riggs has continually pointed out that the budget that we have this next year whereas it reflects a balanced budget, inNOV- 5-93 FRI 14:49 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 03 truth, is $11 million worth of deficit spending. And I think these programs going forward  you asked him, Mr. MilhoUcn, what would you do if you put - I believe no mills but with cuts. If you look at his five mills with cuts, he simply adds position program cuts and starting in 94-95 of 4 million, and it increases up to 10 million in 98-99. Essentially, what 1 think with no mills and cuts for 1990 - for 1994-95, you have to have $15 million in cuts. In *95-96, another 16 or $17 million in cuts. But I think  I think my position is that there has to be cuts and - and substantial cuts, made and, you know, we can we can spend the next three weeks in court here talking about each of these little 100,000, $200,000 line item cuts that have been made or that are proposed to be made if you want to establish a record, but it  it, quite frankly, is not going to solve the problem. THE COURT: Right. MR. JACKSON: And - and so, you know, what - what I think is a better use of our time and a better use of this staffs time is that they be over at 810 West Markham figuring out what these programs are and where we can make these cuts. I think one of the things - one of the actions we took at our last board meeting, and that had to do with the labor contracts in terms of getting board involvement, is that that the board insisted that those persons responsible for the labor contract get witli the board, that we have both private as well as - as a group sessions looking at what we see in those contracts that needs to be changed, and there has to be some changes made. You cannot continue under the status quo. Now, having said all that, I -1 think it is unrealistic for the district to think - and this is my personal opinion - unrealistic for the district to think that we will be able to accomplish all of this simply with cuts. We will have to ask for a millage increase. But I dont think that the district or this commun  the district and the people that support this district are capable of selling that millage increase until we, in fact, make some cuts and some serious cuts and establish some degree of accountability. THE COURT: Thank you, I appreciate everything youve said. I do wish that I could recess this and send you all away to make your own budget cut decisions. I feel that under the mandate from the Eighth Circuit I have to monitor what you are doing. Another problem I have is that Dr. Bernd did promise a year ago that he was going to do these things, and they have not been done, and, meanwhile, you have been receiving the desegregation money from the state, the settlement money, and it is being spent. And as a result, I feel that I cannot give you any slack any more. He was a new superintendent and he made these representations and I gave him time to what he said he was going to do, and he was not able or did not or some otherwise just didnt accomplish it. And so, now, here we are a year later, and without a permanent superintendent. And I appreciate the boards concern and tlte recognition of the seriousness of this problem. And I do hope that you are able to get together and I hope you will listen to the advice that Mr. Mooney gives you. I hope the board would be willing to sit down wth him and listen to some of his constructive suggestions to get you out of this hole. Il will take some working together, j^d I know that if the board does it on its own, the community will be much more receptive to it than if the Court has to do it. And thats what ought to happen.NOV- 5-93 fRI 14:50 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 04 1 regret that were tn this lawsuit. I wish we didnt have to have it, but the constitution requires that these schools be desegregated and the Eighth Circuit has said that they are not. Theyre not up to constitutional standards yet and the Plan will make them that way if you follow it. , And so, thats why were here. And, of course, the ultimate beneficiaries are the school children, I hope. Thats what we want, quality educational for all of our children. And so, we will make every effort to comply with this Plan and to squeeze this budget where it can be. But I appreciate your remarks. And, Mr. Riggs, do you have any that you might like to make to the Court at this time? MR. RIGGS: Well, I - the question, your Honor, and the whole issue is going to come down to this is  is really political courage. The board knows it  you know, I mean, by state law, we got to cut unless we go into receivership. Either you take us in or we go in through one of the chapters. I tliink Mr, Milhollens analysis is fairly accurate from what - what Ive seen today and what Mr. Mooney and Mr. Morgan and I have discussed at length. So, it  it really is going to come down to a - you know, this year, theres a paper balance, but its $11 million deficit. Next year, theres going to be an actual deficit. The question is does the board have the political courage to do something about it. If they dont, well, we could close the schools early, you take us over, we go into receivership. That's really what It comes down to. Now, along those lines where  where Mr. Mooney is going to be of great value is - is the process. Were going to have to have this process developed over - and - and implemented, like, as quickly as we can so that by - in my opinion, by December, by Christmas, wc know what budget cuts that have to be made next year and have to be made over the next two or three years, and whether - as Mr. Jackson says, whether were going to have to have a millage increase, which I believe hes right. We re going to have to do it. And hes right about  were not going to be able to sell them unless we can get our house in order. So, thats where  where Mx. Mooney and Mr. Morgan both are going to, in my opinion, help the district to get the process and the procedures on line and going. Now, its up to the board co hold the administrators accountable for that process. If anything where weve been lax, we havent done a good job. Obviously, youre up here talking about what Dr. Bernd has promised over the last year and, you know, in my opinion, one of the reasons ho aint here today in that chair is because he made promises and didnt do anything about it. He decided to leave on his own, but he could easily have left because of some other reasons, some of them being that - that he was making promises wc knew he wasnt going to keep to the Court and to us. So, if we - if we get the process developed, if we implement that process and if we have the political courage to to take the bullet  to bite the bullet and do those things, cut the programs that may be programs that patrons like but dont have anything to do with desegregation, thats going to be up to us. And if we cant do it, then Im sure as Ive said before, were going to have to put the keys on the table and somebody else is going to have to lock up and turn off the lights. THE COURT: Well, I might add, once you have a superintendent in place andNOV- 5-93 FRI 14:51 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 05 once you have thia budget process ongoing and the Desegregation Plan audit in place and working and administrators in place who are answerable to the board, then the Court will not require the presence of the board at these hearings. But I have felt that there has been a vacuum in this district as to who's accountable and whos responsible, a leadership vacuum, and that is why the ult^ate people - you are ultimately responsible, the board members, and thats why youve had to be here and thats why you will continue to have to come until this thing gets in order. But I do appreciate your attention to this and your wilhngness to face up to these hard decisions that must be made, and I do hope the board does have that poll deal courage you refer to because that is what the community will accept is your political courage. A community is very reluctant to accept whatever a federal judge does, and 1 know that. But I will do it. It is my job. And if necessary, I will do it. I dont want to. MR. RIGGS: Well, I guess a lot of it - THE COURT: And- , . MR. RIGGS: - your Honor, too. gets back to the community putting pressure on the board to have the courage to do the right thing, and - and Its my opinion is that the community needs to put that pressure on this board to get our house in order or the community loses the right to  to guide their ship and  THE COURT: Thats correct, MR. RIGGS: - then thats when you have to step in and - and guide the ship. THE COURT: That is correct. And the community did not elect me and they cant take me out of office and I am answerable to the constitution and to this country. But federal judges are never popular. They are always resented. I understand why, and I dont want to play that role of running your district. I want you to run it and I want you to make these veiy difficult decisions that you must make, and I dont want to tell you precisely each one. Those are your decisions, but theyre going to be very hard ones. MR. RIG GS: Y oure right. THE COURT: And I appreciate your being here today. I only wanted to ask him one more question. Are you going to be the planner for this? I havent looked at this. Is he the chief planner at this point, Mr. Milhollen? THE WITNESS'. Im not sure thats been determined yet. THE COURT\nOh. MR. MALONE: No, and thats - and thats - THE COURT: All right. , MR, MALONE: And thats what we were saying, with the state we re in, there were going to be - once those cabinet discussions are held and - and t^e place, some decisions can be made at that point as to who the  the go-to person will be. THE COURT: All right. MR. HAMILTON: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. Mr. Hamilton. Im sorry. You and Ms. Gee are both welcome to say anything you - MR. HAMILTON: Right. I thought maybe one of us would be next. I certainly wanted to have some comments. THE COURT: Well, those two have been more eager to talk, and so that s the reason. I didnt want to pick on people. So, go ahead, Mr. Hamilton.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor December 3, 1993 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: At last Augusts hearing on the LRSD 1993-94 budget, the Court reviewed the budget and numerous related business cases. The Court closely questioned LRSD about the business case that reduced the districts Communication Assistant to a part-time position. Judge Wright advised the district that the Court would particularly watch this staff reduction because it appeared to be a retreat from the Interdistrict Plan which requires the districts to search for ways to increase the number of staff responsible for public relations programs. In its August 26, 1993 order, the Court expressed strong concerns about the Communications staffing change because it represented a reduction that created the potential for negatively affecting desegregation progress: \"The Court questions the effect that losing a full-time Communications Assistant will have on the districts ability to meet its plan obligations.\" I understand that, although it was approved by both your Board of Directors and Judge Wright several months ago, the Communications Assistant position still remains open. Even though you have been in the process of reorganizing your staff, leaving this half-time position vacant for so long a time (the fiscal year is now half gone) is particularly troubling in light of the Courts pointed concern that a part-time position may not be enough to help the district meet its desegregation obligations. 1 also understand that the Communications director recently has been charged with coordinating the districts recruitment efforts, a new responsibility that inevitably leaves her less time to spend on regular communication duties and creates yet another void in the Communications office. Please let me know the date by which the Court can expect the Communication Assistants position to be filled. Also, will this position still be part-time or will it be full-time in light of the directors increased responsibilities? Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown LRSD Junior High Budgets, Enrollments and Per Pupil Expenditure Dunbar Jr High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure Actual Expenditures 1991-1992 2,177,871.82 691 3,151.77 Actual Expenditures 1992-1993 2,233,736.11 705 3,168.42 Actual Expenditures 1993-1994 2,375,356.69 701 3,388.53 Budget 1994-1995 Dated 8/08/94 2,215,349.31 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cloverdale Jr High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,012,575.56 745 2,701.44 2,162,862.55 775 2,790.79 2,197,345.54 701 3,134.59 2,072,735.61 Forest Hts. Jr. High Enrollment | ~~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,320,122.47 765 3,032.84 2,365,925.57 787 3,006.26 2,424,252.56 788 3,076.46 2,494,614.11 Henderson Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,464,130.70 859 2,868.60 2,836,387.32 914 3,103.27 3,049,192.92 915 3,332.45 2,961,683.42 Mablevale Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 1,918,244.33 665 2,884.58 2,047,442.02 667 3,069.63 2,097,826.14 654 3,207.69 2,053,420.97 Pulaski Hts. Jr. High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure 2,337,373.84 761 3,071.45 2,484,029.31 774 3,209.34 2,493,182.82 790 3,155.93 2,391,960.24 I I I I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Southwest Jr. High Enrollment | ~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,124,034.56 704 3,017.09 2,299,448.03 695 3,308.56 2,150,663.98 679 3,167.40 2,068,377.82 Mann Magnet Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 3,055,026.00 872 3,503.47 2,896,401.00 849 3,411.54 3,157,632.00 851 3,710.50 3,195,685.00 I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Totals Avg. Per Pupil Expenditure 18,409,379.28 6062 3,036.85 19,326,231.91 6166 3,134.32 19,945,452.65 6079 3,281.04 19,453,826.48 $ $ $ $ I $ $ $ Enrollment based upon Oct. 1, 1992 \u0026amp; 1993 (J i-* if I Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: November 16, 1994 From: Melissa Guldin, 1, Ass Isociate Monitor To: Gwen Efrid, Little Rock School District Health Services Coordinator Subject: LRSD Nursing Staff Our office recently received some information from the Little Rock School District regarding possible budget cutting strategies. The list of budget reduction possibilities included the substitution of Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) for the Registered Nurses (RNs) currently working in the schools. I understand that there are important differences in training, experience, and qualifications between LPNs and RNs. Since the issue of RN versus LPN is sure to be debated in the months ahead, I would like some information on the current status of the LRSD nursing staff. This data should help me be better informed regarding the districts nursing program. Please send me a list of all LRSD schools that currently receive nursing services, the number of days (or hours) per week that each site is served by a nurse, whether that nurse is an RN or LPN, and each nurses race and gender. If you have any additional information that you think would be helpful or informative, I would welcome receiving that also. I would like to become more familiar with the scope of the nursing program, before the district makes budgetary decisions. When the monitors visited the incentive schools, we were impressed with the wellness clinics serving the students, staff, and patrons of the incentive schools. The clinics myriad of health services and eligibility for Medicaid reimbursement help ensure that area residents and LRSD staff have increased access to quality health care. In addition to the staffing information requested, would you please send me a list of all the schools with wellness clinics that have been approved for medicaid reimbursement. Thank you for your help in providing this information. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.Lntite 3Scfe PTA Comcill D 0 FF5 2 A 1995 February 20, 1995 iJiciGiOi.nq Dear Dr. Williams and Little Rock School District Board of Directors: The Little Rock PTA Council is gravely concerned about the administrations proposed budget cuts pertaining to the school nurses. The decision to eliminate 19 registered nurses is quite shocking in view of the 1994-95 Little Rock School Board Priorities compiled just last September. 1994. in which Quality Nursing Services ranked third highest in priority. The PTA Council feels that the level and quality of nursing health care and services received by all students would be greatly diminished under this proposal and in the area schools would be virtually non-existent. Although it appears that most magnet and incentive schools would retain their school nurse positions, in reality these nurses probably would frequently be pulled to work at other schools that have no nurses. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that, ultimately, all our schools are at risk of losing the professional health care and services currently rendered to our children by the school registered nurses. The PTA Council is also extremely concerned about possible future plans to consider replacing the RNs (registered nurses) with LPNs (licensed practical nurses) and/or health aides. The knowledge and skills base of a registered nurse is significantly more appropriate in the school based setting in comparison to a licensed practical nurse. Neither an LPN nor a health aide possesses the specialized skills, judgment or knowledge necessary in providing the types of nursing care and services needed in our schools for our children. No parent wants his child to suffer the consequences or risks of mismanaged care given by inadequately trained personnel. During the process of identifying student health needs and intervening however necessary to meet those needs, school nurses provide innumerable types of professional services. In many cases, registered nurses are the only persons legally authorized under state public health regulations to complete the myriad of referral and evaluation forms for students needing special services. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that replacing RNs with LPNs and/or health aides would be comparable, theoretically, to replacing our classroom teachers with instructional aides. Many parents are greatly concerned about the continued assurance of basic nursing services received daily by their children such as administering medications and making pertinent observations, giving specific medical treatments, providing mental health observation and intervention, and providing observation and care for acute and chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, and head or other traumatic injuries. Every student has the right to a physically safe and emotionally secure environment in our schools, but will this right be severely compromised or. at worst, denied under this proposal? It must be noted that children in the lower socio-economic strata of our student population will undoubtedly stand to suffer greatly under this plan, because the school nurse is their only source of medical care for their health needs. The number of children in this category ranges from 100 to 150 per day. Currently, there are 1260 students in the LRSD served each day for acute illnesses and injuries, and over 1200 individual doses of medication are given daily. School nurses serve an extremely important function as health educators and advocates. As positive role models in developing permanent healthy lifestyles, they promote good health habits and illness prevention, carry out many health education programs, and work closely with students, parents and teachers regarding special health needs. Oftentimes the school nurse is the first and foremost person in whom a student will confide concerning personal problems and needs. Therefore, the nurses play a key role in providing support and intervention and handling the daily crises that arise. Therefore, the PTA Council strongly holds that in order for students to function at their highest learning ability and to have a successful educational experience, they must have access to the health services and education necessary to promote optimal levels of wellness. The PTA Council firmly takes the stand for maintaining health services as they are presently delivered and preserving the school nurse positions that we currently have. Thirty schools are covered daily with nurses while twenty schools are not covered\ntherefore, it would appear that the LRSD should consider adding school nurse positions rather than eliminating them. We also feel strongly that budget cuts should be made further away from the children, because school nurses directly serve 100% of the students in our district. At the last PTA Council meeting the members voted to make known to the LRSD Administration and the School Board of Directors our position on the proposed budget cuts affecting school nurses. Attached is a list of those members in attendance and the schools they represent. These individuals represent more than 13,000 PTA members in the LRSD. At a time when we are striving for safe schools, this situation certainly acquires a chilling perspective if we are to lose our school nurses and, as parents, suddenly feel that our children are truly in an unsafe environment The Little Rock PTA Council sincerely hopes that you will give strong consideration to our viewpoints regarding this issue and will not make any changes in the current school nurse program in the proposed budget cuts. Sincerely, MU Debbie Glasgi Glasgow, President(y Barbara Mills and Debbie Velez, Council Representatives Little Rock PTA Council cc: Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Ann Brown, ODM LRSD Administrators Gwen Efird and School Nurses PTA PresidentsName - A L y/iU/ Little Rock PTA Council DATE\nliM '^5' School/PTA Office Home Address/Phone /-^ryf A^AUsyPh {^20 '^nrck'^iAr/ I'i'iz ? cQ. / K 2. TU ao r 1 : \u0026gt; c r i' 1 y \u0026lt;1, !\\.lli-: T I3l( /Csa rl rk '1 \u0026lt;)/.. OTu^az-- A? -VA^ S , 3L ICv1UL4/l l\\ ft X ^f. n /UcC\\^U C6Ur,c3 po.y 77 -'lA,.. i /\\ I f 21 6 (3 }yidjc ) 'I I J 3 0 ') '\u0026gt; C-  'h\nflCOName CjLivv/yixZ ~Wy\u0026gt;d^ 1 't Little Rock PTA Council DATE=_a^^/y^,//7, /ggs School/PTA Office Home Address/Phone id ^'fWiV^ki S^'AfNS____ ______ V\\a5\u0026gt; '(1 CL^r^l Q'Dgc^ m^- lx ^A^CA I jL.^ \\ .d (^1 /I A W-^P -----Vc^A -^\"/u b I xt V. 9dzxi C ~7 \u0026lt;9 3^0 Kuh b/Q- L. r2 6 (Muisl (1/- 2i^ L^r- I \u0026lt; I7^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1390-96 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION {DRAFT 2} 02:-22-35 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL 1992-93 ACTUAL 1993-94 BUDGET 1994-95 PROJECTED 1994-95 BUDGET 1995-96 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 31,899,357 20,601,593 3,214,974 [depository INTEREST iREVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES IMISC. AND RENTS !interest on INVESTMENTS [ATHLETIC RECEIPTS I L TOTALl ' REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES [county GENERAL ! SEVERANCE TAX I [ REVENUE - ST A TE SOURCES iMFPA______________________ jSETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION WORKERS COMPENSATION TOTAL REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND TOTAL [TOTAL REVENUEQPgflATHHe: 118,998 I 317,646 I 120,412 I 317,978 I 141,376 I 91,322 ?5,823,6S6 73,971 I 16,232 [ 90,203 j ! 22.037,764 10,356,778 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 8,820 2,885,960 609,943 1,007,481 624,119 46,472,6I 28,585 95,588 613,166 737.339 103,123,807 38,196,979 21,081,833 ' 4,250,186 ' 140,858 241,476 224,667 I 406,878 ! 354,446 I 100,857 64,998,180 73,419 i 15,350 [ 88,769 39,701,855 22,220,949 4,293,380 145,690 360,734 245,162 574,918 208,519 37,005 67,838 212 73,428 18,031 91,459 27,264,460 i 25,275,221 8.637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 0 8,926,606 1,500,000 72,694 1,261,451 1,139,235 234,403 3,540 3,198,252 563,602 2,127,216 799,544 0 48,670,884 45,101,764. 9,385 129,428 394,675 503,365 1,036,853 114,794,488 40,866 171,006 ______0 458,905 670,777 113,702,212 39,625,387 22,011,928 5,666,289 146,379 333,970 182,353 I 194,465 I 265,622 j 38,600,327 21,420,949 4,802,692 145,000 325,000 ' 180,000 ' 220,892 ' 322,232 I 40,330,355 I 41,330,355 21,420,949 i 21,742,264 i 4,802,692 ! 4,700,000 i 154,473 i 368,6527 157,385 220,892 335,000 74,416 102,005 80,000 I 155,000 ' 385,000\n139,000 ' 230,000 [ 375,000 : 85,000 : 68\nSQ3\n809 66,119\nO97 67,870-398 63\nT41\n619 I I 73,210 I 17,749 I 90,959 73,419 18,000 91.419 24,710,980 I 26,162,235 8,094,112 I 6,042,591 ________0 i 1,600,000 0 ! 1,382,418 1,282,804 263,992 3,198 3,553,095 517,260 2,720,581 792,081 0 _______0 1,320,000 1,344,499 233,992 3,198 3,700,000 580,435 3,100,000 797,893 367.319 43,320,521 45,252,162 108,747 18,000 -126,747 100,000 i 18,000 i I 26,156,074 i 26,526,188 , 6,042,591 i 1,600,000 _______0 1,320,000 1,344,499 233,992 6,984 3,788,805 543,922 2,764,143 790,466 367.319 44,958,795 29,969 1,228,696 _______0 348,725 1,607,390 38,000 500,000 900,000 716,116 2.154,116^ 113,519,679 jl 13,616,794 38,000 500,000 900,000 685.103 2,123,103 115,079,043 3,829,942 0 i 0 j 1,100,000 I 1,444,499 i 235,000 j 7,000 I 3,850,000 ! 580,435 [ 2,800,000 I 808,523 j 375,000 I 41,556.587 30,000 500,000 250,000 685,103 i 1,465,103 1 jl2iS3^r i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1^-96 REVENUE ANO expenditure PROJ ECTION (DR AFT 2) O2-22-9S ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL 1992-93 ACTUAL 1993-94 BUDGET 1994-95 PROJECTED 1994-95 /REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS BUDGET 1995-96 I CHAPTER I jCHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER I TOTAL i revenue-magnet SCHOOLS ISTATE'LOCAL I TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE I EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS ^PURCHASED SERVICES MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS DEBT SERVICE [contingency RESERVE FOR ENCUMBRANCES total OPERAT)NGXPa\u0026lt;SESiS EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS total expenses INCREASE (DECREASE) IN fund BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING TOTAL :  2,886,618 227,900 468,964 974,090 4,557,572 12,571,785 12,571,786 120.253.16* 3,275,099 ' 224 423 558.810 I 1,164,511 i 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,221,200 4,286,192 122,666 624,024 ' 1,230,084 I 4,299,095 177,262 628.560 1.003.005 I 5,222,843 6,313,98 6,262,966 6,107,922 I j i 13,887,841 13.887,841 133.905,170 65,192,947 I 73,191,21-3 8,032,967 10,457,140 3,613,450 3.628,473 5,036,791 6,646,769 0 iia2iSQ8.537-\n4,190.920 12.571.785 119,371,242 881,922 185,838 119,574 552,490 634,844 13,089,529 I 13,301.449 13.0^.629 13.301,449 i33\ni{^^' 133iog4\na94^ 14.236.418 14.236.418 133.961.134 11S.Q79.043 i 112,281,309 : 71,912,128\n75,079,647 1 73 .341,-179 8,992,742 i 9,908,175 _________________ 9,305,313 I 10,338.888 jj00,718 I 9,534,751 I 11,369.363 i I.3i7nqn.3 4.010.761 2.973,788 3,959,731 I 2,954.394 5,402,198 7,950,100 0 5,076,338 9,554,535 T13\n:J07i46ai _________0 714,896 TT2\nS29\nQ0iS?:\u0026lt; 3,420,371 1,704,608 ' 4,537,917 ' 8,903,285 0 I T14.320,SO4i 5.132.152 5,922.798 6.688.267 13.887,841 1,777,714 552,490 634,844 643,181 2,321,867 13.089.529 131,641,33g 1,464,395 643.181 2,321,867 1,034,369 3,395,074 TTg^SS*^ 2,9^,0481- 4,429,443 13.301.449 134.310,220 (1,226,126) 1.034,369 4.985,188 609,068 4,184,363 4,793.431 74.566,029 76,619.818 i 3,273,118 2,644,992 5,504,406 8,533,631 0 10,422,322 12,000,000 3,000,000 2,600,000 I 10,361,349 12,300,000 . 3,300,000 j 2.900,000 i 5,200,000 I 5,900.000 ' 8,533,631 0 8,532,296 1,000,000 116i807.3J7 :\n116i^1,982 121,413,465 ( 6.711.620 14.236.418 137.755^55^ 116,321,982 121,413,465 (3.794,221) (1,242,939) (9,132,156) I i 609.068 4.184.363 609,068 609,068 4,184,363 I 2,941,424 5.370 993,840 i ^210T^ 609.068 2.941,424 609,068 ! (6,190,732)1B5022802 MEMORANDUM Date: February 28, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures As a result of my phone conversation this morning with you and Ms. Brown, I wanted to take this opportunity to share with you some information on the list of ideas entitled Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. I have kept a running list of possible budget reduction and improvement ideas since about June, 1992. I also track every shortfall strategy, business case, and other budget initiative through the entire budget cycle. Most of the people 1 regularly work with in the district are aware of these habits and have seen various versions of my notes from time to time. I have found the need to keep them since the district does not capture a comprehensive, running history of budget initiatives\ninformation I find useful in planning for the fijture. With the submission of the districts final budget in August, 1994,1 began a new cycle. This means I rolled over the list of ideas, and started anew tracking the shortfall strategies, business cases, and other initiatives for the fiscal year. In the joint LRSD/ODM staff meeting on November 22, 1994, we discussed the budget cycle and specifically shortfall strategies. During the discussion of shortfall strategies, I mentioned I had a long list of ideas. Since no one responded, I detected no interest. On December 20, 1994, Bob Morgan and I met with Fred Smith to introduce ourselves and offer our assistance. During that meeting, I mentioned the list of ideas, and Fred said he would like to see it. Attachment A is a copy of the document I sent Fred on January 6, 1995. During small talk at the beginning of a budget meeting on February 3, 1995, Fred acknowledged he had received the list, and said the district had already thought of some of the items. The district had the list. Another thing of importance. The list of ideas is just that. They are not ODM recommendations, they are not proposals. They are just ideas which I, were I in your shoes, would seriously research as a possible strategy. Some may be good, some may be bad, some might not be feasible. I felt the need to emphasize the point with a strange title, lest anyone attempt to use the list as an official mandate. If you read Attachment A, you will note that statement on each and every page. If you ask, I am confident Mr. Riggs and Ms. Magness will confirm I made essentially the same qualifier when they asked for the list. Keeping ideas secret has no value to me. I will share my thoughts with anyone willing to listen. Fred asked, and I shared them. Mr. Riggs and Ms. Magness asked, and I shared them. Had you asked, I would have shared them with you. I have been trying to share my ideas with the LRSD for two years\nsome have listened and some have not. However, getting people to listen gets harder with each passing month. If you want any of my ideas, ask and I will share them with you. If you want me to give them to you first, hire me. Copy to: Ann BrownB4112803 1/5/95 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. * School Closings. \\ Outsourcing transportation. \\ 11/7 Board Work Session. CHART OF SHORTFALL STRATEGIES BUDGET FY 95-96 11/7 Board Work Session. * Outsourcing other. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Delivery of Nursing Services. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Staff Development. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Clerical Support. * 11/7 Board Work Session. IRC - Staffing/Use. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Federal Programs. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Staffing Efficiencies/RIF. * 11/7 Board Work Session. New Futures/In-School Suspension. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Facilities Usage. * Academic Incentive Grants. * 11/7 Board Work Session. I i 11/7 Board Work Session. ATTAtHHeMT 13. Student Assessment. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 14. Vocational Education Delivery.  11/7 Board Work Session. 15. Four-Year Old Programs. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 16. HIPPY. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 17. Fringe Benefit Package. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 18. Contract Lengths. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 19. Community Education. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 20. Millagoe Election. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 21. Spending Freeze. * 11/7 Board Work Session. MOONEYS ADDITIONAL LIST OF POSSIBLE SAVINGS * Performance based pay * * * * * * * * * * Stipends. Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall Salary evaluation and overall review Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in Salary rollback. Reduce the number of school days. Reduce the hours of certain staff. Purge positions over $35,000. Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. Consolidate classes J * * * * * * Car allowance. Cellular phones. Vacation days policy revision. Review sick leave policy. Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM Initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance. * Incentive program for accident free driving. * Six period day. * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization. Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layoff/RIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, all support services in bundle. Serious program evaluation. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PCs. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Building rentals. 9 * Sell vacant properties. * Trash compactor\nCOMPAX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, VVA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the A APT Driver Workshops ($70/$350) * * Ask Union to give some contract back. Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. S~ 4-'  l!JLi^ !? *7^^ n *  : \" '*r   TO: LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FR: AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS MAR 8 1995 OKlcs ot Desegrsgalicn Mon\nMarch 6,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons collected approximately 430 signatures (in less than a 24-hour period) protesting the proposed 1995-96 Budget Cuts by the LRSD Administration. Area School Parents and Patrons feel that most of these cuts were addressed in the March 1993 petition to the Court, which was accepted into the Court record. We simply feel outraged and betrayed by this Administration's blatant disregard of the primary needs of the children in the majority of the LRSD'S schools, which were addressed in that March 1993 petition. And AGAIN, we ask the Administration and the Court not only to listen to our concerns, but also to act responsibly by making cuts which DO NOT AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHIT DRFN 'T / / fjB5030602 MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney fiM Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List As you requested, I am sending you a copy of the latest revision to the brainstorming list. The attached copy is up to date as of today, March 6, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of the week. Copy to: Ann Brown-7-- SSGEsV 'iQ-. LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MAR 5 1995 FR: A CONCERNED PARENT WHO HAS TALKED WITH MANY P.ARESjTS O^segregaKca March 8,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons are dazed at the prospect of the Administration's attempt to cut the Area Schools' Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the Focused Areas of Activities allotted monies, especially in light of the the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's report of December, 1994. This Administration's latest Business Case on these monies is so poorly yvritten and difficult to understand( besides the fact that it is filled vith inaccurate and incomplete information) that it simply should be rejected by the Court. The Court should demand that the LRSD give these monies to the AREA SCHOOLS in a timely and efficient manner, and should hold The LRSD accountable for its lack of concern for the Area Schools. It is difficult to try to figure out if this Administration deliberately writes such incredulously vague reports to confuse the people, or if this Administration is simply too incompetent to write clear, concise informational reports. Area School Parents and Patrons are adamantly opposed to cutting nurses in the Area Schools. It is this type of cut which makes the patrons of LRSD reel with feelings of rage, lack of trust, and abandonement. We demand MORE NURSES, NOT FEWER, IN OUR AREA SCHOOLS. Area School Parents and Patrons demand that the LRSD have a logical, workable plan of action in order to consider the closing of any schools. We believe that the LRSD has no workable plan for children who would be left without a school. The suggestions previously made by this district are illogical and unworkable. How dare the district ^^g^st that students be placed in already filled-up, overcrowded and underserved Area Schools. We do NOT support the closings of Fair Park and Badgett. Area School Parents and Patrons are fervently opposed to cutting any Counseling or Music services to our Children. AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS DO NOT SUPPORT ANY CUTS WHICH DIRECTY AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHILDREN. J a'MOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run costhenefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * Performance based pay * Stipends. * Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall * Salary evaluation and overall review * Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in * Salary rollback. * Reduce the number of school days. * Reduce the hours of certain staff. * Purge positions over S35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 20* * * * * * Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofE'RIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approvach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, VVA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. 21* Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/5350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA fonnula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 22B5030702 MEMORANDUM Date: March 7, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is the most recent version of a spreadsheet which I developed to help track budget actions. I am just now working the bugs out of it, so let me know if you have any recommendations. This tracking tool will be updated only when actions occur. Copy to: Ann BrownSheet! Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 204 8 Substitute Teacher_____________ Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)________________ Badgett School Relocation_______ Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School Mann Magnet Clerical Add_______ New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers_______________ Social Studies Curriculum Rev. Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses______ Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park Reduction In Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park Renovation at Fair Park - IRC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC___ BC BC SS SS SS SS SS SS O O N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M A M M A A M M M Y M D M M M M M M GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NSheetl $ 77,000.00 Y N $ 1,321,520.00 Y Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 185,828.18 $ $ Y YY N NY 170,000.00 669,900.00 Y Y ! 1  Y N Page 3 Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 182,783.90 Y Y I 1 N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 607,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 12,000.00 3,000.00 52,117.00 30,000.00 36,500.00 13,200.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 750,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N $ 849,282.00 $ 11,027,350.08 $ $ $ 10,178,068.08 $ Page 4B5031301 MEMORANDUM Date: March 13, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List The attached document is the latest revision to the Brainstorming List. It is effective as of March 10, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of this week or first of next week. Copy to: Ann BrownMOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost^enefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * Performance based pay * Stipends. * Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall * Salary evaluation and overall review * Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in * Salary rollback. * Reduce the number of school days. * Reduce the hours of certain staff. * Purge positions over $35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 21* * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofEZRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. 22* Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/$350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 23BO3I5O3 Date: March 15, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet which I have been keeping. It is up to date as of March 13, 1995. I have yet to include the Proposed Budget information, but will do so late next week. When I get that done, I will send you an update. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to\nAnn BrownSheetl Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 204 8 Substitute Teacher_____________ Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)________________ Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School_________________ Mann Magnet Clerical Add_______ New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers_______________ Social Studies Curriculum Rev. Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses______ Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park______ Renovation at Fair Park - IRC Reduction in Administrators EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC iBC ^BC BC BC SS SS SS SS SS SS O O O N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M M M A, M A M M Y M D M M M M M M D GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NINCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST Sheetl ' 9 DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 445,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 185,828.18 Y Y Y $ $ 170,000.00 626,848.00 Y y I $ $ $ 125,268.00 185,828.18 N $ $ 170,000.00 626,848.00 I N N Y Y N Page 3Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 1 N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ $ 798,696.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 $ 10,652,976.18 $ 9,854,280.18 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 478,696.00 $ $ $ $ $ N N 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 Y N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 7,449,656.18 6,970,960.18 Page 4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NB5032301 Date: March 23, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney li^ Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet. It is up to date as of March 23, 1995. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to: Ann BrownSheetl LRSD PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY FNAME: LREEBC01 REVISED: 3/22/95 ITEM SEQ# PROGRAM NAME METHOD PLAN MOD INCR COST DECR COST B/C REC A/D/M PLAN MOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 14 3 227 23 233 24 230 33 Academic Progress Inc Grants 231 Family Life/New Futures 2 [^FourVea r^3ldProgmm 2Q1 213 Guidance Services 215 Health Services/Nursing Services 1 HIPPY 15 McClellan Community School 13 New Futures 226 222 223 224 ____79 ____78 251225 5 203 21 EE/BC EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE/BC EE EE/BC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE EE___ EE EE___ EE EE EE iEE jEE EE___ SEE Y N Y N Y Y N Page 1 $ 445,000.00 $ 28,943.00 $ 175,000.00 Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N Y D Y M M N Y Y Y Y Kzi: X Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Y M M M D M N N Y Y NSheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 204 8 Substitute Teacher Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)_________________ Badgett School Relocation_______ Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park___________ Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park Renovation at Fair Park - IRC Reduction in Administrators EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC SBC___ [bc tec BC tec BC SS SS SS SS SS SS o o o N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M A M M A M A M M Y M D M M M M M M D GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943,00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NSr INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST Sheetl * DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 445,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 223,769.00 Y Y Y $ $ 130,000.00 626,848.00 Y Y j $ $ $ $ $ 125,268.00 223,769.00 130,000.00 626,848.00 Page 3 N I N N Y Y NSheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y 1 $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 I N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ II $ $ $ $ $ 798,696.00 $ 10,650,917.00 $ 9,852,221.00 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 478,696.00 $ $ $ $ $ N N 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 Y N N $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 7,447,597.00 6,968,901.00 Page 4 N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 DATE : ^/cl7S TO: PAT Cree' TAK it FROM: Bit-L HgPAfgy NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET MESSAGE: AS pec\u0026gt;cf^sTeD. iS Tf/e- LAresr i/siIs/oaP, TT X CAA Se- At/Y AeiJ\u0026gt;. FeeL FP.ee To cacl.. X X Kt k: X X Kt Kt P.Ol DATE START RECEIVER APR- 6 13:35 5692476 TRANSACTION REPORT APR- 6-95 THU 13:38 TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE 2'28\" 4 SEND OK X X X X X X X XMOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cosPbenefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * Performance based pay. Benchmark Cincinnati Public Schools plan for administrators. * Stipends. * Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall * Salary evaluation and overall review * Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in * Salary rollback. * Reduce the number of school days. * Reduce the hours of certain staff. * Purge positions over $35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Look at alternative health care plan with eye to maintain benefits at less cost\nthird party arrangements. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 24* * * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofTRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. Reorganize and downsize Federal Programs office. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VTPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. 25* Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/5350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 26MAY- 9-95 TUE 8:58 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 District Judge Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 C.'-6 CF 335 03 , Dear Sir\nI am writing as a concerned citizen of the Little Rock area, the personnel matters that have faced LRSD in the last months, have been taxing to me, and the friends who are employed in the district. The tremendous amount of stress and uncertainty imposed upon the districts employees is absolutely ridiculous. Listed below you will find some additional factors to consider for budget cuts: 1. 2. 3. Why do they project budget cuts just before the students take the test? (the teachers, supervisors, and directors are usually stressed and the FEELINGS carry over to the students in the classroom.) They want to pay Worthen Bank the money instead of bring the TEST SCORES UP. Did the Superintendent, Special Asst, to the Supt,, Assoc. Superintendent of Desegregation, Director of Human Resources, and Planning Research and Evaluation Directors take a cut in days, or give the district 5 or 10 thousand dollars from their salaries to balance the budget? The reason the Incentive Schools are not operation effectively is because of the incompetent,insensitive,unqualified instructional leaders who are trying to educate the urban Afro-American student, the principals are at Mitchell, Franklin, and Rockefeller Incentive Schools. Don't allow them to continue to DAMAGE the Afro-American students, place them in a west Little Rock school,my- 9-95 TUE 8:58 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 SO they won't corrupt the inner city students in the Little Rock Area. 4. 5. The GANGS are infested in the schools because of the tremendous amount of HATE exhibited by the teachers who are only in the teaching profession in the LRSD area to obtain a pay check. So much hate is exhibited from the principals and teachers that the students join gangs, to feel human and the ability to have some self worth.(a lot of teachers come from small town outside of Little Rock, but stay in the system to obtain the monetary benefits.) Why are the Afro-American directors and supervisors the first ones to be eliminated, or to cut the extra personnel in their departments\nwhile the European-Americans maintain their departments, and are allowed to add additional personnel QUIETLY. These are some important factors to consider when you go to court concerning the LRSD Desegregation Case, and why so many of the ideas in the case have not worked. The LRSD Administration office is INFESTED with Institutional Racism, until this FACTOR is eliminated LRSD will never integrate, or effectively educate the students in the Little Rock area. ^aa ^^acx d . 3 MAY 3 1995 Oifice of Desegregaiioii Moniioring PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE CUTS Legal Services (Staff Attorney and Secretary) Deputy Superintendent $ 88,520 VACANT (2) $ 93,969 E, Matthis Associate to the Deputy Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Coordinator $ 12,\u0026gt;1,33 S. Ingram $ 52,671 D, Rynders HIPPY Coordinators (2) Plant Services (EPA or Construction Mgr.) Instructional Technology (was D. Omfleet 1993-94) $ 48,118 A. Roper J. Richardson $ 49,127 $ 42,056 VACANT Supervisor of Math (was J. Trowell 1993-94) $ 55,942 VACANT Displaced Principals (2) $125,288 $628,130 POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE ADDITIONS Administrative Program Supervision $228,130 Net Administrative Savings $400,000 Plant Services current^has these two positions funded, but one recently became vacant, and the other may become vacant The two positions will bo combined and the rcsponsifciliiieswili be employee. met by one CTrrcntJy has three schools with acting principals (King, Carver, Henderson), be filled nArmAnntIv fk,* 1Qe Q_1__1 permanently for the 1995-96 school year. which will A We have five principals who are considered'displaced,\" Three of these individuals will be reassigned as butldmeonnanak in IQOS-OA anri ____.-ii v. , ... *u uo i cjssignea as building principal in 1995-96 and two positions will be eliminated, which two people will be eliminated as principals at this time. It has not been determined THE BOARD DID NOT VOTE ON THE INDIVIDUALS OR ON THE POSITIONS LISTED ABOVE, BUT ONLY ON THE ELIMINATION OF 5400,000 IN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES,B5O5O5O1 MEMORANDUM Date: May 5, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List The attached document is the latest revision to the Brainstorming List. It is effective as of May 5, 1995. The next revision is dependent on district budget action. Copy to: Ann BrownMOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost/benefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * * * * * * * * * * * * Performance based pay. Benchmark Cincinnati Public Schools plan for administrators. Negotiate with the union. Stipends. Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall Salary evaluation and overall review Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in Salary rollback. Reduce the number of school days. Reduce the hours of certain staff. Purge positions over $35,000. Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. Consolidate classes Purge all vacant positions from the budget * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Look at alternative health care plan with eye to maintain benefits at less cost\nthird party arrangements. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary 28* Incentive program for accident free driving, both monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. * * * * * * *  Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofTRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. Reorganize and downsize Federal Programs office. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Implement the Finance Analysis Model immediately, and try to retro-fit for the last two years for possible cut analysis * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VTPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H., use Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Begin phased chartering of existing schools that volunteer. * Strong phased effort to site-based management 29* Building rentals. * Lease existing available building space rather than build new school buildings. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMPAX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/S350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 30B5O5O5O2 Date: May 8, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet. It is up to date as of May 5, 1995. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to: Ann BrownSheetl Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 3^ 35 36 37~ 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 \"59 60 61 Substitute Teacher 204 Voc Ed (non-deseg) 8 Voc Ed (deseg) Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport_____ Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education___________ Arkansas Crusades Beacon School New Comers Center__________ Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses Eliminate contingency_____ Eliminate increments _____ Shorten year by 2 days EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC__ BC___ BC BC BC BC___ BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC SS SS SS SS fes Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen |SS Reduction in Administrators O O O GROSS TOTALS NET POSITION N N $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 Page 2 N N Y Y A M N N I D D M M jy A M M A A M a M M Y M D M M pMMMD Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N NN Sheetl $ : ft  \"  S  INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 261,000.00 Y Y ACT $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y N N $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 223,769.00 Y Y Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 223,769.00 Y N PB N N Y N N ACT $ $ 130,000.00 626,848.00 Y Y $ $ 130,000.00 626848.o6 Y PB N ACT Page 3Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ II $ $ $ $ $ 798,696.00 $ 10,650,917.00 $ 9,852,221.00 34,965.00 30,000.00 18,500.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 228,130.00 $ 688,326 00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 211,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 699,546.00 300,000.00 400,000.00 6,964,143.00 6,275,817.00 Page 4 N N Y Y I Y PB Y H N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N o N N N N ACT N Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N NB5080701 Date: August 7, 1995 To: Ann Brown From: Bill Mooney Subject: Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures After the LRSD budget hearings on August 1-2, 1995, you requested that I put together information concerning the times I had contact with LRSD concerning the list known as the Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This memo contains the occasions on which I have some record. In addition to this listing, there were several other instances where staff or board members requested another copy which I provided without note. I have kept a running list of possible budget reduction and improvement ideas since about June, 1992. I also track every shortfall strategy, business case, and other budget initiatives through the entire budget cycle. Most of the people I regularly work with in the LRSD are aware of these habits and have seen various versions of my notes from time to time. I have found the need to keep them since the LRSD does not capture a comprehensive, running history of budget initiatives, information I find useful in planning for the future. The brainstorming list of ideas is just that. They are not ODM recommendations, they are not proposals. They are just ideas which I have gathered from many sources. Some may be good, some may be bad, some might not be feasible. I felt the need to emphasize that point with a strange title, lest anyone attempt to use the list as an official mandate. Also, keeping ideas secret has no value to me. The list is no good unless decision-makers think about it, and this memo will show they had ample opportunity to use these ideas. With the submission of the LRSDs final budget in August 1994,1 began a new cycle. This means I rolled over the list of ideas, and started anew tracking the shortfall strategies, business cases, and other initiatives for the fiscal year. I am about to close out the 94-95 fiscal year by adding the final budget information to the list. The brainstorming list is contained as the last section of the comprehensive document\nLRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY. This document was updated numerous times during the fiscal year, mainly after some significant budget action by the LRSD Board. Attachment A is the most recent version, dated 6/30/95. It will be updated one final time. NOTE: the items in bold print represent the two times I got direct feedback on the shortfall strategies. 8/4/94 I had lunch with John Riggs, and we discussed the budget and several shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list. 8/16/94 11/22/94 12/20/95 1/6/95 2/3/95 2/3/95 2/24/95 2/24/95 2/28/95 2/28/95 3/6/95 3/7/95 3/13/95 I provided Mark Milhollen with the latest revision to my lists. In a joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting, I mentioned the brainstorming list which I was maintaining. I noted some research had already been done on some of the items, and that the list was pretty long. No one from LRSD responded\nHank Williams was present. Bob Morgan and I met with Fred Smith to introduce ourselves. During the meeting 1 mentioned the list of shortfall strategies, and volunteered a copy to Fred Smith. I sent Fred Smith an annotated copy of the brainstorming list, explaining the material. During a meeting with Mark Milhollen and Fred Smith, we discussed the shortfall strategies on the list. During a casual conversation at the beginning of a budget meeting, Fred Smith and I discussed the list. Fred Smith said the district had already thought of some of the items. I had breakfast with John Riggs. We discussed the budget and some of the shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list, specifically health services. I provided him an updated copy of the brainstorming list. Ann Brown and I met with Judy Magness and Russ Mayo. We discussed budget matters, and specifically shortfall strategies and health services. I provided Magness an updated copy of the shortfall strategies. I was brought in on a phone call between Hank Williams and Ann Brown. Hank Williams was complaining that he was not given any of the shortfall strategy information. I pointed out the 11/22/94 staff meeting and the 1/6/95 copy provided Fred Smith. I said I would send him personal copies in the future. I sent a memorandum to Hank Williams providing him a copy of the brainstorming list, and explaining its history and purpose. This was in response to the phone call of 2/28/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/6/95. 1 sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet which 1 used to track all shortfall strategies actually acted upon by LRSD. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/10/95.3/15/95 3/22/95 3/23/95 4/6/95 5/5/95 5/8/95 7/14/95 8/2/95 I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 3/13/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/22/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 3/23/95. I sent a facsimile copy of the brainstorming list, updated 4/3/95, to Pat Gee. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 5/595. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 5/5/95. Fred Smith, Mark Milhollen, and I met to discuss the shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list. Fred Smith had prepared a matrix showing some of the strategies down the left side, and obstacles across the top. Fred Smith did most of the talking, and I got the impression the purpose of the meeting was to show Bill Mooney why strategies were not undertaken. I hand delivered a copy of the brainstorming list, update 6/30/95, to Linda Pondexter in court.B4112802 06/30/1400 LRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY FY 95-96 This document is an ODM staff working paper which contains the following material: 1. Chart of Business Cases. This is a listing of all business cases known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those business cases. 2. Chart of Shortfall Strategies. This is a listing of all shortfall strategies known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those strategies. If a shortfall strategy had a business case prepared, then the strategy was moved into the Chart of Business Cases. 3. Chart of Budget Issues. This is a listing of budget related issues that should be addressed somewhere in the LRSD budget. 4 Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost/benefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. NOTE: Please help keep this paper updated by letting Mooney know of budget actions or suggested changes. 1LRSD CHART OF BUSINESS CASES BUDGET FY 95-96 NOTE: The items in bold print headings are active. The items with regular print headings are not active. 1. Academic Progress Incentive Grant. * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 14, Academic Incentive. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 14 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Gremillion and Mitchell. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Academic Incentive, for modification or deletion. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. APIG and Focused Activities deletions. * * * * * * Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $445,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness wanted to know why the district can cut this program in light of the Court Order. Williams says a plan modification will be required. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $445,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $445,000. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced the savings from $455,00 down to $290,000. * 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of revised business case. No action taken. * * * 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved continuing APIGS/FA and funded it at $20 per student for each area elementary school. The approved cost is now approximately $171,000, making the savings approximately $274,000. LRSD estimates savings as $261,000 on the summary table from the Board meeting. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the program 2modifications for a savings of $261,100. A new business case was submitted with the budget document. 2. Academic Support Program. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 03, Academic Support. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 03 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Glasgow, Parker, and Adams. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 03, Academic Support, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. 3. Data Processing. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 23 and 24, Data Processing. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams indicates he wants to give Beason some time on the job before considering Outsourcing data processing services. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 24 and 230, will be prepared by Beason. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 33. 4. District Wide Facilities Study (School Closings). * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 33, Facilities. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows District wide Facilities Study (program sequence # in error) will have a business case. It will be prepared by Mayo. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett of discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 22 and # 23. 5. Pupil Transportation Services. * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 223, Pupil Transport. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 223, will be prepared by Cheatham. 3* 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 25. 6. Family Life Education/New Futures. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #231 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young and Carson. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to nurses, counselors and science teachers, modification. Savings of $77,000. Would not require a Deseg Plan * * * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $77,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $77,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. Savings at $77,000. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a savings of $77,000. 7. New Futures. * * * * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 13, New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #13 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 13 New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6 period day. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $669,900. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board deleted the Learning Foundations course in the New Futures Junior Highs. This seems to lay the foundation for elimination of the 7 period day. Savings of $669,900. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted amount of savings dropped to $626,848. Difference is that this amount is based on actual salaries vice averages. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 4* 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $626,848. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. * 3I22I9S Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings * * * of $626,848. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Young concerning the business case. Mainly centered on cutting the 7th period. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to accept the business case as submitted by the superintendent failed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. In response to the failed business case. New Futures funding of $626,848 added back into the Tentative Budget Document. No savings now reflected. 8. Four-Year-Old-Program. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 02 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Price. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old, for modification or deletion. 2/1/95 flyer to parents. The pre-registration material sent to parents around the first week of February contained a flyer on the 4-year-old program. The flyer said that due to projected budget cuts the program may not be available in many of the schools. The final decision will be made by the Board in the near future. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate program except at the Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $1,321,520. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness states that the Board does not want to cut the 4 year old program, and the administration should look elsewhere. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $1,321,520. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program cost of $1,321,520. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving the program in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 9. Guidance Services. 5* * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 213, Guidance Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #213 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Elston. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 213, Guidance Services, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas * * Public School Accreditation Standards, modification. Savings of $125,268. Would not require a Deseg Plan * * *  2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $125,268. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$125,268. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and the savings of $125,268. 10. Health Services. * *  * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 215, Health Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #215 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Efird. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 215, Health Services, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduction in nursing positions while maintaining services. Cut 19 nurses from area schools. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $560,000. * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. * 2/24/95 Mooney meets with Riggs to discuss alternatives in health services. * 2/24/95 Brown/Morgan/Mooney meet with Magness/Mayo to discuss alternatives in health * * * services. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $560,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program 6* * cost of $560,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving health services in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. Williams indicates the district is now working with the Dept of Health on some new ideas for health services. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 11. HIPPY. * * * * * * * * * * *  11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 01, HIPPY. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 01 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Shead. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 01, HIPPY, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $185,828.18. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested some service numbers, asked about duplication of services, and possibilities of combining with other programs. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness, Mitchell, and Pondexter voiced concerns about cutting this item. If cut, savings have been increased to $223,769. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $223,769. Also included an action deadline of 5/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $223,769. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says they are recommending the cut in the HIPPY program because of the deficit. The proposed cut is not final at this time, since the Board has not voted. Other programs can deliver this service. Matthis says HIPPY will remain in the incentive schools and schools in southwest Little Rock. Cuts will remove about 50% of the kids served. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. A number of Board motions failed. No action taken. * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the HIPPY expenditures added back at $223, 769, and now shows no savings. Removed from the actual list. 12. McClellan Community School.  * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 7* * * * * * * *  * * * * 15, McClellan Community School. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 15 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Carter. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 15, McClellan Community School, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering the program. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $170,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about advisory board involvement. Williams directed Carter to go back to the advisory board for more input. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. General discussion concerning involvement of the Advisory Council. Board wants more input from Advisory Council and additional information from the staff. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $130,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $130,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. Administration considering counter-proposal (business case) by the McClellan Advisory Board. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. The Community School will be funded at $40,000 (plus earnings of about $50,000), for a total savings of $130,000. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion on the business case developed by the Advisory Committee\nthe committee did what they were supposed to do. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still at $130,000. 13. Staff Development.  * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 21, Staff Development. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 21 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Woods. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 21, Staff Development, for modification or deletion. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 814. Substitute Teachers. * * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Gadberry and Hurley. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # none. Substitute Teachers, for modification or deletion. This item did not appear on the 1/5/95 Extended Evaluation List, but was on the 1/17/95 tentative business case list. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Place a cap on professional leave. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $50,000. * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $50,000. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings * * of $50,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $50,000 savings. 15. Vocational Education. * * * * * * * *  * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 08 and 204, Vocational Education. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 08 and 204 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Green. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 08/204, Vocational Education, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology education programs at two junior high schools\neliminate low demand courses. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $182,783.90. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings had been reduced to $98,462. Smith says this is the result of fine tuning. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $98,462. Also included an action deadline of ASAP. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $98,462. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 9 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $98,462 cut and savings. 16. Safety and Security. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 25 and 225, Safety and Security Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 25 and 225 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Jones. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 25/225, Safety and Security, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes a feeder for # 31. 17. Discipline Management. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Mitchell, Robertson, Marshaleck. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 18. Alternative Education. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Elston, Anderson, and Glenn. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Pilot program of alternative classrooms at Southwest Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $34,965. * 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $34,965. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was added to the budget for an additional cost of $34,965. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $34,965. 19. Incentive School Program Modification. * * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 217. Develop business case for incentive schools program modifications for submitting to Superintendent and Council. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $607,250. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 10* * * * * * *  * * 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested more numbers and better justification. More general discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings amount had been reduced to $608,250. The difference is cutting 38 vice 45 positions. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $608,250. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $608,250. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced savings from $608,250 down to $211,250. Personnel cuts not as severe, from 45 FTE down to 10.5 FTE. 4/7/95 Court Submission. LRSD submits corrections to the revised business case. No change to the bottom line savings of $211,250. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Ingram on the business case. Detailed testimony by Brooks, Donovan, and Buchanan. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. Savings at $211,250. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still set at $211,250. 20. Middle School Concept. * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 218. Explore, gather, and assess data relative to the transition to the Middle School concept. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. However, the 1/30/95 Project Management Tool indicates the district is 100% complete on exploring, gathering, and assessing data relative to such a transition. 21. Beacon School Concept.  * * * * 11/11/94 letter from Williams to Brown. Letter indicates that planning has been completed and the district is moving ahead without the benefit of a business case. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Beacon School concept at Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $12,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. The $12,000 is for custodial costs. Program would run year round. Gee suggests looking for a grant. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. Budget cost still shows $37,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $37,000. 11* * * * * * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $37,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion on proposal. No action taken. 4/10/95. LRSD Budget Hearing. Brief discussion about the Beacon School concept in relation to the McClellan Community School business case and recommended cuts. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Williams says the amount can be lowered to $18,500 additional. The board tabled the addition. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Since only about $20,000, Riggs suggests waiting on this issue until later in the year when the programs are about ready to start up\naround 12/95. No action taken by the Board. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $18,500. 22. Badgett School Relocation. * * * * * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Badgett School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $523,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about keeping all the students together in any move. Riggs supported the idea. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $523,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional * * cost of $523,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Badgett failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school still open, with no savings in the budget. * 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote * on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 23. Fair Park School Relocation. 12* * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Fair Park School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $637,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested the amount of money to repair Fair Park * if it were kept open. Figures were not available. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed * * * * * * budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $637,000. Included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $637,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Fair Park failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school remaining open, with no budget savings. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 24. Elementary Music Teacher Staffing. * * * * * * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $161,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $161,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $161,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and savings of $161,000. 1325. Improving Student Transportation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * See feeder item #5. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams says the LRSD is coming back with a recommendation to outsource transportation. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 223 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Cheatham. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Pupil Transportation, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Outsourcing transportation. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings\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_274","title":"Budget process","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":["1992/1994"],"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 law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Budget process"],"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/274"],"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\nJUL 1 7 FILED U S. CiSTRICT COURT ASTcpN aokansas JUL 1 5 1992 CARL f!. 3i By: -1/ NTS. CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UEfX\nLE^K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER Pursuant to telephone notice provided to counsel on this 15th day of July, 1992, the hearings to be held on the Little Rock School District budget process previously scheduled for July 17, 1992 are hereby rescheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, August 3, 1992. It is so ordered this /-\u0026gt; day of July, 1992. iJn^ted States District J^ddggee THIS DdOoCcuUMmEeNnTt eEnN ti terMcedu on DOQCS\nSJgiN ''OMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56 AND/OR 7S(a) FHLa\" ,1N RECEIVED FILEDcr\u0026gt;\u0026lt; fOT JAM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 0EC 3 0 1992 BY^ ' 'i.vucH Office of Desegregation Monitoring OEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS On August 3, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1992, at a hearing scheduled to address the budgetary process of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD), the Court heard testimony on reductions in the LRSD 1992-93 operating budget. The Court entered a brief order on August 4 finding that many of the reductions have an impact on the desegregation plan. Nevertheless, with the exception of eliminating the seventh period at McClellan High School, the Court approved the reductions for the 1992-93 academic year and ordered that certain reductions be restored for the 1993-94 academic year. In this Order, the Court addresses in more detail the reductions made by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Music Teachers The LRSD Board of Directors approved the reduction of 22.8 FTE music teacher positions. the effect of which is to require the classroom teachers to provide the required music instruction. In its August 4th Order, the Court allowed the reduction of music teacher positions for the 1992-93 school year, but ordered that BQ those positions be restored for the 1993-94 academic year.* Music is very much a part of the LRSD's desegregation plan. For example, four-year-olds are to \"receive the services of counselors, music teachers\" and others (LRSD Plan at 17)\n\"Students will have opportunities to examine the artistic, musical. scientific, literary, social and political accomplishments of many ethnic groups.\" (LRSD Plan at 63.) Although it appears that the LRSD will comply with state standards regarding music education, it is guestionable whether. without full-time music teachers, it can maintain a music program with quality high enough to boost desegregation efforts. For example, one of the goals of the four-year-old program is to acclimate young children to the school environment by including them in the total school community through involvement in the broad spectrum of the school's activities. Music teachers help facilitate this assimilation process by working with all grade levels on joint projects such as special programs and presentations. Eliminating the music specialist hinders such coordination and may impede young students' integration into the school community and slow their ability to achieve feelings of \"belonging.\" Four-year-old programs have proven to be a successful desegregation tool, attracting students to the public schools and also serving important functions of both remediation and t In a separate Memorandum and Order filed last month, the Court ordered the LRSD to restore 3.9 FTE positions at the magnet schools, including the full-time music teacher at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School, for the 1992- 93 school year. -2-prevention-of-failure. The four-year-old program's quality is directly linked in part to the varied services, such as music teachers and counselors, that the LRSD desegregation plan has promised these very young children will receive. Another result of reducing the number of teachers with highly specialized music skills is decrease in the variety of a instructional options available to classroom teachers and their students. The settlement plan implicitly recognizes that music also sharpens listening skills. teaches group cooperation. commitment to task, and gives children multicultural experiences through the musical traditions of other cultures and countries. Because the Court finds that the reduction of 22.8 FTE positions for music teachers will negatively affect the district's desegregation plan, the Court has ordered the LRSD to restore all 22.8 FTE music teachers in the 1993-94 academic year. Elimination of Seven-Period Dav at Henderson Junior High School Even though the Court believes that eliminating the sevenperiod day at Henderson Junior High School for the 1992-93 school year will impair the success of the magnet program, it approved the proposal for this school year only and ordered the LRSD to restore the seventh period for the 1993-94 academic year. Henderson Junior High School is now the only secondary magnet school with a six-period day. The success of secondary level magnet programs is closely related to the degree of freedom students have to take the elective courses offered as part of the program. At the junior high level, it can be particularly 3-difficult to operate an effective magnet program within a six- period day given the need for students to fulfill certain graduation requirements. The Court made it clear when it granted permission to establish the Henderson and McClellan magnets that the LRSD must maintain distinctive, high quality programs to maintain the public's favorable perception of, and participation in, the magnet concept. Closely related to the quality of Henderson's program is the public's perception of this program compared to those at other magnet schools. The LRSD originally proposed the Henderson magnet program in hopes of reversing five-year decline in white a enrollment. (According to the district's figures, almost a third of the district's vacant junior high seats have been at Henderson.) A magnet program seen as only partially operational would only exacerbate Henderson's image problem, making it more difficult to recruit students and desegregate the school. Gifted and Talented Programs The LRSD reduced the number of its gifted and talented specialists to 16 FTE positions. While the Court did not disapprove this cut for the 1992-93 school year, it is concerned that the staff reductions may make it more difficult to maintain the required level of services to students, faculties, and parents. If this should prove to be the case. these cutbacks will be contrary to both the letter and spirit of desegregation agreements. The LRSD desegregation plan strongly commits the district to gifted and talented education. In a section entitled Gifted -4-Education, the district promises a superior program implemented by teachers with specialized training and experience: 'Services are provided to these [gifted and talented] students by teachers (specialists and facilitators) who have completed or who are pursuing graduate credits in gifted education.\" (LRSD Plan at 58.) Also, \"all three districts are committed to following the best practices in the field of gifted education in identification. curriculum, and program evaluation.\" (LRSD Plan at 58.) The desegregation plan assures that black children will not be underrepresented in gifted education: \"[SJpecial attention shall be devoted to the identification and placement of black students and students from low and middle socio-economic levels.\" (LRSD Plan at 58.) This plan provision relates to the fact that minority students and those from low socio-economic backgrounds may not exhibit their \"giftedness\" in traditional ways that are more readily discerned by a teacher inexperienced in identifying exceptional children. Therefore, gifted and talented program cutbacks may result in fewer minorities participating in the gifted program. The cutbacks may not only affect black and poor children, but also may hinder the academic progress of all children whose unusual gifts and talents can be adequately nurtured only through quality, specialized learning opportunities. The desegregation plan contains numerous other provisions that reinforce the district's commitment to gifted education. For example, the LRSD obligated itself to seek federal funds to help support a long list of programs that includes gifted and talented -5-education. (LRSD Plan at 97.) The incentive schools are to offer such specialized programs as gifted and talented \"during the core instructional day, with reinforcement activities available through the extended-day, week, or year programs.\" (LRSD Plan at 154.) The LRSD even made gifted and talented education a programmatic emphasis at the Dunbar Junior High International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet School to attract a diversified student body to this hard-to-desegregate school. The magnet program began in 1990 and the school is now within racial balance guidelines. Clearly, the LRSD has promised parents, teachers, students, and the courts that it will advance desegregation by providing a comprehensive, quality gifted and talented program that is attractive to parents and meets the needs of all children. The Court also notes that the State of Arkansas requires and strongly supports gifted and talented programs. The state has specific standards regarding these programs, including requirements relative to teacher-student ratios and the amount of weekly time children spend in gifted learning activities. Cutbacks in the LRSD gifted programs may place the district at risk of violating state standards. The Court will not condone any programmatic or staffing change that would result in the district's breaching state educational standards, including Arkansas Department of Education guidelines for programs such as gifted and talented. Because changes in the gifted and talented program may jeopardize desegregation, the Court will closely monitor the impact of reducing the gifted and talented staff and concomitant program -6-modifications. If the Court determines that the changes detract from the quality or appeal of the gifted and talented programs and magnet features, hinder the participation of all eligible children, or otherwise result in failure to fulfill desegregation plan commitments, the Court may require the LRSD to restore the number of gifted and talented specialists to previous levels or to make other adjustments in the program. Plant Services The LRSD 1992-93 operating budget cut 10 FTE custodial positions, citing an \"Omaha Formula\" as the basis for allotting custodial staff. The Court warns the district of its responsibility to ensure that all schools are clean and in good repair. with particular emphasis on maintaining the incentive schools and other hard-to-desegregate buildings. The district has recognized that maintenance and facility attractiveness are important to the incentive schools' ability to draw new students. Furthermore, schools with special programs (such as Rockefeller where the early childhood program serves children as young as six weeks of age) may have unusual cleaning needs that the district must not neglect. If school maintenance declines due to the decrease in custodial services. the Court may require a return to previous staffing levels. To facilitate monitoring, the Court requires the district to submit a written description of the \"Omaha Formula\" and an explanation of how it is being used to determine staffing levels. The district must also furnish, within 30 days from the -7-date of entry of this Order, a complete list of the number of custodians by building, indicating where staffing changes have been made between the last school year and the current one. Teaching Vacancies In an effort to reduce the number of teaching positions, the LRSD decided to eliminate small classes by strictly adhering to a minimum class size of fifteen students. The Court cautions the district about the possible negative impact of dropping small classes, especially in magnet schools where specialized classes are a part of those schools' unigue appeal. Moreover, most of the district's secondary schools offer certain specialized or advanced level courses, such as those in mathematics and foreign languages. These courses have magnetic appeal that helps promote a desegregation. The Court encourages the district to find ways to augment enrollment in specialized classes through recruitment or combining groups so that children will not be denied an opportunity to participate in special learning experiences because a certain class has low enrollment. The Court will monitor the schools to determine what classes are dropped due to the district's fifteenstudent enrollment minimum. If the quality. scope. or desegregative appeal of academic or magnet programs are compromised by the withdrawal of previously offered courses due to low class enrollment, the Court may require the district to reinstate deleted courses. -8-Counselor Department Positions and Elimination of the Pupil Personnel The LRSD's 1992-93 budget reduced the number of FTE counselors by 19 and eliminated the entire Pupil Personnel Department, a district administrative division that was responsible for coordinating and supporting school counseling and other pupil services. The LRSD desegregation plan is replete with examples of guidance and counseling services that it is obligated to furnish the children. (See LRSD Plan at 2829 for a number of district goals related to availability of such services.) There are also incentive school features that specifically require the direction and support of counselors: the Career Skills Development Program, Attendance and Behavior Guidelines, College/Post Graduation Awareness, Individual and Group Counseling, and Study Skills. Additionally, several of the desegregation plan's incentive school implementation timelines list the Pupil Personnel Department as responsible for helping to ensure that incentive school children receive assistance cataloged under two discrete desegregation goals: \"To create a program of counseling/social work to provide extra support to students to ensure them opportunity for success\" (LRSD Plan at 183) and \"[t]o more closely and thoroughly monitor incentive schools in order to develop a clearer picture of student achievement at these buildings.\" (LRSD Plan at 186.) Eliminating the Pupil Personnel Department is a cause for great concern. One of the main responsibilities of this department's director was to coordinate guidance and counseling -9-services throughout the entire school district. Arkansas Act 908 of 1991 establishes over thirty responsibilities for student services coordinators and names the position of Student Services Coordinator, which is analogous to that of the LRSD Pupil Personnel Department director. Act 908 requires counselors to provide a number of specific services, mandating that they devote at least 75% of their work time to direct counseling services and not more than 25% of their time to administrative activities. The Court fears that, with the reduction in the number of counselors and the lack of direction and support from the Pupil Personnel Department, the district may not fulfill the guidance and counseling functions required by the desegregation plan and state law. If monitoring determines that the district is unable to provide the full range of required services, the Court may direct the district to restore eliminated positions. Non-certified Vacancies The LRSD determined to reassign four instructional aides from the Instructional Resource Center (\"IRC\") to existing vacancies in the schools. These aides have enabled the IRC to provide a range of instructional support because the aides' assistance helps IRC specialists deliver academic and desegregation-related services directly to teachers in the schools. The desegregation plan casts the IRC in important supporting roles in all the schools. For example. IRC specialists are obligated to furnish inservice and any needed special assistance to principals and teachers in order to promote student achievement and -10-growth (LRSD Plan at 127.) The plan heavily commits IRC specialists to supporting the incentive schools through such means as staff development, participating on special committees, assisting new teachers and those experiencing difficulty. and (See LRSD Plan at 192-93, 194, 201, and 204.) While the LRSD has not cut the number of IRC specialists, the Court is nevertheless concerned that, without their experienced helpers, the specialists will be forced to curtail the extent of school-based assistance they are able to give. Such support is especially critical this year because the district has adopted an expansive new curriculum that impacts teachers in all grade levels. There has been much fanfare about this new curriculum, which the LRSD developed in response to an extensive 1990 curriculum audit, a part of the case record. In the audit report, there are numerous references that go to the heart of instructional problems which the IRC staff shares great responsibility for alleviating. For example, in a report finding entitled \"Line of authority and direction of the district's curriculum management function is disordered and fragmented\", the auditors noted that: \"Teachers and parents lamented the inadequate support given to improvement of the quality of instruction... Some principals took uneven notice of ineffective and inadequate classroom patterns and teaching activities. Observed teaching activities [included those] which reflected very low power teaching techniques and feeble and ineffectual instructional activities...\" (LRSD Curriculum Audit at 13.) Distressingly, the report goes on -11-to state that \"learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse, unless administrative direction. expertise, and intervention is provided in the educational programs of the Little Rock School District.\" (LRSD Curriculum Audit at 14.) The desegregation plan plainly represents the IRC as an intervention resource for all schools with emphasis on applying IRC expertise to the incentive schools. As the schools adjust to the new curriculum, working to ensure that learning does indeed get better instead of worse, there will doubtless be greater demand for all types of support services, especially those from the IRC which has for many years been the district's seat of curriculum guidance and support. In paring its budget by eliminating services that so closely affect the children. the district risks undermining its own desegregation plan. Once again, the Court reminds the LRSD that the Court will closely monitor these changes to determine their affect upon the district's ability to live up to its desegregation promises. Material, Supply, Equipment, and Substitute Budgets The Court is concerned about the reductions the LRSD 1992-93 budget lists in 44 departmental budgets, and the potential impact these cuts have on desegregation. The Court particularly notes that the reduction in the McClellan Community School budget is so large that it likely will have a direct effect on program delivery. The district must be mindful of the language in its desegregation -12-plan which states that a McClellan Community School planning committee (now called the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council) is a means for promoting community involvement and input so that whatever changes are proposed for the school will reflect the community's needs and wishes. This council must be meaningfully involved in all changes at McClellan, including budget planning and adjustment. It is within the scope of the committee's responsibilities to help the district monitor the effect of the budget cuts on the community school program, recommend any appropriate changes that will enable the program to achieve its goals economically but effectively, and to work with the district in planning the 1993-94 community school program budget. The LRSD's $25,000 parent recruiting budget cut may jeopardize the district's pledge to recruit white students through activities and events outlined in the desegregation plan. numerous During the process of revising and updating the desegregation plans, the parties chose to incorporate the public relations section from the Tri-District Desegregation Plan into the current interdistrict plan. This addition obligated the districts to aggressive public relations activities that directly affect the ability to attract parents and their children to the public schools and keep them there. Because the work of parent recruiters is crucial to public relations and the recruitment process, the recruiters have tremendous responsibility for the desegregation plan's success. The LRSD desegregation plan explicitly assigns the parent recruiters a long list of responsibilities (see LRSD Plan at 95, -13-216, and 218-22) in addition to those implicit in the interdistrict plan. The district must provide for effective parent recruitment. Furthermore, the district is well aware that it must double fund any incentive school for as long as the school remains racially identifiable. Since recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools is a primary job of the parent recruiters. the district must provide the Court with specific details about how it intends to cut $25,000 from the parent recruitment budget and yet maintain the recruitment level necessary to fulfill its obligations under the plan. Utility Costs The district intends to reduce its utility costs by adjusting the start-up temperatures for activating heating and air conditioning systems in the schools and other buildings. Such a step is a reasonable cost-containing measure\nhowever, the Court advises the district against operating the temperature control systems only while students are in the buildings. If heating and cooling units operate only when children are present. the new utility policy can have a negative effect on staff. School staff frequently remain in their building. after children have been dismissed. for a variety of reasons. including instructional planning, classroom preparation, meetings, conferences, tutoring sessions, and inservice. Many buildings do not have windows that can be opened for ventilation. In hot weather. lack of a ventilation makes it impossible for individuals to work comfortably and productively in buildings once the climate control system has -14-been turned off. Staff should not be expected to swelter or freeze while they donate after-school time on behalf of the district. Conclusion The Court will not tolerate budget cuts inhibiting the full, on-schedule implementation of the desegregation plan. It has ordered the LRSD to restore for the 1992-93 academic year the seventh period at McClellan High School. The Court has ordered that 22.8 FTE music teacher positions and the seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academic year. The effect of the other budget reductions: gifted and talented specialists reduced to 16 FTE positions\ncustodial positions cut by 10 FTE\nFTE counselors cut by 19\nelimination of the Pupil Personnel Department\nreassignment of 4 instructional aides from the IRC\nreductions in the budgets for material, supply, equipment, and substitutes\nand the strategy to reduce utility costs, will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts. The Eighth Circuit Court has been emphatic about how it will view budget cuts and the district's commitment to desegregation: We wish to dispel, in particular. any notion that an asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction in their commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan, even if such a reduction were agreed to by the Joshua Intervenors, an eventuality which, in any event, seems to us most unlikely. The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. are The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed. -15-Even [plan] changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover, could be approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including lack of funds) for them. Appeal of the Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991). In its opinion extending the millages, the Court stated: The district court appears to suggest in its opinion that the scope of the remedy can be limited to reflect the loss of the anticipated funds. We cannot accept the suggestion that a remedy can be so limited once this court has found it to be constitutional. Such a course would be contrary to what we said in the opinion and contrary to law. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 971 F.2d 160, 165 (Sth Cir. 1992). The success of the desegregation plans depends upon the schools' ability to attract and hold white students and to lower the achievement disparity between black and white children. The Court will find it hard to tolerate any budget cuts that jeopardize the district's ability to do exactly that. This is why the Court is concerned about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson). The district must be mindful of the many commitments it made in the public relations section of the interdistrict plan. a -16-section which the parties themselves chose to transfer in its entirety from the TriDistrict Desegregation Plan. Recognizing that desegregation will succeed only so far as the community supports and participates in it, this section presents an encouraging picture of energy. creativity, and renewal that promises to build a strong and positive relationship between the school districts and the community. The section stresses that dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of the desegregation plan and that public trust depends upon the districts' fulfilling their commitments. The Court cannot stress too strongly that it will be impossible to build and sustain public confidence and participation if the communityincluding school employeesperceive that they cannot count on the school districts to keep the promises they make. The Court also worries about the impact of the budget changes on teacher morale. The interdistrict plan specifically recognizes the strong relationship between staff morale and successful desegregation, calling on school staff to serve as ambassadors to the community and to share responsibility for recruiting and sustaining desegregated student enrollment. (Interdistrict Plan at 64-66.) Classroom instruction. especially as related to eliminating achievement disparity, is greatly affected by morale\nit is also impacted by what the district requires of its teachers and the amount and scope of support the district provides so the teachers can fulfill those requirements. District personnel are having to deal with many significant changes this year resulting -17-from a new superintendent and other top administrators, the effects of the budget cuts, curriculum changes, and desegregation plan requirements. For example: school staff must implement the extensive new curriculum\nthey must learn how to use the new computer instruction and achievement tracking system, and find the time to feed the required information into the system\nthey must compensate for the cutbacks in gifted and talented specialists by assuming an additional instructional load\nmost elementary teachers must incorporate music instruction into their classroom routine without the benefit of music teachers or even a music supervisor as a resource\nand teachers' remediation responsibilities have increased due to changes in the district's academic support program (previously known as PAL.) The staff who are most directly responsible for helping ensure children's academic success are having to make many difficult adjustments this year, and the Court is concerned about the effects these adjustments will have on desegregation. The Court does not sanction changes that will have the effect of putting the LRSD at risk of non-compliance with state standards or statutes. The Court will closely monitor the effect of the budget changes and many reductions may have to be restored if the Court determines that the desegregation plan is being impeded by the changes. The Court understands that Superintendent Bernd did not have many options open to him when he joined the district last July, but the Court trusts that he will make choices for 1993-94 and beyond that are as far away from the children and the  18 desegregation plan as possible. Should the LRSD anticipate making any changes, the LRSD must submit these changes to the Court and must not implement them prior to the Court's approval. DATED this -^0 day of December, 1992. _________ UNITED States DISTRICT JUDGE I -19-On January 21, 1992, the United States District Court ordered the LRSD to make certain submissions in order that ODM could determine that the LRSDs budgetary process would meet the following requisites: (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the districts legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. The LRSD filed its reply to that order on June 1, 1992 and began an ongoing process to satisfy the request of the court. By incorporating into the general ledger a code structure that ties the districts general ledger to the desegregation plan, a link has been established between the districts legal requirements (the desegregation plan) and its fiscal commitment (the budget). The district has committed to maintaining the code structure and to provide reports to the ODM for monitoring. The district has incorporated the new codes into the 1992-93 budget. The ODM continues to have concerns about the budgeting process that is used in the LRSD and its capability to determine its financial status. The LRSD is a multi million dollar enterprise. It is the states largest school district and should set an example of strong fiscal management. Yet, the district operates its financial affairs like the smallest of school districts that have simplistic needs. The Arkansas Department of Education provides Handbook II as the basis for school district accounting and within the code structure there is ample flexibility to measure any aspect of school finance. The LRSD Policies and Procedures Manual has very little in the way of board policy relative to financial matters. There is no requirement for board approval of major expenditures. Therefore, major financial obligations are undertaken without full public disclosure committing the District to, not only current year obligations, but also to future payments. Examples include the purchase of computer equipment for the CMIT project and the expenditure of millions on the PAL program, as well as the open ended \"double funding\" of the incentive schools. The Board has not required, as a matter of policy, that new or changed needs that require substantial outlays be funded in the budget, and that the sources of the funds be identified. For example, if additional funds are needed for security personnel, which item in the budget will have to give up the money. The current financial system is essentially an accounting system that produces the accounting reports required by state law. However, it does not generally satisfy the high priority needs of the District itself. Major unmet needs include an improved ability to generate systematic short- and long-term expenditure projections, as well as an improved ability to allocate resources according to explicit District priorities, especially in relation to academic programs.In December 1990, a report submitted by a team from the National Curriculum Audit Team and commissioned by the LRSD Board stated in Finding 5.3 \"School management practices show inadequate control of district resources.\" and in Finding 5.1 \"the district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel.\" The auditors found that \"the budget was not used as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities were not apparent\" Neither is the desegregation plan used daily as an instrument to guide implementation of district policy. There is a disparity between the promise of the plan and reality yet there is no evaluation of the programs the school district offers to see \"what works\", and no changes are made to cut ineffective programs. In effect, the school district seems to have a large slump hole into which it pours money. In no way can the district offer that they have shown good faith efforts to improve the quality of the educational process. The lack of program orientation and other truly useful financial information may impede the Districts efforts to provide an equitable and productive distribution of resources to all students. Program budgeting has the characteristic of a primary focus on the purpose for which funds are intended, e.g., McClellan Magnet Program, PAL Program, Alternative Programs, Gifted and Talented, etc., rather than on object code line items, e.g., textbooks, supplies, certified salaries, etc., or organizational units. When budget documents are presented to the board and public, there should be a comprehensive overview of each program and all of the resources allocated to them. The accounting codes used by the school district provide for the use of a function code which could be defined as program categories in a program budgeting system. School districts provide educational services to students in the form of academic programs such as reading, mathematics, science, social science, etc. Parents, teachers, and students view progress and achievement in the same terms. The financial and human resources to accomplish all of this in the LRSD are accumulated, budgeted, allocated, analyzed and reported in terms of funds, schools, functions and objects, but not the primary programs which embody the reasons for the districts existence. Thus, neither the public education constituencies nor the administrators themselves can readily discern the priorities of the district as reflected in the allocation of resources. The curriculum audit pointed this out to the district in its Recommendation 12: \"Move toward greater involvement in budgeting with curriculum linkages.\" That recommendation is especially valid considering the need to balance budgets with revenues in an effective and equitable manner. The recommendation identifies the major steps, found on pages 119-120 of the curriculum audit, necessary to install programmatic budgeting. Instead of concentrating their management efforts on improvement of internal processes and developing basic management information, the district has continued to ignore the direction of the court and its own commissioned audit. The Board of Directors at the direction of the previous administration renewed contracts for all personnel effective May 1, 1992 and passed responsibility to provide a balanced budget to the new superintendent. As a result, sweeping cuts were made to the budget that were inappropriate. At the time of the cuts. Superintendent Mac Bernd made promises to improve the financial process in order to be in better position for the next year. He stated in the budget document transmittal Once this budget is adopted, the budgeting process will not end. We must begin to restructure the budgeting process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing so many different programs which ultimately distract the Districts focus to the other issues. It is my goal to place the entire District in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement. This will be done by concentrating our attention first on the core curricular areas. Next, programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement in these areas will be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, I will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year. Finally for the district to operate efficiently and effectively it will be necessary to streamline the administration. Because contracts have been renewed for 1992-1993, this cannot happen this year. On the other hand, the District has several cost centers where investment in personnel might produce savings or generate revenues for the District. All of these items will be considered in the coming months. Now as the District approaches May 1, 1993, history seems to be repeating itself. The district is projecting large deficits for the next year yet has little good information on which to base cuts or deployment of personnel. Again, the plea of \"wait until next year\" is heard. We can no longer continue down this path. The administration was aware of problems and has not put adequate resources to correct them. The position control system does not reflect the authority for each position or the person assigned to that position. How can a district cut personnel when it cant even determine what positions it has? Where is the plan for allocating personnel to the needs of the children?John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 'i-m 5\n1\n' (F 3 y U !1 iSroa 8 V *.r. ' FEB 2 1993 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR. * Also admitted to Practice in Georgia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia. February 1, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 -.ng Dear Dr. Bernd: I would like to have the names, addresses, telephone numbers and race of all the members of the advisory committee on budget _ J. also like to have a about which you spoke this afternoon. copy of their minutes of each meeting held thus far along with their agenda and any reports they have made today. I would like to pick this information up by the end of business on February 2, 1993. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours. U). John W. Walker JWW:Ip cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Richard Roachell tHase CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNEHSHI? OF INDIVDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 3LTLDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCC, ARKANSAS 22201-3493 Tritphone (501) 375-2011 Fix No. (501) 375-2147 DiicetNo. 370-1506 TO: MEMORANDUM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a repon about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matten which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that\" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1, Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) 3, Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 4. Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 5. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 The orders WWW which have been issued by the District Court since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building, Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: \"(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations,\"* On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan' together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. It On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 24 Court also notified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher positionsTn the seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to comElying with its desegregation aooui me utue kock scnooi comm: plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget mal^i^ difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3X 1\no There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4 FEB-23-93 TUE 15:03 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On February 1, 1993, the Court held a hearing to determine, among other things, what progress the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") was making with respect to conforming its budgetary process to that outlined in earlier orders of the Court. Having considered the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing, the Court determines that the LRSD needs assistance in developing a budget that complies with the Court's requirements for a budgeting process and document that can be effectively monitored. The Court first notified the LRSD of its concern about the LRSD's budgetary process over a year ago. During hearings on the parties' proposed modifications to their settlement plans. the Court expressed concern about its ability to monitor the parties' compliance with the settlement plans absent budget documents that clearly reflect the districts' allocation of resources in relation to both short-range and long-range planning to meet desegregation plan goals, programs, and priorities. The Court specifically addressed its remarks to the LRSD, and followed up its comments FEB-23-93 TUE 15:04 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.03 with an order filed on January 21, 1992, directing the Lrsd to submit a revised 1991-92 budget, prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM). The Court ordered the LRSD to make certain submissions so the Court could determine that the LRSD's budgetary process would meet the following requisites\n1) accurately reflect and comprehensively account for expenditure of settlement funds\n2) demonstrate the link between requirements and the fiscal requirements\nthe and link the the underwriting district's of legal those 3) describe a desegregation budgeting demonstrated, justified, and verified\n4) enable the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to desegregation obligations. process that can be and align finances with The LRSD filed its response to the Court's order on June 1, 1992, \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93-1996/97,' A revised version of this document was filed on July 31, 1992. Among the changes and additions in the revision's section entitled \"Desegregation Budgeting: Description - Future Year Procedures\" were new statements that \"[t]he Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process\" and \"[t]he Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct audit and related budget proposals.\" a Desegregation Plan Additionally, in the budget document presented to the Court on July 31, 1992, which was the subject of an August 3, 1992 hearing. LRSD Superintendent Bernd, stated: who had come on board July 1, 1992, Once this budget is adopted, the budgeting process will not end. T- -------- We must begin to restructure the budgeting -2- FEB-23-93 TUE 15:04 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 so process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing many different programs which ultimately distract the District's focus to other Issues. It is my goal to place the entire District in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement. This will be done hv Next, , This will be done by concentrating attention first on the core curricular areas. programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement in these areas will be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, i will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year. Finally, for the District to operate efficiently effectively, it will be --------  and administration. necessary to streamline the Because contracts have been renewed for 1992-93, this cannot be fully accomplished this year. C*, the other hand, the District has several cost centers where investment in personnel might produce savings or generate revenues for the District. All of these items Will be considered in the coming months. On All of these items Document # 1649. In December 1990, the LRSD Board of Directors received a Curriculum Audit it had commissioned the National Curriculum Audit Center to conduct. This report is a part of the case record. In Finding 5.3, the report found that show inadequate control of district \"school management practices resources.\" In Finding 5.1, the auditors stated\n'[T]he district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel.\" The auditors found that \"the budget was not viewed as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities were not apparent . , 11 Finding 5.4. The Court finds that this continues to be the case. -3- FEB-23-93 TUE 15:05 SUSAN H WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 Despite the persistent urging of the Court, there is no indication that a budget process of the type sought by the Court is or will be forthcoming from the LRSD. During the February i, 1993 hearing at which budget matters were discussed, the Court asked Superintendent Bernd when the district would have a budget that would meet the requirements of the Court's previous Orders. Dr. Bernd replied that he believed the district and a half away.\" was \"at least a year The Court has been patient. It encouraged the LRSD to work with the ODM on the district budget, but, despite ODM's diligent efforts to assist, the LRSD has not produced a budget process that enables the Court to meet its obligation to monitor desegregation plan compliance. The Court, thus, finds it is necessary to assist the LRSD by appointing a person or persons to work with the LRSD at LRSD expense to prepare a budget document that will make it possible for the Court to monitor the myriad of programs the LRSD agreed to conduct in its desegregation settlement plan. The Court is concerned not only with the LRSD's expenditure of desegregation money but also with all the state, local, and federal funds the district uses to finance its entire operation. The LRSD must achieve a budgeting process, develop a budget document, and demonstrate budget management that fully reflect the district's careful planning for meeting its desegregation obligations over the full span of the settlement plans. The person or persons employed will be paid by the LRSD but will report to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The LRSD is -4-0 23 93 14: 4B 301 324 2032 L R School DIst ODM @001 '001 Little Rock School District February, 25, 1993 Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann: 1 am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which 1 indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court. The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. 1 appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of Directors FEB-23-93 TUE 15:06 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 06 expected to treat the employee or employees like its other fulltime employees for purposes of benefits and will provide adequate work space, equipment, and materials along with full access to information and support. The Court, after consultation with the person or salaries. persons and the LRSD, The employment will not be will determine appropriate permanent but will continue for as long as it takes to get the job done, as determined by the Court. The Court will not consider the task complete until the LRSD demonstrates that it understands that budgeting procedures. and the resulting budget documents, are not static, but an integral part of the district's on-going planning and evaluation processes. DATED this day of February, 1993. -5- UNITED STATES DISTRT TCT JUDGE, 0 23-93 14:46 \"S'5111 324 2032 L R School Dist  ODM @001/001 Little Rock School District February, 25, 1993 Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann\n1 am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which 1 indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself'will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of DirectorsNTF March 2, 1993 TC with Mac about his Feb. 25, 1993 letter re meeting with the new budget person to define what we are looking for.\" 1 told him we would not mandate a format, rather let the process dictate the format\nthat I was not so concerned with format, but with the relationships between the plan and the budget, and how it could be used as a tool to help measure progress\nthat 1 had developed a list of \"characteristics\" from the orders that would guide us. Assured him that we would talk to, in his words, \"pin down a moving target.\"Little Rock School District February, 25, 1993  t ,1 Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FEB 2 b ^993 ,,T h'lonitciing C!f\nc3 of D03S=0*3G Dear Ann: I am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which I indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court. The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 FILED U.S, OlST.^IGT C JURT EASTERH O!S7?:CT ARKANSAS mar 3 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR - i 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring CARL LERK DEP.CLEft. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court hereby orders the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present at the March 19, 1993, hearing, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in Room 305 of the United States Post Office and Courthouse Building. The Court had previously requested that they be present but upon further reflection has determined that their presence is required. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. UNTTED states DISTRICT' JJUUTDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON CCC:\u0026lt;ET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WTH RULE 53 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ON p A J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COl^JC EASTER DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION '^ARL R. 2 6 1993 CLSflK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. 1 1993 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Office ot WonAon'^9 INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO COURT ORDER OF FEBRUARY 24, 1993 On February 24 1993, the Court entered an Order advising the parties that she would appoint at least one person to assist the Little Rock School District in developing a budget from the district and she invited resumes of potential nominees by March 1, 1993 . The Joshua Intervenors respectfully respond as follows: 1. They wish to be helpful to the court in helping to develops an appropriate applicant pool for the position and accordingly respectfully reguest the court to set forth the criteria that the Court intends to apply in filling the position. Without such guidance from the Court, Joshua cannot be very helpful. Por this reason, Joshua ask the Court to specify such criteria and extend the time for submission of resumes for an additional five (5) days from the date of such specification. 2. The Joshua Intervenors are concerned that the prospected pool of applicants-considerees be sufficient to increase the possibility of an African-American being the designee. This is very important to Joshua because (a) the school district has shown no inclination to respect the minority interests in the budgetprocess, and (b) by having the person assigned to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring an additional white staff person will cause that already racially imbalanced office to be further imbalanced. We have previously brought this concern to the Court and the Court has indicated that it is mindful of it. (Of eight (8) full-time employees, only two (2) at present are of African American descent.) concern Joshua would also bring to the Court's attention their about the propriety of a member of the ODM staff being an official participant in any Little Rock policy making, programming or budgeting. We do not object to their being helpful to the parties in an advisory capacity, but they should not have actual membership in any of the committees. Otherwise, their neutrality may be compromised and their impartiality reasonably questioned. In filling the budget position, Joshua asks the Court to take great pain to determine that such designee not be an idealogue or other person with particular agenda that is 3 . 4 . a a independent of the task being performed or objective of the Court. 5. On Thursday, February 25, 1993, the Little Rock School District gave notice to the community that they objected to the Court's Order, \"to expend funds, to hire another person to develop a budget...[because it] does nothing to improve the performance of students in the classroom. This is just more make work. tl The board member making this statement was Mr. Dorsey Jackson. See Exhibit A. Board President, Mr. John Moore, concurred in this view. Although there has been no formal pleading filed in objection, we wish to advise the court that the argument submittedby Mr. Moore, 1. e. \"I don't think I can, in good conscience, spend another $50,000.00 or $60,000.00 for someone to count numbers. It misses the point. This person is not a II numbers counter. If although the job description is not set forth by the Court. The position is essential to the development of a budget to which the District can be held accountable. Moreover, the district. without Court approval and without involvement of a public proceeding and without following its own bid procedure, has entered into an additional contract, open-ended in amount, to hire additional local counsel to supplement the work of Mr. Christopher Heller. That action was taken without official board action and without costs consideration. It was done by Superintendent Bernd and Assistant Superintendent Bernard and Court approval was not sought. Surely if the Superintendent or a staff member can take it on themselves to enter into employment contracts without Board or Court approval, which are open-ended in costs, the objections by the board and its president to the approval of an additional monitor type staff member are inappropriate. WHEREFORE, premises considered. the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court allow the parties an additional five (5) days after specifications in writing of the employment criteria and task to be performed in which to submit resumes\nthat the Court give serious consideration in filling the position to the overall racial composition of the ODM full-time staff\nand that the court disregard the objections of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District with respect to the budget position. Respectfully submitted.By: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (5 Jo\n72206 Bar No. 64046 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel, on his 26th day of February, 1993. co H-h - cm 55- .i: 0. \na FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26,1993  3 to\n^'dr4er,niandating 'bud^tnpdlt BY CYNTHIA in the had beei pStientybut would ap-\" who'have worked dniientirin '/whenihJjob is completer.- DO int ATIA AT* tit AT*Q T3AAa1a Ta Ha XX b . , .  . . _ _ I}! J Democrat-GazetiB Educaiion ww  classcoom,. board member point one or more people to do '/.-..'Little.Rock Sch'ql Board-^.-Tiorsey Jackson said-at the - the job:''~------ . classcoom,. board member members 'bbjecte'd'Tijrsday to - \"boards.meeting. .This is jusf T7 f T..J more make-workdl.'-..^-.-^..:.,-.\n.,,,,-:... U-.S.yDistrict Judge.-Si|an 'Wetn- ber'i'Wright^s'.ordep'^i'ng she' . X.---------- - .--x'Wright\nsaidj'during.a\nFeii\n-T would-appoint atJeaj\u0026amp;rie per-'-c cdurt hearing andin anbrderis- son to_develop a budg|^tl.t.h.. '  cahtise to monitor-thiaistricts that she dese^egation planctapliance.  ..i.7.To'expendTuh'd's'Uhire an- 1 other\", person to..a.ey'elp a budt get does nothing tqj'OTove the $ 'sii'edtruesday.that she had re- pe'atedlyaskedthedistrict fora '.budgedthat.wp'uld.link the dis- atrict's're'yeh'iijes.'and'expendi- t tui'esltqJUyiese^egatibh-p rot. .igram,-Qbn'gatiousJShe'said she- T\u0026gt; J -f, ' Board.member-Katherin the'iob-'^=-''-c5-\u0026gt;-A/- ... A-t:-Board President John Moore Mitchell asked if the distric Will be temporary\nt-he jud^ said. , . ..Jackson said hecould under- the budget. He saidjt was un-.\n,ge . why the Office of Desegregation . UI jjczcsiegaLiun. ' $500,000 for the federal Office of ... Monitoring couldnt prepare the i Desegregation Monitoring  r . - ^.document:.  ....................- I dont think I can-in good  --Y s '   i- can-in gooa suggested tnat anynew . conscience spend another . menL Eireiat5maAufac.i ihmh ii . stand that.theldistrfct hadidest- ao vuubui-\ned the judge_spatience7but^^e  tents so the district wouldnt pay h',^ \"i\"\"\n.?-.^i^^.?l?5-.?Si?.'?lSimstratprs' . _\nunemplqvment compensation\ndoesnt help desegregation:\n  . v , . , . I w V 4iw s. xx,*.* vv aUVbUCi employees be.hired as consul- M $50,000 or $60,000 for someone to^\ncount numbers, he' said .That J- ' Members discussed the feas bility of anLappearand.'Bern said he would pass themember:  concerns to the districts atto\nney, Chris Heller. .The nextcou: hearing isMarch.ig.-hr.'if-iaztiT- A- tu-iiigijiiwxLoai aaj J.7.\u0026lt;\nfu\n-o:2\u0026gt;2^Vle ! wiir misslISansaS' { I Lflr\n- I^I iSmtGwoiSeSlsi Jjhe Associated Press . 07,1. aT :-h?o. edi.-lu:\n1 -Arkahsans would .fare.'bettet '.] than many other Americans unf der President'Ciintons'eco- I ri higher .taxes for th'ejrich'and'a: ener^tajtto-be^shjMedbv'all. He'said'the'enM^taxBit would average-ra'b'but'?:$17 nomic package, Rep. ^yjrhom-,\n. . ton,'D\nArk.,'said.Thursday. ?i 'Thdrntonaisbgave'Clintdn-'a'-, ': good chance of selling the plan''''\nthe.nation, and to .Congress,. . ! if the.president emphasizes'\"''  spending cuts and applies tax- es fairly. . month. -^1  Ti r A CTT* o yn  t e' T, 1-a n. .Thejob^JroK^fs^htend 'ed.to'.md.ye j,eopTepu^df-w fare ahd'ihto wbrkLfar'e\n.^'fc ton said.\n.Peop,le:i.n-^Mkansa like that i'dea? c.lf/t-'.M\n!-'-''' y\" 13 [is, oi \"\"Zll iiB. The reaction that Im getting is that, if we do the cuts first, make sure that leads the list and the people can see that were se- ' Arkansas,' a rui^ state wher motorists drive more miles'tiia: many more-urbanized state\nwill still take a'softer hit fror. Clintons energy tax because th plan taxes energy in Britis\nthermal.units, the amount c Li- .' rious about cutting expenditures and ivaste in government, ,..pp ...x\n. . 1 it s going to have a pretty. ..- perature of 1 pound.of wate: J goon chance of passing,? Thom-' \\ degTeeFah\"renh'eit.r.\nt a-.'j.\n- heat required to raise the teirRECEIVED FILED MAR 3 1993 MSB*' Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR -1 1993 .zARL HyOni^i uuhr.K OS. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the response of the Joshua Intervenors to the Court's Order of February 24, 1993, inviting the parties to submit resumes of potential nominees for appointment to assist the LRSD in developing a budget document. Even though the Court set a March 1 deadline and the Court continues to regard this matter as urgent, the Court will accept applications through March 5, 1993. Attached to this Order is a description of qualifications for the position. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. UNITED States distrIicCtT JUDGE ynis documfnt rule 53 ANO/Ol BY ITV 79(a) FRCP Goal: Special Position To work in collaboration with the Little Rock School District on a short-term project to meet the Court's requirements to develop and implement budgeting processes, budget documents, and budget management procedures and practices that institutionalized are to be as an integral part of the LRSD's ongoing planning, appropriating, monitoring, and evaluating processes to ensure the district fulfills its desegregation obligations. Qualifications: 1. Excellent skills and extensive experience in planning, organization, research, monitoring, and evaluation in a large organization. 2. Strong background in public or private sector administration (public preferred), with specific experience in budget development, management, and evaluation. 3. Expertise in designing and implementing staff position allocation. control systems and resource 4. Expertise in developing internal financial controls. 5. Proven ability to direct and support others to accomplish specific goals and objectives. 6. Strong oral, written, and 7. 8. communication skills. interpersonal Coraputer word management skills. processing and database Minimum of a administration, bachelor's degree educational in public administration, business administration or related field.RECEIVE!^ FILED U.S, DISTSIGT COURT, EASTERh D!St=:CT ARKANSAS MAR 3 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR -1 1993 CARL B. clerk Office of Desegregation Monitoring DEF.CLER. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court hereby orders the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present at the March 19, 1993, hearing, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in Room 305 of the United States Post Office and Courthouse Building. The Court had previously requested that they be present but upon further reflection has determined that their presence is required. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. ST'A.KTS'EE.SS DDIISSTTRRIICCT' JJUUEDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 73(a) FRCP ON HHHE ef ' f' Little Rock School District March 4, 1993 c a MAR 4 1993 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Office of Dessgregciion Mcniforing 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: Enclosed for your review is a draft outline of the Little Rock School District budget process and a draft of the revised budget document. Please respond in writing if these documents meet your approval. We cannot proceed with budget development until we have your approval. Sipfcere^, Ga 7)Jones Manager of Resources and School Support Enclosures cc: Ms. Ann Brown (w/enclosures) c:\\budget\\drafts.wpd 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SSSSS: ANNUAL BUDGET 1993 -19941993-94 BUDGET PROCESS DATE December December January - February February - March April June July TASK Revenue and Expenditure Forecast School/Department Budget Requests \u0026lt; Staffing Levels Materials and Supplies Evaluation of Prior Yei RESPONSIBILITY Business Manager Principals Department Managers earns (1992-93) Principals Academic Program Administrators Proposed Bi Submit P ? lent iludget to the Board Make Budget Revisions Adopt Budget Business Manager Controller Superintendent Business Manager Controller Board of DirectorsBUDGET SUMMARYLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1993 Actual (Unaudited) 1991-92 Budget 1992-93 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK____________ DELINOUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS_________ INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 64,998,181 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL__________ SEVERANCE TAX 39,088,120 21,694,578 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 66,559,408 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA____________________ SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN________ APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL______________ HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD________ ORPHAN CHILDREN________ TRANSPORTATION_________ COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS________ ADULT EDUCATION o T 73,419 15,350 88,769 73,419 11.000 84,419 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874____________ TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL REVENUE 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 48,670,683 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 46,367,563 9,385 129,428 394,675 533,488 114,291,121 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 113,913,390 I k LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE PROJECTION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1993 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES, SUPPLIES, MATERIALS,~EQi DEBT SERVICE \" ~ CONTINGENCY TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 1 Actual (Unaudited) 1991-92 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 L... u 112,1 i!ioo 0 ^OM INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE 1,687,023 634,842 2,321,865 Budget 1992-93 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 115,872,560 (1,959,170) 2,321,865 362,695UNE ITEM SUMMARY (OBJECT)I u I u I Object X 'oiio 0115 !0117 I 0120 0121 ,0124 0130 0135 0140  0145 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-1994 BUDGETS OBJECT SUMMARY SALARY, OPERATING,. \u0026amp; DEBT FUNDS Description Budget 1991-92 Actual 1991-92 CERTIFIED SALARIES Regular Certificated Cert. Instr. Assist. Stipends________________ TOTAL CERTIFIED_______ NON-CERTIFIED SALARIES Regular Non-Certified Maitenance______________ Clerical Overtime Substitute Teachers-Short SubSt. Certied Long Ter Subst Non-Certified-Short SubSt. Non-Certified Long Budget 1992-93 Budget 1993-94 TOTAL NCN-CERTIFIED EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 0210 [Fringe Benefits______________ 0250 Unemployment Compensation 0290 [Other Employee Benefits_____ ! I TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS i 0310 0311 0312 0313 0314 0316 0318 0319 0322 0324 0325 0326 0327 0328 0329 PURCHASED SERVICES Professional \u0026amp; Technical Instruction Services Instructional Prog Improv Pupil Services Staff Services__________ Data Processing Services Board of Ed Services Other Professional \u0026amp; Tech Budget Control Cleaning Services Carpentry Repairs-Equipment Rental of Land \u0026amp; Building Rental of Equipment \u0026amp; Veh Other Property Services 50,811,617 0 853,790 51,665,407 15,077,845 989,280 0 1,049,784 7,799,115 165,000 80,405 8,044,520 477,139 13,540 1,015,363 46,031 3,790 7,961 488,334 140,306 3,507,346 0 605,058 592,938 95,007 31,325 169,000 53,889,627 8,213 1,224,330 55,122,169 53,991,696 ________0 1,703,640 55,695,336 15,076,555 1,129,828 91,813 871,099 32i 141 k21\n54\n96 8,783,594 153,797 60,097 8,997,489 327,016 13,309 1,052,785 44,070 40 7,529 57,238 91,162 3,388,097 0 ( 519,413 470,552 50,771 23,214 126,364 16,818,714 0 _____0 900,000 _____0 350,000 0 8,068,714 9,768,728 160,000 73,462 10,002,190 586,390 1,000 691,900 _______0 2,000 _______0 366,862 70,000 3,865,000 15,000 501,558 596,964 42,000 18,464 275,500PROGRAM SUMMARY BUDGET (FUNCTION)-T  FUNC. 1105 1110 1120 1125 1129 1130 1135 1137 1140 1145 1146 1151 1152 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1190 1193 1195 1199 1210 1220 1230 1240 1290 1292 1321 1322 1331 1332 1333 1341 1351 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-1994 BUDGETS FUNCTION SUMMARY SALARY, OPERATING, \u0026amp; DEBT FUNDS DESCRIPTION I BUDGET 1991-92 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS Early Childhood Education Kindergarten______________ Elementary Elementary Magnet_________ Specialty Program Middle/Junior High School Junior High Magnet_________ Junior High Restructuring High School High School Magnet High School Standards Boys Athletics_____________ Girls Athletics ___________ Football/Minor Sports Volleyball Basketball Track,Tennis.Golf \u0026amp; Swimming Baseball__________________ Other Regular Traveling Teachers Accelerated Learning Substitutes Instruction Itinerant Instruction Resource Room____________ Special Class Homebound and Hospital_____ Other Extended Year Hand. Service Marketing/Dist Ed-Coop______ Marketing/Dist Ed-Expl Business Ed Coop__________ Business Ed Expl Business Ed-Skill Tr_________ Health Coop_______________ Trade \u0026amp; Ind-Coop 1,219,666 2,731,343 19,917,085 51,500 ________0 7,723,977 73,000 644,196 7,970,557 18,700 28 H ^^0 n - 7,^0 45,540- 12,960 9,000 240,394 20,000 2,362,712 1,049,184 889,800 1,975,166 1.279,727 132,161 729,405 12,390 174,719 0 170,853 54^,280 945,875 46,336 170,559 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 BUDGET 1993-94 1,243,379 3,107,993 18,969,162 24,950 978,337 8,134,325 71,943 429,685 7,895,831 14,219 ____2,301 5^53 ^33 p,490r 42,794* 9,067 8,947 64,549 21,043 2,278,158 1,393,302 943,193 2.065,294 1,253,040 255,077 823,730 14,152 197,722 2,869 191,121 853,848 970,157 58,755 193,755 1,479,804 3,253,399 21,975,945 265,892 ________0 8,635,782 212,864 492,021 8,407,541 273,096 ________0 44,620 13,230 49,680 7,200 45,540 11,160 10,800 37,697 12,000 2,275,181 1,096,370 901,880 2,189,284 1,296,583 240,566 435,287 0 194,886 ________0 190,480 57^,814 965,542 50,996 189,221 PROGRAM BUDGET (OBJECT WTTHIN FUNCTIONS)Object Description  Func ti 1105 ___ 0110 0117 0120 0130 0140 0210 0311 0312 0327 0332 0333 Regular Certificated Stipends Regular Hon-Certlfled Substitute Teschers-Short SubSt Hon-Cortifiod-Short Social Security Tax Instruction Services Instructional Prog Isgjrov Rental of Lend 6 Building Travel-Payroll Travel 0342 0380 0410 0416 0540 0548 0630 Postage Food Services Materials and Supplies Supplies - Supply Center Bqulpsisnt-Personal Proper Bquipnent - Supply Center Dues  Fees  Subtotal   Func I: 1110 0110 0210 0410 0412 0416 0417 Regular Certificated Social Security Tax Hatarlale and Supplies local Supplies Sp Trackin Supplies - Supply Center Supplles-Supply Center * Subtotal ** * Func *\u0026gt;..11120' 0110 0115 0117 0120 0140 0210 0290 0310 0312 0326 0331 0333 0342 0350 Regular Certificated Cart. Instr. Assist. Stipends Regular Boa-Certifled Subet Bon-Certified-Short Social Security Tax Other lagsloyea Beneflte Professional * Technical Instructioaol Prog isgtrov Bepaira-Bgalpeaaat Pupil Transportation Travel Fostoig* A*rtielnq Little Rock School District Object Within Function 1991-1994 Craft Actual 1991-92 .508923.06 133.50 484704.68 417.58 6847.68 144785.75 195.00 650.00 150.00 0.00 4773.60 1074.23 7150.24 74990.71 0.00 8492.60 0.00 2760904.00 318950.86 15123.15 13015.06 0.00 0.00 3107993.07 14477326.70 8212.70 3124.01 1517618.15 44534.64 1997265.51 17.85 I I I 0.00 1486.50 6809.32 87961.35 0.00 6479.16 5574.58 Budget 1992-93 623446.00 0.00 549439.67 0.00 0.00 204639.64 500.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 1000.00 1500.00 2123.00 40800.00 5200.00 38656.00 11500.00 0.00 1479804.31 2848548.00 370123.91 10182.00 12968.00 9592.00 1985.00 3253398.91 16554844.8b 0.00 422103.36 1496690.80 0.00 2295506.03 0.00 0.00 400.00 16050.00 119250.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 Budget 1993-94 I i DEPARTMENT BUDGETLittle Rock School District Operating Budget Detail 1993-94 DRAFT Object Function Budgeted ABaount * Buget Unit! 0001  Certified Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Stipends Stipends  Subsubtctal  Kindergarten High School High School Magnet Resource Room Special Class Marketlng/Dist Ed-Coop Business Ed Coop Business*' Ed-Skill Tr Trade t Ind-Coop Trade 4 Ind-Bxpl Cons/Rmkg Coord Career-Coop Compensatory Education Guidance Services School Library Services Offi High High I I 01 00 40 1110 0001 0110 01 00 40 1140 0001 0110 01 13 10 1145 0001 0110 01 20 40 1220 0001 0110 01 20 40 1230 0001 0110 01 00 40 1321 0001 0110 01 00 40 1331 0001 0110 01 00 40 1333 0001 0110 01 00 40 1351 0001 0110 01 00 40 1352 0001 0110 01 00 40 1362 0001 0110 01 00 40 1392 0001 0110 01 00 40 1595 0001 0110 01 00 40 2120 0001 0110 i I 01 00 40 2222 0001 0110 2410 0001 0110 1140 0001 0117 1140 0001 0117 II  Hon-Certified Regular Non-Certlfled Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Cartlfled Regular Hon-Certifled Regular Hon-Cartlflad Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Cartlfled * Subsubtotal  High School Accelerated Learning nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Safety S Security I 02 00 40 1140 0001 0120 02 13 10 1195 0001 0120 02 00 40 2134 0001 0120 02 00 40 2222 0001 0120 02 00 40 2410 0001 0120 02 00 40 2542 0001 0120 02 13 16 2587 0001 0120 ' Benefits Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Seeorlty Sax Kindergarten High School High School High School Magnet Accelerated Learning Resource Room Special Class Marketing/Dlst Id-Coop Business Kd Coop Business Id-Skill Tr Trade 4 Ind-Coop 01 00 40 1110 0001 0210 01 00 40 1140 0001 0210 02 00 40 1140 0001 0210 01 13 18 1145 0001 0210 02 13 10 1195 0001 0210 01 20 40 1220 0001 0210 01 20 40 1230 0001 0210 01 00 40 1321 0001 0210 01 00 40 1331 0001 0210 01 00 40 1333 0001 0210 01 00 40 1351 0001 0210 =llLittle Rock School District Operating Budget Detail 1993-94 DRAFT Object Function Budgeted Amount I ** Buget Unit! 0036 t I  Certified Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Budget Control Budget Control Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Stipends Budget Control Budget Control  Subsubtotal * * Hon-Cortifled Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Certlfled Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-CertlfIsd Regular Hon-Certlfled Regular Hon-Certified * Subsubtotal  Pour Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Blemontary Elementary Elementary Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Gifted 6 Talented Guidance Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Blementary Blementar' Elementar' 0036 0117 0036 0117 Pour Year Old Program Elementary Blesasntary Accelsratad Learning Hurling Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Opkeep of Buildings 1 01 13 02 1105 0036 0110 01 00 20 1110 0036 0110 01 00 20 1120 0036 0110 01 13 72 1120 0036 0110 01 13 65 1120 0036 0110 01 13 57 1120 0036 0110 01 20 20 1210 0036 0110 01 20 20 1220 0036 0110 01 00 20 1910 0036 0110 01 00 20 2120 0036 0110 01 00 20 2222 0036 0110 01 00 20 2410 0036 0110 01 00 20 1120 0036 0117 I 02 13 02 1105 0036 0120 02 00 20 1120 0036 0120 02 13 64 1120 0036 0120 02 13 10 1195 0036 0120 02 00 20 2134 0036 0120 02 13 32 2222 0036 0120 02 00 20 2410 0036 0120 02 00 20 2542 0036 0120 I i I  Benefits Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Sscurity Tax Social Sscurity Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Seourity Tax Social Seourity Tax Pour Tear Old Program Pour Tear Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Blementary Elementary Elementary Accelsratad Lsarning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room 01 13 02 1105 0036 0210 02 13 02 1105 0036 0210 01 00 20 1110 0036 0210 01 00 20 1120 0036 0210 01 13 72 1120 0036 0210 02 00 20 1120 0036 0210 02 13 64 1120 0036 0210 02 13 10 1195 0036 0210 01 20 20 1210 0036 0210 01 20 20 1220 0036 0210 I i IFEDERAL PROGRAMSa :X.x\u0026lt;x5:\nyv  f- ^'' -^* ** ^xa-xj^sss X4a S'tBiMA'RYfjBR Federal Proi ................\" \u0026gt; \u0026gt;*  ***wwa^ggaagBM 92-93 rams IgU SnlQrios 93-94 Sularfes-'^^ CERTIFIED STAFF Fringe Benefits(20) \u0026gt;bcsx?dx wvwxx 1 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT STAFF 1 r C' Fringe Benefit5(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY xxxxxsx 0.0 $0 ixxxxxsxj $0 TOTAL (l(I\u0026gt;20} XSXCTCSI \u0026gt; Furchased SERVICES (30) TOTAL (30) xxoaxxl xttxxxxl xxxxxxxl .wrciMl l^TERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) XXTO0CS| xxxxxxx [ CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO) OTHER (60) I TOTAL (40) TOTAL (50) xxsxxxx xxxxxxx xgcxxy xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxs xxxxxxx IBkxxxx {XXXXXXX $0 Ixjwcpcx ___________(KXWOK jsxxxxxx fxxxxxxx $0 TOTAL (60) \u0026gt; TOTAi\np0-60) TOTAL (10-60) xjcDcca yobdax JQDCXXXX KVXXXXX 0.0 GRAND TOTAL XXXXX-\\X .KXXXXX.X jxxxxxxx Isxwcxx {XXXXXXX twccpgc ~$0 Iwiyxxx |sxxx^ txxxxxxx h \"so I $0 IXXX-WCX \" ', $0 [xxxxxxx 0.0 so |x.xxxxxx -:-----tuuun $0 jxxxxxxx $0 $0 $0 12= $0 $0 $0row 92-93 Chapter 1 9$\nSlarteg-'W^ 93-94 FTJ^ Sal^rfti^ CERTIFIED STAFF Fringe Benefit5(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR xxsoda 0.0 $0 xxxxxxx 0.0 $0 SUPPORT STAFF __________Fringe Benefits(20) jTOTAL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL (10-20) ~~ xxsocct 0.0 KSDCDOn so . $0 iXXXXMCt 0.0 xxxxsxx $0 SO::. PURCHASED SERVICES (30) xxxxxxs XXDtXSLX ^ocDoca xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx T xxxxccx TOTAL (30) xxxxxxs $0 xxxxsxx $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxs LXXXXXXX SXXXXXX' xxxxxxx xxxxsxx TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $0 xxxxxxx $0 CAIITAL OUTLAY (50) I TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx xwcxxx xicxxxxs: xxxxxxx so sxxxxxv iXXXXXXX xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $0 OTHER (60) XXDtXXX xxxxxxx xxo TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60)~ TOTAL (10-60) xxxxxxx XXXXX-XX 0.0 xxxxx.\\x GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx SO $0 so so $0 xx,xxxxxl 0.0 ! xxxxxxxl x.xxxxxxi SO SO SO SOMAGNET SCHOOL BUDGET t1992-33'Bddget Proposal sumMa^VTor magnet schools^ * \\x 1991-92 1992-93 CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF Principal__________________________ Asst. Prin.________________________ Specialists________________________ Counselors_______________________ Media Spec.______________________ Art-Perf./Prod.___________________ Music_____________________________ Foreign Lang.____________________ Vocational________________________ Special Education________________ Gifted____________________________ Classroom_______________________ Substitutes_______________________ Other-Kindergarten______________ _______________Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY Secretaries_______________________ Nurses____________________________ Custodians_______________________ Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1_______ Paraprofessionals-Other'________ Other-Aides F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 Salaries $346,537 $456,057 37.4 I $1,274,519 12.4 7.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 14.0 8.8 5.0 181.4 0.0 14.0 xxxxxxx 296.0 18.0 5.4 29.5 0.0 5.0 39.5 _______________Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-20) PURCHASED SERVICES (30) Utilities___________________ Travel____________________ Maintenance Agreements Other 97.4 XXXXXXX XXXXXXX BGkxx $444,641 $218,210 $0 $0 $0 $507,273 $248,275 $163,550 $5,308,868 $153,813 $407,561 $1,068,359 $10,597,663 $301,141 $148,859 $346,330 $0 $108,103 $316,035 $185,965 $1,406,433 $12,004,096? $601,780 F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 36.2 9.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 8.8 3.5 177.6 0.0 14.0 XXXXXXX 284.7 17.0 5.4 29.5 0.0 6.0 39.5 XxXx)6o(?' 97.4 XXXXXXX xxxxxxx wrxxxxx xxxxxxx Salaries $356,933 $481,040 $1,267,906 $332,407 $224,756 $0 $0 $0 $489,528 $255,724 $121,175 $5,215,774 $158,428 $419,788 $1,185,445 $10,508,904 $310,176 $153,326 $356,721 $0 $111,191 $325,514 $227,463 $1,484,391 ??$W93i2S5:? $627,700 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) ____________TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (40) MS if 6^0 ^38,28 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other xxxxXxx XxXxxXx xxxxxXx xxxxxxx JObOOCMt xxxxxxx xxxxxxX $343,433 $56,509 XXXXXXX? x\u0026gt;x \u0026lt;xxx XWdoiX?? xxxxx)\n?' $195,093 $822,793 $399,942 $111,824 xxXXxxx?? xxXxxxX? xXicxxxX XxxxxxX? $379,717 $59,072 $438,789 $120,394 OTHER (60) TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other xxxxxxx Joaxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL LINE ITEJ ____________TOTAL (60) __________TOTAL (30-60) __________TOTAL (10-60) MS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx Xldexxxx 393.4 xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $111,824 $8,358 xXxxxxXs Wxxxxx XXXXXJCC XWOOOC: $120,394 $5,895 $8,358 $1,288,412 $13,292,508 $595,333 $13,887,841 XXXXXXX XXXXXXX xxxxxxx 382.1 xxxxxxx XSOOCXXX $5,895 $1,387,871 $13,381,166 $531.886 $13,913,052CAFETERIA FUNDCERTIFIED STAFF I SUPPORT STAFF i ,!..Fnnri SprvicP (92-93\n93-94 'few __________Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR wxxxxx 0.0 $0 S3CXYXXX 0.0 i $0 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx iTOTAL SUPPORT SALARY '' \\' TOTAL \u0026lt;10-20} PURCHASED SERVICES (30) 0.0 I jawaxi\nxvxxxxsl XXSjQCOtl xwcoocl xxobcfil so $0^ jSXXgLgd 0.0 $0 $0 TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) TOTAL (40) c CAITTAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (50) TOTAL (60) TOTAL (10-60) GRAND TOTAL xxxsxxsl xxxxxxx xxsxxxx XXXJOCXX xxxxx^a xxxxxxx xxsxxxx XKXXXSX JOCXXXXX xxxxxxx xxxxxxx rxxx}^ xxxxxxs XXTOXX 0.0 xxxxxxx .VXXXX.XX $0 $0 $0 (XXXXXXX xxxxsxxl XX-XXXXXj xxxxxxx! xxxxxxx $0 $0 $0 ' , $0 $0 $0 xxxxxxx sxxxxxx xxxiaxx XWODOt XX-VKXXX 0.0 xxxxxxx $0 jxXXXXXKi $0 $0 $0 $0 M $0CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDEXPEN Dmj RES UTTLE HOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 ACCOUNT CODE PRIOR BOND ISSUES PLANT SERVICES SUSTOTXL 32,467.82 32,467.82 03.00.00.2542.0088.0590 7.\u0026amp;40.000 BOND ISSUE AEROSPACE MAGN PURCHASING CARVER CONTINGENCY SUSrOTAL 2,750.00 95.425.80 185.97 4.426.69 102,788.46 03.06.00.2536.0124.0590 03.06.00.2536.0085.0590 03.06.20.2536.0021.0541 03.06.00.2536.0080.0590 5,400.000 BOND ISSUE ENERGY GRANT SUBTOTAL 63.413.03 63,413.03 03.08.00.2533.0088.0319 8,164,100 BOND ISSUE DUNBAR ASBESTOS ENERGY GRANT MT WATER TOWER CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 139,833.50 541.84 196,120.00 55,114.00 1,264,140.62 1,655,749.96 03.10.30.2536.0007.0570 03.10.00.254Z 0088.0570 03.10.00.2533.0088.0319 03.10.00.2539.0088.0570 03.10.00.2536.0088.0590 16,900,000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST SOUTHWEST MCCLELLAN ALT LEARNING CEN CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM MABELVALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK GARLAND GIBBS WESTERN HILLS WESTERN HILLS DODD GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELE WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE ELEM 9,209.59 16.725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 47,866.50 D ^50, 83,823.61 EQUIP 453,697.23 102.50 29,744.43 144,154.27 13,684.67 1,016.56 6,160.02 20.944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 20,441.21 975.52 2,247.19 4,200.00 6,122.91 EQUIP 27,043.80 2,942.49 85,020.81 8,766.18 56,419.93 67,727.73 59,056.84 T 700 70 a 170 -.0570 1.0570 03.11.30.2536.0007.0570 03.11.40.2536.0008.0570 03.11.30.2536.0010.0570 03.11.30.2536.0011.0540 03.11.30.2536.0011.0570 03.11.40.2536.0012.0570 03.11.30.2536.0014.0570 03.11.30.2536.0015.0570 03.11.20.2536.0031.0570 03.11.30.2536.0016.0570 03.11.20.2536.0018.0570 03.11.20.2536.0019.0570 03.11.20.2536.0020.0570 03.11.20.2536.0022.0570 03.11.20.2536.0023.0570 03.11.20.2536.0024.0570 03.11.20.2536.0026.0570 03.11.20.2536.0027.0570 03.11,20,2536.0027:0540 QO3.I 03.11.20.2536.0029.0570 03.11.20.2536.0032.0570 03.11.20.2536.0037.0570 03.11.20.2536.0038.0570 03.11.20 2536.0044.0570 03.11.20 2536.0045.0570 03.11.20 2536.0046.0570DESEGREGATIONNAME DESCX Early ChiIdiood BUDGET CONTROL OSRAM 10:05 NAME: STUDENT NEARING OFFICER Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Hearing Officer BUDGET CONTROL STAFF STAFF STIPENDS STIPENDS OSRAM ID:06 NAME: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION Assoc. SURSt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity LITTLE ROCX SCHOOL DISTRICT desegregation budget 1992-93 DESEGREGATION DESEGREGATION BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION CUSTODIANS STAFF STAFF STIPENDS STIPENDS OSRAM 10:08 NAME: TEACHER RECRUITER Hunan Resources Hunan Resources BUDGET CONTROL - I TEACHER RECRUITER DESEGREGATI OBJECT SALART/AMOUNT 27,000.00 1,044,606.00 16,420.00 19,927.00 50,041.00 168.00 3,639.00 90,195.00 38,240.00 6,870.78 115,018.80 221,932.00 900.00 5,100.00 ,1.51 BENEFITS 0.00 157,426.62 0.00 3,024.68 5,548.24 14.08 304.95 8,891.95 0.00 1,429.30 12,348.18 30,791.10 75.42 427.38 TOTAL 27.000.00 1,202,032.42 16,420.00 22,951.68 55,589.24 182.08 3,943.95 99,086.05 33,240.00 8,300.08 127,366.98 252,723.10 975.42 5,527.38 ACCOUNT CODE 02-13-02-1105-0132-0300 02-13-05-2212-0121-0300 02-13-05-2212-0121-0120 01-13-05-2212-0121-0110 02-13-05-XXXX-0121-0120 O1-13-O5-XXX3(-O121-O11O 02-13-06-2326-0064-0300 02-13-06-2542-0064-0120 01-13-06-2326-0064-0110 02-13-06-2326-0064-0120 02-13-06-XXXX-0064-0120 01-13-06-XXXX-0064-0110 OSRAM ID:09 MAME: STAFF DEVELOPMENT Staff Development Staff Development Staff Development Staff Development BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION STAFF STAFF STIPENDS OGRAM 10:10 NAME: ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS Central Hall Hall Dunbar Dunbar Fair Fair Forest Heights Forest Heights Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT JR HI RESTRUCTURE COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT JR HI RESTRUCTURE is. low 3, 433,132.96 10,000.00 02-13-08-2642-0081-0300 32,204.08 02-13-08-2642-0081-0120 38,464.00 3,740.08 42,204.03 122,363.00 21,066.00 263,596.00 6,534.81 413,559.81 9,960.00 23,302.00 9,466.00 82,061.00 9,960.00 28,680.00 9,466.00 31,069,00 9,713.00 102,915.00 9,054.00 129,004.00 0.00 3,120.13 30,218.14 547.62 33,885.89 2,189.45 3,307.51 2,148.05 10,941.11 2,189.45 3,758.18 2,148.05 3,958.38 2,168.75 14,043.48 2,113.53 17,584.54 122,363.00 02-13-09-2212-0059-0300 24,186.13 02-13-09-2212-0059-0120 293,814.14 01-13-09-2212-0059-0110 7,082.43 O1-13-O9-XXXX-0059-0110 447,445.70 12,149.45 02-13-10-1195-0001-0120 26,609.51 01-13-10-1195-0002-0110 11,614.05 02-13-10-1195-0002-0120 93,002.11 01-13-10-1195-0007-0110 12,149.45 02-13-10-1195-0007-0120 32,438.18 01-13-10-1195-0008-0110 11,614.05 02-13-10-1195-0008-0120 35,027.38 01-13-10-1195-0009-0110 11,881.75 02-13-10-1195-0009-0120 116,958.48 01-13-10-1137-0009-0110 11,167.53 02-13-10-1195-0010-0120 146,588.54 01-13-10-1137-0010-0110 REFERENCE DATA 1Prog 9 P.O.* OMOrtphon 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 21 22 24 25 28 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 49 Inoantfva Sctioeta: 61 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 61 64 66 66 72 73 74 75 5 6 28 28 38 46 48 63 82 86 114 129 129 143 148 146 234 227 1-9 93 34 35 28 106 I-56 131 125 00 149 152 153 153 153 153 154 158 171 172 172 176 190 193 t94 153 H'ppy 4 Yr Old Pfograma Sludant Haa/lng Otlfcpe Ofitea Oaaagragallon Ertra-Currlcular Taachar Rac'uhar Stall Davalopmani Acatfamie Support Uulticuhral Programa Incanl^a Granta Original Magnata $p Ed Laaming Cantar Saeurliy OU Procaaaing S/alam U-ip-U Magnai Schoela King School Staphana School Uoniiorlng ActMtiaa ComputarUad Tranap Aomina Thania Community School In-Schooi Suapanalon Jeb Fair Tatting Aatlatanea Library Sarvieaa Param Bacruiting VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction Plant Servlcea To Ba AJlocatad OlHca inoantiva Schoela Writing To Raad Science Labt Computer Laba Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Oay/Week Field Tripe Trantportabon Inatructienal Aides Extended Yai tn ca n tfva/Reoeg n i t Ion Stalling Stall Daveiopmant Teacher Siipenda Other Academic Programi sus-total incentives QRANO total SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET Unaudited BI-0S 92-03 93-04 04-06 06-96 96-07 2H.29i 2'9.772 287.135 295.749 334.621 313.760 795.690 99.232 462.998 31.072 46.824 400.069 2.848.723 164,490 668.575 3,783.217 66.291 703,830 200.727 354,920 0 0 373,986 0 17.267 588.441 22,367 62.714 0 266.247 0 13,347,824 261.482 1.096,148 1,291.788 2.649 416 15.997.246 1.2C2.033 1.238.094 1.275.236 1.313,493 1.352.898 99.087 102.060 105,121 108.275 111.523 433.133 446.127 459.511 473.296 487.495 0 0 0 0 0 42.204 43.470 44.774 46.118 47.501 447.446 490.869 474.695 488.936 603.604 2.785.221 1.868,777 1.024.841 1.062.586 2.042.063 240,316 249.928 259,926 270.322 261,136 320,000 320,000 320.000 320,000 320,000 3.800,000 3,914,000 4.031.420 4.152.363 4.276.933 110.307 113.616 117,024 120,53$ 124.151 617.038 635.550 654.616 874.256 694.482 411.583 721.442 0 0 391.495 10.000 85,816 1.500 1,350 718.604 27.000 85.863 5.000 200.000 13,886,365 63.147 15,000 15,000 15.000 7,603 6,000 863.000 37,500 20.000 549.695 260.000 21.500 914.823 59,500 225.C00 55,C00 3,126,664 17.0,3.020 773.930 543.08$ 2.633,300 0 403.240 10,300 89.248 116,000 r73.739 1.545 11.691 737.999 27.810 67,839 5,000 200,000 16.040.317 65.041 15,450 16,450 15,450 7.726 6.150 888,890 38,625 20.600 566.186 267.800 22.145 042.267 61.285 231.750 56.656 3^20,464 '9 260.78, 1.147.148 1,531.563 1.927.610 669.378 576.159 623.444 2.681,399 2,707.000 419.369 10,609 92,818 116.000 793.827 1.591 12.041 760.139 28,644 69.874 6,000 200.000 19,566,751 66.993 15.914 15,814 16.914 7.967 5.305 915,557 38,784 21,218 583,171 275.834 22.809 970.536 63.124 236,703 58.350 3.3,7,078 22.883.829 2.761.841 2.788,210 436.144 10.927 99.531 115.000 817.542 1.639 1^402 782.943 29,504 71,970 $.006 2C0.000 20,492.274 69.002 16.391 18,381 16,391 8.196 6.494 943,023 \u0026lt;0.877 21.855 600.666 284.109 23.4M 999.651 65.017 245,864 60,100 3.416.591 23,908.865 2.844,696 2,871,856 453,590 11,255 100.392 116,000 642,171 1,668 12,775 806,432 30.389 74.129 5.000 200,000 21,445.873 71.072 16,883 16,883 16,883 8.441 5.628 971.314 42.207 22.510 618.686 292,632 24.198 1.029.641 66.968 253.239 61.903 3.510.088 24.964.U61 03/17/93 16:03 0501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/002 i Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 17, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD HOLDS BUDGET STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING The Little Rock School District will hold, a public meeting Thursday, March 18, at 6 p.m. for the purpose of presenting the preliminary recommendations of the Budget Study Committee. The meeting will be held in the media center at Hall High, 6700 H Street. The committee was formed by Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd and was comprised of a cross section of volunteers from throughout the community. ###03--17/93 16:03 0-501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM El 002 -002 'Ka i *1 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 17, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD HOLDS BUDGET STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING The Little Rock School District will hold a public mparing Thursday, March 18, at 6 p.m. for the purpose of presenting the preliminary recommendations of the Budget Study Committee. The meeting will be held in the media center at Hall High, 6700 H Street. The committee was formed by Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd and was comprised of a cross section of volunteers from th rough out the community. ###-------* JOHN W. W,\\LKER RAI.PM WASHINGTON M.\\RK BVRNRTIE WILBY A, RR ANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER. .JR. John w. walker, p.a. ArroRNEY At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 P. 02  A' adniittfi M Pnu.tn-e in 4 '\u0026gt; Dintnff '\u0026gt;t 'v 'J'nbni. delivered via facsimile March 17, 1993 Chris Heller, Esq. c/o Little Rock School District 810 West Markham 72201 Little Rock, AR i 4 I I i irl Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Heller\nexhibits that you would you kindly provide me with any new , plan to use hnHofAt hearina on Friday. I would also like to know who you plan to call as at the budget hearing on Friday. _ . v witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Ciehh 0V\u0026lt;A,' John W. WalkeiH ' .n JWW:Ira TOTAL P.0203/17/1993 17:11 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.fi. TO 3710100 P. 02 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas Telephone (.501) ^^58 FAX (501) 374418/ JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON markbvrnettc WILEY A. RR ANTON. -JR- AUSTIN PORTER. -JR- , .. .. delivered via F_ACSIMI1.-E March 17, 1993 Chris Heller, Esq. Little Rock School District c/o 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 u  ii 'r Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Heller\nWould you plan to use at know who you plan to call as kindly provide me with any new Jto the budget hearing on Friday. I would also like to witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, o\u0026amp;hn OVA' Jolin W. WalkeiH^ JWW: lin I i /Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Ti Roher 1024 North Palm Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Ti: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. My associates. Bob Morgan and Margie Powell, especially enjoyed having the opportunity to get to know you. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Margie and Bob told me that you might be willing to volunteer some time to work on the school districts budgeting process. I truly appreciate your offer and will not hesitate to take you up on it. Ill let Mr. Mooney know that youre willing to help and have him contact you after he gets his bearings in his new job. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. We all appreciate the many ways you support our communitys schools. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Clarence L. Horn, Jr. 1911 Rice Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Mr. Horn: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. My associates. Bob Morgan and Margie Powell, enjoyed having the opportunity to get to know you. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefuUy considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 March 22, 1993 Glenn A. Spung 24 Rocky Valley Cove Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Mr. Spung: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. My associates. Bob Morgan and Margie Powell, enjoyed having the opportunity to get to know you. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. BrownOffice 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 March 22, 1993 Elizabeth Thalheimer 5005 Crestwood Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Libby: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. We all appreciate the many ways you work to support our communitys schools. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Richard B. Steinkamp First Commercial Building, Suite 1700 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Richard: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. We all appreciate the many ways you work to support our communitys schools. Very truly yours, Ann S. BrownOffice 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 March 22, 1993 Clarence A. Hamilton P.O. Box 4555 North Little Rock, AR 72116 Dear Al: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. There were many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. BrownOffice 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 March 22, 1993 Edward N. Rolle 63 Sunset Lane Cabot, AR 72023 Dear Mr. Rolle: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. The candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown 1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 March 22, 1993 David Jameson 1421 N. University Avenue, #S320 Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Mr. Jameson: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. The candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown March 22, 1993 M. xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Dear xxx\n5\" Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. The candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks .for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibilitiee of worlgi Very truly yours. .aidui uic uiiic, Ldic, diiu uiuu^iiuuiiicdd yuu iii rl^g with us at ODM. (zW Ann S. Brown. FEB-25-93 THU 17:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 10 1421 N. University #3320 Little Rock, Ar 72207 February 25, 1993 Honorable Susan Webber Wright P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, Ar. 72203 Dear Judge Wright, I note you are seeking a person to develop a Little Rock School District budget that will permit monitoring compliance with the court-approved desegregation plan. Please accept this letter, and the enclosed resume, as my application for that position. I have been a banker for many years. president, including service as chief operating officer and chief financial officer of banks as large as $700 million in assets. My specialty in banking has been planning, founding and managing new financial institutions. This work has involved development of new financial systems from scratch. including business plans. budgets, general ledger accounting systems, data processing hardware and software, and complete operating systems. I would have no problem in quickly understandin District budget and accounting system, the Little Rock School preparing a budgeting system that meets your requirements, and implementing such a system. Due to unusual personal circumstances. I can be available on one days notice, and for any period of time up to approximately one year. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss this position with you. My telephone number is 664-8363. Bincerelv yours. David Jameson received CHAMBERS OF SUSAN WEEWBRr-IG---H--T-FEB 25 1993 U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE . FEBt25-93 THU 17:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 11 RESUME: DAVID JAMESON 1421 N. University Ave., #S320 Little Rock, Ar 122Q1 (501) 664-8363 WORK EXPERIENCE: 1990- Employed as senior officer of a 501(c)3 non-profit international development organization operating in 34 countries. Annual budget of $9 m i 1 1 1 An non-prof i t Annual budget of $9 million. 1987-1990 Ogg. Nat Iona 1 Bancshares, Inc, , Little Rock, Ar. Senior Vice President/Senior Investment Officer $500 million multi-bank holding company of million multi-bank holding company. Chairman of Investment and Asset-Liability Management tVl m 1  * Ci r\\ n C*  .. 4. 2 _____! . Committees. Executive Committee. 1983-1986 Bre_n_twood_Bank of California. Los Angeles, Ca. President and Chief Executive Officer, three-year contract, planned, founded. Under a iniee-yw contract, planned, founded, staffed and managed this successful new bank for a group of local investors. - third year. Reached $100 million in assets in 19811983 American National Bank. Bakersfield, Ca. Executive Vice President/Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Directed all line and staff departments in this $700 million bank with 30 branch offices. 1980-1981 National Cooperative Bank,Washington, Director of Lending and Investment, Planned, founded, staffed and initiated operation of the lending and treasury divisions of this national development bank created by Act of Congress with initial capital of $130 million. D.C. 1974-1979 QPEQrtuaity Funding Corporation. Washington, D.C. Senior Vice President for Program Development. Regional Director - Southern United States. Washington Managed venture capital and Ioan programs supporting regional and local development organizations in twenty states. -  state, Designed, developed and managed the primary national capital support program for minority-owned financial inst i tut ions. Inc_^, Little Rock 1976-1979 (concurren Cooperative Assistance Fund. New York, N.Y. t) Managing Director of this venture capital fund created from the pooled program-reIated investment funds of ten major national foundations including Ford, Rockefeller, Rockefeller Brothers, Mott,FEB-25-93 THU 17:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 12 RESUME DAVID JAMESON Page 2 19731974 u. s. 1970-1973 1969-1970 1968-1969 1965-1968 Small Business Administration, Honolulu, Worked under a two-year contract tq init iate U.S. government lending and development programs in Micronesia, Guam, and American Samoa. Trained commercial banks, government agencies and local business groups in credit criteria and processing requirements for federal programs. Central Banking Svstem, Inc., Oakland, Ca, Administrator of Affiliate Banks, Inc Planned and directed operation of six community banks owned by this multi-bank holding company. Concurrently company. served as Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of affiliate banks located in Livermore and Fresno, Ca. Deposit National Bank, Mobile, Al, President/CEO under a three-year contract to turn- around and sell this failing bank. Successful, Union National Bank, Little Rock, Ar. Commercial Loan Officer and Assistant to chairman. Wells Fargo Bank, San Francisco, Ca. Loan Officer and Regional Loan Supervisor. Completed bank management and loan training program with #1 ranking in group of 48. MILITARY SERVICE\n1960-1963 United States Army, _ Stationed at The White House COjnniuni cat ions Agency, Washington, D.C, specialist in communications security and intelligence at The White House, Served as EDUCATION: 1963-1965 University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts, with Honors. 1960 University of Poitiers, France. 1958-1960 Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. Received National Scholarship based on high school record and SAT scores. PERSONAL: Born 1940 in Missouri. One son, 18 years old. Hi.FEB--25-93 THU 17:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 February 24, 1993 The Honorable Susan Wright U.S. District Judge 600 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: I recently moved to Arkansas after completing my military service and have watched with interest the process and progress of the court in effecting an accecptable measure of desegregation in the LRSD. Todays article in the Democrate- Gazette suggests a further intrusion into the District's operations is forthcoming. Perhaps my background and experience would be useful to you in these endeavors. I have attached a resume and experience history for your perusal. I would add that I still have the energy, initiative and integrity of my previous office and I am politically unencumbered. I am available at your convenience. Sincerely, Colonel, nited States Arra\u0026gt;-Retired ?ECiE(VSD OF WJS.AS WR/gHT FEB 25 1993 IJ. S. DfSTRlCT JUDGE FEB-25-93 THU 17:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 Background Executive Management Project Management Resource Management Operations Training Development Evaluation Personnel Management Education Personal Edvard N. Rolle 63 Sunset Lane Cabot, Arkansas (501) 843-2474 72023 EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT Over fifteen years in fast paced, demanding Executive, Project and Resource management positions. ___1. experience in operations, training development and evaluation, personnel management and administration. Extensive As deputy chief of a large office within the Operations Directorate of the National Security Agency, coordinated, defined and evaluated operational intelligence activities, improved resource allocation and programming processes, chaired promotion and awards boards and supervised out year planning. As the chartered Project Manager, directed a $120 million Department of Army integrated intelligence automation project in South Korea supporting both senior US and Korean commanders. Defined, acquired, installed and supported widely dispersed networked system of 3 mainframes and 122 terminals. Formulated major modification resulting in a more responsive user friendly system simultaneously avoiding over $1.5 million costs. Project was on-time, within budget with the system 98% operationally available. Effectively managed multi-million dollar long term system oriented fiscal program for the Director of Operations, The National Security Agency. Devised methodologies for system integration leading to the elimination of duplication. Presented, defended and justified program through to congressional submission. cross Revamped and streamlined operational and exercise intelligence support provided to worldwide deployed military forces. Eliminated cumbersome and inefficient decision layers which resulted in a responsive, competent and motivated staff. Conceived, initiated, and contracted a revised, comprehensive training program for automation system users. Reduced training time by 30% through expanded on-site training programs. Measured user performance and tailored training accordingly. more Measured user performance and tailored Highly successful record in selecting and developing staffs, motivating and leading individuals or groups to accomplishing organization'\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_275","title":"Chapter 1 Programs of Public Law, 100-297","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":["1992/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational planning","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Chapter 1 Programs of Public Law, 100-297"],"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/275"],"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  SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR MEETING ON JUNE 25, 1992 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 25, 1992 RECEIVED JUN 2 6 1992 Otfice of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs THROUGH: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Program Application, Chapter 1 of Public Law 100-297 The ESEA Chapter 1 Application is being prepared for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education by the June 30, 1992, due date. Please fine attached a copy of the Program Abstract. When completed, copies of the Application will be provided for your review. The 1992-93 allocation is $4,376,161, which is based on a total of 10,164 eligible students. This represents an increase in funding in the amount of $1,001,279. The additional funds will be used to provide added services to our secondary students. The largest portion of Chapter 1 money will be utilized for paying the salaries for reading and mathematics teachers. We are continuing to work toward the completion of the Chapter 1 Application. It is recommended that you authorize the administration to submit the 1992-93 Chapter 1 Application to the Arkansas Department of Education.CHAPTER 1 APPLICATION FOR 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR PROGRAM ABSTRACT The purpose of assistance under the Chapter 1 Program is to improve the educational opportunities of educationally-deprived children by helping such children succeed in the regular program of the local educational agency, attain grade-level proficiency, and improve achievement in basic and more advanced skills. These purposes shall be accomplished through such means as supplemental education programs, schoolwide programs, extended day/week, and the increased involvement of parents in their childrens education. Based on the annual needs assessment, which included a program survey, it was determined that our program should be expanded to the secondary level and provide remedial services in the areas of reading and mathematics. To this end, the greater portion of the program budget will be earmarked for paying the salaries for reading and mathematics teachers. While the major part of the budget will cover these personnel, other authorized activities include the following:  Acquisition of equipment and instructianal materials Employment of special instructional personnel, school counselors, and other pupil services personnel  Extended day/extended week tutorial services  Parental involvement activities A major change in Chapter 1 regulations in recent years is the increased emphasis on allocation of resources and the selection of students for the program. Chapter 1 guidelines specify that districts must utilize uniform criteria for selecting and serving students of greatest need. Utilizing the normal curve equivalent scores (NCEs) for each student, we are able to identify appropriate students to be served in a manner that is comparable from school to school. The process used to identify students to be served for the 1992-93 school year will allow the Little Rock School District to be in compliance with Chapter 1 guidelines. This Program Abstract should provide you a summary of the 1992-93 Chapter 1 Application. The Application will be forwarded to you for your review in the very near future.I ' Arkansas Democrat (gazette  THURSDAY, MARCH 3,1994 Coovncnt /S Little Rock Newsoaoe^- Application errors by LRSD hold up\n$4.2 million in aid One problem remains to be solved been resolved, Lovell said. Information on the final issue is e.xpected to be delivered to the Education De- BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrai-Gazene Education Writer State officials have withheld more than $4.2 million in federal compensatory education money for the Little Rock School District because of problems with the application. The districts initial Chapter I apolication had incomplete of conflicting information when it was submitted to the department in August 1993, said Clearance Lovell, associate director for fed^al programs in the state Department of Education. Federal Chapter I money partment this week. The final issue centers on Woodruff Elementary School and whether it is eligible for a schoolwide Chapter I pro- is used by districts to supplement mathematics and reading instruction. The ject. Lovell said Wednesday the department has problems , with the Little Rock district s application yearly, but the problems have not been^se- rious enough to cause the district to lose its funding. The district is one of two' in the state that has not re- j ceived its funding this Y^^r- The other is the Earle School District in east Arkansas.. I monVyts allotted based on The Little poverty rates of the families grant is the largest Chapter of children in a school. How- I grant awarded by the state. eUf seMces are provided Lovell said he doesn t be to any individual pupil based lieve the size of thedistnjit on academic need and not so- or the gra Rocks cioeconomic status. All Lit- shou d cause Little Rock s tie Rock elementary schools problems, since the ann 1 get at least some Chapter I grant money, although not all funds to pay administrati buildings have schoolwide costs. In addition to the Chapter I application problems, the Education Department had problems with the Little Rock districts accreditation report earlier this school year. As a result, the department was delayed in mining whether Little Rock schools complied with state education standards. The reporting problems were cor- a projects. . The fact the district had not received its money for this year became public last Friday during a federal court hearing on the Little Rock districts budget. Superintendent Henry Williams said the services are being provided to pupils despite the lack of funding. All but one of Little Rocks application problems have rected..-.i- * Arkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 . (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT. Director, General Education Division fl n n *^771-^ id' SEP 9 1994 MEMORANDUM Oifics oi L TO\nFROM: Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Anita R. Farver, Program Advisor, Chapter 1 DATE: September 7, 1994 SUBJECT\nLittle Rock School District Please find enclosed a copy of the letter dated July 25, 1994, that was sent to the Little Rock School District concerning their cancellation of Chapter 1 school improvement meetings. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION\nChiinnin . ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock  Vice Oiaiman  RICHARD C SMITH JR.. Tillar Membera: CARL E BAGGETT, Rogers  WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould a JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR, Fort Smith  JAMES A McLARTY III, Newport a RAE RICE PERRY. Arkadelphia a SHERRY WALKER, bttle Rock a NANCY M. WOOD. Little Rock An Equal Opponunicy Empioyer I Arkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL . UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division July 25, 1994 J 1 -^RX LEA Code No: 60-01 SEP 9 iqqa Mr. Leon Adams, Coordinator Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street iHico of :r\nLittle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Adams: Mrs. Farver and I were disappointed to hear that the Chapter 1 school improvement meetings planned for July 27-29 have been cancelled by your district. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reschedule these meetings until late September. This of course means that Chapter 1 funds will not be available to the Little Rock School District until those plans are submitted and approved. In addition, the law is clear that these plans must be in place when school starts so delaying them any longer could cause problems. Sincerely, Elizabeth Gaston Program Advisor Chapter 1 )r- EG/mbm cc: Estelle Mathis Bob Kerr Clearance Lovell STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION\nOuirron  ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock  Vee Ouimun  RICHARD C SMITH JR.. Tillar Members CARL E BAGGETT, Rogen  WILLIAM E HSHER, Paragould  JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JE, Fort Smith  JAMES A McLARTY III, Newport  RAE RICE PERRY, Arkadelphu  SHERRY WALKER, Uttle Rock  NANCY M. WOOD, Little Rock * Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 9, 1994 Anita R. Farver, Chapter 1 Program Advisor Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Uttle Rock, AR 72201-1071 Dear Anita: Thank you for your memo letting me know that the Uttle Rock School District cancelled its summer Chapter 1 school improvement meetings. 1 am very concerned about both the financial and educational consequences of the districts action, and will follow up immediately. I very much appreciate your keeping me informed. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (SOI) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 September 12, 1994 Mark Milhollen Manager for Support Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mark: I have just become aware that the Chapter 1 funds will not be available to the Little Rock School District until the district complies with the federal regulations regarding them. Apparently the scheduled July 27-29 1994 school improvement meetings that are a prerequisite for approval were not held. Recalling the late approval process that the district went through last fiscal year I am sure that you will give this matter your prompt attention. If this office can assist you please call upon us. Sincerely yours, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 12, 1994 Mark Milhollen Manager for Support Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mark: I have just become aware that the Chapter 1 funds will not be available to the Little Rock School District until the district complies with the federal regulations regarding them. Apparently the scheduled July 27-29 1994 school improvement meetings that are a prerequisite for approval were not held. Recalling the late approval process that the district went through last fiscal year I am sure that you will give this matter your prompt attention. I will be calling you soon to discuss your plans. Sincerely yours, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor Encl: Itr. Elizabeth Gaston to Leon Adams July 25,1994 /] * \u0026gt; 1 . I DENI IrI CAT I OU: a. LEA: t). c. 2 . 3. NU I !Gh OF GRANT AWARD FOR AN APPROVED PROGRAM UNDER CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE I, ESEA AS AMENDED Little Rock School District Name of Applicant Agency 60-01 LEA Code No. 801 West Markham Address Grant: Source 61 Class 4411 Program\nCONDITIONS: 6 f\nNOV 1 0 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, Arkansas C i ty State 72201 Zip Code Amount $ 4,456,721.23 Term - From July 1,1994 to June 30,1995 Program No. 93-3 Effective Dates F rom Approval Period July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995 August 15, 1994 to June 30, 1995 Approval No. 95-293 Ihe above local educational agency (LEA) is hereby awarded a grant of funds under Chapter I of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended for the purpose of providing assistance to meet the special needs of educationally deprived children served by it. The award is made to the LEA on the condition that it be used to support the program identified above and described in its original application and approved The applicant must develop and implement the program and projects described in its applications in accordance with the Assurances it has made to support its applications and in compliance with the provisions of Chapter I of Title I and the federal regulations and state policies for administration of amendments thereto. Chapter I. The amount of the grant identified above includes Chapter 1 funds as follows: A1 I Cash on Hand All Allotment Balance F rom $ $ Reallocation Funds $ From the 1995 Allotment . 168,511.23 25,212.00 -0- $ 4,262,998.00 AUTHORIZATION: Authorization for the above grant is based upon the information contained in the LEA's application relating to the above identified program which applications have been reviewed and determined to be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations\nhowever, neither the approval of the applications by the State Education Agency nor the issuance of this grant shall in any way relieve the ITA of its responsibility to comply with all applicable requirements. In confirmation of the foregoing, we attest by signature. Recommended by: Approved by: Coordinator, Chapter 1 Pjblic Law No. 100-297\n20 use 2701 ' Date ssociate F Ass ate Director for Federal Programs ADE Form No. FED-01-00-014 ////^ /! Date 6-91Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 13, 1994 To: Hank Williams CONnODniAL From: Subject- m Brown Delays in Chapter 1 funds to the LRSD I wanted to let you know that 1 recently received a copy of the attached fetter from ADE. Although Mrs. Elizabeth Gaston signed the letter, it was a supervisor, not Mrs. Gaston, who forwarded the letter to me. Bob Morgan is \"formally\" following up the delayed Chapter 1 funds with Mark Milhollen, but I wanted to privately make sure that you knew about this. 1 dont know why the meetings were cancelled, but I cant imagine circumstances that should have resulted in their cancellation and the resulting m.oney delays. Enc.I Arkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCA.T1ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  UTTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071 . (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director. General Education Division July 2S, 1894 7^33 i 7 LEA Code No: 60-01 SE? 9 iQOi Mr. Leon Adams, Coordinator Little Rock School District 310 West Markham Street Little Rock, .AR 72201 of i Liear Mr. Adams: Mrs. Far'/er and I were disappointed to hear that the Chapter 1 school improvement meetings planned for July 27-29 have been cancelled by your district. Unfortxxnateiy, we will aox. be able to reschedule these meetings until late September. This of course means that Chapter 1 funds will not be available to the Little Rock School District until those plans are submitted and approved. In addition, the law is clear that these plans must be in place when school starts so delaying them any longer could cause problems. Sincerely, Elizabeth Gaston Program Advisor Chapter 1 ,1^ EG/mbm cc: Estelle Mathis Bob Kerr Clearance Lovell STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chiinnin  ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock . Vm Ouirnuti  RICHARD C SMITH JR, TllUr Membax CARL E BAGGETT. Root . WILLIAM B. FISHER. Paragould . JAMES M. LLEWELLYN. JR, Fort Smith  JAMES A MclARTY HL Newport(c: .s: Arfonsas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division September 14, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 received SEP 1 6 1994 Dear Dr. Williams: Ofiics CI usascrcgaiion Moi Thank you for your letter of September 2, 1994, and your expression' of appreciation. The Chapter 2, ESEA, staff has been working in a spirit of cooperation with the Little Rock School District by approving your district's requests to waiver excessive carryover in fiscal years 1989 ($84,386.54), 1990 ($41,061.03), 1991 ($55,438.79) and 1992 ($55,914.25). I., il__ 1 district was cautioned (see attached letter dated September 3, 1992) that excessive carryover could not be approved for a fifth consecutive year. In fiscal 1993, the 3, At the end of fiscal 1993, the Little Rock School District had balance of $90,919.70. - - ___ a carryover This was $69,767 over the 10% limit allowed. TLa Handbook for Chapter 2, ESEA, page 4, #7 states: \"Excess balance will be defined as ten percent of the LEA grant or $2,500, whichever is greater. voiiuequentxy, * , fxscal 1994 Grant Allotment of $192,433.00 was decreased to a Grant Award of $122,666.00. Even with that reduction in monies and a May, 1994 expenditure of nearly $6,000 in Professional Development tapes, the Little Rock School District has an excessive balance for fiscal 1994. The t Consequently Annual Financial Report is $39,354.59. percent limit. The total carryover reported on the Thia is $20,111.29 over the allotted ten The sig- nificant carr.y over f-o-r - sixth\" consecutive year, even after a $69,767 reduction xn fiscal 1994 grant monies a tt reauctxon xn fxscal 1994 grant monies, appears to indicate that the district needs less money to operate its Chapter 2, ESEA, programs. Your letter stated you ^Te \"putting into place strategies that will prevent thia situation from takxng place in the future.\" Our office recognizes the Little Rock District's problems and will evaluate another waiver request if you will detail these strategies for fiscal 1995 and tell how they are different from past, unsuccessful efforts to reduce the excessive carryover. ESEA, programs. 1995 how they are different If you have any questions or if I can be of further help, please call the Chapter 2 office at 682-4278. Sincerely, Bernadine Hoffman Program Administrator Chapter 2, ESEA BH:rh attachment cc: Ann Brown STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION\nChainmn  ELAINE SCOTT, Link Rock  Vice Chaintun  RICHARD C SMITH JR.. Tillar Memub er. /C'AADRIL nE n A  B. FISHER---.- --P---a-ri^mKuouniwd w.k J AM 'E S M . LLEWEUYN, JR. Fo r(t\\ iSLm,niAthA .U J AMOEMS I A1 n. M I tctL,A lRllTUYr HI. Newport lAnonsas_____________________ DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 Burton L. Elliott, Director, General Education Division September 3, 1992 Mr. Leon Adams Project Director Little Rock School District 310 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Adams: Records in the Chapter 2 office verify that for the past five years. the Little Rock School District has extenuating circumstances and submitted a letter stating policy relating to excessive carryover. ESEA, pg. 4, #6 and #7 state: tl requesting a waiver on Chapter 2 The Handbook for Chapter 2, When an LEA has been determined to have excess balance on hand, payment from the current grant will be delayed until assurances are received as to the disposition of the balance. 6 . 7. Excess balance will be defined as ten percent of the LEA grant or $2,500, whichever is greater. letter will serve to notify the Little Rock School District a all monies in excess of 10% of the district's allocation as of June 30, 1993, will be withheld from current (1993-94) grant. If you have questions, please call the Chapter 2 office at 682-4276. Sincerely, Glenda Peyton Coordinator Chapter 2, ESEA GP:rjb cc: C. M. Bernd Superintendent An Equal Opportunity Employer cr Aikansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL . LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 . (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division RECEJVPO October 3, 1994 OCr 7 f994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Dr. Williams: Thank you for your letter of September 29, 1994. The Chapter 2, ESEA, appreciative of your efforts to meet federal guidelines in the expenditure of your Chapter 2, ESEA, grant In your letter you have outlined some viable steps which agree will reduce the carryover balance at the end of office is 1994. monies. your 2 we ayxee reouce tne the fiscal Completion of the strategies mentioned in the letter will indeed guarantee that monies are spent in a timely manner. Therefore, we are pleased to be able to approve the entire fiscal 1994 carryover of $39,354.59. carried into your year. the strategies current fiscal year. This money is to be fiscal 1995 project for expenditure in the Sincerely, Program Administrator Chapter 2, ESEA BH:rjh cc: Ann Brown BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chairman  ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock  Vice Chairman  RICHARD C. SMITH JR. Tillar Members: CARL E BAGGETT, Rogers . WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould . JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR, Fort Smith . JAMES A. MclARTY III Newport  RRAAEF RRIICCEF PPEFRRRRYV, AArrLkta./d4eal\u0026gt;plnhkiua * ScHuEcRdRdYv uWzA a Lr KveEnR , Little Rocik . vN, Aa NCY aM e. WOOiD lU, L, iitNtlCeW RpoOcrtk An Equal Opportunity Employer (PC.' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation TO: Ms. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Mr. Dennis Snider, Assistant Superintendent, Secondary Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources y Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Mr. John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney RECEIVED FROM/ r. Robert Glowers, Director APR 7 1995 RE: Chapter 1 Information for Secondary Schools from School Profiles OtIiCQ of Oosogrcgalion Monitoring DATE: April 6, 1995 Enclosed is the Chapter 1 enrollment information for those LRSD secondary schools tliat have Chapter 1. (Some secondary schools do not have Chapter 1 programs). As you may recall, Chapter 1 information for secondary schools was not available on February 20, 1995, when the school profiles for the second semester were provided to you. This data is current as of the printing date of March 17, 1995. As you know, the eru'ollment for these programs is constantly changing, and updates are made periodically as the information becomes available from the schools. If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact Dr. Paul J. Smith at 324-2120. RLC:pjs Enclosure cc: Dr. Elenry P. Williams SchoPr 2.Doc01 LRSD GIFTED , CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL\n007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Total Female Male Female Male Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 38 50 39 77 5 3 212 41.5% Chapter 1 Reading 78 49 6 3 1 0 137 92.7%01 LRSD GIFTED S, CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Female Male Other Other Female Male Total Female Count % Black Gif ted/Talented 34 65 22 15 0 2 138 71.7% Chapter 1 Reading 58 55 2 5 0 0 120 94.2%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gi fted/Talented 36 51 69 85 3 0 244 35.7% Chapter 1 Reading 72 54 4 0 0 0 130 96.9%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: on SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Female Male Other Other Female Male Total Female Count % Black G1fted/Talented 30 37 4 10 2 0 83 80,7% Chapter 1 Reading 45 55 5 2 3 3 113 88.5%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 62 73 34 31 3 4 207 65.2% Chapter 1 Reading 77 55 3 0 1 0 136 97.1% I01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOIt HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gi f ted/Talented 21 35 9 2 0 0 67 83.6% Chapter 1 Reading 87 68 11 5 0 0 171 90.6% - i IR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Jlii 19' June 29, 1995 Cffics ci Dassgi tVjor p.c MEMORANDUM TO\nTitle I (Chapter 1) Reading and Math Specialists FROM: Dr. Rici iuri^ Director of Human Resources SUBJECT: ELIMINATION OF CHAPTER 1 SPECIALISTS POSITIONS Due to changes in regulations regarding ESEA, Title I (Chapter 1) funding, the delivery of services will also change. As a result, the District has eliminated Title I reading and math specialists positions and established a new job title and job description under which these services win be provided by persons who are qualified to teach both reading and math.. The job description and a copy of the position announcement is attached. If you wish to be considered for this position, send a letter to Shirley Ridgel, Office of Human Resources, no later than the July 7 deadline. If you do not wish to be considered, or if you are not selected for a new position, you will be placed in a pool of teachers to be reassigned. On Tuesday, July 18, 9:00 a.m., in the Board Conference Room, you will be able to choose, by seniority , from a list of known vacant elementary teaching positions in the District.PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST June 30, 1995 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following positions for the 1995-96 school year: POSITIONS\nTitle I Instructional Specialists - Thirty-Seven (37) Positions QUALIFICATIONS\n1. A bachelor's degree in elementary education. 2. Must meet Arkansas certification requirements. 3. 4. Minimum of three (3) years successful teaching experience with specific emphasis in the content area of teaching reading or mathematics. Consideration will be given to applicants with Chapter 1 experience. Evidence of successful teaching experiences with computers in a classroom or lab setting. 5. Evidence of successful experience in working with curriculum development and implementation. 6. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 7. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills and a record of successful interaction with students, teachers, parents, and supervisory personnel. 8. Evidence of knowledge and skills in integrating reading and mathematics with each other and with other subject areas using an experimental approach. (K-4 Crusade Completion is desired). 9. Evidence of successful academic intervention with educationally disadvantages students. 10. Evidence of experience in working with other teachers as a trainer, coach, or mentor. note\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW.Title I Instructional Specialists REPORTS TO\nPrincipal JOB GOAL: To provide direct instruction to Title I students in reading and mathematics, to provide assistance to students in the District's instructional computer program, and to conduct staff development at the building level. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Provides academic support to target students in reading and mathematics. Plans and uses effective teaching strategies for Title I students in reading and mathematics - focus on use of reading and mathematics technology, manipulatives, cooperative team learning. Shows an understanding of early childhood practices in reading and math. Assesses the accomplishments of students on a regular basis, and provides progress reports as required. Maintains Title I records on target students in assigned schools. Guides the learning process toward the achievement of instructional obj ectives. Conducts staff development for teachers through building level inservice meetings, demonstration lessons, team teaching, and joint lesson planning. Attends District level inservice on successful strategies for teaching reading and mathematics and serving students with educational needs in these areas. SALARY AND TERMS: Salary based on a teacher's nine and one-fourth (9.25) month salary schedule, plus benefits package. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel.Title I Instructional Specialists APPLICATION DEADLINE\nJuly 13, 1995, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO\nDr. Richard E. Hurley Director, Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.VACANT7.XLS i Elementary scools vacancy list 6/16/95 3/4 EXCESS EXCESS I TITLE lAUX PS I ELEM. - (ELEM.-1ST lELEM. - 1ST I ELEM. - IST I ELEM. - 1ST I ELEM. - 1ST I ELEM. - 2ND I ELEM. - 2ND !ELEM. - 2ND I ELEM. - 2ND I ELEM.-2ND iELEM.-2ND I ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM. - 3RD I ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM.-3RD (ELEM.-3RD (ELEM.-3RD (ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM.-4TH (ELEM.-4TH (ELEM.-4TH (ELEM. -4TH (SCHOOL (MITCHELL (CLOVERDALE - (BALE_________ (BRADY CHICOT FULBRIGHT GEYER SPRINGS EXCESS ELEM. - STH ELEM. - STH ELEM. - STH IELEM.-STH_________ (ELEM.-STH_________ IELEM. - STH_________ (ELEM. - STH_________ (ELEM. - STH/6TH (ELEM.-STH_________ IELEM. - STH_________ (ELEM. - STH lELEM.-STH_________ (ELEM. - ART_________ IELEM. - ART_________ lELEM.-K___________ IELEM. -K___________ (ELEM.-LIFE SCIENCE (BOOKER_________ (CARVER (DODD (FULBRIGHT (MITCHELL (RIGHTSELL (BOOKER (MEADOWCLIFF (PULASKI HEIGHTS (RIGHTSELL (ROCKEFELLER 'TERRY (WAKEFIELD (WASHINGTON (WOODRUFF (DODD (FRANKLIN (MABELVALE (GARLAND________ I BOOKER (FAIR PARK (GARLAND (GEYER SPRINGS (MEADOWCLIFF (ROCKEFELLER (WOODRUFF {forest PARK I BALE (CARVER_________ IFOREST PARK (WASHINGTON M.L.KING RIGHTSELL IFOREST PARK WATSON WASHINGTON |G \u0026amp; T__________ ' LIBRARIAN (LIBRARIAN (LIBRARIAN [math spec (.20) (MATH SPEC (.20) (MABELVALE/BADGETT (BADGETT___________ (ROCKEFELLER (WOODRUFF_________ [garland (JEFFERSON Page 1VACANTT.XLS MATH SPEC (.30) MATH-CHAPTER 1 MATH-CHAPTR 1 MATH-CHPTR 1 (.60) MUSIC MUSIC____________ ORCHESTRA READ CHPTR 1 READ - CHPTR 1 READING READING (.40) I READING (.40) EXCESS EXCESS READING (.40) SPE LD (.20) SPE-LD SPE-MP/HND SPEC EDUC SPEC EDUC N-CATEG SPEC EDUC N-CATEG SPEECH (.50) FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT BRADY/PUL.HGTS. WESTERN HILLS CHICOT GEYER S/WDRUFF BOOKER CHICOT TERRY GARLAND BRADY RIGHTSELL M.L.KING PUL. HEIGHTS ELEM MABELVALE WILSON GARLAND/McDERM BADGETT CARVER BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE WASHINGTON Page 2July 5, 1995 Shirley Ridgel Office of Human Resources Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Ms. Ridgel: I wish to submit my letter to be considered for the job of Title I Instructional Specialist. I have been a teacher in the LRSD for 22 years, been a Chapter I - Math Teacher for 8 years. I have Thank you for your consideration of my request. Sincerely Janet Adams cc: LRCTA 929 W. Colonel Glenn Rd. Little Rock, AR 72210 821-2173\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_271","title":"Cheerleaders","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":["1992/1993"],"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","Student activities","Educational law and legislation","Race discrimination"],"dcterms_title":["Cheerleaders"],"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/271"],"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\nJOHN w. Walker, I.A. A'iTORNEY At Law 172.3 Broadway LirrLE Rtx'K. Arkansas 7T.JIII\nTelephone (.'loi) 371-37.58 EAX {.5(H) 371-1187 JUN 2 5 1992 .JOHN W. WALKER RALIII WASHINOTON MARK RllRNl'.Tl'E WILEY A. URANTON. .JR. AUSTIN IORTER..JR. * Alsfi t Irarlin- in Ihr Dislrict if Office of Desenre-iPfirn \u0026gt;. Monitoring June 24, 1992 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United Stated District Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Judge Wright: Relief and I have filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive I would like to have the Court expedite All parties have been given notice other relief in this case. this matter if at all possible. and'the entirely new party, Mr.' Ralph Hoffman a Summons. issued out of an abundance of caution to insure he has This Summons was actual notice of the proceedings. Of course, I expect him to be represe nted by LRSD counsel. Very truly yours, ,// V j6hn W. Walker JWW:Im Office of Desegregation Monitoring cc: All Counsel Mr. Ralph HoffmanJohn W. Walker, p.a. received ArniuNEY At Law 1723 Broadway Lm-LE Rook. Arkansas 72-jihi Telephone (501) 374-37.58 FAX (501) 374-4187 JUN 2 S OHice ot Desegrogafon Monitoong  lollN W. WALKER liALI'll WASHINUION MAUK miUNElTE WILEY A. IIHANTON. IH. AUSTIN IOHTKIL -IK.  Alw iiilniiHi-ii l' I'tiirlin in tiv Iislricl \u0026lt;f \u0026lt; H|iiiiil\u0026lt;i:i June 24, 1992 Chris Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, P.A. 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Chris: to Intervene and for other I am enclosing a copy of the Motion relief which I am today filing against the Little Rock School District and Principal Ralpli Hoffman of Pulaski Heights Jr. High School. Please accept this letter as evidence of service of the relief which I am Please accept this Complaint, i.e.. Motion. and in Inasmuch as Hoffman is not a defendant at this time, that Dr. Mac Bernd has not been substituted as a party defendant and is not yet a party, I am taking the liberty of also serving Dr. Bernd and Mr. Hoffman with copies of the Motion. Please note that I am also seeking to have Dr. Bernd adhere to the Desegregation has started off by violating through his plan of Please note that Plan which he reorganization. I am In that the Motion seeks preliminary injunctive relief, hereby advising that I will ask Judge Wright to advance this matter so that it may be considered in a timely fashion. I am also serving each board member with a copy of the Motion by leaving same at the office of Mr. Bernd so that he may have them available for the board members when they come to the meeting scheduled for this evening. If you advise. have any questions regarding this matter, please Very trul yours, J' h W. Walker '^7 JWW:ImChris Heller, Esg. June 24, 1992 Page 2 cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring All Counsel P.S. A Memorandum will follow later on today.s CEiVEO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 5* 1592 Office of Desegregafion Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Come the Joshua Intervenors and respectfully move the Court: a. to allow the intervention of the named minor children below through their parents and next friends\nand b. for declaratory, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of said children with respect to their being allowed to participate without discrimination in the cheerleading activity at Pulaski Heights Junior High (hereinafter PHJH) in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The intervenors submit the following allegations and legal contentions in support of their prayer for relief. The legal basis for their intervention and for their right or entitlement to relief is set forth in the attached memo of points and authorities. 1. The intervenors in application (hereinafter \"intervenors\") are as follows: A. Jennifer Mays, as next friend of Tiffany Mays\nB. Charles Perry, as next friend of Kimberly Perry\nC. Annette Jones and Carlos Jones, as next friends ofShannon Jones\nand D. Mary Lacey and Riccardo Lacey, as next friends of Riccarda Lacey. All of the intervenors are citizens of the United States and reside in the Little Rock School District. Each minor plaintiff will be in either the Sth or 9th grade at Pulaski Heights Jr. High School during the 1992-93 school year. Each minor is a member of the class of black students certified herein. The defendants in this limited proceeding are the LRSD\nCloyde McKinley Bernd, Superintendent of Schools of the LRSD\nand 2. Ralph Hoffman, Principal of PHJH. Defendant Bernd is sued in his official capacity and is being substituted with appropriate leave of the Court for Dr. Ruth Steele, the immediate past Superintendent of the LRSD. Mr. Hoffman is named for purposes of this proceeding alternately in his individual and official capacities. 3. This is proceeding to declare and define the legal a rights and other legal relations of the parties herein with respect to certain treatment which the minor intervenors contend they have suffered at PHJH during the 1991-92 school year and which they stand to have perpetuated upon during the 1992-23 school year. This is a motion for preliminary injunctive relief which requires the defendants to alter or modify the process and results thereof involved in cheerleader selection at PHJH in April 1992 for the 1992-93 school year. This is also a proceeding to enjoin the defendants from allowing certain discriminatory or unfair practices which provide 4 . 2at least the appearance of partiality and racial motivation to accompany the process of participation in extra-curricular activities at PHJH School. 5. This is also a proceeding to cite the LRSD for contempt of court for failing to supervise the process of student participation closely and carefully at PHJH and for allowing the extra-curricular activities at PHJH to remain substantially segregated without a written plan for remediation thereof. Preliminary Statement 6. The Joshua Intervenors in good faith entered into a Settlement Agreement with the LRSD the purpose of which was to forthwith eliminate all vestiges and effects of racial discrimination. All parties agreed that extra-curricular activities would be altered or modified to provide for the equitable, if not proportional, participation of both primary races in all school activities and programs. The spirit of the Agreement was to promote an environment wherein all youngsters who attended the LRSD public schools came to feel that the schools were being operated for all children and that inclusion of both races, rather than exclusion, was the objective in all activities. The School District took ultimate responsibility for implementing this expectation. Indeed, the District has formulated policies and other writings designed to provide for the elimination of vestiges of discrimination. Those procedures must be followed. at the least, if the relief promised to black children is to be provided. This action is essential because the conduct of defendants. 3especially Principal Hoffman and his staff, is egregious, and because the school district board has not seen fit to hold Principal Hoffman to the standard which the District itself has set for racial inclusivity. Court intervention is the last resort as provided in the Settlement Agreement. 7. During the 1990-91 school year. the PHJH operated a number of extra-curricular programs and activities. Program data generally demonstrate racial patterns of participation. See Exhibit \"A\", pages 1 and 2 hereto. This exhibit. inter alia. demonstrates that in 1991-92, of twenty-six cheerleaders only two were black. while on the other hand. out of sixteen drill team members, only three were white. The enrollment of PHJH during 1991-92 was 761 students of whom 468 or 61% were black. 8. PHJH maintained other vestiges of discrimination as well. The resource room was 96% black (42 of 45) , while gifted and talented students were overwhelmingly white. In the remedial and compensatory education classes, 157 (97%) of the 162 pupils were black. Furthermore, the statistics on suspensions and expulsions demonstrate gross disparity. Black male youth, especially. are suspended and recommended for expulsion for reasons as vague as wearing \"gang colors\" and giving II gang signs. II In reaching these consequences, the administration is deliberately set up to provide the appearance of racial inclusivity in decision making. Accordingly, a black assistant principal, James Mosby, is put into all situations involving the discipline and treatment of black students. Mr. Mosby so routinely validates teacher recommendations 4and other racial adversities that this may be regarded as condition of his employment or his job description. 9. The minor intervenors in this action complain about the process which Defendant Hoffman and the LRSD utilized in the selection of cheerleaders at PHJH for the 1992-93 school year as being racial in effect if not purpose. The facts which they a specifically allege are as follows: a. During the cheerleader tryouts for 1991-92 which were held in April of 1991, approximately thirty-six black pupils applied out of a total of fifty applicants. There were twelve applicants selected of which two were black. In other words, black applicants were initially selected at the rate of one out of eighteen while white applicants were initially selected at the rate of six out of seven. On information and belief, this disproportionate effect discouraged many would be black applicants from applying to participate in the cheerleading program for the 1992-93 school year. b. While the cheerleading program at PHJH has become labeled as intended for white pupils, the drill team has become labeled as intended for black children. Consequently, all sixteen of the dream team applicants who completed the application process during 1990-91 either were selected to participate on the drill team or to serve as managers for it. The three white students who had the temerity to apply for the drill team also served. During the cheerleader tryouts in April, 1992 for the c. 51992-93 school year, only eleven black pupils applied. Seventeen white pupils applied. Of the eleven. only one was chosen, Intervenor Shannon Jones. [Her specific contentions will be addressed, infra.] Of the seventeen white students, eleven were chosen. d. The selection process has the appearance of being intended to effect a specific purpose. On information and belief. Mrs. Terry Bridges, Cheerleading Sponsor at PHJH school, selected judges for cheerleaders. She did so by selecting two white and two black judges. The two white judges were a mother and her daughter while one of the two black judges was an employee of the white mother and daughter. The second black judge was from out of the city. Mrs. Bridges has refused to disclose the name of the judges. Moreover, Mrs. Bridges, with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Hoffman and in violation of cheerleading rules, allowed her own mother to participate in the process as a non-voting member. Thus, Mrs. Bridges was in ultimate initial control of the process. On April 27, 1992, the one black judge from outside the community wrote a letter, \"To Whom It May Concern,\" indicating that the selection process. in her opinion. was unfair and recommended that the \"situation should be viewed again. II See Exhibit It 1. II To date. no LRSD official has inquired into her e. f. reasons for believing the process to have been tainted. g- Other adult applicants for intervention have sought to appeal the process and results of the cheerleader tryout through 6Principal Hoffman and Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent effective until June 26, 1992. On May 11, 1992, they sent a letter to Dr. Steele with their complaint herein. See Exhibit II 2. II h. In adult intervenors' meeting with Defendant Hoffman, he was rude and non-communicative to them. Moreover, he refused to allow them to view data on which he based his decision and which he placed into the files of their children. Hoffman also refused to disclose the names of the judges or to share with the parents the criteria utilized. the weights attached to each criterion and the ultimate consequences as reported by the individual judges. 1. On information and belief. Dr. Ruth Steele passed this matter on to Assistant Superintendent, Dr. Angela Sewell, for investigation and recommendation. Dr. Sewell, again on information and belief, verbally requested Defendant Hoffman to review the situation again and give her a report. All of this happened subsequent to May 11, 1992. There has been no response to date to the applicants in intervention from either the District or Mr. Hoffman. Dr. Sewell has not provided a written recommendation or report to her superiors. On information and belief, Mr. Hoffman sought to adjust the situation by naming Javanna Moss, a black junior high j  school student, as an alternate. Ms. Moss' parent was one of the signers of the letter dated May 11, 1992 , Exhibit This \"2. \" increased the black probability of participation to 8%. k. During the 1991-92 school year, however. Principal 7Hoffman removed one of the two black cheerleaders from the squad. That left Shannon Jones as the lone black cheerleader at PHJH during the 1991-92 school year. The tradition or past practice at PHJH is that a 9th grade student who served as a cheerleader the preceding year would be selected as one of four captains of the cheerleading squad. Shannon Jones was one of seven returning cheerleaders selected for the 1992-93 school year. Only four persons manifested an interest in being captain or co-captain of the 9th graders who returned. Shannon was one of them. Ms. Bridges manipulated the process to exclude the possibility of Shannon serving as captain or co-captain. Consequently, each returning white child who wished to serve in these roles did so, while the only black child who wanted to serve in that role was not allowed to do so. 1. During the 1991-92 school year, the one black child excluded from the cheerleading group. Christie Love, had been assigned to PHJH. A parent of the rejected white applicant complained that Ms. Love may not be eligible to attend the LRSD the next year because of her new residence in the county. Upon that event. the rejected child of the complaining white parent. was appointed to the squad by Defendant Hoffman. m. Ms. Love's application for permission to remain at PHJH was disallowed. n. The minor intervenors were both qualified and eligible to participate as cheerleaders. Kimberly Perry tried out during both 1990-91 and 1991-92 school years. The adult 8intervenors and other black parents were never given reasons by Defendant Hoffman for the alleged rejections or for the almost unanimous selection of competing white youngsters. 10. On page 1 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the District has committed to: E. of Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases school activities school, class and and operations (i.e. staff assignments\nparticipation in extracurricular activities\ndistribution of resources\netc.) added for emphasis] [underlining I. equip staff Ongoing staff development activities to teachers, with the administrators, skills needed and to other achieve 11. quality desegregation education. On page 28 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the goal of the District is set forth as being inter alia: \"to provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact students. Exhibit It on II 3\" , minority and disadvantaged [underlining added for emphasis] 12. On page 39 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline, the goal is stated as follows: 13 . It [to] provide and ensure opportunities and encouragements to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. II Exhibit \"4 II for emphasis. [underlining added Furthermore, the District commits to a yearly II analysis II of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. [In this respect. Superintendent 9Bernd proposes to change the desegregation responsibilities within the plan by his proposed reorganization plan. He has neither sought nor obtained Court approval of his plan.] There has been no written \"analysis\" by the defendants as provided by the plan, however. 14. The foregoing allegations are serious indications of this school district's failure to \"ensure\" non-discrimination at PHJH. Moreover, it is an indication that the District will not follow its own desegregation plan when the effect is to deny or limit participation of white students or to afford it to black students in certain activities. such as the Beta Club, Cheerleading, the Yearbook and the Y-Teens organization. 15. The District has made strong verbal and written a commitment to desegregation. implementing race relations 1. e. , among students and staff members\nensuring equities in all phases of school activities and operation\nand requiring the promotion of \"positive public reaction to desegregation\". This commitment is the first page of the LRSD Plan. See Exhibit \"5\" hereto. 16. The effective though paraphrased definition of equity as utilized in this case, is \"participation. not mere access.\" 17 . By the foregoing allegations, it is evident that the LRSD continues to treat one group of youngsters as inferior and another as superior. Principal Hoffman and his staff clearly engage in these practices in myriad ways. It is thus evident that the practices complained of constitute business as usual, racial prejudice, insufficient \"inservice\" training, or lack of awareness 10of the desegregation plan expectations on the part of Hoffman and his staff. The minor intervenors have been deprived of due process and equal protection of the laws. They have also been injured psychologically by their unequal treatment and by the exclusionary practices of Defendant Hoffman and the Little Rock School District. These injuries affect their attitudes about race, adult integrity, studying, their future and their self concepts. It says to them that they are not of value equal to white students. It also says that when they do seek to follow the reasonable rules of the district and when they do meet all the District's requirements for participation, they will still be treated differently due to their race or color. 19. Principal Hoffman has not prepared a written plan for eliminating or remediating racial disparities at PHJH, nor has he himself been properly \"inserviced\" by the District in such a way to avoid manifestation of furthering the interests of white students at the expense of and despite the needs of black students. 20. The minor intervenors and their parents have exhausted all reasonable remedies which they have for redress of their grievances in the school system. They have no other recourse than 18. to pray the Court for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief under the implementation promises of the desegregation plan and under the law. Their alleged treatment is violative of the Constitution, the Desegregation Plan, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983 and other commitments of the District. This action is 11therefore their only effective recourse. WHEREFORE, intervenors pray (a) for preliminary and appropriate injunctive relief as may be determined to be within the equity powers of the Court\n(b) for a declaratory judgment that the defendants have deprived the intervenors of equal protection and due process of laws\n(c) for mandatory II inservice training\" for Defendant Hoffman\n(d) for a mandatory requirement that all staff members at PHJH read, be tested upon and thereafter implement the Desegregation Plan in good faith\n(e) for elimination of selfserving, suspect selection criteria and procedures and staff\nand (f) that the district be held strictly accountable for meeting the objectives, goals and timetables of the Desegregation Plan with respect to all programs and activities. Intervenors also pray for an Order which substitutes Dr. Cloyde McKinley Bernd as a party defendant in place of Dr. Ruth Steele. Intervenors further request an Order requiring defendants to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court for their conduct alleged herein\nand for an Order requiring Superintendent Bernd to adhere to the approved plan herein with respect to lines and positions of authority, which are set forth therein. Applicants for intervention also pray for their costs including reasonable counsel fees. Respectfully submitted. 12JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 i 4. / ri'* z/ John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 J .! I Wiley A. pranton, Jr. Bar No. 90053 Norman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013 13CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of ChristophtHeller, Esg. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive 7 Little Rock, AR 72212 j azmotion Jofrn W. Walker 14 f' if i _  EXHIBIT 1  Whoni cih / l^lea/f ti- ifwtz , fva^ one. /fy-aMs ~4I? l/l'ijl ' -'^\u0026gt;1? i Ihig Qhieti\u0026amp;\nc/i/^ Swad l^' IL 5^W4/z/ d/^saribLl cvm\n'S-lui-lum hMc(li f/iiy, mQ. ii'ri^/ i:if 041/ iMat \\ Al bl i'la \\-^ I .t '^ ],.\ny^in/, ~nic ^WO '^\\fihiied\u0026amp;7/^t'^M/^ o/r nMie\u0026lt; MMrlein LeiiddfiLiiJ and 'i-h^e ()liitiK' LMiiz I^Milf Cvaz. 'Ai^/in' . ernpitii^, ! LnL 'TTii /n^)lfit.ic CL ^iLLdl Sia/fd cbf- 44! (^ ') hc\u0026gt;/^//7a Oh  i ^1^05 \u0026lt;UAa^ oh^e^ .  QC/bVihi^i^tyc : iti OfUtri klbbV^ m. -hif Min. liA^mee/ UdMyitf dif\nIh^ AIkiL 53I\u0026amp;^ , J: nuitztvi LA's-)- Ihiy (Aum Lci^  zi- undc/^f^^ '^L\u0026amp;i in 4405. MM /i\u0026gt; U/ibit/M/i'ad i aria Cifiii^bia! . bud Ihe \\ialiijL i \"ziMli'ai MkiM. L. \u0026gt; . / f'n C(/lb/V/O//}dw( ! ^hl5 ITO: Dr. Ruth Steel Superintendent,LRSD EXHIBIT 2 May 11,1992 MEMORANDUM From: M. Lacey, J. Mays, K. Perry, J. Moss Parents of students at Pulaski Heights Junior High Re: Cheerleader Tryouts Process were Varsity cheerleader tryouts at Pulaski Heights Junior High held during the week of April 20-24. Our children participated in the tryout process primarily because they were requested to do so by teacher(s) and assistant principle(s) of the school. _ , The tryout process and outcome are of major concern to ua. We\n___Ji_______i ___ -'ith r. Ralph Hoffman, princip'le, Ms have discussed our concerns with Mr. Bridges, superintendent. teacher/sponsor and The results of productive as needed. therefore, Mrs. our your E. Mathis associate discussions were not as involvement is the next option to be explored. We meit with Mr. Hoffman initially on Monday April At ---4.1--------------------- *1 outcome of,^racial eleven were Caucasian that time we verbalized these concerns: 1. compositioi(^ of the twelve to be selected, and one african-american. '' The total number to tryout were ten african-americans and approximately 28 Caucasians. Even though the current desegregation plan does not address the racial composition of partici^nts in extracurricular activities, it does suggest that the school district will facilitate opportunities and provide an environment for motivation. 2. To further encourage egual access the school district has suggested that the judges involved be racially balanced. which relationship of three of was the the case at PHJH, however. the judges to each strongly suggest Two of the four judges were opportunities for improprieties. a mother and her daughter and the third judge (who was a minority) reported to the mother relationship. and/or daughter in an employment In addition the mother of the cheerleader sponsor. Ms Bridges, sat at the table with the judges and was allowed to carry completed judging forms from the judges to the tally table. The fourth judge was duly concerned as noted in a fax copy to me (attachment 1). The process was also a major concern to us, in that the constitution for cheerleaders in the Little Rock School District ma j or was disregarded without conscious. This document clearlyKe identifies the process for cheerleader tryouts at all schools. noted these inconsistencies: 1. Pre-tryout conference with parents and candidates was not held. 2. Candidates did not receive a copy of the constitution and the judging matrix prior to Tryouts were held for three days as opposesto the five 2 . tryouts. 3. days mandated in the constitution to exclude mock tryouts and Person(s) other than school district personnel were present during tryouts (Ms Bridges' mother). tryouts. 4. The constitution indicates that only school district personnel, judges, and the candidate should be present during tryout. Mr. Hoffman indicated he discussed these issues with Mr. Mosby assistant principj^ (attachment 2) and no reports of irregularities were concede. however. as a District prohibits a junior side issue, the Little Rock School varsity cheerleader organization. Pulaski Heights Junior High has such an organization - the other On the surface it appears as though junior high schools do not. this junior high school is exempt from compliance with the good faith guidelines established by the school district. review the matrix of our individual We also requested to Childs' performance along with their total score. On Monday April 27th we were denied access, both Ms Bridges and Mr. Hoffman stated it was against school policy to allow access to this information. This issue was discussed with Mrs.Mathis, who assured us that the requested information would be made available. On May 1st Mr. Hoffman provided each parent a score written on a memo (attachment 3) . This behavior inhibits evaluation of areas of needed improvement. Enclosed is information provided to candidates regarding Mr. Hoffman tryouts and Mr. Hoffmans' written communication to us. was asked who if any one on the administrative level participated in the formulation of his conclusions. out of line\". He stated the \"question was Even though this comment was perceived as an attempt to block further communication about this issue a rationale for the question concerns. was provided,ie.,with whom to further explore these Mr. Hoffman re-emphasized that the question was out of line, and suggested Dr. Sewell be spoken with next. Mathis is over cheerleaders and had already been However, Mrs. spoken with regarding parents not being allowed to see their childs' scoring matrix. At that time we requested that she allow Mr. Hoffman an opportunity to investigate and address our concerns. 1. Expand the We suggested these solutions to Mr. Hoffman: cheerleader squad to include at least four african-american candidates. 2. Conduct a second tryout and replace the teacher squad 2 . sponsor. the --. To our knowledge neither of these were considered. In view of your- resignation and the remaining four weeks in school year, we would appreciate feedback related to this matter as soon as possible. CC: Estelle Mathis Ann BrownEXHIBIT 3 H ' SCHOOL OPERATIONS .i'- The LRSD Office of Desegregation will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the LRSDs desegregation plan with respect to the following goals: 1. To ensure an organizational structure which provides equal opportunity and access 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. for parents, students and all staff. To provide a climate in each school which is based on the belief and expectation that all children can learn and to provide resources necessary to support that belief. To develop and implement policies which influence school climate and improve and student attendance while also meeting individual student needs and discipline----------------------- - . , learning styles. The student hearing officer will be responsible for developing and monitoring plans to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions. To provide guidance and counseling service which address students needs, are supportive of strategies and interventions to expectations, and provide communication to families of students. enhance student success and To provide guidance and counseling which makes students aware of their options and to assist students in acquiring habits and attitudes necessary for success in school and in later life. To monitor student class ratios and instructional practices to ensure equal opportunities for all students. TOVidT'and ehsure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. To^ssess the results of school practiccs, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. To review and assess testing practices, formats and results in order to better address the needs of all students while providing special intervention for disadvantaged students. 10. To give school principals sufficient authority to improve schools and to advocate for  . \u0026lt; . _1.__II! n11 xtx/lAntp students, and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all students. 11. To review staffing patterns and staff assignments in all schools and district offices for equity. 12. To establish recruitment programs for representation of minorities in all positions in the District. Page 28h lEA: School Operations LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMEPTTATION TIMELINE 5?  I w oal VII: Provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co\u0026lt;urricubr activities. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Responsibility Date Evaluation 1. Inform all students and patrons of co-curricular/ C extracurricular activities available for students and of participation requirements. Staff recruitment of students to participate. Increase student participation, particularly minority student participation in co- curricul Remove all barriers to equitable participation of students who wish to \\ participate in extracurricular activities. 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 2.1 22 3.1 32 3.3 4.1 Use of media and press. Send printed information to parents. Make clear public address system announcements to students. Use community agencies such as churches to assist with recruitment. Individual staff contacts with students encourage involvement. Staff shall specifically recruit from among students who do not typically participate in particular activities. Profile student involvement in each club or activity. Disaggregate participation data. Develop school based recruitment plans. Provide a district transportation program for student-transportation when necessary to assure equitable participation for students participating in district sanctioned extracurricular activities. 42 Provide a program for student access to equipment/ uniforms etc. needed for participation at minimal cost. Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Communications Dept Principals Staff PTA Board Educational Programs School based Dir of Extracurricular Activities Individual staff members Principal Staff Asst Supt Directors of Extracurricular Activities Manager of Support Services Asst Supts Assoc Supt Deseg Principals Log of announcements, media usage, other community student contacts Comparative review of data regarding numbers of applicants and participants by race Yearly analysis of participation data and comparative profiles Yearly analysis of participation data and comparative profdes w X w wEXHIBIT 5 COMMITMENT TO DESEGREGATION IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment. The method of assigning students is merely the first step toward creating school and classroom environments that foster academic achievement and improve race relations among students and staff members. The next step involves a commitment to quality desegregated education by the District, parents and the community. Of course, real commitment always requires a plan of action. To that end, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to the following: j! 1 5 Vj I A. B. The belief that all children can learn. The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. J II 1 3 \"i 1 C. Improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved D. E. desegregation plan as enhanced/ incentive schools. Improving race relations among students and staff members. Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations (i.e. school, class and staff assignments\nparticipation in extracurricular activities\n4 distribution of resources\netc.) F. Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation. G. The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. J i 2 r H. The development curriculum. and infusion of multicultural education in all areas of the I. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other 8 staff with the skills needed to achieve quality desegregated education. In summary, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to having quality desegregated education in all schools. Quality desegregated education will result in long-term stability and growth for the city of Little Rock and Pulaski County. It also will provide all Little Rock School District students with the academic and social skills needed for successful experiences in the future. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors hereby acknowledges its commitment to quality desegregated education and respectfully invites parents and community leaders to make the same commitment. Such a commitment has to occur m order to ensure stability in our schools and ultimately achieve unitary status. w Page 1 ireceived JUN 2 6 1992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OHice of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS I. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LIMITED INTERVENTION MUST BE AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS WHO ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PARTIES' FAILURE TO MEET THEIR DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS The Joshua intervenors and the applicants for intervention jointly seek permission from the court to join the additional named intervenors to this proceeding pursuant to Rule 24(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Throughout this litigation, the role of the Joshua intervenors has been to ensure that the remedy in this case resulted in enforceable commitments from the other parties on behalf of minority students in the three districts. That goal has been accomplished through the approval by the Court of the parties settlement agreement and the three school districts* individual and joint plans for desegregation. These commitments are now enforceable by the Joshua intervenors through this court. enforcing the agreements. but in the real beneficiaries will often be individual students rather than the entire class of minority students. After all, individual students come into daily contact with the districts in entirely unique sets of circumstances, buteach student has a right to enforce the remedial obligations as it affects them in their daily interaction with the parties. Although the Joshua intervenors are diligent in their attempts to monitor the districts and to insist on compliance, ultimate responsibility for enforcement is in the court. Therefore, as the real beneficiaries of very specific remedial obligations, minority students in the district must have access to this court on their own behalf. Since it is actually the individual applicants' right to fair treatment under the parties' ettlements which the Joshua intervenors are seeking through this s limited proceeding for preliminary injunction, the applicants for intervention should be allowed to intervene for the limited purpose of enforcing the settlement as it relates to their particular participation in extra-curricular activities at Pulaski Heights Junior High School. II. INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELIEF The present motion is styled \"Motion for Preliminary Injunction,\" but intervenors are essentially seeking enforcement of the parties' prior settlement agreements and desegregation plans. Consequently, this motion might also be considered a motion for contempt and enforcement. Either approach justifies a quick hearing on the claims raised. A. Preliminary Injunction Intervenors will be irreparably harmed if the LRSD is not enjoined from implementing the cheerleader selection results which intervenors claim are racially biased and out of compliance with the districts obligations for desegregation of extra-curricularactivities. The selection of cheerleaders for Pulaski Heights Junior High, PHJH, occurs once a year, usually in April. This selection process has occurred and it has presumably determined the cheerleader participation for the 1992-93 school year. That participation begins during the summer. however, through the summer training camps which the school sends its cheerleaders to. Only students that attend PHJH may participate. Consequently, the minor intervenors will be ineligible for participation in the summer cheerleading camps nor in the future because they will presumably move on to the next grade and a different school after the 1992-93 school year. Therefore, relief must come swiftly, if it is to come at all. The damage to the intervenors' self esteem and their disillusionment with the educational system that will result from their denial of fair participation will also irreparably harm them in their future educational processes. The benefits of fair and equitable participation are cumulative and cannot be restored after the fact. Intervenors are likely to succeed in obtaining the relief they seek. Pursuant to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, LRSD V.PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990), remedial orders have already been entered in this case pursuant to the parties \"settlement agreements\" and \"settlement plans\". The LRSD plan for desegregation has recently been resubmitted and represents enforceable commitments by LRSD to the intervenors. (See Desegregation Plan Little Rock School District April 29,1992\n11 relevant portions of which are attached to Intervenor's Motion) The intervenors reserved the right to seek enforcement of these plans through this court. (See Settlement Agreement, p. 19.) Under the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the District has committed to: Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases. of school activities and operations (i.e. school, class and staff assignments, participation in extracurricular_Bctiv.ities, distribution of resources\netc.) [underlining E. activities added for emphasis] \"Equity,\" in this situation, means \"participation. If in meaningful numbers, not merely the right to access. There should ordinarily be some semblance of proportional participation. at least proportional to the numbers that try out for a particular activity. Here the disparities in participation are so overwhelming as to be patently unfair and ludicrous. (Eleven out of seventeen white applicants were selected, while only one out of eleven black applicants were selected\nin the previous year. an even more disparate selection ratio occurred.) The district also has a binding commitment to: I. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other staff with the skills needed to   , (LRSD Plan, p. 1) Ongoing and achieve quality desegregation education. commitments to c. Encourage positive attitudes and commitments to the desegregation plan by taking a team approach to promoting it, involving school staff, administrators,--parents,--- volunteers. (INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN, p.65) The district has failed to meet its obligation to develop these commitments in their staff and volunteers. Their failure is egregiously obvious in the disparities in these extra-curricular and\nactivities. In addition, the ability to improve is built into the process through the school's participation in summer training camps for their cheerleading squads. Furthermore, the District has committed to a yearly \"analysis\" of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. These monitoring activities must occur in timely fashion so that they can be translated into corrective policies throughout the school year. Yet, nothing has been said or done by the administration to address the miscarriage of the district's obligations in regard to the extra-curricular activities complained of herein\nnot even a response to the intervenors. The district has obligations in all of these areas pursuant to their own Desegregation Plan. There is little doubt that it has not met these obligations and that intervenors will secure the relief they seek. In contrast. there can be no injury to the defendants by enforcing their obligations under the settlement plans\nthey are already obliged to take these remedial steps. After providing the proper training to the staff and judges. the district will be obliged to contact all of the students who tried out. reschedule try-outs and remake these decisions. This can hardly be considered enough of a harm to counter-balance the harm to the intervenors. In contrast. the public interest will be best served by enjoining the district and enforcing the defendant's desegregation plan. The public interest is best served when the public seesactivities. In addition, the ability to improve is built into the process through the school's participation in summer training camps for their cheerleading squads. Furthermore, the District has committed to a yearly \"analysis\" of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. These monitoring activities must occur in timely fashion so that they can be translated into corrective policies throughout the school year. Yet, nothing has been said or done by the administration to address the miscarriage of the district's obligations in regard to the extra-curricular activities complained of herein\nnot even response to the a intervenors. The district has obligations in all of these areas pursuant to their own Desegregation Plan. There is little doubt that it has not met these obligations and that intervenors will secure the relief they seek. In contrast. there can be no injury to the defendants by enforcing their obligations under the settlement plans\nthey are already obliged to take these remedial steps. After providing the proper training to the staff and judges. the district will be obliged to contact all of the students who tried out. reschedule try-outs and remake these decisions. This can hardly be considered enough of a harm to counter-balance the harm to the intervenors. In contrast. the public interest will be best served by enjoining the district and enforcing the defendant's desegregation plan. The public interest is best served when the public sees faithful adherence to the school's procedures and conimitinents to desegregation. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the LRSD has failed to meet it obligations to intervenors under the terms of the parties settlement agreement and desegregation plans, and should be enjoined as intervenors have prayed for in the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 /.V, John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 I ILA  A Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 7 Wiley A. Braiiton, Jr. Bar NoZ 90053 Horman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this ---- day of j 19 Christopfier Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 7. (I Mark Burnettefaithful adherence to the school's procedures and commitments to desegregation. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the LRSD has failed to meet it obligations to intervenors under the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and desegregation plans, and should be enjoined as intervenors have prayed for in the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 f'-y- 1,^ John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 / ark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 Mark .0\nWiley A. Brarfton, Jr. rfton, Jr. Bar ^Jo-/ 90053 Norman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013JUL-15-02 WED 13:27 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P.Ol JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 12205 Telephone (501) 374-37.58 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RAJ .PH WA.^inNGTON MARK BURNOTE WILEY A. BRANTON, .JR. AUSTIN PORTER. JR. * AUu w Pru/tiae in Georgia  the DiUhcb af Cjlujrbla. July 15, 1992 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion with respect to the cheerleader situation and related matters at Pulaski Heights Jr. High School in Little Rock on June 24, 1992. not answered nor otherwise formally responded. The defendants have Moreover, we have not worked\" the matter out as encouraged by the Court. therefore. consideration. submitting I would respect to this matter. a proposed Order for the I am. Court's appreciate your early directions with incerely, ohn W. Walker JWW:Ira Enclosure cc: All Counsel Mr, Ralph Hoffman JuL-15-92 WED 13:27 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On June 24, 1992 the Joshua Intervenors prayed for certain relief for minor class members who were allegedly denied equal opportunity to participate in the cheerleader activity at Pulaski Heights Jr. High (PHJH) School. The LRSD has not responded to the Joshua Petition and prayer which was filed and served upon the defendants and other named individuals on June 24, 1992, within eleven (11) days as required by Rule 20 of the local rules of the Court for Motions and within twenty (20) days as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding response time and answer to a civil Complaint. IT IS, THEREFORE, the Order of the Court that: 1. Dr. Cloyde McKinley Bernd shall be and is hereby substituted as a party defendant for Dr. Ruth Steele in his official capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the LRSD\n2 . Mr. Ralph Hoffman, Principal of Pulaski Heights Jr. High School in the LRSD, shall be and is hereby added as a named defendant herein personally and in his official capacity\n3. The defendants. by their conduct as alleged in theJUL-15-92 WED 13:28 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 03 Complaint and Motion, have deprived the named class members- intervenors, who are represented by the Joshua Intervenors, of equal protection and due process of laws with respect to inclusion in or exclusion from the cheerleader activities at PHJHS for the 1992-93 school year and by failing to comply with the letter and spirit of the Court approved Desegregation Plan herein\n4. The defendants shall be required to implement a remedial plan upon which the parties may agree. In the event of their failure to reach an appropriate agreement, a remedial plan shall be developed by the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The parties shall have seven (7) days from the date of this Order to develop such a remedial plan as set forth herein. In the event that the parties do not reach a written agreement, Joshua shall immediately advise the ODM. The ODM shall then, within three (3) days, present to the parties and the Court an appropriate remedial plan which the defendants shall implement. 5. The defendants shall be, and are mandatorily, enjoined to affirmatively implement the nondiscrimination requirements of the plan in all respects with the Court's admonition that failure hereafter to implement the plan shall cause the Court to give serious consideration to holding the defendants in contempt of Court\n6. Defendant Hoffman and all certified staff members at PHJHS are hereby directed to read with understanding the Desegregation Plan herein and to be capable. thereafter, of providing appropriate responses, thereto, if and when called upon to demonstrate knowledge about same by or from parents or patrons-   JUL-15-92 WED 13:28 U.S. DI ST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 04 of the parties hereto in appropriate circumstances. Moreover, the defendants shall provide \"inservice training\" for Defendant Hoffman and for all other staff members pursuant to an accepted model, to be determined by the ODM, for same\n7 . The LRSD shall be and is hereby reminded that it is to be held strictly accountable for meeting the objectives, goals, and timetables of the Desegregation Plan in all aspects\nT. plaintiffs are entitled to their legal fees and costs for the ccessful prosecution of this action. These parties are encou^ged t seek voluntary resolution of this issue within fo. teen (14) days of this Order. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATEJOHN w. Walker, p.a. A'ITORNEY At Law 1723 Broadway Li'itle R(xk. Arkansas T^axi Telephone (501) 374-37,58 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED JUN 7 MJ JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER..JR. * Aadmitted tn frartice in (ieonria \u0026amp; the District of Cniumhia. June 4, 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Pulaski Heights Jr. High School Dear Dr. Bernd: It has come to my attention that Pulaski Heights Jr. High School has been conducting junior varsity cheerleader clinics since Tuesday, June 1, 1993 in preparation for the selection of twelve (12) junior varsity cheerleaders. This is illegal according to the district's constitution and accords a select group of students unfair advantage over the general student population which is discriminatory. If you recall, we had similar problems last year and all principals were told they could not have junior varsities, but pep squads where all who came out could participate, with no special selection process. It appears that Mr. Hoffman continues to do as he pleases contrary to Also, there is the question of how the person coordinating the activity is being district policy. compensated inasmuch as there is no line item in the budget for a junior varsity sponsor. Hopefully, you will look at this matter as soon as possible. Please let us know your findings of fact. Thank you in advance for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, I n W. Walker JWW:Im\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_369","title":"Correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/369"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n08/01/92 16:33 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst  0D5I 0003/008 Dotible Funding Page 2 C. Enrollment Data - It is imperative that one consistent date be used from year to year so that a valid comparison can be made. The reason that October 1 of the previous year has been chosen is that this is the actual date used by the State Department of Education for certifying enrollment of all Arkansas school districts for accreditation purposes. D. Base Year 1989-90 shall be the base year computation of cost per student in the area schools. for E. Consumer Price Index - measure of change in consumer price, determined by monthly survey of U. s. Bxireau of Labor Statistics, many pension and employment contracts are tied to changes in consumer prices. Application to doxible funding is to see that prior school year costs are increased in an amount equal to inflation. F. Spread Amount - the spread is a specific dollar amount that was established in 1989-90. This amount is the dollar figure that was required to achieve doubling of the amount per child in the area schools for that year. The amount will be a constant for al'l computation of double funding. The dollar amount is ?1,887.46. IT. Double Funding Process - 1990-91 School Year The criteria applied for determining that double funding is occurring i the incentive schools of the Little Rock School District shall be as follows: (1) The comparison will be made to the area schools, of Little Rock School District that were operating in the 1989-90 school year on a per student expenditure basis (instructional expenditure). (2) For the 1990-91 school year, the amount of expenditure per child that is to be doubled is computed by taking the October 1, 1989 (10,752) enrollment of each area school of LRSD. The next step is to compute the actual expenditure for the 1939-90 school year in each area school. After computation of expenses (instruc- tional related) for each area school, these schools will have expenditures totaled and divided by total enrollment. expenditure. The process will yield a per pupil06Z01Z 92 16:34 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @004'006 Double Funding Page 3 The next step is to compute the inflationary adjustment to the prior year instructional related costs per child in the area schools by application of the Consumer Price Index. After this computation, the inflationary adjustment (dollar amount) will be added to the prior year ..area selyol eycenditure. The total will then be added to the spread amount that was computed in the 1989-90 Base Year computation. The total will be the required expenditure per child that doubled. is to be The next step is to take this dollar amount and double it, then the doubled amount is multiplied by the October 1 child count of the preceding school year. (3) Example of process for 1990-91\nOctober 1, 1989 enrollment - area schools - 10,752 Total expenditure 1989-90 school year area schools $20,293,917.95. $20,293,917.95 10,752 = $1,887.46 $1,887.46 X 6% = $113.25 Inflationairy Adjustment Consumer Price Index - July 1, 1989 July 1, 1990 124.4 130.4 6% increase through this time period. $1,887,46 amoxint per child in area school - 1989-90 -rS113.25 Inflationary Adjustment $2,000.71 Total amount required to be doubled. $2,000.71 X 2 = $4,001.42 The $4001.42 amount is then multiplied by the October 1, 1989 child count in the incentive school. October 1, 1989 - 1,461 students06/01/92 16: 33 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 0003/006 Double Funding Page 4 $4,001.42 X 1,461 = $5,846,074.62 minimum amount that must be expended for double funding for 1990-91 school year. The actual expenditure in the incentive schools for the 1990-91 school year was $6,833,005.68 - please see attached packet for year ended June 30, 1991. 4. Example of process for 1991-92 October 1, 1990 enrollment - incentive schools 1,366 1939-90 Base Year Spread = $1,887.46 1990-91 expenditure per/punil in the area schools - $2,249.24 Consumer Price Index adjustment from July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1991 equal 5.8% July 1, 1990 = 130.4 July 1, 1991 = 136.2 5.8% increase The computation is as follows: $2,249.24 exp. per child 90-91 in the area schools $ x5.8% C.P.I. adjustment factor 130.46 inflationary adjustment dollar amount $2,249.24 4-S130.46 $2,379.70 Total $2,379.70 +1_,_887_.46 spread amount from 1989-90 Base Year $4,267.16 amount per pupil $4,267.16 xl,366 (Oct. 1, 1990 child count) $5,828,940.56 minimum amount that must ise expended for double funding. The actual budgeted expenditure in the incentive schools for the *$3,223,093.15. 1991-92 school year is * Note this amoun\" must be corrected to revision of budget or to actual year end expenditure 6-30-92 in the incentive schools.08/01/92 16:33 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @006-006 Double Funding Page 5 5. Example of process for 1992-93 October 1, 1991 enrollment - Incentive Schools 2,235 1989-90 Base Year spread = $1,887.46 1991-92 expenditure per pupil in the area schools = $2,449.08 Consmer Price Index adjustment from July 1, 1991 to July 1, 1992 equals 6% (this is estimate since July 1992 Consumer Price Index figures are not yet available). July 1, 1991 136.2 July 1, 1992 The computation is as follows\n$2,449.08 exp. per child 1991-92 in the area schools $ x6% CPI adjusted factor 146.84 inflationary adjusted dollar amount $2,449.08 4-146.94 $2,596.02 Total $2,596.02 $1.887.46 spread amount from 198990 base year $4,483.48 Amount per pupil $4,433.48 child 1, X 2,235 (Oct. 1991 child count) $10,020,577.80 minimum amount that must be expended for double funding08/01/92 16:32 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst 0D5I @001/006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501} 324- 2032' DA7c TO FROM L\u0026gt;u-. !/ . S SENDERS ONE # SUSJECT (uieJu^g Ij .Vuw, *a ro?. DATA PXOCSSSJ.KC CeTJCE VS O.\\LY TrizrzK-.^.Cii Sy Dz\nt : J ff OFMCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Ivey and Bobby AckEn FROM: SUBJECT: Connie Hickman, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Summer school transportation DATE: June 11, 1992 Pursuant to our phone conversation of June 11,1992 we reviewed the settlement plans for information regarding summer school transportation. The Interdistrict Plan does make reference to transportation as follows: \"Students shall be provided transportation in order to attend their assigned schools (including its programs and activities).\" (Page 5) \"Cooperative planning for summer school with the Pulaski County school districts will be conducted each year. Students in the three districts will be better served if the districts coordinate the program....transportation.\" (Page 14) following aspects of the summer school \"All students will be accorded equal opportunity to participate in all academic and extra-curricular program[s] and services in the districts. All students.....will have equitable access to...programs, school, and district activities r (Page 23) Summer school is a critical component of the plans in that it is a means to improve academic performance and serves as an alternative to retention. Based on the language in the plan, it is our interpretation that the districts should provide transportation to summer school students, including M-to-M students.1 flue RECEIVE o2 Rf QO CENTRAL HIGH NEIGHBORHOOD ---------r INC.T-------------- JUN 1 5 (992 Office of Desegrecslion f,fon,'!oring 0 D ~We've Got Heritage? June 12, 1992 To: From: Little Rock Board of Directors Central High Neighborhood Association, Inc. Subject: Sale of the City Park at 9th and Pulaski Streets to the Little Rock School District for use as a site for the Martin Luther King Elementary School. We urge you to sell the park site at 9th and Pulaski Streets to the Little Rock School District for use as a site for the new Martin Luther King School which is mandated under the school desegragation plan. Both the preservation of the West Side Junior High School building and the development of a neighborhood elementary school are important to the stabilization of our neighborhood. If the LRSD acquires the block of land between Pulaski and MLK Blvd. and builds the school fronting on MLK Blvd, as they propose to do, it would be highly visible from 1-630 and in close proximity to Children's Hospital. This would facilitate attracting white students from suburban neighborhoods. Removal of structures in the block west of the park which at present create an eyesore would enhance the neighborhood aesthetically, increase property values and address the goal of the city to reduce crime by reducing blight. Children's Hospital has reaffirmed their desire to purchase the West Side Junior High School, As a corporate neighbor they have indicated a commitment to restoring the building and developing the property in a way that would enhance the neighborhood and increase prooerty values If the Little Rock School District can acquire the park site at 9th and Pulaski. Streets plus the block of property west of the park and build the new inter-district school there and if Children's Hospital can purchase and renovate the West Side Junior High School, we feel the needs of the city, the neighborhood, the school district and 0Little Rock Board of Directors, page 2 and Children's Hospital can be met. This could create a win-win compromise which would encourage families already living there to stay in the nieghborhood and would help to attract other stable families to move into the neighborhood. Again, we urge that the city sell the part site at 9th and Pulaski Streets to the Little Rock School District. cc: Dr. Mac Bernd Dr. Ruth Steele George Cannon Patricia Gee Willie D. Hamilton Dorsey Jackson 0. G. Jacovelli Katherine P. Mitchell John Moore Judge Wright Tom Dalton Dr. Randall O'Donnel Scott GordonTO: FROM: SUBJECT: The SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON JUNE 25, 1992 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 15, 1992 Board of Directors 8 51 Oj'ics C! Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools 1592 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM NEW FUTURES FOR LITTLE ROCK YOUTH HEALTH PLANNING COMMITTEE purpose of this report is to transmit to you .the recommendations of the New Futures for Little Rock Youth Health 7 Planning Committee. II lit \u0026lt; 0 uJN 1 0 Ms. Nancy Kirsch, Chaiirman of the Committee, will be available at the Board meeting to answer any questions you may have.NEW FUTURES FOR LITTLE ROCK YOUTH ADOLESCENT HEALTH PLANNING COMMITTEE OBJECTIVES FOR IMPROVED SCHOOL HEALTH The Little Rock School District has over the past several years demonstrated its recognition of the importance of good health services for students through the placement of full time nurses at most incentive and magnet schools, and through its work with the Arkansas Department of Health in establishing two school based clinics. commended. The actions taken by the District are to be The Adolescent Health Planning Committee of New Futures for Little Rock Youth wishes to recommend the following objectives be pursued jointly by the committee and the LRSD as a way of further enhancing the health of all students: 1. Form Health Committees at each of the target junior high schools. The focus of the committees will be to emphasize \"Healthy Students Perform Better Academically, emphasized. tl All aspects of health will be This will be done through wellness assemblies, health fairs, health weeks, PTA presentations, and health career awareness days, school will be surveyed to determine the health Each concerns/problems of their students. This information will give the Health Committees a data base from which to operate and assist in determining their activities. The membership of the committees will consist of students, teachers, and parents and will be headed by the school nurse. 2. Have school nurses formally involved in the family life education components at the target junior high schools. Nurses have been prepared to be involved through classroom presentations and by working individually and in small groups with students. 3 . Prepare the nurses at the target junior high schools and adjacent elementary schools to do EPSDT screenings. Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) portion of the Medicaid program offers school nurses the opportunity to offer to students health The screenings to identify a wide range of health problems. Medicaid reimbursement can be received for screenings and follow-up treatment for eligible students. The Arkansas Department of Health provided training for the nurses. The cost of equipping the health rooms to do the screenings will be paid by New Futures, work is needed to: Additional5. b. c. Identify and train personnel to assist with the Medicaid billing procedures. Establish the necessary billing procedures with the state Medicaid office. Develop a system to determine the Medicaid eligibility of the LRSD students. Money collected from the screenings should be used to expand health services. NOTE: The Division of Exceptional Children is currently doing its own medicaid billing. Pupil services may also be able to do or assist with the billing for services provided by the nurses. Institute the Voluntary Physicians Program. Community physicians have indicated a willingness to provide free health care in school health rooms. This program would begin in those elementary schools which currently have no other special health initiatives. the principals of those schools have been informally surveyed and have indicated enthusiastic support for the additional health services. Expand the number of school-based health clinics in LRSD high schools and iunior high schools. Currently, Central High School is the only full service, school based clinic in the LRSD. Forest Heights Junior High has expanded health services with a full-time school nurse (LRSD, ADH), a part-time physician (ADH), a part- time social worker (ADH), and a nutritionist (ADH) available. McClellan High School has acquired a full- time school nurse (LRSD) and is working with the Community School Health Committee to open a full service clinic by Fall, 1992. 4. a. Clinic utilization over the past several years has uncovered serious physical and mental health problems which impeded students' academic performance. We believe that school-based clinics offer many students their only access to regular medical care and should be expanded through the joint efforts of both the public and private medical community and the LRSD. 6. Develop and adopt a Board policy which states the mission, philosophy, and goals for school health and which emphasizes the relationship between academic performance and good health. Currently, the health services staff have developed a mission statement, philosophy, and goals. These may be useful for the Board to review in developing a Board policy. A public policy statement by the Board will, in the opinion of the Committee, help generate additional health resources and volunteer support from the health community.TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 18, 1992 Board of Directors JUN 1 6 1992 Oitice o! Dosogrega-iX-n Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools APPOINTMENT OF EX OFFICIO FINANCIAL SECRETARY .lOnitCI ifiQ Because the current Ex Officio Financial Secretary will leave the District on June 30, 1992, appointed to begin seirving on July 1, 1992. it is necessary to have a successor Bernd concurs, I recommend, and Dr. that the Board approve the appointment of Mark Milhollen as the District's Interim Ex Officio Financial Secretary effective July 1, 1992. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET RECEIVED TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, AR June 18, 1992 Board of Directors 72201 JUN I 9 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ivey, Manager of Support Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent'. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent (JIT/ Proposed Budget for Annual School Election Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-622 (1951) states \"The requirement of Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 40, for publication of the budget shall be discharged by the board of directors of each school district by publication of its budget one (1) time...not less than sixty (60) days before the annual school election.\" It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed budget of expenditures for 1993-94 as attached. c:\\memos\\elecbud.updPROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1993, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 1994 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County, Arkansas in compliance with the requirements of Act 403 of 1951, as amended by Act 117 of 1979 and Amendment 40 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, has prepared, approved, and does hereby make public a proposed budget of expenditures for the District in 1993-94 together with a supporting tax rate as follows: Salaries \u0026amp; Fringe Benefits Purchased Services, Supplies, Capital Outlay Debt Service $ 82,967,545 25,252,071 9,090,123 To provide for the foregoing proposed budget of expenditures, the Board of Directors proposes a total tax levy of 43.9 mills. This total tax levy includes 34 mills for the maintenance and operation of schools and 9.9 mills for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy pledged for the retirement of existing bonded indebtedness. Surplus revenues produced each year by debt service millage may be used by the District for other purposes. Given this 18th day of June, 1992. Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County 0. G. Jacovelli, President Patricia Gee, SecretaryJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED JUN 1 9 1992 TO: June 18, 1992 Board of Directors Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: SUBJECT: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools APPROVAL OF LAND SALE AT HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL I am attaching a memorandum from Jim Ivey in which he recommends that approximately eight (8) acres of land at Henderson Junior High School be sold to the City of Little Rock for $45,000. I recommend that the Board approve the sale of approximately 8.05 acres at Henderson Junior High School for $45,000 and that the proceeds from the sale be invested in the land and grounds at Henderson Junior High School in cooperation with the City Parks and Recreation Department to improve the soccer fields, basketball court, and parking area of the school. \u0026gt; TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUB J: DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 SOUTH BRYANT STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (501) 570-4020 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent 72204 Jim Ivey, Manager, Support Services?^ Doug C. Eaton, Director, Plant Service'^^^C Land Sale - Henderson Junior High School June 16, 1992 The City of Little Rock, by letter dated 15 June, has offered the Little Rock School District $45,000 for approximately eight (8) acres of Henderson School property, which presently has been condemned for the widening of Fourche Creek. A purchase price of $74,000 readjusted to $28,000 was offered the Little Rock School District for this property last year. offer was made of $45,000, but never received Board approval. Instead, Mr. Tom Ferstl, acting on behalf of the Little Rock School District, and Mr. Tom Meeks, from Friday Law Firm, into litigation. made of $45,000, but Ferstl, on behalf of District, and Mr. Meeks, rejected the offer, thereby throwing the case whereby the City condemned the property for its project. A third Bunton, Director of the City I have been working with Mr. Bill Parks and Recreation Department, on a project to invest both City and School District money into the Henderson soccer and football fields. Bv Mr. Bunton's letter of May 7th, he indicates that By approximately $90,000 is available for investment into the Henderson soccer fields, and, he asks that we contribute to this project. I have contacted Mr. Tom Ferstl, and by his letter of 16 June have ascertained that the $45,000 offered for the property may not be the very best price we could receive, but it is well within the range of land values and can L_ reasonable. is I be considered As a result of these actions to date, I recommend that the Little Rock School District Board of Education accept the offer from the City of Little Rock of $45,000 for the 8.05 acres Henderson Junior High School. of property at I further recommend that $45,000 and re-invest it Plant Services be allowed to take that Junior High Department to parking area in cooperation improve the at the into the land and grounds at Henderson with the City Parks and soccer fields, basketball junior high chool. I feel that Recreation court, and this expenditure on the part of the and the City Parks Department time when we are making Little Rock School District _ --- gh a magnet school would go far in stronger youth program in that section Henderson Junior attracting students and a of the city. at a school It is requested that this Education at your earliest convenience. It is action be placed before the Board ofSLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR MEETING ON JUNE 25, 1992 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRIC 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 25, 1992 3 C' Offics of Desegrsgstion Monitonng TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Program Application, Chapter 1 of Public Law 100-297 The ESEA Chapter 1 Application is being prepared for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education by the June 30, 1992, due date. Please fine attached a copy of the Program Abstract. When completed, copies of the Application will be provided for your review. The 1992-93 allocation is $4,376,161, which is based on a total of 10,164 eligible students. This represents an increase in funding in the amount of $1,001,279. The additional funds will be used to provide added services to our secondary students. The largest portion of Chapter 1 money will be utilized for paying the salaries for reading and mathematics teachers. We are continuing to work toward the completion of the Chapter 1 Application. It is recommended that you authorize the administration to submit the 1992-93 Chapter 1 Application to the Arkansas Department of Education.CHAPTER 1 APPLICATION FOR 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR PROGRAM ABSTRACT The purpose of assistance under the Chapter 1 Program is to improve the educational opportunities of educationally-deprived children by helping such children succeed in the regular program of the local educational agency, attain grade-level proficiency, and improve achievement in basic and more advanced skills. These purposes shall be accomplished through such means as supplemental education programs, schoolwide programs, extended day/week, and the increased involvement of parents in their childrens education. Based on the annual needs assessment, which included a program survey, it was determined that our program should be expanded to the secondary level and provide remedial services in the areas of reading and mathematics. To this end, the greater portion of the program budget will be earmarked for paying the salaries for reading and mathematics teachers. While the major part of the budget will cover these personnel, other authorized activities include the following:  Acquisition of equipment and instructional materials Employment of special instructional personnel, school counselors, and other pupil services personnel  Extended day/extended week tutorial services Parental involvement activities A major change in Chapter 1 regulations in recent years is the increased emphasis on allocation of resources and the selection of students for the program. Chapter 1 guidelines specify that districts must utilize uniform criteria for selecting and serving students of greatest need. Utilizing the normal curve equivalent scores (NCEs) for each student, we are able to identify appropriate students to be served in a manner that is comparable from school to school. The process used to identify students to be served for the 1992-93 school year will allow the Little Rock School District to be in compliance with Chapter 1 guidelines. This Program Abstract should provide you a summary of the 1992-93 Chapter 1 Application. The Application will be forwarded to you for your review in the very near future.SLIP SHEET TO REGULAR BOARD MEETING JUNE 25, 1992 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 9 5PWn 1 U JUNE 25, 1992 JUN 1 9 1992 To: Board of Directors Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: 'tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent Through: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent Subject: Recommendations Concerning Classified Staff Reemployment for 1992-93 School Year I recommend the approval of the following non-renewals and terminations: NAME POSITION SCHOOL Aides Dealer, Henry Supervision Aide Washi ngton Geter, Romunda Instructional Aide Rockefeller Securi ty Fells, Jackie Security Officer Central Mai ntenance Craig, Freddie Pl umber Mai ntenance Bus Drivers Nelson, Daivona Bus Driver Transportation Tate, Sammie Bus Driver Transportation Wi11i ams, Mary Bus Driver Transportation All employees who have been recommended for termination and non-renewal may have additional grievance rights which have not been exhausted. Pending the outcome of the grievances the employees may be recommended for reelection or seek individual hearings before the Board to determine their employment status for the 1992-93 school year. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 1, 1992 TO: FROM: Boaj3^ of Directors C. mT'Bernd, Superintendent of Schools - !' r\n4 9 1992 OtiicQ 0$ DeseafSy^'*' Moniicring 2 M SUBJECT: EMPLOYMENT OF NEW ADMINISTRATORS I recommend that the Board approve the employment of the following individuals: Janet L. Bernard as Associate Superintendent of School Operations and Climate, effective August 1, 1992, $68,900 plus car allowance of $1200 per year\nat an annual salary of Marie Parker as Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity, effective July 27, 1992, at an annual salary of $65,000 plus car allowance of $1200 per year. Estelle Matthis as Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Learning Improvement, at an annual salary of $65,000 plus car allowance of $1200 per year. I am attaching biographical information on Ms. Parker. Bernard and Ms. In addition. I am recommending that the Board appoint Earl M. (Chip) Jones as Interim Manager of Support Services at an annual salary equivalent to $60,000, prorated for the number of days he serves in this position. 1, 1992. Mr. Jones' appointment is effective JulyLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 1, 1992 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JANET L. BERNARD Education San Diego State University Master of Arts, Multicultural Education, 1979 San Diego, CA Bachelor of Arts, and Music, 1975 Social Science, Experience 1988 Present School Principal San Marcos Unified School District 1985 1988 School Principal South Bay Union School District 1984 1985 Curriculum and Instructional Specialist Carlsbad Unified School District 1982 1984 Administrative Intern, Coordinator Carlsbad Unified School District Proj ects 1981 1981 Lead Teacher, Chapter 1 Reading Teacher Carlsbad Unified School District 1976 1979 Kindergarten/First/Second Grade Teacher Carlsbad Unified School DistrictLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 1, 1992 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF MARIE ANTOINETTE PARKER Education University of Central Arkansas Administration and Supervision Elementary Principal's Certification August, 1982 Conway, Arkansas Ouachita Baptist University Master of Science Reading Education August, 1977 Arkadelphia, Arkansas Sacramento City Unified School Dist. 63 Hours - Education Related Subjects 1970-74 Sacramento, CA A. M. \u0026amp; N College (Now UAPB) Bachelor of Science Elementary Education 1963 Pine Bluff, Arkansas Experience 1984 Present Ark. Department of Education Associate Director-Planning and Development Program Manager 1982 1984 Principal and Vice Principal Okmulgee School District Okmulgee, Oklahoma 1980 1982 Tutorial Supervisor, Reading Teacher, and PET Instructor/Observer Helena-West Helena School Helena, Arkansas 1978 1980 District Representative for METRA Educational Planning and Evaluation Services, Magnolia, Arkansas1975 1978 Assistance Director Arkansas Technical Assistance and Consultative Services (ATAC) 1974 1975 Reading Teacher Service Trainer and Special In- 1970 1974 1963 1970 Lakeside School District Lake Village, Arkansas Teacher and Special Services Sacramento City Unified School District Sacramento, California Classroom Teacher Lakeside School District Lake Village, ArkansasFOR SPECIAL MEETING FOLLOWING BOARD COMMITTEE MEETING hk: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 'K July 16, 1992 TO\nBoard of Directors 1792 JUl 1 FROM: SUBJECT: Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR NEW KING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL We are required by the desegregation plan to construct a new King School on the 1-630 corridor. The Federal District Court has approved the site at Ninth and Pulaski for the construction of the school. The District must acquire the property in the block bounded by Ninth Street, Martin Luther King Drive, Tenth Street, and the Ninth Street Park. We have obtained appraisals on the property that we need to acquire. I am recommending that the Board (1) act to declare the necessity to acquire the property within the boundary of Ninth Street, Martin Luther King Drive, Tenth Street and the Ninth Street Park\nand (2) to authorize and direct the administration to proceed to acquire the privately owned property within the said boundary by purchase or, if necessary, condemnation. It will also be necessary to enter into lease agreements with the City and the State for some property outside the above described boundary, but these leases will be submitted to you at a later date for your approval.jlS28/92 . 16:59 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst @002 Little Rock School District August 28, 1992 Mrs. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Mrs. Kumpuris spoke with Mrs. Gulden this afternoon on my behalf concerning a situation and a proposed resolution. This letter is to ask your ratification of our solution. A white student by the name of Jasmine Elizabeth Cassel lives in the Little Rock School District at 3701 Boyd Street, which is in the Southwest Junior High School attendance zone. This address is a racially mixed neighborhood and the student lives on a street where a number of black students attend Fuller Jr. High in the Pulaski County Special School District on an M to M transfer. By mistake, Jasmine was enrolled in Fuller Jr. High and was accepted The residency error was discovered and the into the TAG program. parents were informed that the child, because she is white, could not be released from LRSD to a PCSSD school. student was extremely disappointed and upset, friend is black and attends Fuller Jr. High. Needless to say, the Jasmine's best Our office has conferred with Mr. Bobby Lester of the PCSSD, and we feel that we could resolve this matter on a win-win basis by assigning a willing Fuller Jr. High white student to the LRSD in exchange for Jasmine enrolling at Fuller, the racial balance of either district. This would not affect Mrs. Gulden and Ms. Powell conferred and gave our office verbal approval to assign Jasmine to Fuller. sensitivity to the plight of this young lady. I appreciate their Sincerely, Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools cc: Mr. Bobby Lester Ms. Marie Parker Ms. Melissa Gulden APPROVED: Ann Brown, 16:59 Q501 324 2032 L R School Dlst @1002 Little Rock School District August 28, 1992 Mrs. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Mrs. Kumpuris spoke with Mrs. Gulden this afternoon on my behalf concerning a situation and a proposed resolution. This letter is to ask your ratification of our solution. A white student by the name of Jasmine Elizabeth Cassel lives in Lttle Rock School District at 3701 Boyd Street, which is in the Southwest Junior High School attendance zone. This address is a racially mixed neighborhood and the student lives on a street where a number of black students attend Fuller Jr. High in the Pulaski County Special School District on an M to K transfer. By mistake, Jasmine was enrolled in Fuller Jr. High and was accepted into the TAG program. The residency error was discovered and the parents were informed that the child, because she is white, could not be released from LRSD to a PCSSD school. student was extremely disappointed and upset. Jriend is black and attends Fuller Jr. High. Needless to say, the Jasmine's best t. i 1C Our office has conferred with Mr. Bobby Lester of the PCSSD, and we feel that we could resolve this matter on a win-win basis by assigning a willing Fuller Jr. High white student to the LRSD in Gxchang for Jasmine enrolling at Fuller. This would not affect the racial balance of either district. Mrs. Gulden and Ms. Powell conferred and gave our office verbal approval to assign Jasmine to Fuller. sensitivity to the plight of this young lady. I appreciate their Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools cc: Mr. Bobby Lester Ms. Marie Parker Ms. Melissa Gulden APPROVED\nAnn Brown 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 )(t )K :lt )K * )K * P.Ol TRANSACTION REPORT AUG-28-92 FRI 16:49 DATE START SENDER RX TINE PAGES TYPE NOTE AUG-28 16:47 501 324 2032 t 2' 06'' 2 RECEIVE OK X )(( )K  )K )t: * :K- '08-*^/92 16:58 '501 324 2032 I. R School Dlst  001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DlSTRiC 1 810 V'/. MARKHAM Si REE! LITTLE ROCK. AR /2201 FAX (5Q1) 324 - 2032 I X TO 2^4 77\nER'S ? cr-qi ! 1 ^^^.VZsZi FRIDAY, ELDREDGE * CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P,. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. MICHAEL G. THOMPSON, P.J JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. PREOERiCK S. URSERY. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL H.T. LARZELERE. OSCAR E. 0AVI8. iR JAMES C. CLARK, JR., R.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHM OEWEV WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM UI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS.P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EOWARO HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MCREOITH P. CATLETT. P.A, JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. UL3ON It, R.A. BARRY . COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN, P.A, CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAPER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIPPIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL $. MOORE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3483 TELEPHONE S01*376-2011 FAX NO. 5O1-37S-2147 January 16, 1992 A W 1 SEP 1 5 1992 Ofiics cr Ds: rec n OIANC S. MACKEY. R A WALTER M. EBEL UI. R KEVIN A. WILLIAM CLYDE '1 .CRASS \u0026lt; A. WAOOELL. tab- TURNER R CALVIN J. HALL. P.A SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P a S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER. JR. H. CHARLES G8CHWEN0. JR HARRY A. LICHT SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH our ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS P. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEPPREY H..MOORE T. WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T , TURNER SARAH J. HCPPLEY JOHN RAY WHITE eOUMBBl WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR . P A B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P A viraa oircct no. 1501) 370-1506 Dr. Ruth Steele Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Joshua Intervenors Monitoring of Desegregation Plan Implementation Dear Dr. Steele: I am writing in response to your request for an opinion concerning the nature and scope of any authority the Joshua Intervenors may have to place monitors in LRSD classrooms to monitor implementation by LRSD of its desegregation plan. Nothing or Interdistrict Desegregation Plans requires authorizes the Joshua Intervenors to monitor implementation of the plans. The Settlement Agreement requires the Arkansas Department of Education to monitor the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts, but does not require or in the LRSD or authorize the Joshua Intervenors to but does not require monitor the districts' implementation of their desegregation plans. The December 12, 1990 Decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals established Office of Desegregation Monitoring, but did not require authorize monitoring by the Joshua Intervenors. Finally, there does not appear to exist any inherent legal right of a party to monitor implementation of a consent decree, especially in a case where the court has established a monitoring system. an or This is not to say that the parties to the Settlement Agreement did not intend for the Joshua Intervenors to have a role in the implementation of the settlement plans. __ do not specifically authorize the establishment of Although the plans a Joshua monitoring team, LRSD told the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals in June, 1990 that the size of the Joshua fee award was partly June,attributable to the fact that Joshua would be required to continue to work on the implementation of the desegregation plans and would not seek additional fees for that work. The Joshua monitoring team was introduced to the Court of Appeals in September, 1991, and no party objected to Joshua monitoring at that time. The original \"Monitoring and Evaluation\" section of the LRSD plan required that the LRSD Evaluation and Testing Department share its monitoring reports with the Joshua Intervenors. The parties have proposed somewhat different language, however, in the May 1, 1991 revision of the plan. Similarly, although monitoring of Incentive Schools is required to be done by LRSD personnel and Biracial Committee members, any proposed change in the monitoring instrument must be submitted to the Joshua Intervenors. The LRSD plan also requires that a consultant monitor review the monitoring reports of the districts, visit LRSD schools at least quarterly, and report findings and conclusions concerning desegregation implementation to the court on a quarterly basis. This information would be available to the Joshua Intervenors as well as the other parties. As a practical matter, the job of consultant/monitor is now being done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Interdistrict Plan contains a section on monitoring which requires the districts \"to carry out their respective monitoring responsibilities as provided in their existing and proposed plans\" and to make quarterly reports to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Interdistrict Plan also requires that \"the parties\", which would include Joshua, conduct an annual evaluation of the effectiveness of each district's implementation of the desegregation plans. In order to do this, the Interdistrict Plan says that \"the parties' monitors will be provided reasonable access to records and facilities, provided that requests for access are not disruptive, unreasonable or intrusive.\" In summary, the Joshua Intervenors are clearly entitled to receive the regular written monitoring reports of the Arkansas Department of Education as well as any monitoring reports produced by the three school districts or the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Joshua Intervenors are also entitled to appoint members to one of the entities involved in monitoring LRSD's implementation of its desegregation plan. Committee. the LRSD Biracial Finally, the Joshua Intervenors are authorized to participate in an annual determination of the effectiveness of each district's implementation of the desegregation plans. The settlement plans and the settlement agreement contain no requirement or authorization for the Joshua Intervenors to compose an independent monitoring team with unrestricted access to LRSD schools. Any request by the Joshua Intervenors for \"reasonable access\" to LRSD records and facilities should be granted only if it will not be \"disruptive, unreasonable or intrusive.\" Unless Joshua can demonstrate to the court that the monitoring required by the desegregation plans and by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which must be done by the districts themselves, the LRSD Biracialr Committee, the Arkansas Department of Education and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring is inadequate, I do not believe that the district court would require the districts to allow unrestricted independent monitoring Intervenors. on school premises by the Joshua Yout! t: y Christophev Heller CJH/kOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To\nJames Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Incentive School Principals From: ODM Monitors: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Gonnie Hickman, Bob Morgan, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Subject: Review of the Incentive School Monitoring Guides Date: May 29, 1992 I Attached you will find your advance copies of the Incentive School Monitoring Guides. These are being provided to allow you to review the information, alert our office if an error exists, and incorporate corrections. As you review the document, remember that the Guides reflect the situation that existed at each school at the time of our initial visit. Updates have been included at the end of each report. This updated information reflects our communications with you during the entire school year. Any corrections must be submitted in writing to our office no later than 5:00 p.m. Monday, June 1, 1992. If no corrections are needed, you may retain your copies of the documents. , Reports which have been changed will be reprinted and the corrected version furnished to you by Friday, June 5, 1992. We look forward to your reactions. Please remember that the deadline for changes is 5:00 p.m. Monday.OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 To: From: Mark MiUiollen, Controller Little Rock School District i^^4oUy Ramer, Office Manager nn S. Brown, Federal Monitor Subject: Payroll Reimbursement Date: May 5, 1992 LRSD has paid $263, 513.03 from July 1, 1991 through March 31, 1992 for ODM payroll. As previously arranged, LRSDs share of the ODM budget (which is $169,728.15) would be deducted from ODMs payroll reimbursements. Using those calculations, as of March 31, 1992 ODM owes LRSD $93,784.88 for payroll reimbursement over and above the budget payment. A check for that amount is enclosed. Hereafter, LRSD will be reimbursed for ODM payroll on a monthly basis as the Financial Activity Reports are received. If you have any questions, please call. OrnCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Ivey and Bobby Acklin FROM: Connie Hickman, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith SUBJECT: Summer school transportation DATE: June 11, 1992 Pursuant to our phone conversation of June 11,1992 we reviewed the settlement plans for information regarding summer school transportation. The Interdistrict Plan does make reference to transportation as follows: \"Students shall be provided transportation in order to attend their assigned schools (including its programs and activities).\" (Page 5) \"Cooperative planning for summer school with the Pulaski County school districts will be conducted each year. Students in the three districts will be better served if the districts coordinate program....transportation.\" (Page 14) the following aspects of the summer school \"All students will be accorded equal opportunity to participate in all academic and extra-curricular program[s] and services in the districts. All students .will have equitable access to...programs, school, and district activities (Page 23) Summer school is a critical component of the plans in that it is a means to improve academic performance and serves as an alternative to retention. Based on the language in the plan, it is our interpretation that the districts should provide transportation to summer school students, including M-to-M students.OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE: July 22, 1992 TO: FRO Mac Bernd, Chris HeUer, Alston Jennings, Steve Jones, Richard Roachell, and John Walker Brown SUBJECT: Corrections in the 1991-92 ODM Incentive Schools Monitoring Report Please note the following corrections in the June 5, 1992 ODM Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. The affected wording is underlined.  Ish Elementary Incentive School section, page 52, number 53: change the last word in the paragraph from \"Franklin\" to \"Ish\". Original: As of May 27, 1992, no incentive programs had been developed at Franklin. Correction: As of May 27,1992, no incentive programs had been developed at Ish.  Rightsell Elementary Incentive School section, page 44. Original: page omitted. Correction: page attached.  Stephens Elementary Incentive School section, page 37, number 67, second paragraph, second line: delete \"social worker\". Original: Stephens staffing data indicates that recommended full time positions presently unfilled are social worker, alternative classroom specialist, supervision aides, and assistant principal. Correction: Stephens staffing data indicates that recommended full time positions presently unfilled are alternative classroom specialist, supervision aides, and assistant principal. Corrections to 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report Page 2  Summary section, page 10, sixth paragraph (first paragraph under Student Grouping): change the first word from \"four\" to \"five\". Original: Four of the seven incentive schools have enrollments that are over 90% black. Correction: F^of the seven incentive schools have enrollments that are over 90% black.  Summary section, page 31: change the wording of the third paragraph. Original: At the time this report was prepared, only the results of the first 1991-92 AMPT test cycle were available. (Students have three chances to pass the elementary level test that is given to third and sixth graders.) Because the 1990-91 AMPT data cited in this report is the final result of the three test-taking cycles, no accurate comparison presently can be made between 1990-91 and 1991-92 test data. However, the preliminary AMPT results are very discouraging: overall performance of incentive school students between last year and this year has dropped significantly. Correction: At the time this report was prepared, results of the 1991-92 AMPT had just been made available to the ODM, leaving monitors insufficient time to analyze the test data for inclusion in this report. However, a preliminary review of the AMPT results is very discouraging: overall performance of incentive school students between last year and this year has dropped significantly. Enclosure cc: Judge Susan Webber WrightMentoring program: According to LRSDs October 24, 1991 Desegregation Status Report, the district is implementing a mentoring program which will serve 10% of the student population at each incentive school. The districts tentative schedule provides that students will be identified, mentors recruited and matched with students, and that orientation for mentors will take place during November. According to the VIPS Incentive School Coordinator, 54 mentors have agreed to participate in the mentoring program and approximately 35 mentors have been trained. A video tape of the training will be available for mentors who could not attend the orientation. An orientation for students, parents, and teachers is scheduled and recognition programs are planned for the Spring of 1992. Mentors will receive training every nine weeks. In addition to the districts mentoring program. Rightsell received a grant from the Arkansas Community Foundation to implement a mentoring project entitled PALS (Partners Are Leading Students.) The project focuses on positive attendance, behavior, and achievement goals for students. According to the principal, 17 mentors have worked with Rightsell students in the PALS Project. Rightsell also has a Career Mentors Program which the school counselor operates. Records indicated that 19 guest career mentors have participated in the program so far this school year. 91. Parent contractual conunitments are signed prior to enrollment. (JDR 2317) STATUS: Review of SEP files indicated that aU teachers had parent contracts in their SEP files. A sample review of two class files with a total of 39 students revealed that 30 contracts were signed by a parent, two contracts were filled out but lacked a parent signature, and seven files contained no contracts. 92. Home and school linkage is evident in parenting education classes, evening and Saturday math/science classes, and the school is used as a community center. (JDR 2309, 2318) STATUS: Parenting education: LRSDs October 24,1991 Desegregation Status Report indicates that surveys were distributed to Rightsell parents on Parent Night, September 5, 1991 to determine what workshops the district should offer. Rightsell parents returned 30 surveys. Based on that feedback, workshops on using the computer and helping children with reading have been scheduled for Rightsell and Mitchell during November. Math and science classes: The principal stated that math and science classes and activities are scheduled in the Extended Day Program and the Saturday Programs. School as a community center: An objective of the PALS project is to \"assist students in realizing that the school was a vital neighborhood community center.\" However, there was no evidence of the school being utilized as a community center so far this school year. Page 44. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 September 17, 1992 Associate Superintendents and Manager of Resources and School Support Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools ATTENDANCE AT PARENT FORUMS AND TEACHERS' MEETINGS As discussed in cabinet. parent, forums and teacher meetings with, me. schedule. it is important for . you to _ attend the I am listing below the DATES FOR PARENT FORUMS Wednesday, September 23 Monday, Thursday, September 28 October Wednesday, October Wednesday, October Tuesday, Thursday, October October 1 7 14 27 29 Mann Junior High Franklin Elementary Hall High McDermott Elementary Parkview Magnet Geyer Springs Elementary McClellan High All parent forums will begin at 7 p.m. DATES FOR TEACHER MEETINGS Tuesday, Tuesday, Tuesday, Tuesday, Tuesday, Tuesday, - Tuesday, Tuesday, Tuesday, October November December January February March April May June 6 3 1 5 2 2 13 4 1 Central High School Pulaski Hts. Junior High Jefferson Elementary Terry Elementary Southwest Jr. High Otter Creek Elementary Dunbar Jr. High Stephens Elementary Forest Heights Jr. High All teachers' meetings begin at 4 p.m. /bjf cc: Board of Directors FYI Board Members: For your information, I am also scheduling quarterly meetings with bus drivers at the bus terminal.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINTS/ANONYMOUS COMMUNICATIONS Constructive criticism of the District is welcome when it is motivated by a sincere desire to improve the quality of the educational process and to assist the schools in performing their tasks more effectively. The Board of Directors encourages the resolution of all complaints at the earliest possible stage and in the most effective manner. Therefore, any person who has a complaint concerning any matter connected with the schools shall apply first to the teacher or principal, then to the appropriate central office administrator. and finally to the Superintendent. to adjust the matter satisfactorily, If the Superintendent is unable the person making the complaint is then invited to refer the matter to the Board. The procedure for referring a matter to the Board is to address a letter to the Board in care of the Superintendent. This letter must reach the Superintendent prior to the Board's agenda meeting if it is to be considered in the regular meeting. In order for all complaints to receive a fair hearing, important that the communication. complainant be available for it is further verifiable. If an anonymous complaint contains facts that are they will be investigated\ncommunications will not be considered. otherwise. anonymous It is the policy of the Board of Directors that Little Rock School District employees will treat patrons courteously at all times\nhowever, teachers or other school personnel will not endure insults or abusive treatment from any person pertaining to any complaint. Complaints will be investigated fully and fairly, and the employee's rights to due process will be protected at all times. Records should be kept indicating how complaints have been dealt with. .J SEP 2 9 1992 . Cf!ic3 of Doscgri ,cr MoiiiioriiigA F. Y. I. Date: Bob Connie Horace Ann Unda Margie Melissa Polly Please return to: Date returned: 1 I i \u0026lt; ( X c \"H\ni \u0026gt;1 Little Rock School District October 6, 1992 ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE - 92-llS To: All Administrators From: Mac Bernd, Superintendent Subject: News Media Interviews, Inquiries Please be reminded that District policy is that all press inquiries for information about District issues, programs and events will be referred to the District Communications Office. I will act as District spokesman. In my absence, Dianne G. W\u0026lt; director, is designated to be District lokesman. communications 'his procedure is necessary to ensure coordination, clarity~~anrf''cbnsistency in our messages to the public. When you receive any media inquiry, direct the news representative to the Communications Office. At the same time, telephone the Communications Office to alert it about the news media inquiry and the nature of the information being sought. This will allow the Communications Office to prepare for the forthcoming media call and either prepare an information response or begin to determine from whom the necessary information will be obtained. To generate news coverage about school-related events, such as special programs and photo opportunities, you should continue to channel your information to the Communications Office which will, in turn, forward your information to the appropriate news outlet. Attached is a form which you may duplicate. fill out as needed and send to the Communications Office. If you have questions, telephone the Communications Office at 324-2020. Attachment 810 West Markham street  Little. Rnr.k. 72201 W W w little rock school DISTRICT SCHOOL EVENT NOTIFICATION FORM School Date sent to Communic t ions Sc h 1 Contact Person Phone Date of the event Time of event (begins.'! (ends) Per son in charge of event (if other than school contact) Phone Who is doing the event'? What is the event'? Where will it be held'? Why are you doing this event? What issue are you addressing with this event'? Effective Schools Parent involvement Teacher/Student recognition Student achievement Other (specify.'! Cur r i c Li 1 urn Partners in Education Special programs involvement E.xplain why this event would be a good photo opportunity for the newspaper or television stations. What makes the event \"visual? For Communications Office use only\nSent to media Date sent Did not send Comments Used by media yes nou . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET OCT 1 ? LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201\n3 ci C\" e\ni October 15, 1992 TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of SchoolsC- V-'\" SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF ACTING ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS I recommend that Sam Stueart be appointed as Acting Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools effective October 19, 1992, at a salary of $50,128 plus $1200 per year car allowance, attaching a copy of Mr. Stueart's resume. I am* Resume of Sam Stueart 1407 Pinewood Drive Benton. Arkansas 72015 (501) 776-1663 PHONAL: 45 Marital Status: Marrigfi^ _______________ Oae-ehiWf Stephanie, agell Healuft Excellent Heigh t/Wei^hn 58\"/169 lbs. EDUCATION: 1987: University of Arkansas at Fayetteville Fayetteville, AR Completion of Certification in School Administration 1975: University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR Completion of Certification in Counseling 1972: University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR Master of Science in Education Degree (Major in History) 1969: Hendrix College Conway, AR Bachelor of Arts Degree (Major in History, emphasis in American) 1965: Benton High School Benton, AR Honor GraduateOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: October 15, 1992 To: Mac Bernd, Bobby Lester, James Smith From: an Brown Subject: ODM Monitoring Priorities for 1992-93 My staff and I have identified our monitoring priorities for the 1992-93 school year. These are the desegregation areas we will most closely examine, summarizing our findings to the court in a formal report. To determine where we would place our emphasis, we reviewed the desegregation plans and all court orders and directives that relate to ODMs responsibilities. We paid close attention to those plan areas the circuit court has termed \"crucial.\" We also noted district court orders, and directives issued during hearings, that require ODM to scrutinize particular aspects of the desegregation plans. Although subject to change, depending upon unforeseen events and new court orders, the areas listed below are ODMs monitoring priorities this year. We will not monitor all three districts in every one of these areas, but we will monitor all districts in most of the subjects. Well also visit many schools to assess their general compliance with the desegregation plans in addition to the emphasized areas.  School racial balance requirements and efforts to improve balance in out-of-compliance schools  Incentive schools and double funding  Parent and community involvement  Extracurricular activities: participation equity and secondary school selection processes  Special education and placement parity  Interdistrict schools\nemphasis on Crystal Hill, Baker, Romine, Henderson, McClellan, and progress on King, Stephens, and the 67/167 school Academic achievement and closing the achievement gap between the races  Early childhood education: developmentally appropriate curriculum and practices\neffectiveness as a desegregation tool  Finance: assuring that settlement money use is consistent with the desegregation plans and court orders\ndetermining that the districts exercise fiscal responsibility such that they can fulfill their plan obligations  Public relations: emphasis on the new PR section in the interdistrict plan, cooperative efforts between the district, relationship of PR to desegregation  Discipline: procedures and application parity( 1 Ann Date: F. Y. I. Bob Connie Horace I Unda Melissa Margie 1 Polly Please return to Date returned: I Qi^.' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 I October 15, 1992 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Gary E. Jones,/Manager of Resources and School Support THROUGH: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposed Refinancing of Bonds It appears that the District could realize an estimated savings of $323,632 by refinancing the May 15, 1988 bonds. The Department of Education requires that a refunding produce a $100,000 savings or a five percent reduction in debt service. whichever is less. criteria. This proposed issue meets both refunding In order to initiate this process, the Board will need to adopt an intent resolution. With the State Board of Education approval, the bond forms will be filed in February, 1993. Should interest rates increase between now and the time the bonds are scheduled to be refinanced, the District can cancel the refinancing proposal. In the event this refunding cannot be sold so as to produce sufficient savings, there will not be any charge for the services of Stephens, Inc. I recommend that the Board approve proceeding with the refinancing of this debt by adoption of the attached resolution.NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE REFUNDING BONDS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: A meeting of the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District was held at the Administration Building in Pulaski County, Arkansas on the 15th day of October, 1992, at the hour of p.m. All members of the Board had due notice of the time and place of said meeting, and the purpose thereof, and a quorum consisting of the following members were present: After consideration, the Board adopted a resolution reading as follows: \"This School Board will authorize Stephens Inc. to file application with the State Board of Education to issue bonds in the estimated amount of $5,500,000 for the purpose of refunding the Districts bonds issue dated May 15, 1988. The sale of the proposed issue is subject to determination by the Board that the savings generated is adequate to justify the issuance of the refunding bonds. M BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS By: , President By: , SecretaryRESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District continues to be alarmed at the violence and drug activity that threatens the safety and well-being of community and in our schools\nand our students in the WHEREAS, it is the belief of the Board of Directors that the presence of police officers in secondary school buildings would be of great value to the students\nand IT IS, THEREFORE, RESOLVED that the Board of Directors remains committed to the Police Resource Officer Program which was approved by the Board on December 19, 1991, as follows: \"...that the Police Resource Officer Program be piloted at one senior high school (J.A, Fair) and at one or more junior high schools (Henderson, Cloverdale, Pulaski Heights, and Mann) during the 1992-93 school year, ....and that the program be evaluated very carefully and see if it has a positive impact on our students... and assuming that half the costs can be paid by the City of Little Rock.\" ADOPTED this day of October, 1992. BOARD OF DIRECTORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 0. G. Jacovelli, President Pat Gee, SecretaryOffice 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 17, 1992 Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mac: Now that the school year is underway, ODM is preparing to visit schools in the three districts. Our monitoring procedures will vary slightly from those of last year. While well continue to conduct some announced monitoring visits, we will also institute a less formal site review procedure at many schools. These unannounced visits will be short (lasting less than two hours) and as low key and unobtrusive as possible. Well begin this type of monitoring next month and continue periodically throughout the year. Since we will not notify schools before we make an abbreviated visit, we wont expect principals to interrupt their day for a lengthy interview with us. Of course, the monitoring team will check in at each school office and will be happy to meet with the principal if his or her schedule permits. The principal may also decide whether s/he would like an exit conference with us. Our observations will be guided by an instrument we call our monitoring guide (copy enclosed), a shorter version of last years ODM guide. It includes charts we use to reflect various information, such as enrollment and staffing. ODM monitors will gather this data from the annual school profile\nwe wont ask school staff to fill out forms or charts. Because we depend on the profiles for information, please send them to our office by October 19, 1992. During the year, ODM will also make lengthier, more comprehensive monitoring visits to certain schools. For example, because the court has emphasized the importance of interdistrict schools, some of them will likely be the subject of thorough monitoring. Anytime we plan an extensive visit, well notify you and the school beforehand of our schedule and expectations.Mac Bernd Page 2 September 17, 1992 In all instances, well endeavor to coordinate our visits with the monitoring schedules of Joshua and the biracial committees so no school will be unduly inundated with monitors. If you have any questions or comments, please call me. Were looking forward to being in your schools during the year ahead. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Marie Parker enclosure \u0026lt;7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 21, 1992 :s .i  ^*7 MEMORANDUM CCl' 2 5 i592 TO: Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools FROM: Estelle Matth^s^^^k.si Oll'jCQ of T ) iJonitoring isociate Superintendent for Curriculum and Learning Improvement SUBJECT: Academic Support Program Proposal Provided per your request is a copy of our Academic Support Program proposal for Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to review prior to our submission to the Court. A copy has been forwarded to our attorney, Chris Heller, for his review. Please advise if additional concerns and/or issues are raised regarding this document or the program.Little Rock School District November 20, 1992 RECEiVD Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring Heritage West Building NOV 2 5 1952 Little Rock, AR 72201 Cffice of Desagregaiion Monitoring Dear Ann: Thank you for inviting me to the meeting in your office to discuss matters related to the desegregation plan. Per our discussion, this letter is submitted to provide an update on the Staffing Committee for Incentive Schools that is required in the desegregation plan. At the inception of the Incentive Schools, the purpose of the staffing committee was to determine the staffing needs at each school and then develop criteria for principal and staff selection based on a needs assessment. An interview team was to have been selected from members of the staffing committee to interview and make recommendations to the principals. It is my understanding that although an interview team was established and recommendations were made by this committee, the contracted agreement actually dictated which teachers were placed in the schools. Therefore, at this time, Ms. Arma Hart will assist me in instituting a new staffing committee that will determine the present staffing needs at each of the schools and develop criteria for principal and staff selection needed in the future. Each principal has submitted names of patrons and staff personnel to serve on this committee. In the future, when positions become vacant, the interview team will be involved in the hiring process and will make recommendations to the principals, goal of this administration to have quality staff in the It is a Incentive Schools who are committed to the goals of the program. A District-wide Staffing Committee for Incentive Schools meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 9, 1992, from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. , in the Board Room of the Administration Building. If you need additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, 1, Janet Bernard Associate Superintendent cc: Marie Parker 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Little Rock School District January 7, 1992 RECESVED Mrs. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 JAN 1 5 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Mrs. Brown: The Board of Directors will soon Superintendent of Schools to succeed Dr. begin searching for Ruth Steele,  a who new has announced her plans to retire at the end of this school year. The nationwide search will be conducted by co-consultants. Jan Cummings, president of C-Net\nand Susan Jernigan of Sockwell \u0026amp; Anderson. Ms. Cummings and Ms. Sockwell will be in Little Rock on January 17 and 18 to gather information about the school district and the type of individual the community wants the Board to employ. To that end, the co-consultants and Board members have scheduled private meetings with groups closely associated with the school district to receive information concerning the qualifications, both personal and professional, superintendent of schools. that the community desires in You and your staff are cordially invited to attend a meeting with the co-consultants and Board members on Saturday, January 18 at 1 p.m. to share your thoughts. This meeting will be conducted in the Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 West Markham Street. This will be an informal, roundtable discussion, so please feel free to dress casually. Sincerely, 0. G. Jacovelli, President Board of Directors a 810 West Narkham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Little Rock School District January 10, 1992 RECBIVEO JAN Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\"3*7^ Monitoring and Community Services SUBJECT: Information Request Please find enclosed the school profiles for all elementary schools. Also, information is included on the racial breakdown of the elementary PTA organizations. 810 West Narkham Street Little RocR, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361i i FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK I 1 i I HERSCHEL H. P ROBERT V. L1G A partnership of INOtVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.\u0026gt; JOE 0. BELL. P.A. MICHAEL a. THOMPSON. P.A JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. OAVIS. JR. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 JAMES C. CLARK. IR TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN OEWSY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR., P.j JAMES EOWARO 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 DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P WALTER A. PAULSON 11. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. FAX NO. 501-37-2147 January 15, 1992 ED DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL IK. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS WILLIAM A. WAOOELL. JR . P A CLYDE TAB*TURNER CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER. JR . H. CHARLES CSCHWENO. JR. HARRY A. LIGHT SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE T. WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T. TURNER SARAH J. HEFFLEY JOHN RAY WHITE JOSEPH B. HURST. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN 111. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE JAN 1 5 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring COUk WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELOREOG E. JR . P A B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A OIMCer MO. (501) 370-1505 R M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2000 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 1 i John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Counsel: Please find enclosed a Little Rock School District proposal for the establishment of magnet programs at Henderson Junior High School and McClellan Community High School. The proposal explains the need to establish magnet programs at the two schools and outlines programs which LRSD believes will be effective in reversing trends which threaten to resegregate those schools. LRSD desires to establish these programs for the 1992-93 school year and are to begin reciruitment for the programs as soon as the programs approved. Please let me know as soon as possible if you have any concerns or objections with regard to this proposal. Yours very t: CJH/k Enc cc: Ann Brown Christopner ieller3 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE O. BELL. P.A. MICHAEL G. THOMPSON. 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. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR., P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N- ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201*3493 DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A KEVIN A. CRASS WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR . P A CLYDE *TAB' TURNER CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAVLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT B. BEACH. TELEPHONE 601*376*2011 FAX NO. 601*376*2147 January 16, 1992 RECEIVED S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER. JR. H. CHARLES G8CHWEN0. JR HARRY A. LICHT SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH OUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE T. WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T. TURNER SARAH J. HEFFLEV JOHN RAY WHITE SEP t 5 1992 COUNCCl WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE,JR..P.A B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. Office of Desegregation Monitoring iCT NO. (soil 37O-1SO6 Dr. Ruth Steele Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Joshua Intervenors Monitoring of Desegregation Plan Implementation Dear Dr. Steele: I am writing in response to your request for concerning the nature and scope of any authority an opinion the J oshua Intervenors may have to place monitors in LRSD classrooms to monitor implementation by LRSD of its desegregation plan. Nothing in the LRSD Interdistrict Desegregation Plans requires authorizes the Joshua Intervenors to monitor implementation of the or or plans. The Settlement Agreement requires the Arkansas Department of Education to monitor the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts, authorize the Joshua Intervenors to but does not require or monitor the districts' implementation of their desegregation plans. The December 12, 1990 Decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals established Office of Desegregation Monitoring, but did not require authorize monitoring by the Joshua Intervenors. Finally, there does not appear to exist any inherent legal right of a party to monitor implementation of a consent decree, especially in a case where the court has established a monitoring system. not an or This is not to say that the parties to the Settlement Agreement did not intend for the Joshua Intervenors to have a role in the implementation of the settlement plans. Although the plans do not specifically authorize the establishment of a Joshua monitoring team, LRSD told the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals in June, 1990 that the size of the Joshua fee award was partlyattributable to the fact that Joshua would be required to continue to work on the implementation of the desegregation plans and would not seek additional fees for that work. The Joshua monitoring team was introduced to the Court of Appeals in September, 1991, and no party objected to Joshua monitoring at that time. The original \"Monitoring and Evaluation\" section of the LRSD plan required that the LRSD Evaluation and Testing Department share its monitoring reports with the Joshua Intervenors. The parties have proposed somewhat different language, however, in the May 1, Similarly, although monitoring of 1991 revision of the plan. Incentive Schools is required to be done by LRSD personnel and Biracial Committee members, any proposed change in the monitoring instrument must be submitted to the Joshua Intervenors. The LRSD plan also requires that a consultant monitor review the monitoring reports of the districts, visit LRSD schools at least quarterly, and report findings and conclusions concerning desegregation implementation to the court on a quarterly basis. This information would be available to the Joshua Inteirvenors as well as the other parties. As a practical matter, the job of consultant/monitor is now being done by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Interdistrict Plan contains a section on monitoring which requires the districts \"to carry out their respective monitoring responsibilities as provided in their existing and proposed plans\" and to make quarterly reports to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Interdistrict Plan also requires that \"the parties\", which would include Joshua, conduct an annual evaluation of the effectiveness of each district's implementation of the desegregation plans. In order to do this, the Interdistrict Plan says that \"the parties' monitors will be provided reasonable access to records and facilities, provided that requests for access are not disruptive, unreasonable or intrusive.\" In summary, the Joshua Intervenors are clearly entitled to receive the regular written monitoring reports of the Arkansas Department of Education as well as any monitoring reports produced by the three school districts or the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Joshua Intervenors are also entitled to appoint members to one of the entities involved in monitoring LRSD's implementation of its desegregation plan. the LRSD Biracial Committee. Finally, the Joshua Intervenors are authorized to participate in an annual determination of the effectiveness of each district's implementation of the desegregation plans. The settlement plans and the settlement agreement contain no requirement or authorization for the Joshua Intervenors to compose an independent monitoring team with unrestricted access to LRSD schools. Any request by the Joshua Intervenors for \"reasonable access\" to LRSD records and facilities should be granted only if it will not be \"disruptive, unreasonable or intrusive.\" Unless Joshua can demonstrate to the court that the monitoring required by the desegregation plans and by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which must be done by the districts themselves, the LRSD BiracialCommittee, the Arkansas Department of Education and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring is inadequate, I do not believe that the district court would require the districts to allow unrestricted independent monitoring Intervenors. on school premises by the Joshua Youri t: y Christophev Heller CJH/k (i I CENTRAL HIGH NEIGHBORHOOD --------------r INC.T-------------- January 17, 1992 \"We ve Got Heritage.' c \\1 Ms. 0. G. Jacovelli President Little Rock School Board 6622 Gold Court Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Oftcs 0^ 0e25' Dear Ms. Jacovelli: The undersigned residents of the Central High neighborhood and patrons of the Little Rock School District hereby submit for consideration by the Little Rock School Board an alternative proposal for the development of an interdistrict school in the Central High neighorhood. We propose creation of a two-campus educational facilitythe Dr.  Martin Luther King, Jr. Educational Park--as the centerpiece of a neighborhood redevelopment initiative. Our proposal also would enable Ish Elementary School to remain in operation as an incentive school, an approach supported by patrons of' Ish. The School Board's response to this proposal should be directed to Ethel Ambrose, president of the Central High Neighborhood Association, who can be reached during the day at 370-5950. HER fZ^SHT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District January 27, 1992 wso Offica JUN Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Rockefeller Early Childhood Enrollment 1989/90 and 1990/91 In response to your request, please find listed below the enroll ment figures for the Early Childhood Education Program at Rockefeller School (Infant through Three Year Old) for 1989/90 and 1990/91: 1989/90: White Black Other Total %Black Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 6 10 12 7 13 14 8 6% 7 7% 8 6% Total 28 34 82% w 3 1 1 3 2 6 0 0 0 0 1990/91: Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 4 6 6 4 10 8 0 0 0 8 16 14 50% 63% 57% Total 16 22 0 38 58% 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-33611 1 TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: SECEna Little Rock School District January 29, 1992 Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Z J\" Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Educational Equity Monitoring Schedule Please find attached the Educational Equity Monitoring Schedule for the third nine weeks. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 To: From: Subject: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 19, 1992 Principals Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools .(i O' Requests for Reports from Monitoring Teams It has come to my attention that you have been asked to supply detailed information and compile reports on various topics for members of the Joshua Intevenors Monitoring Teams when they visit your buildings. Please understand that the Teams received courteously in our schools and are to be given II ..(5. access\" to information to assist them in their work. reasonable are to be 'reasonable However, access compiling reports and surveys. does not include asking you to spend time I am certain the Joshua Teams would not expect you to do so were they aware that this information they need can be obtained elsewhere. Much of the information requested is already available in the Central Office, and if the monitors wish to do so, they may come here to gain access to it. As administrators in our schools, you should be spending most of your time working with teachers, students, and parents. not compiling reports - especially if the information already exists. I appreciate your attention to this very important matter. cc: John Walker Chris Heller Assistant Superintendents James Jennings Tony Wood Estelle Matthis To: From: Subject: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 19, 1992 eV' Principals Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools 6'' 0- Requests for Reports from Monitoring Teams It has come to my attention that you have been asked to supply detailed information and compile reports on various topics for members of the Joshua Intevenors Monitoring Teams when they visit your buildings. Please understand that the Teams are to be received courteously in our schools and are to be given \"reasonable access\" to information to assist them in their work. However, reasonable access does not include asking you to spend time compiling reports and surveys. I am certain the Joshua Teams would not expect you to do so were they aware that this information they need can be obtained elsewhere. Much of the information requested is already available in the Central Office, and if the monitors wish to do so, they may come here to gain access to it. As administrators in our schools, you should be spending most of your time working with teachers. students. and parents. not compiling reports - especially if the information already exists. I appreciate your attention to this very important matter. cc: John Walker Chris Heller Assistant Superintendents James Jennings Tony Wood Estelle Matthis (2^\n/Cje^r) Little Rock School District April 1, 1992 RECEIVED APR 7 '1992 Ofiics of DeoSgrecaticn Woriiforing TO\nAnn Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services THROUGH\nDr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools 0^ SUBJECT: Educational Equity Monitoring Schedule - Fourth Visit Please find enclosed the District's schedule for the fourth monitoring visits to all schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361LRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOURTH VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 2 SCHEDULED DATE Mon., 05-04-92 ft fl Tue., 05-05-92 II II II II Wed., 05-06-92 II II If II Thu., 05-07-92 If II It 11 Fri., 05-08-92 Mon., 05-11-92 II II Tue., 05-12-92 II 11 It II Wed., 05-13-92 11 II 11 II Thu., 05-14-92 II II II II SCHOOL Bale Elem. Fulbriqht Elem. Baseline Elem. Gever Sorinqs Elem. Metropolitan Vo-Tech. Bradv Elem. Cloverdale Jr. Hiqh Williams Maqnet Cloverdale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Pulaski Heiqhts Jr. Hiqh Mann Maqnet Dodd Elem. Woodruff Elem. Fair Park Elem. Gibbs Maqnet Southwest Jr. Hiqh Chicot Elem. Forest Park Elem. Henderson Jr. Hiqh Forest Heiqhts Jr. Hiqh McDermott Elem. otter Creek SPECIALISTS Davis, Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Tadlock, Dunbar Smith, Hobbv Davis, Brooks Hobbv, Smith Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Tadlock, Dunbar Hobbv, Smith Smith, Hobbv Davis, Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Tadlock, Dunbar Smith, Hobbv Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Hobbv, Smith Smith, Hobbv Tadlock, Dunbar Brooks, DavisSCHEDULED DATE Mon., 04-06-92 Tue., 04-07-92 tl 11 II II Wed., 04-08-92 It II II It Thu., 04-09-92 II II If It Tue., 04-28-92 II It Wed., 04-29-92 II II II II Thu., 04-30-92 tl II II tl Fri., 05-01-92 tl ft 11 II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOURTH VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 SCHOOL Franklin Elem. Carver Maonet Fair Hiah Garland Elem. Central Hioh Ish Elem. Western Hills Elem. Jefferson Elem. Mabelvale Jr, Hiah Mitchell Elem. Hall Hiah Riahtsell Elem. Parkview Maanet Rockefeller Elem. Washinaton Maanet Booker Maanet McClellan Hiah Steohens Elem. Badaett Elem. Dunbar Maanet Wilson Elem. SPECIALISTS Brooks, Davis Tadlock, Dunbar Hobbv, Smith Brooks, Davis Smith, Hobbv Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Tadlock, Dunbar Hobbv, Smith Brooks, Davis Smith. Hobbv Brooks, Davis Hobbv, Smith Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Tadlock, Dunbar Hobbv, Smith Brooks, Davis Davis, Brooks Smith, Hobbv Dunbar, TadlockLRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOURTH VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 3 SCHEDOLED DATE Mon. 05-18-92 II II Tue., 05-19-92 II II Wed., 05-20-92 SCHOOL Pulaski Heights. Elem Terry Elem. Meadowcliff Elem. Romine Elem. Watson Elem. SPECIALISTS Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Tadlock, Dunbar Davis, Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Thu., 05-21-92 Wakefield Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar1 Little Rock School District May 13, 1992 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: The Little Rock School District is pleased to provide you with our new video \"LRSD Today\" featuring \"spokesmouse\" Mortimer Mortarboard. This is your own office copy provided by the LRSD Office of Communications. We hope that parents seeking the appropriate school and programs for their children, new residents needing information on various schools, and community leaders bringing new residents to the area will find this tool invaluable. In our effort to evaluate the marketing tools we produce, we would be pleased to hear any feedback you receive about the video. Sincerely, Dianne Woodruff Director of Communications 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000:r/-^ RECaVEO MAY 2 7 W7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Office of Desegregation Monitoring / TO: Board of Directors May 28, 1992 FROM\nTHROUGH: SUBJECT: Estelle Matthii,' Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) Grant Proposal The Arkansas Department of Education recently announced the availability of funds to establish and expand developmentally-appropriate early childhood programs which identify and assist educationally-deprived children, ages three (3) to five (5), as specified in the Arkansas Better Chance Program, Act 212 of 1991. The request for proposals was released after April 16, 1992, and the deadline for submission is June 1, 1992. Provided for your review are copies of the Program Abstract for applications for expansion of our center- and home-based early childhood education programs. The goals, objectives, and other components provide the basic information that was provided to you in our Early Childhood Continuance Grant last month. The proposed expansion sites for our center-based program are Bale, Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, Watson, and Wilson Elementary Schools. Southwest Little Rock is the targeted area for expansion of our home-based program. We are also requesting funds to improve playgrounds and expand our staff development activities for our early childhood staff. Attached is the proposed Arkansas Better Chance budget request for funding. We recommend the approval of our submission of this expansion proposal to the Arkansas Department of Education.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL Rockefeller Elementary School 700 East 17th Phone 374-1226 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 * .ic - U I . To: 5^ O' Office of Desegregation Monitoring ODM Monitors: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Connie Hickman, Bob Morgan, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Through: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent Desegregation of 73 From: Anne Mangan, Principal, Rockefeller Incentive School Subj ect: Corrections of Review of the Incentive School Monitoring Guides Date: June 1, 1992 Please note the following corrections: ^VL/Page 7 - POSITION - Change Registrar to Bookkeeper Page 40 - #67 are social STATUS: worker, The recommended positions not filled alternative supervision aides and program specialist classroom specialist, Participants ^^^'^age 54 - #23 Participants included the principal, primary teacher, an intermediate teacher. a parent and one grandparent a specialist, one l\u0026gt;pM^ Page 56 #55 in Camp Pfeifer. Four students from Rockefeller participated Page 56 #67 order would be followed. Principals were told that the recent court Individual positions particularly discussed but all rulings were mentioned. principal so necessary. Rockefeller Incentive School has in general not were an assistant commitment regarding this position was not (The last two sentences on #67 do not necessarily reflect the situation at Rockefeller and could be deleted on our individual school report.) a (Ip- -// 06.01/92 16:33 E.501 324 2032 L R School Disc 0D5I 0002/008 Process A DOUBLE FUNDING FOR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS: I. Conmitment. to double fund - Explanation of terms A. Double fund - a process by which incentive schools are funded, in an amount that shall be two times the instructional costs per student in the area schools of the Little Reck School District for the previous school year. B. Instructional costs - these expenses are identified as instructional costs and are listed as follows: Regular Certificated Stipends Regular Non-Certificated Social Security Tax Public Employees Retirement Hospitalization Life Insurance Long Term Disability Dental Hospital Indemnity Short Term Disability Instructional Program Improvement Repairs-Equipment Pupil Transportation Travel Postage Printing \u0026amp; Binding-Internal Copier Lease Food Se2rvices Supplies Textbooks Library Equipment-Personal Property Dues and Fees\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_1525","title":"Court filings: District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) proposed magnet programs for Henderson Junior High School and McClellan Community High School; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, order","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":["1992-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","Magnet schools","School management and organization","School enrollment","McClellan Magnet High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Henderson Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) proposed magnet programs for Henderson Junior High School and McClellan Community High School; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, order"],"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/1525"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["69 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_400","title":"Desegregation: ''Little Rock School District (LRSD) Desegregation Update Reports,'' Book 2","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":["1992"],"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","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: ''Little Rock School District (LRSD) Desegregation Update Reports,'' Book 2"],"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/400"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nL R S D \u0026amp;7 DESEGREGATION UPDATE I REPORTS 1992 BOOK 2 53^TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District January 29, 1992 Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Update on Desegregation - January Please find enclosed my update on desegregation for the month of January. It includes the first quarter monitoring report for the incentive schools. cc: LRSD Bi racial Advisory Committee 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 January 23, 1991 TO\nLRSD Board of Directors FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services THROUGH: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Update on Desegregation - January Please find attached the update on desegregation for the month of January. The following areas will be addressed in this report: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Area Schools Guidance and Counseling HIPPY Incentive Schools Monitoring Reports Summer School Vocational Education Volunteers in Public SchoolsUpdate on Desegregation January page two AREA SCHOOLS (See memos from Margaret Gremillion, Larry Robertson, and Dr. Angela Sewall.) GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING The directors of guidance from the three school districts meet  * '  Three primary initiatives are bing monthly on the second Monday. collaboratively planned for implementation during the current school year to address areas of 1) the recruitment of minority counselors, 2) staff development, and 3) the collaborative development of a tri-district plan to implement the College Preparatory Enrichment Program (CPEP) for submission to the State CPEP is a remedial program for eleventh Department of Education. and twelfth grade students who scored below nineteen on the ACT. The program is funded by the State Department and held during the summer. The shortage of minority counselors is acute not only in Pulaski County but throughout the state. To address these needs, the three districts plan to invite certified teachers, who may have an interest in counseling, to a tri-district sponsored reception on Februairy 4, 1992, at the North Little Rock High School West Counselor educators from the universities that have campus. counselor certification programs will participate and provide information relating to their respective counseling programs. A committee of counselors from the three districts are meeting to discuss and plan an inservice training workshop for both secondary and elementary counselors. . - - Scheduling of the inservice for secondary counselors who work ten or eleven month contracts will be in late July. The inservice for elementary counselors will take place during the pre-school workshops in August. INCENTIVE SCHOOLS Master (See memos from Arma Hart, Paula Grier, Attachment A Teacher Committee, and Attachment B - Teacher Demonstration Committee) (For curriculum update, see memos from the Gifted and Talented Office, Dennis Glasgow, and Marie McNeal.) The next meeting of the Parent Council will be held on February 3, at 5:30 p.m.Update on Desegregation January page three Report from Catherine Gill: for the breakfast. Parent Involvement - all PTA presidents from the seven incentive schools were invited to breakfast at McDonald's on 7th and Broadway, Saturday, January 18. An incentive school partner paid for the breakfast. The purpose of the breakfast was to discuss the status of the different PTAs and strategies for improving memberships, attendance, and various other school projects. McDonald's will adopt Rockefeller School in the near future. The Methodist Men of Miles Chapel Christian Methodist Episcopal Church will adopt Mitchell School. Scouting Program - Scout directors meet with Gill monthly to give an update on the progress of scout activities in the Meetings and activities are ongoing in all One hundred fifty-five (155) girls incentive schools. incentive schools. girs are registered in either Girl Scouts or Brownies and 224 boys are registered in Boys Scouts. On February 12, there wpl be a kickoff for placing orders for the Girl Scouts Cookie Sale. Seawood and Pat Brower are the Girl Scout directors. '\"y Tina Terry Sharp and Kelly Jenkins are directors for the Boy Scouts. Parent Recognition - Parent recognition is ongoing in each of our Each school has been asked to select a parent incentive schools. of the month to receive an award. Parent Center - Parent centers are in all incentive schools. Every effort is made to see that materials are kept current and attractive. MONITORING REPORT You have already received a copy of the incentive schools monitoring report under separate cover. The responses from the principals are in reference to the monitoring visit conducted by the LRSD Biracial Advisory Committee. It should be noted, however, that the incentive schools monitoring report also includes the monitoring visit conducted by the LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) Department. The principals' responses review. to the PRE monitoring visits are attached for your The first semester monitoring report for the remaining schools will be included in the February update on desegregation.Update on Desegregation January page four SUMMER SCHOOL Summer school sites for LRSD are under consideration by senior staff members. Contacts have been made with PCSSD and NLRSD staff in regard to their summer school programs and sites for 1992. We will be contacted when these decisions are made. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION (See memo from James Miller.) VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS (See memo from Debbie Milam.)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 January 17, 1992 TO: FROM: Mr. James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Larry S. Robertson, Assistant Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development SUBJECT: Area Schools Update The activities in this report are limited due to the number of days in session last month. However, it is designed to highlight those activities specifically identified in the \"School Operations\" section of the desegregation plan. Baseline - In an effort to increase student attendance, telephone calls are placed to parents of absent students daily apprising them of their child's absence. After the second failed attempt to reach a parent, a letter is mailed home apprising parents of their child's absences. In an effort to reduce discipline problems without excluding students from school, an after school detention program has been implemented in fourth, fifth and sixth grades. Communications to parents through the Monthly Newsletter featured notes from the counselor on how to open lines of communication between parents and students. Seventeen students received rewards for citizenship and academic improvement. Ribbons and laminated certificates signed by the classroom teachers and principal were presented at the monthly school-wide assembly. Peer tutoring is utilized to increase student academic success. Intermediate students tutor primary level students in all areas including discipline with specific emphasis on reading and math. Cloverdale - Communications to parents was through the monthly newsletter. The newsletter this month featured programs and activities in the school. Inservice training for discipline management involved sessions on Master Teachers, Handling Student Cliques, and When Professionalism Breaks Down.Mr. Dames Dennings, Associate, Superintendent Danuary 17, 1992 Page 2 On December 17, 1991, the \"Good-Times Club\" in its monthly assembly honored seventeen students for improved discipline and attendance. The students were entertained during the assembly by the \"Cross Country Orchestra,\" a group of retired musicians and district patrons. Interventions to increase student academic success include: peer facilitators from Cloverdale Or. High School serving as tutors once a week for students K-6\ncooperative learning grouping strategies\npeer tutoring\nteachers of tomorrow activities which include intermediate students teaching simple lessons, and, visiting the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) to make teaching materials. Geyer Springs - In an effort to improve discipline, students were taught the difference between classroom rules and classroom procedures. In an effort to increase attendance, approximately twenty students were honored with certificates in the monthly assembly for improved attendance. The primary method of communicating to parents this month was the Christmas Talent Show. The talents of parents, teachers and students were displayed. This program was a resounding success with many non-school patrons in attendance. Hopefully, we will see some of these non-school patrons enroll at Geyer Springs Elementary this spring. The classes awarded 'Cafeteria Stars' for exemplary classroom behavior in the cafeteria were Mrs. Stubblefield, Sth grade, and Mrs. Peterson, Sth grade. Each classroom was awarded a classroom game. The \"Good Apple II Award which is given for outstanding behavior was awarded to thirteen students this month. Pictures of these thirteen students are displayed in the main hall on the bulletin board. Volunteer tutors are utilized in an effort to increase student academic success. Three (3) volunteers tutor at-risk primary students in reading and math. Staff development activities include the Program for Effective Teaching (PET) and Classroom Management.Mr. James Jennings, Associate'Superintendent January 17, 1992 Page 3 otter Creek - In an effort to improve discipline and attendance, twenty-four students were awarded the 'Superstar Award'. This award is given to students for exceptional behavior during the week. The students selected for this award receive a certificate, a treat, a star name tag for the week, and their name is placed on the bulletin board. In addition, the PTA and the school are contemplating the purchase of a signal light for the cafeteria in an effort to maintain positive discipline and to reduce the noise level in the cafeteria. The primary method of communicating to parents this month was the monthly school newsletter. This month's newsletter highlighted the kindergarten, writing to read program\nFirst grade highlighted activities to increase student reading, advising parents to read to and listen to their children read\nsecond grade the follow-up of a field trip\nthird grade article on multiplication\nfourth grade science experiments and working in the Computer Lab. Finally, the newsletter recognized a student who won $250 in a Mall contest which was used to buy science equipment for the school. Inservice training for discipline management included cooperative team learning. Volunteer tutors were used as interventions to increase students achievement. Six volunteers tutored intermediate level students in the area of reading and math. The Encourager Program, a program affiliated with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, awarded UALR T-Shirts to all encourager students as Christmas gifts, and students made Christmas cards and potpourri gifts for their encouragers. Grades K-6 are participating in a four month reading incentive program sponsored by KARK and Harvest Foods. Any classroom with 80% of its students reading two books a month will be eligible for a drawing for an Apple Computer. In an continuing effort to improve discipline, forty students who ride buses 20A and 20F were awarded monthly bus awards. These awards are presented to students with no bus referrals. The students' names are placed on a star poster in the cafeteria, and their drivers were given a certificate on the bus in the children's presence. twenty-one citizens of the week were selected by teachers. In addition. Teachers choose one student per week for good behavior. The student's name is announced over the intercom, written on a star poster which is placed on a bulletin board in the cafeteria, and allowed thirty minutes of special time with the counselor on Friday in which games are played as rewards.Mr. James Jennings, Associate'Super!ntendent January 17, 1992 Page 4 Jefferson - The primary method of communicating with parents this month was through the monthly PTA meeting. During this month's meeting, Mr. Doug Eaton, Plant Services Director for the Little Rock School District, spoke to the parents relative to timelines for upcoming renovations at the school. The human relations committee of the PTA organized a Food and Toy Gift distribution for Christmas. Ten Jefferson families were served. Each child of these families received a toy and a set of new clothes. Staff Development activities this month highlighted a presentation by Mrs. Alice Stovall, Reading Specialist with the Little Rock School District. The presentation and inservice was entitled, \"Thinking, This activity was well received by the staff. Reading, and Writing. II Jefferson Elementary's Partner - Channel 7 announced the winners of the Christmas Card competition. Channel 7 presented the three winners with a framed matted picture of their card. The overall winner was David Chacon. His picture was made into a Christmas Card which was sent to Channel 7's business colleagues. The Channel 7 Mentoring Program is in progress. More details will be available next month. The self contained special education class presented their Christmas Program December 7, 1991. Attendance included first grade classes, district administrators and parents of students in the special education class. The winner of the school's geography bee is Evin Demirel, a fifth grader. He will participate in the state competition soon at UALR. We wish Evin success. Students at this school are being featured promoting use of the Arkansas Power and Light Homework Hotline. Mrs. Cheryl Crutcher's third grade class was the Computer Whiz Class for the month of December. Mrs. Crutcher's class was presented the trophy for the month of December.Little Rock School District M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Mr. James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services FROM: Margaret Gremillion, A\nssistant Superintendent for Elementary DATE: January 17, 1992 SUBJECT: January 1992 Area School Report OVERVIEW Area Schools It was exciting to talk with principals and teachers returning from the Christmas holidays with a renewed determination and a full schedule to make positive things happen in their school for students. With computers in action, science and social studies being taught through teaming efforts, and math manipulatives in full use, teachers and students are intensely involved in teaching and learning. The 5th and 6th graders in most schools are havin this month. Other grade levels are involved in G/T projects, bees. Math Olympaid, sscciieennccee fairs, and writing contests for to be awarded in February. their DARE graduation iting geography various prizes I am pleased to see that teachers continue to be readily involved in staff development on a weekly basis in the district. Two upcoming staff development opportunities for teachers and principals are being co-sponsored by the Arkansas International Center and the State Department of Education on February 7, Cooperative Discipline, and February lA and 15, Conflict Resolution Symposium. These topics are timely and will give additional information to all of us who are working hard to broaden our school-based discipline plan. According to the desegregation plan, each school has been directed to review and revise their plan to include alternatives to out-of- plan school suspension, being made. To this goal, v\ne have worked in roups and progress is Eight (3) of my nineteen schools h.ad n suspensions this gradin Congratulations to Eale, Badge 11, Chicot, Dcdd, Elementary, Romine, and Wakefield! Fu I bri rh t ,. Fu 1 quarter. ki lieights 8 oo 0 10 Wvsl M.iiKH.im Stivvl lilllc KotR. Aik.mh.is 72Jl)l 1 7 4 .^56 I .lames Jenni iif Page 2 -.January Area School Report January 17, 1992 I am listing five (5) .schools who have identified some unique .strategies that they are currently implementing: 1 . Woodruff a. b. c.  Alternative classroom - child remains in school with assignments from his/her regular classroom teacher but supervised by another teacher at a different grade level\nseated away from other students at a study carrel\nno recess, etc. After-school detention - one hour after school for one or more days\ntwo hours per day if necessary to achieve behavior change SATURJJAY DETENTION - five hours on Saturday supervised principal as needed to achieve behavior change 2. Watson a. Twelve students have been referred to the Fight Back Prograrn for assessment. b. set of rules and procedures STEP has been implemented which is a . step) throughout the school that includes emphasized each week (1 posters, intercom announcements, etc. c. After-school detention hall d. Students are kept in for recess. e. In-school suspension for one student at a time since there is only room for one student in the principal's office. f. A reward system was established which includes stars, items stu dents can earn such as pencils, and al _ graders with a game with other schools each nine weeks. basketball program for 6th This has been especially effective. 3. Badgett successful as an At Badgett, different strategies and activities were For the first quarter discipline alternative to school suspensions, report, there were no suspensions. -activities were implemented: The following strategies and ver e School-wide discipline plan (Student Rights and Responsibilitie^ Handbook) was taught to every student, and pre/post tests administered. The books and forms were sent heme to parents. The school's plans were discussed with parents at the first open house.Jo Illes Jenn i n)jS-Jooh\ni r y Ar ('. 1 School Report p3 G 3 January 17, 1992 Student conferences\nOther activities and strategies\nparent (office, telephone)\nrules posted in the classrooms\ncontracts with Jerry Peters-Webster University\nhad to use this conferences princi- good behavior pal's award\nin-house suspension (rarely have classroom activities with students (stars, play procedures)\nvarious money, points)\nand, behavior documents. 4. Wakefield a. The entire staff understands and is committed to working together school's discipline management plan commonly to implement the t-------- - . \"Wakefield School Rules.\" (A copy is on file in the called Assistant Superintendent's office.) 5. In b. c . d. The staff uses much effort in establishing contact for information and remedial assistance. Teachers help each other by removing a student for one classroom to another to reduce the possibility The principal supports with parents a period from of suspension. the staff in implementing the management plan and in maintaining discipline and a positive school climate. Mabelvale a. b. c. d . e . Monthly Good Citizen Luncheons - Tables are decorated and a favor each student who has not gotten a behavior document all given to month. Quarterly Good Citizen Rewards - Students who have not received a behavior document all quarter receives The first quarter students were treated to a movie. The second quarter will be a Sixth graders also participate in a basketball game quarterly if they have no more than one document. These are held High where Mabelvale plays Chicot, Cloverdale, Watson Elementaries. These are very successful. The school talent show. at Mabelvale Jr. and has not had an an award. second quarter 6th grade suspensions . ___ progressive discipline plan in combination with teaching appropriate behaviors gives our students the opportunity to change their behavior before it reaches the suspension stage. The Parent contact by phone and in conference is an alternative that has been used very successfully at Mabelvale Elementary. Pfeifer Camp and Elizabeth Mitchell Treatment Care Center have also been used successfully for students with special behavior needs. conclusion, Dodd listed sixteen excellent alt erna t ives to sn.^inension from which we as a team will develop strategies for implementation\nJames Jennings-Jannary Area Report Page A January 17, 1992 a. b. c . d . e. f. g- Home visits Parent conferences Conferences with children Recommendation for counseling Behavior modification in the classrooms Children are sent to a buddy teacher- Conferences with teachers to determine whether there are h. i . j- k. 1. m. n. unrealistic expectations or personality conflicts Outside referrals such as Fight Back Making sure children have things that they need Peer Group support groups Clubs that encourage good behavior Modification of classwork Cooperative learning Children are taught ways to behave\nrole modeling Announcing Two Exemplary Programs I. McDermott - POLICE ACADEMY CADETS COURSE x.i...u Prevention Club was to be organized in all schools as stated \"No More Excuses.\" McDermott is leading the way with a model program. The McDermott PTA, counselor, teachers. Partner-in-Education Sheriff Carroll Gravett and the Pulaski County Jr. Deputy Program A Crime in joined forces to teach a condensed version of the Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy Curriculum to all 5th and^th grade The purpose of this course is to promote crime prevention through a better understanding of the criminal justice system. It will also assist in breaking down the barriers between the police and the students so that they can understand the fundamental purpose of students. It the police in society - to protect the rights of all citizens. Police Academy Cadets Curriculum is as follows: Rules, and Expectations 1st Week - Overview of Course, - SEPT (Self-Esteem and Positive Training) Program 2nd Week 3rd Week Communication A th Week - Drugs 5th Week - Juvenile Justice 6th Week 7th Week Crime Prevention First Aid Sth Week - Accident Investigation 9th Week Crime Scene 10th Week - Report Writing test will be administered Prior to the subsequent weeks training, a relating to the subject matter which will be presented.James Jennings-January Area School Report Page 5 January 17, 1992 A course test will be given at the end of each session, necessary to pass. If a student fails the course test, and 70% is then a retest will be given at the instructor's discretion. II. Pulaski Heights Elementary and Junior High Schools - PEER TUTORING Something wonderful has happened in Mrs. Blaylock's 2nd period Pulaski Heights Jr.) math class. The 7th graders are tutoring the at-risk 3rd graders who are coming from Pulaski Heights Elementary. Mrs. Blaylock and Ms. Arzu wanted to increase the self-esteem of both groups of students and decided to schedule the peer tutoring. Each Tuesday the 3rd graders arrive and spend one hour at Pulaski Heights Jr. High paired with their student tutor. The 3rd graders are given pre and post tests to determine the mastery of their assignments. They are currently working on subtraction with regrouping. Students are so excited about these class meetings that absenteeism on The junior high students who normally do not both sides has dropped.  enjoy basic math drills have been on task and are working hard with The tutoring will continue until the MPT test their little students, in March. I am now scheduling my second formal visits to the schools and will be reviewing the results of the monitoring team reports with them as well as I am very pleased with the the revision of any discipline plans as needed, progress being made at this time. /la jLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas January 17, 1992 TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development FROM: Dr. Angela Maynard Sewall, Assistant Superintendent V for Secondary Schools SUBJECT: Secondary Schools - Monthly Update The attached information provides an update and programs on activities in individual secondary schools. Please note that a district level discipline plan to address disparity is under development. School based discipline plans are included in school improvement plans. These will be revised as necessary to comply with the district level plan when it is completed and the 1992-93 planning process begins. Summer school sites for LRSD are under consideration by senior staff. Contacts have been made with PCSSD and NLR staff in regard to their summer school programs and sites for 1992. We will be contacted when these decisions are made. AMS/sh Attachments:Hl \"The Most Beautiful High School in America\"  Central High School 14th and Park Streets Phone 376-4751 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 January 16, 1992 JAN 1 7 REra TO: Dr. Angela Sewall, Assistant Superintendent FROM: L. Hickman, Jr., Principal RE: Monthly Update Request Teacher inservice offered during the past month at our school: We had no teacher in-service at our school during the past month. In the past we have offered in-service on personality types and traits and working with each other. We have had in-service from the Desegregation Monitoring Office on at-risk teens. Discipline and attendance interventions being addressed: As part of our no-nonsense policy, parents are notified of discipline and attendance problems by teachers, counselors. and assistant principals. Parent conferences are scheduled and home visits are conducted when problems occur. Counselor intervention occurs when teacher and student are at an Impasse and the sensitivity of the issue as relates to the child can be conveyed by the counselor. We also have before and after-school detention and in-school suspension. Recognition and Incentive Programs currently in place at our school: A, B-h and B- and Honorable Mention ribbons are given. We also have Southwestern Bell awards for those students who have drastic turnarounds from F or D to C range and from B to A. sweatshirts (25 of those) each nine weeks. They are given We also give a principal's recognition award to those students who significantly Improve at any time during the academic quarter. Interventions to assist students in achieving academic success: We have a tutorial program on Tuesdays and Thursdays after school for Math, Science, English, Foreign Language and Social Studies. We offer Saturday School for tutorial work and any make-up work, tests, etc. that the students need. J. A, Fair High School 13420 David O. Dodd Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Telephone (501) 228-3100 TO: Dr. Angela Sewall FROM: JANI 3m DATE: January 13, 1992 SUBJECT: Monthly Update INSERVICE The only inservice related activity offered to the faculty during December was a report and discussion of Arkansas Learner Outcomes\nthis was presented at a regularly scheduled faculty meeting. November, inservice activities and topics included: During Teaching Reading Across the Curriculum\nStress Management\nSelf-Esteem\nand Unlocking Your Potential. DISCIPLINE AND ATTENDANCE Administrators work with counselors in the attempts to limit behavior problems. especially when that behavior is expected or known. Progressive discipline procedures are used in referrals when applicable and appropriate. Teachers are provided forms and requested to log parental contacts and these are monitored by logs turned in at end of each grading period. on understanding student behavior\nInservice has been offered this year that focuses Program, School Climate and At-Risk Students. Goals of Misbehavior, Fight Back Parental contacts are made by assistant principals as required by the attendance policies\nin addition, many contacts and conferences are held that exceed the minimum requirement. INCENTIVE PROGRAMS In addition to recognition programs that are traditionally in place such as Honor Rolls, Scholarships, Class Recognition, School Newspaper reports, we also have programs unique to Fair: Student Salute, UALR Basketball Program, Gentlemen's Club and Ladies' Club. ACADEMIC SUCCESS We have two tutoring programs at Fair. Peer Tutors are available on a . weekly basis in the counselors' office. II Wings\", and tutors wear T-Shirts with insignia. This program is called tutoring times is posted throughout the building. A schedule of peer Each department in the school has met and developed a schedule and plan for faculty tutoring. /nh A School of the Little Rock School Districthall high school _ 6700 \"H\" Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 661-9000 JAN 1 3 REDD TO: FROM: Dr. Angela M. Sewall, Assistant Superintendent Victor Anderson, Principal Hall High School SUBJECT: Monthly Update Report DATE: January 13, 1992 A Program for Effective Teaching Course began this month at Hall High School. Discipline and attendance matters are addressed through student-administrator conferences, parent conferences, and in extreme cases of non attendance, through court referrals. Detention hall continues to be used for the penalty for minor disciplinary infractions. Parent conferences and suspensions are used in cases of more serious disciplinary problems. The Hall High Incentive Card, a discount card issued to students who maintain outstanding citizenship, perfect attendance, or improve their grade point, is sponsored by the Little Rock Rotary Club 99. products and or services from seventeen area merchants. The card offers discounts on eight students qualified for the card during the first semester. Four hundred fortyCalculations will be made after the semester to determine who will receive the card for the second term. Several Hall High teachers volunteer their time before school and after school to provide extra help to students who need attention beyond what is available in the regular class period. Instructors in the various academic departments are reviewing the 1991 standardized test profiles with students so that students see their own strengths and weaknesses on the standardized tests. Students develop an individualized plan that addresses the areas where additional attention is required for preparation for the 1992 standardized testing program.F LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT John L. McClellan Community High School 9417 Geyer Springs Road Phone 570-4100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 TO\nFROM: SUBJECT\nJanuary 15, 1992 Dr. Angela Sewall, Assistant Superintendent Mr. Jodie T. Carter, Principal Monthly Update During the month of December 1991, we did not offer teacher inservice at our school. Incentive programs aimed to improve, help, and promote attendance are in place and we make parental contact regarding absenteeism and tardies by phone calls and letters. I. our school to assist students in achieving academic success con^Kt of- Reading Programs, Homework Hotlines, and Tutoring Program.s just to name a few A detailed description of a couple of our incentive programs are attached for your review. our school. name a few. Below is a list of our December student salutes. 1. 3. 4. G. Brandon Marshall Kyle Thomas Becky Stoner Sylvia Loving Keith Harvey Shalonda Jordan Interventions in place at McClellan community high school STUDENT incentive PROGRAM 1991-92 ACADEMIC ELIGIBLE STUDENTS WILL RECEIVE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION CARDS. THESE CARDS WILL BE VALIDATED AT THE END OF EACH NINE WEEKS GRADING PERIOD BY SCHOOL PERSONNEL. RED CARD HOLDER * 3.5 and above grade point average * No more than three absences from any class during the nine weeks * Membership in at least one student organization * No suspensions for disciplinary reasons STUDENT ENTITLED TOi * Free admission to home athletic events * Special school pri vi1eges * Discounts -from area businesses * Discounts on tickets to school \"functions BLUE CARD HOLDER * Grades o-f 2.0 or 3.4 in all  academic work No more than three absences from nine weeks any class during the * Membership in a least * no suspensions -for discipl inary one student organization reasons STUDENT ENTITLED TO: * Discounted admission to home * Special school privileges area businesses\nathletic events * Discounts -from LION'S CLUB * 5\u0026lt;JZ Improvement in attendance from to the next or 907. attendance * No grade below a D one nine weeks * No suspensions for discipl ina ry reasons STUDENT ENTITLED TO: * Lions Club * School cert i F icate privi1eges/sponsored trips * Discount couponsACT CLUB * Student who scores a 24+ on the ACT STUDENT ENTITLED TO: * T-shirt/sweatshirt STUDENT OF THE WEEK Each teacher o-f the week , 1 5 entitled to nominate one and the name pul 1ed out of student as citizen a hat every Friday. STUDENT ENTITLED TO: * Name and picture posted on bulletin board * School newspaper * Letter to parent * Free p i * At the a/uoke -for each student o-f the week end o-f the semester, held and the another drawing will be i J-inch winner oT this drawing will color television set . receive a Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2501 BARROW ROAD PHONE 228-3000 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72204 TO: Dr. Angela Sewall January 13, 1992 FROM: Junious JANI SRECD RE: Monthly Update Request Teacher Inservice Our December faculty meeting included a presentation from Mrs. Margaret Hartley with The Psychological Corporation, on strategies/techniques that would prove helpful toward student success on the Stanford Eight Achievement test. She provided a general overview (35-45 min) and responded to questions from staff persons toward content and test format. Testing materials and resources have been ordered and distributed to staff and chairpersons that includes strategies for instruction within respective content areas, Test Overview and Objectives, Index of Instructional objectives and a Test Preview for Parents and Students. Discipline and Attendance Interventions Citizenship and attendance incentives are in place that results in free/reduced tickets to special school functions i.e., talent assembly and spring musical. This is addressed on a quarterly basis. Recognition and Incentive Programs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Honor Roll - free/reduced tickets to special school activities i.e., homecoming dance, basketball games, school stickers, ribbons and a free lunch. Disciple and Attendance Interventions - citizenship and attendance incentives are in place that result in free/reduced tickets to special school functions i.e., talent assembly and the spring musical. This is addressed on a quarterly basis. NJROTC Banquet - Spring Parkview Honors Assembly - May All Sports Banquet - May Interventions toward students academic success 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Peer Facilitators Science Fair Assistance - before school, designated weekend meeting Career Day - 2/11/92 Library/Computer Lab access - 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 P.M. Career Awareness - Explorer Post Parent contact from teachers and counselors Counselor conference with students who receive interim reports from teachers Counselors held individual conferences with students concerning standarized test interpretation and offered suggestions and test taking tips in order to improve their test scores. I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Cloverdale Junior High School 6300 Hinkson Road Phone 570-4085 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 To: From: Re: Date: Dr. Angela Sewall, Assistant Superintendent Gayle B, Bradford, Principal Monthly Update January 15, 1992 'JAH 2 As you knowj through restructuring our teacher teams take on responsibility for interventions and recognitions/incentive programs for our students. To that end, the following list those interventions and recognition/ All core incentive programs currently in place at Cloverdale by team, teams meet daily with their grade level counselor regarding students and often for parent conferences. Navigators (9th grade) The Navigators team meets daily with the counselor who receives a list from the teachers of those students who are absent. The cormselor calls parents of those students who have been found to have attendance problems. The team meets daily to discuss student discipline using a team policy which often involves alternative consequences which are imposed prior to referral to administration. As incentive programs, special field trips are planned for both good behavior and academic improvement and achievement. Air Frosh (ninth grade) The Air Frosh team is currently working with the Case Management System Team (CMST) on attendance problems of identified students. Daily the team and counselor meet to conference with individual students and/or parents regarding discipline. The team sends out team notes on a regular basis to individual students who show improvement and achievement. They have the \"Breakfast of Champions\" every nine weeks for students who make the academic honor roll. Air Frosh also sponsors socials for academic and citizenship success. P.A.W.S. (eighth grade) The P.A.W.S. team, like others, daily meets often working with individual students and/or parents regarding learning and motivational problems. In addition to the intervention of counselor in cases of discipline problems, .the team utilizes the services of the CMST prior to referral to the administration. Incentive programs include:!) Halftime Heroes (Recognition of all students with A's at interim) 2) P.A.W. Perks (Candy bar with Happy-grams for improvement in behavior, attendance, or academic area, etc.) 3) p.A.W.S.itive Days (We have used many tech- for this flexible program such as movies, speakers, pizza rewards. niques etc. )Academic success at this time of the year has primarily focused on MPT skill development. We are currently initiating a remediation class for MPT basic skills. This will be a seven week course offered to target students. The criteria will be teacher recommendation based on 6th grade MPT scores or failure of the MPT at the Sth grade level. This course will be offered on a pull-out basis. Team teachers will be responsible for providing goals and materials to the certified teacher in charge. Super S.T.A.R.S. (eighth grade) The Super S.T.A.R.S. teachers often involve parents with disciplinary interventions. Parents come to conferences and working with teachers come up with consequences used at home such as losing phone priviledges, no Nintendo, and going hunting/ fishing or other activity found to be important to the student. In addition, some parents have asked for In-school Suspension as a consequence for their children's misbehavior. The team members personally contact parents with attendance problems. Recognition and incentive programs include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Top Ten list by core subject Birthday recognition \"A\" papers are posted Bulletin Boards outside with students* honors displayed Recognition dinners for outstanding students Field trips Intervention assistance for academic achievement includes the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. After School Program Peer tutoring Group work (Cooperative learning) Teachers set time to see students separately Resource teacher supports students sent out after lesson for one on one with the resource teacher Untouchables (seventh grade) The Untouchables meet daily and work with individual students who are experiencing discipline problems. Parent conferences are scheduled prior to students being referred to the administration for action. The team presents an awards assembly at the end of each nine weeks for honoring students on the academic and citizenship honor roll and perfect attendance. The students on the team who are in need of extra assistance academically attend the Afterschool Program participating in tutoring, intramurals and special clubs. Seven Wonders (seventh grade) The 7 Wonders team meets daily to discuss students' problems  problems in and out of school. are active participants. This team uses a disciplinary management program in which students The students were allowed to assist the team teachers in coming up with their team rules and consequences. The team has set up a noon detention program in an effort to keep students out of administrators' office. This team honors academic achievement with awards assemblies for those students receiving at least a 3.0 grade average for the nine week grading period. Friday Flings occur every two weeks. These parties honor those students who have con- sistently followed team and school rules for the previous two weeks, as an incentive to encourage appropriate behavior. It is used Creative Force and Star T.R.A.K. (related arts) The Creative Force and Star T.R.A.K. teams have the same students of the six core teams listed above. The core teams involve the related arts team teachers inconferences involving their conmon students when discipline, learning, and moti- vational problems arise. However, these two related arts teams also have team incentives to promote good behavior. For example. Creative Force teachers take their students who demonstrate good behavior to lunch at Wendy's each nine week period. Star T.R.A.K. awards weekly certificates for good attendance. Also, certificates are awarded for best art work both weekly and at the end of the nine period. School-wide A newly-formed club this year, sponsored by CJHS campus security, is called the This club meets weekly after school during the After School \"Esquire Society. Program and targets male students who are at risk and have been found to be in need of positive male role model intervention. The group is similar to our Gentlemen's Club which was formed two years ago (a year before Central High formed its Gentlemen's Club.) The two sponsors deal with conflict resolution, drug/alcohol abuse, and academic problems. The \"Ladies League\" just this month has been organized by a counselor and two teachers which targets young ladies who are in need of positive female role model intervention. This group will deal with some of the same issues as the Esquire Society. Our seventh grade counselor has formed an intervention group for parents of identified seventh graders who meet once a month for breakfast on Saturday morning to deal with common problems in raising adolescents. The students attend with their parents. The After School Program is in operation three days a week offering tutoring, MPT skill development, and club activities to identified eighth grade students. However, at this time, some seventh grade at-risk students are being placed in the program with the assistance of the seventh grade teacher teams. The Truancy Review Committee fa component of the New Futures Initiative) is working This committee is an alternative to with students who have excessive absences, court referral for problem absenteeisiw.1-15-92 MONTHLY UPDATE DUNBAR MAGNET JR. HIGH JAN 1 6 RECD TEACHER INSERVICE: INFUSION CURRICULUM - DEPARTMENT OF DEC. 2, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES INTO AFTER SCHOOL\nPRESENTED THE REGULAR BY SOCIAL STUDIES DISCIPLINE INTERVENTIONS: IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION IS USED FOR NON-VIOLENT OFFENSES BEFORE THE SENT HOME SANCTION IS APPLIED. MOST CASES OF REPEATED TARDIES, CONTINUE TEACHER. STUDENT. ETC. ARE THEIR THIS SENT TO IN-SCHOOL CLASS ASSIGNMENTS INTERVENTION THIS IS INTERVENTION SUSPENSION, NHERE STUDENTS AND ARE NOT HAS A\nBEEN ASSISTED BY SUSPENSION QUITE THE ISS AGAINST THE SUCCESSFUL IN PREVENTING FUTURE MISBEHAVIORS OF THE NON-VIOLENT NATURE. AND TEACHERS, COUNSELORS AND ADMINISTRATORS MEET WITH PARENTS DISCUSS DISCIPLINE CONCERNS ON AN ON-GOING BASIS. CLASSROOM MODIFICATIONS WITH STUDENTS. TEACHERS AND BEHAVIORAL COUNSELING ARE ROUTINELY DISCUSSED MONITOR BEHAVIOR IN THE HALLWAYS BETWEEN CLASSES AND ENFORCE THEIR CLASSROOM RULES DURING THE SCHOOL DAY. STUDENTS ARE CONTINUALLY REMINDED AS TO SCHOOL RULES AND REGULATIONS BY ALL ADULTS IN SUPERVISORY CAPACITIES. ATTENDANCE INTERVENTIONS: ATTENDANCE PROBLEMS ARE REPORTED TO THE PRINCIPAL AS SOON AS A PATTERN OF NON-ATTENDANCE IS ESTABLISHED. THE PRINCIPAL ARRANGES FOR CONFERENCES WITH THE PARENTS/STUDENTS TO DISCUSS THE ATTENDANCE PROBLEM, AND A WARNING IS ISSUED THAT FUTURE ABSENCES WILL LEAD REFERRALS TO . HAVE COURT BEEN J REFERRAL MADE ON FOR NON-ATTENDANCE. SEVERAL STUDENTS THIS COURT YEAR. A COUNSELOR INTERVENTION ALWAYS OCCUR WHEN ATTENDANCE IS A PROBLEM. ON FINS FREQUENT OCCASIONS THE OR OTHER AGENCIES, PRINCIPAL HAS REFERRED AT THE REQUEST OF THE THE FAMILY TO PARENT, FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE STUDENT WHO REFUSED TO ATTEND SCHOOL. RECOGNITION AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS\nTHE HONOR ROLL LISTS ARE POSTED IN THE MAIN OFFICE. HONOR LARGE OF THE STUDENT BODY AT DUNBAR MADE HALL BY THE THE A OR A/B ROLL FOR THE FIRST NINE WEEKS. THE PTA POSTS THE NAMES ON PIECES OF POSTER BOARD FOR ALL STUDENTS TO SEE. IT 42 S RECEIVES A GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION FROM VISITORS IN THE BUILDING. THE HONOR ROLLS ARE ALSO PRINTED IN THE PARENT NEWSLETTER AND SENT TO ALL HOMES OF DUNBAR STUDENTS. AN AWARDS ASSEMBLY WILL BE HELD FOR EACH SEMESTER WHERE CERTIFICATES FROM THE PRINCIPAL AND ATTENDANCE AWARDS WILL BE PRESENTED. CITIZENSHIP AWARDS ARE ALSO PRESENTED\nAS WELL AS AWARDS TO STUDENTS FROM TEACHERS, BASED ON CLASSROOM CRITERIA DETERMINED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS. IT IS THE TEACHER'S PREROGATIVE TO AWARD CERTIFICATES TO STUDENTS FOR VARIOUS APPROPRIATE PARTICIPATION. ACADEMIC INTERVENTIONS\nSUPPORT GROUPS ARE ORGANIZED BY COUNSELORS AND TEACHERS. SEVERAL AFTER TEACHERS SCHOOL, ON DO INDIVIDUAL THEIR OWN AND TUTORING OCCURRING FOR STUDENTS FOR STUDENTS FOR TIME. MPT IN NEED OF GROUP TUTORING THE COUNSELORS FAILURES.  ASSISTANCE. PEER BEFORE AND ARRANGE FOR TUTORING IS THE LIBRARY IS OPEN OWN WHO ALL DURING THE DAY FOR STUDENTS WHO WISH TO STUDY ON THEIR TIME. COUNSELORS ARE ALERTED BY TEACHERS AS TO THE STUDENTS ARE FALLING ACADEMICALLY. COUNSELORS AND TEACHERS NOTIFY PARENTS REPORTS AND ARRANGE FOR MEETINGS TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES. INTERIM ARE ISSUED TO PARENTS FOR ALL STUDENTS WHO ARE RECEIVING D/F OR . KEPT S, OR WHOSE GRADES HAVE FOR STUDENTS FALLEN SINCE LAST REPORTING PERIOD\nWHOSE BEHAVIOR HAS DETERIORATED. PARENTS ARE INFORMED BY TEACHERS ON A ROUTINE BASIS\nTHEY EXPECT CLOSE COMMUNICATIONS AND TEACHERS DO AN OUTSTANDING JOB OF KEEPING PARENTS INFORMED.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Forest Heights Junior High School 5901 Evergreen Street * Phone 663-3391 * Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 ' January 16, 1992 TO: Dr. Angela Sewall, Assistant Superintendent JANI 7m FROM: Richard Mapl^ Principal SUBJECT: Monthly Update At Forest Heights we have a comprehensive approach to student problems with academic success, attendance and discipline being three (3) categories that must be addressed, risk students. This is due to the fact that we have many high Our interventions described in this update speaks to the three (3) categories mentioned above. Pupil Support Team: Our team meets every Wednesday at 7:30 a.m. 'T he members are three (3) administrators, three (3) coimselors, school nurse, ISSP teacher. Social worker and New Futures Manager. We staff students and decide on how to meet the needs of each student referred. The team then plans interventions/programs to meet the need of the student and insure implementation. Parent Meetings: We have conducted one parent meeting in the community and will conduct two (2) additional meetings. These meetings coincide with the distribution of report cards. We discuss all three (3) areas (academic success, attendance and discipline) and offer suggestions on how parents can truly become partners. Mentors: We have twenty (20) mentors from the community who make two (2) weekly contacts with the targeted students. The mentors visits the students once at school and then contact is made by phone. A weekly written report is required and is forwarded to the counselors for follow-up. PEER HELPERS - EAGLES' NEST: This consists of fifty-five (55) peer helpers who strive to change the climate of the school. They are involved in one-on-one peer counseling dealing with academics, discipline and attendance. Approximately forty (40) students are seen once a week by peer helpers. These students are trained by counselors who monitor the students to insure progress. Achieving Academic Success: There are many activities in place to assist students to achieve academic success: Grades) are for students who have one or more \"F's\". \"B.U.G.\" Groups (Bring Up groups or one by one to contract for improvement. They are seen in small This occurs after each grading period\nTRIPLE'- -E.E.E. (Exerted Extra Effort) - Monthly Update Cont. Page 2 Each teacher nominates students at the end of each grading period who have improved in academics, behavior, attitude and attendance. These students receive special recognitions\nAssignment Pages and Friday Reports. Teachers and counselors encourage students to do assignment notebooks on daily assignments sheets that will be taken to each teacher and then home to parents to report weekly progress in all classes: Failure Letters To Parents - Failure letters are mailed to each parent. These letters contain the student's status and encourages parents to contact the Counselors and Grade Level Teams for conferences\nAfter-School Tutoring - Information and applications have been provided to students and parents concerning After School Tutoral Programs. We have approximately thrity (30) of our students attend some kind of After School Programs\nand Counselors have visited (by grade level) with students to discuss academic requirements and share tips for success. Recognition and incentives include Principal Recognition and Incentives: recognition of all A, B+, and B students, perfect attendance and outstanding behavior. Students receive a certificate and receive pizza and cokes. Each team (8 Teams) have recognition and incentive programs including student of the week pencils, monthly birthday pencils, attendance, citizenship, scholarship and leadership awards and most improved student. These incentives are designed to recognized every student at least once during the school year. Note: At a later date I will provide you with a more detailed explanation of these programs. Our inservice for staff at Forest Heights have included \"What makes an Effective Teacher\", Learning Styles, Modifications and Interventions. During the last month a second inservice for our School Emergency Plan was held and an inservice on cooperative learning and interdisciplinary units were conducted.HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 401 Barrow Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 JAN 1 3 RECn TO\nDr. Angela Sewall, FROM: Everett Hawks, RE\nMonthly Update January 13, 1992 Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools Principal Teacher Inservice\nLarry Rogers inserviced our faculty on the FIGHT BACK program - 1/7/92 Discipline and Attendance Interventions Addressed\n1. Part of our January faculty meeting was spent evaluating the school atmosphere at Henderson Jr. High. Various definitions and procedures, reviewed and discussed. related to discipline. were Discipline issues were discussed with the student body via the school intercom 1/10/92 Recognition and Incentive Programs currently in place: 1. Student of the Month Award 2. Garfield's Good Guys (Citizenship Incentive) 3. Principal's Honor Rolls 4. Citizenship Honor Roll 2 Interventions: 1. Student/Student tutoring program - at lunch and before and after school 2. Teacher/Student tutoring 3. Small group work by counselors LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mabelvaie Junior High School P.O. Box 187 Phone 455-2413 Mabelvale, Arkansas 72103 TO: Dr, A. M. Sewall FROM: Clell Watts, Principal C DATE: January 13, 1992 SUBJECT: Monthly Update Request MEMO JAN 1 4RECTJ In response to your memo dated January 7, 1992. -Teacher inservice for the month- All faculty/staff attended Self-Esteem Workshop, December 4, 1991. 4:00 - 7:00 p.m. Facilitator Sue Walls. -Discipline and attendance interventions- Faculty/staff continually work one to one with habitually referred students. . Students are recognized for displaying exceptional behavior each nine weeks. Students are assigned to In School Suspension to maintain a continuous flow of learning. Faculty/staff review Little Rock School District handbook, classroom rules, school rules and consequences each nine weeks. Students new to the school review discipline video. Students receive Red Raider Rewards daily for good behavior. They are turned in at the end of each month, are awarded. Home room and individual prizes Students are awarded certificates for perfect attendance each nine weeks. Volunteer parents conduct attendance calls. HOME OF THE HEE HAIEEHO V  Monthly Update Request Page 2 Faculty/staff continually work with students having non-attendance patterns. -Recognition and Incentive Programs currently in place- See attachment -Interventions in place to assist students in achieving Academic success- Students experiencing academic problems are encouraged to attend cornerstone. Teachers volunteer one hour each week and tutor students with academic problems. Science/Social Studies departments purchase and use supplementary materials to improve MPT and MAT6 skills. Faculty conduct programs outside the normal school day. Y.O.U., JTPA, Duke Talent, Model U.N., Math Counts, Stock Market.) hemci to : ftil Tsachsrr F:e : Raider Renards\nUJe will begin using the Raider will n have Pi a p.ar ties\nlike Rewards immediately. Ha a drawing for each grade last year,bi.it will have-level at the end of the niorth. If we can get pi za parties. I  enough money we wi11 reinstate 1-1 o m e r o o m Rules For Givi\ng Raider Rewards 1. G i ve for c 1 any postive behavior i f? grades , being in 3S on time, having all materials, ha'.ing hnme'work c o nio 1 e t\nmaking above a certain /. on a test C.' c\n. 2. Keep them in th ami. safe place so students cannot take 3. Te^icner must sign dr stomp ecAch token given. ' P'.l base indicate grade level. 5. To ans will be collected by Homeroom te-aciier s. use the envelope ?jy5tem again. W j. 1 1 6. fi'aider Rciwards are to be turned month. C bi  Please put them in Mrs. in at the and of the Todd ' s ma i 1 bon .. TO: Dr. Angela Sewall FROM: Mrs. M 'Lacey OBJECT: Monthly Update JAN 1 5 RECD Inservice In our December faculty meeting ten (10) staff members inserviced the entire staff on strategies for working effectively with at-risk students. During January, English teacheij, social studies teachers and keyboarding/ computer technology teachers are collaborating in a research project done by their students. Six dealing with problems of 10-11) . (6) staff members received additional training on adolescents (Student Assistance Training, January Disc ipline Saturday, detention hall. December 11, marked the fourth session of an alternative Exploratory in nature, the d-hall was especially designed for repeat offenders of minor disciplinary violations and/or for certain first time offenses, such as student disrespect of another student. Whi 1 e all sessions begin with a writing activity, some sessions have included clean-up projects and community resource speakers. Recognition and Incentive isplay in the hall. Students of the Month are selected by staff members\nselected students rite short essays about themselves and their pictures are taken for teac hers. The names students are treated students who make an Students of the Week are turned in of these students are read over the to a pizza party at the end of each A or a B at the end of the semester by individual intercom daily and month. Al 1 prizes given by the PTA and Union National Bank. are eligible for on the \"Birthday board in the cafeteria. Students are recognized Students on the honor roll and the citizenship roll receive incentives after each grading period. Interventions/Academic Success One of the greatest interventions in place at consisten t, daily instruction planned by teachers. varied student learning styles. trips, classroom projects, Through resource speakers. our school is the relating lessons to related field student achievement as our main goal. cooperative learning, etc., teachers target teachers. Additional 1y, there are special tutorial sessions by individuals One teacher has implemented a homework hotline. Counselors have targeted specific students for failure counseling sessions and community referra1s, such as Cornerstone, Promise (UALR) and Links, Inc. Future Builders in Wrightville, Project At Mann, early morning tutoring is provided each day by the National Junior Honor Society and their sponsors. January 14, 1992 TO: Dr. Angela Maynard Sewall, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools FROM: Hoffman, Principal Pulaski Heights Junior High SUBJECT: Monthly Update INSERVICE Computer instruction available for students. DISCIPLINE AND ATTENDANCE Discipline: Team meetings with student and parent with behavior contracts developed. Attendance: Pulaski Heights has designated attendance intervention as a priority goal for this school year. The faculty, attend-ance secretary and the counselors have worked together to develop a plan that seems to be effective. Teachers are asked to wait until the last few minutes of first period to mark scan sheets and they are then picked up by office monitors. The attendance secretary scans the sheets and then runs copies of the absentees by grade level and these are given to the counselors. The counselors call each student who is absent (and whose parent/guardian has not called in) and tries to find the reason for the absence. There are several results from the phone calls. We tell parents who have not called in for sick children that we would appreciate a phone call before 10:00 each morning to help with our attendance, making these calls to us. We now have many more parents Secondly, if a child is absent without the parent's knowledge, it makes the parent aware of that unexcused absence. Another effect has been that students know that we make these phone calls and we believe that this discourages a student from being truant. We believe that we have developed a system which not only helps with attendance intervention but also lets parents know that we are concerned when a student is not in school. RECOGNITION AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS Citizenship and honor roll recognition. Team recognition of academic or behavior Improvement. INTERVENTIONS AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS Morning tutoring from volunteer teachers, and after school assistance program.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Southwest Junior High School TO: 3301 So. Bryant  Phone 570-4070  Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 January 17, 1992 Dr. Angela Maynard Sewall, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools FROM: Charity Smith, Principal Southwest Junior High School SUBJECT: Monthly Update Inservice: The faculty inservice for faculty was held January 7, 1992. Each faculty meeting is arranged for staff development. Administrative duties are provided to teachers through the steering committee. The January staff development meeting was about testing and remediation plans for students who failed previous standardized tests. Discipline and Attendance: The following steps are being taken to address discipline and attendance. 1. 2. 3. To provide incentive for students who demonstrate exceptional behavior and good attendance. To establish, review and consistantly enforce behavioral expectations. To implement a team-based student behavior management system. Recognition and Incentive Programs: Each nine weeks, students who have earned a \"B\" average receive an honor ribbon. Students who have earned an \"A\" average receive an honor button. A brief assembly is held each quarter after the report cards are distributed in recognition of our honor students. Each month, each team has an awards assembly program for students who have achieved. excellence. Guest speakers are invited to encourage students and to move towards Interventions and Academic Success: We have two tutoring programs at Southwest. UALR, the p.m. tutoring program is sponsored by New Futures. The a.m. tutoring is sponsored by During the a.m. program basic tutoring is provided. During the extended day program (p.m.) tutoring activies and homework centers are provided. Inter-disciplinary planning is also provided on a weekly basis in order to insure student success. In addition we also have peeer tutoring available.HIPPY TO:  THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham - Little Rock, Ar. 72201 HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS 1401 Scott - Little Rock, Ar. 72202 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent of Desegregation Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent of Education Marian Shead, HIPPY Supervisor January 14, 1992 Desegregation Update Concerning the update on desegregation timeline, the following is taking place: yk A Parent Survey is currently being conducted via telephone. Survey forms are being sent to families without a telephone. As of this date we have 361 families participating in the HIPPY program. Thus far, 224 families have been contacted by telephone. 90 % of our parents surveyed thus far have indicated that the HIPPY program has a positive impact on their family. In order for us to obtain more specific information, our survey will not be completed until the end of this month. * Printing of curriculum materials in bulk form is no 1 onger permitted due to a revision and copyright laws obtained by HIPPY USA. We are now required to purchase the curriculum for our program.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS Little Rock School District January 17, 1992 TO: FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Arma J. Hart, Desegregation Facilitator SUBJECT: JANUARY DESEGREGATION UPDATE Attached for your information is an update .of some of the programs/activities that were during the Month of January. implemented in the Settlement Plan Additionally, copies of Recruitment and Desegregation Meetings are provided for your perusal. AJH:csa 810 West Markham Street tittle Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 COUNSELORS INSERVICE Elementary counselors play a significant role as support personnel in assisting principals and staff in the schools. An inservice was conducted on January 15, 1992 at Woodruff Elementary School by Mrs. Elston for all counselors in the Incentive Schools to review and provide an awareness of the activities and program areas that relate directly or indirectly to the counselors in the Settlement Plan. Each counselor will assist in documenting the activities that exist in their Additional follow-up inservices and/or planning sessions provided as needed. schools. will be The following areas were reviewed: ACADEMIC PROGRAMS JDR 02230 Incentive Programs each school will establish an incentive program for recognizing academic excellence and academic improvement. PHYSICAL EDUCATION/HEALTH JDR 02242 -Emphasis on the development of an understanding of and respect for the handicapped\nSOCIAL SKILLS JDR 02243 Positive Imaging Structured lessons in self-esteem building will be taught in small group sessions. Interpersonal Skills on problem-solving. Structured group sessions will focus decision-making, peer pressure, etc. Rites of Passage - A structured program will be initiated to respond to the emotional, physical, and social developmental changes in the young students. established for male and female students. Separate programs may be Role Models Programs Individuals (international, national. state, local and community) will be used for presentations at the school in every area of the program to provide role models for the students. African-American role models for males. Special emphasis will be placed on Mentoring Program Utilizing local resources in the community and the Partners Program, a mentoring program will be established for intermediate-age students (4-6) SPECIAL ACTIVITIES JDR 02244 Peer-Tutoring Program Peer tutors will be assistants to teachers in the Homework Program or during the regular school day. Students will be compensated for after-school peer tutoring (see Support Programs). January, 1992 Page 2 SUPPORT PROGRAMS JDR 0226S Peer Tutoring Peer tutors will be selected from among a group of self-nominated and teacher nominated students. The role of peer tutors will not be limited only to students with outstanding academic averages but open to achieving students who work well with students and who can verbalize an understanding subject matter to be covered. those will also be other of Peer tutors will be compensated with coupons... Retired Teacher Mentors Efforts will be made to identify a feasible time for retired teachers to come into the schools and to work with individual students as tutors\nto sponsor clubs such as future teachers and to provide additional extra support such as story telling time with and for students. Mentors can work voluntarily or may be paid a stipend depending on their own needs. Career Skills Development Program ... general \"mapping\" of how a student can progress from elementary school to the desired career goal. Year Round School JDR 02269 ...with prescription for attendance from teachers of students who are behind grade level in core areas. curriculum Extra Curricular Programs JDR 02273 ...future teachers programs, Just Say No Clubs, monitor \"jobs\" in the office*, library... intermurals, at recess or lunch time. not class time Attendance and Behavior Guidelines Time-out rooms staffed... Students and parents will sign agreement to be at school and on time each a contractual day. COUNSELING/SOCIAL WORK College/Post Graduation Awareness . . The program will also serve to heighten own abilities and student expectations with regard to their potential to attend college... Study Skills JDR 02274 Counselors and teachers will be responsible for working with students to enhance test taking skills, listening skills and study skills, test taking. Practice will be provided for students in i.e., bubble sheets will be used on some class tests and a variety of question types will be used by teachers. January, 1992 Page 3 Individual and Group Counseling Individual and group counseling as well as peer facilitators will be employed at the school to assist students as they attempt to work through concerns and the normal issues which arise as student growth and development takes place, also be taught conflict resolutions. Students will Incentive/Recognition Programs programs will be developed by students, each school. committee meeting included: Incentive/recognition staff and patrons at Ideas (suggestions) presented in the subawards programs, days, good citizen clubs. recognition free tickets to community and athletic events, tangible rewards such as a book of the student's choice for academic growth and the like. Camp Pfeifer Students in need of additional academic assistance will have access to programs such as that currently in place at Camp Pfeifer, whereby, they spend some time in residence at a program away from the school and the home which provides counseling, intensive academic support and time management skills. Parent involvement is an inherent part of this program in assisting them to work with students on homework and academics. STUDENT EVALUATORS Source: Settlement Plan JDR 02276 Student evaluators will relative to the school. be asked to complete evaluations experience twice a year... its climate. and their educational Students in all the Incentive Schools were selected at random to participate in an evaluation of their school based on a 5% involvement from each grade level. The process was conducted by Mr. Sterling Ingram, and Hrs. Ethel Dunbar from the Office Planning, Research and Evaluation. timeline for completion is attached. A copy of the The administration of the survey was January 13, instead of January 15, 1992 . Indicators of student achievement. high expectations are the criteria used instructional leadership, and and climate. Attached is a copy of the to evaluate the programs indicators. WORKSHOP Attendance and Behavior Guidelines Source: Settlement Plan JDR 02273 Attendance and behavior guidelines will provide unique opportunities to assist students and keep them in school... January, 1992 Page 4 A schedule of training vzorkshops was sent to the principals of Dr. the Incentive Schools. The training will be conducted by Patty Kohler and her staff on the following dates: SCHOOLS SITE DATES Franklin, Ish Franklin 01-27-92 Stephens, Mitchell and Rightsell Stephens 02-10-92 Source: Rockefeller and Garland Rockefeller 02-17-92 The sessions will be held from 3:30 CAMP PFEIFER Settlement Plan JDR 02274 5: 00 \"Students in need of additional academic assistance will have access to programs such as that currently in place at Camp Pfeifer, whereby, they spend some time in residence in a program away from the school and the home which provides counseling. intensive academic support. and time management skills.\".. Mr. Sanford Tollette, Director of Camp Pfeifer, and his assistant, Benki Martin, were invited to the January Desegregation Meeting to discuss the following procedures for the alternative classroom experiences: 1. 2 . 3. 4. Program design Parental component and involvement Transportation Student referral The Alternative Classroom Experience is designed for students between the ages of 9 and 13 or fourth, fifth and sixth graders in Little Rock, North Little Rock or Pulaski County School District. The four main goals of the program are: 1. 2. 4. to improve setting academics in an institutional classroom to to improve improve community classroom and home relationships attendance The program is designed for students who have the potential to  learn and behave appropriately but may be falling between the cracks. As an incentive for good behavior and achievement. a free summer camp will be offered to each child participating in the program. Presently, one Incentive School is participating in the program. Others will be included in subsequent cycles. January, 1992 Page 5 PURPOSE OF THE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM Source: Settlement Plan JDR 02233 \"The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate.\"... Strategies for improving student achievement were discussed and shared with and among principals during the January Desegregation meeting. Allowing students in the first and second grades to have reading twice a day, exposing them to more concrete objects in math before doing abstract teaching. having daily creative writing, involving tutors during the day and after school to assist students on a one to one bases was discussed. Ms. Paula Grier, the IRC specialist, Mrs. Alice Stovall, the Reading Director, and other appropriate support persons will provide the necessary assistance. The Homework Center and Extended Day Programs will be monitored more closely, and regular tracking of student achievement by principals will occur, needed. Programmatic changes will be made as School Policies and Procedures Source: Settlement Plan JDR 02276 \"It is recommended that each incentive school have uniforms for students (such as blue jeans and a white shirt\"). Principals will discuss with their PTA president,.board, and parents the advantages of students wearing uniforms. A survey will be sent home to parents in a timely manner to allow them to provide feedback. The uniforms will be simple and affordable for all parents. The possibility of department stores. such as Sears, will be will be Penny's, Wards, K-Mart, and Wal Mart stocking the outfits investigated. Jumpers, skirts. T-shirts and sweatshirts Foreign part of the uniforms for girls. Languages Source: Settlement Plan JDR 02243 \"Each school will select at least one foreign language for study, with Spanish and a choice of an Asian language as strong recommendations. \" Some students at the classes. To provide Incentive Schools are experiences for these involved in Spanish students and motivate other children, Mrs. will present a play called \"Cenicienta\" Mary Hoey's Spanish class from Dunbar Magnet for all Incentive Schools during Extended Day (Cinderella).January, 1992 Page 6 RECRUITMENT EFFORTS Source: Settlement Plan JDR 02323 \"Recruitment will be an ongoing process at the Incentive Schools. The purpose of the recruitment program is to encourage voluntary assignments that will enable the Incentive Schools to comply with the desegregation requirements.\" Some of the recent recruitment activities are cited below: PSA's Public service announcements for all Incentive Area, Magnet, Interdistrict Schools will be publicized before and during the registration period by the Communications Department. Open House -- Mass mailouts with registration and open house appointments for Incentive, Magnet, area, and interdistrict schools were mailed to parents of students in private schools in Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts by the Student Assignment Office. Ms. Julie Wiedower discussed with principals in the January Desegregation Meeting the purpose of Open House as a recruitment tool. SPEAKERS BUREAU Principals of each Incentive School will meet with parents and teachers from the Speakers Bureau to discuss registration procedures, open house format. when assisting with tours of the school. and provide other helpful tips Videos The District video produced by the Communications Department will feature special programs in the Incentive Schools. This video will be given to businesses. realtors and used in schools by the principals and the Speakers Bureau for recruitment purposes. MENTORING PROGRAM Mentors and students and each school's pupil will be matched by the planning committee services team. Mentors will meet students and their parents at school receptions. will be held January 22 January 29 at Stephens, Mitchell, February 7 at Individual matches will The receptions at Rightsell, January 23 at Rockefeller, January 31 at Ish, February 4 at volunteers are recruited for the program. Garland and February 12 at Franklin, be made as the year continues and more PRINCIPALS DESEGREGATION MEETING Attached is a copy of the agenda for the January Desegregation meeting with principals.INCENTIVE SCHOOL DESEGREGATION PRINCIPAL'S MEETING January 13, 1992 II. AGENDA WELCOME/OBJECTIVE SHARING LITERATURE ON EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS I. III. FIELD TRIPS A. B. C. Community Access/Field Trips Industrial Complexes and Manufacturing Corporations Lock and Dams IV. PURPOSE OF HOMEWORK CENTERS AND EXTENDED DAY PROGRAMS V. HIRING OF STAFF IN SATURDAY AND EXTENDED DAY VI. SPANISH PLAY Dunbar International Studies Jr. High School Students VII. SCHOOL THEMES: PARENT SURVEY INFORMATION A. B. C. D. Committee Members by Race Copy of Survey Instrument Date Returned 1st, 2nd, 3rd Choices of Themes Selected VIII. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT A. B. C. D. E. Reading Math Language Art Science Social Studies IX. DOCUMENTATION OF DESEGREGATION EFFORTS DUE EACH MONTH X. RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES A. Recruitment Plan Meetings Arma Hart B. Purpose of Open House Julie Weidower Student Assignment C. Volunteer Management Training Tips Debbie Milan Director, VIPS D. Having an Active PTA Debbie Valez PTA Council President E. Special Media Coverage Principal's Meeting Page 2 F. Saturday Information Booth at University, McCain Mall, Mall Southwest G. PSA's Media Blitz XI. SCHOOL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES-JDR 02276 Recommendations: Uniforms for students, shirt) (Such as blue jeans and a white Community education classes should be investigated for presentation on a rotating basis for parents in those communities to enhance their skills. XII. LITERACY SKILLS PARTNERS XIII. PURPOSE OF CAMP PFEIFER Mr. Sanford Tolette XIV. STUDENT EVALUATOR XV. WORKSHOPS SCHEDULED A. B. C. D. Effective School Meeting Speakers Bureau Discipline (Time-out Rooms) Parent Council XVI. PARENT INVOLVEMENT/HOMEWORK HOTLINE Catherine Gill XVII. AFRICAN AMERICAN CHRONICLE XVIII. OTHER PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT INCENTIVE SCHOOL SURVEY TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION 1991-92 TASK DATE PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE Select Survey Development Committee 10-1-91 Deseg. Administrators Asst. Superintendent Bldg. Principals Review Components of Desegregation Plan and Incentive School Monitoring Instrument 10-7-91 Deseg. Administrators Committee members PRE Specialist Asst. Superintendent Develop Survey Item Specification Item Writing 10\u0026gt;-14-91 PRE Specialist Committee members Technical Item Review Item Bias 10-23-91 Committee members Survey Construction 11-4-91 PRE Specialist Committee members Pilot Testing 11-18-91 Select students Final Survey Construction 11-26-91 PRE Specialist Committee members Administration of Survey 1-15-92 Building Survey Coordinator INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP , The school leadership effectively defines the school's mission, frames the goals and communicates these to the staff, parents, students, and the community. Effective leaders make it their business to ensure that the other effective school characteristics are present, promoted and improved upon as necessary. INDICATORS  Principal is accessible for discussion of instructional matters  Principal keeps open lines of communication and responds to teachers, staff, students, and parents  Principal plans for/maintains ongoing staff development program for faculty * Teachers are encouraged to work together for effective coordination of the instructional program within and between the grades * School improvement priorities and plans are developed cooperatively by principal, teachers, parents and students  Principal actively secures resources, communicates with community leaders, and arranges as well as promotes opportunities for faculty staff development activities * Regularly scheduled faculty meetings are held to discuss instructions and student achievement * Principal reviews and interprets test results with and for faculty * Principal discusses lesson plans with teachers * Individual teachers and principal meet to discuss focus of classroom observations * Principal makes frequent, formal classroom observations * Supervision is directed at instruction * Discussions with the principal result in improved teacher instructional practices * Principal encourages parent and community involvement through accountability and/or advisory groups2 . SCHCX3L CLIMATE There is an orderly, purposeful atrnosphcre which is f ree from the threat of physical harm. However, the atmosphere is not oppressive and is conducive to Physical facilities are kept teaching and learning. clean and made attractive with repairs made promptly. INDICATORS School is safe and secure place to work. Physical conditions of school are generally pleasant and well maintained School building is neat, bright, clean and comfortable Supplies and materials are adequate and appropriate to support teaching of knowledge and skills in curriculum Excessive noise is kept to a minimum Most students abide by school/classroom rules * Teachers, administrators and parents assume responsibility for school discipline Clearly written and accepted guidelines for conduct in the school, on buses and on school-sponsored events as well as field trips are provided School rules are understood, respected and enforced by administrators, teachers and students Teachers treat students fairly and with consistency Students are respected by school staff and peers regardless of their achievement level Relationships between and among principal, teachers and other school staff are cordial and based on mutual respect Positive feelings permeate the school Daily attendance rate of students and teachers is high\ntardiness is low Students have opportunities for leadership and for assuming responsibility for themselves and their property * Teachers in this school are \" way,\" of teaching and learning out in front, seeking better  * * * * * * *  * * * *3. high expectations Teachers behave as if they believe all Studer, t car. learn, teach them. enthusiastically accepting the hallenge to students and parents. These high expectations are conveyed to Grading scales and mastery standards are set to promote excellence. INDICATORS  All teachers in school hold consistently high expectations for all students * Teachers believe all students in school can master basic skills as a result of the instructional program * Teachers believe they are responsible for all students mastering all basic skills at each grade level  Teachers ensure that all children have equal opportunity to actively participate in classrooms * Teachers believe that students' home backgrounds are not the primary factor in determining their achievement in classrooms * All students in school are expected to complete graduation competencies or requirements * Teachers' expectations are expressed through clear goals for student achievement * Teachers treat students in ways which emphasize success and potential rather than those which focus on failure and shortcomings * Teachers encourage all students through rewards, praise and recognition * Student achievements are featured in school and community newspapers, newsletters and other news media Retained students in each grade are not predominantly from one ethnic or socio-economic group * Students' work is displayed on bulletin boards, in halls and in learning areas * Teachers use high levels of engaged time and studentteacher interactio.n as major instructional modes\nrather than high levels of individual seatwork assignmentsCLEAR SCHOOL PURPOSE A clear school purpose represents the shared as well as understood by teachers, chool's purpose/goal and is students, and parents. The curriculum serves as a blueprint for teaching and learning and includes goals and objectives which present a clear picture of what students are expected to learn and how teachers can help them learn it. Instruction is the basis on which all major decisions made by the school administrator and staff are grounded. INDICATORS * Written statement of purpose (mission) exists as the driving force behind most important school decisions * School purpose or mission is understood and supported by all students, staff, school, parents and other community members * Goals are developed and endorsed by teachers, parents, administrators and students  Curriculum is designed so that objectives (what should be taught), instruction (what is actually taught) and assessment (what is tested) aligned are  Instructional strategies/materials are adapted to individual learning needs There are written objectives or skills that all students must master for each subj.ect and for each grade * Objectives are clearly stated, valid and sequential, and their attainment is monitored and assessed at all grade levels  Pull-out programs do not dis: .pt or interfere with students' basic skills instruction  Special instructional programs for individual students are integrated with regular classroom instruction and the school curriculum * Students' classroom assignments are monitored closely by teachers to ensure that they are related to daily lessons and follow a sequence of teacher presentation, student practice, specific feedback and the evaluation of student performance * Teachers plan and make assignments with the expectation students will be highly successful during activities which follow direct instruction  Homework is regularly assigned and reviewed, so it enhances school learning  Minimum classroom interruption policy exists Special events (e.g., assemblies, programs, fird trips, etc.) are plannedmonitoring and assessment of student achievement and evaluation Regular assessment of students, programs and staff schools whether they are meeting their goals and whether the informs The school believes evaluation of the school's goals need revision. effectiveness should be A wealth of information can be produced by multiple assessment methods, tests (e.g., norm-referenced, criterion-referenced and teacher-made), samples of student work, and mastery skills checklists, obtained and used according to a well planned schedule- used to improve individual student performance and to improve the based on student outcomes. such as Testing results can be instructional program. INDICATORS * The school has an evaluation program that monitors and reports student progress * cheduled well in advance to Assessment procedures are planned and allow for necessary arrangements at all levels * Staff follow specific routines for frequent scoring, storing, sorting, analyzing and reporting results for student achievement * Assessment methods and instruments are selected to measure learning objectives at each level\nthese include both criterion-influenced and norm-referenced tests  * Curriculum and assessment are coordinated both horizontally (within grades) and vertically (between grade levels) Individual student records concerning achievement, discipline, attendance and tardiness are maintained * Teachers frequently monitor individual student learning, both f-rmally and informally * Teachers know and use test development techniques to design valid and reliable assessment instruments * Assessment is routine and students benefit quickly from the results * Results of assessment reports are tied to learrxing objectives Achievement data are used to change and improve curriculum and instruction on a regular basis * Re-teaching and specific skill remediation are important parts of the teaching process * Teachers and principal thoroughly review and analyze test results to plan instructional program modifications  Test results are reported to students, parents, school board and the general public in appropriate waysu . PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Parents and other members f the larger community understand, ruppcrt and are involved in the basic mission of the school, and are provided ..it'.. ------\ns or significant roles in achieving this mission. support with avenue INDICATORS More than half of the parents attend regularly scheduled parentteacher conferences Parent-teacher conferences focus on factors directly related to student achievement and basic skills mastery Parent-teacher conferences result in specific plans for home-school cooperation to improve student classroom achievement Teachers and parents are aware of the school or district homework policy Homework is monitored at home and in school Ninety-five to one hundred percent of the students complete their homework assignments Many parents visit the school to observe the instructional program Most parents understand and promote the school's instructional program There is an active parent/school group that involves many parents Home visits, phone calls, newsletters, regular notes, teachers frequently use to communicate with parents etc. are ways ie Local businesses and other organizations contribute money, time and other resources to the school Parents and community are involved as partners with school staff, not as adversaries Various involvement roles and activities are available for parents to select School staff receives training in parent/community involvement strategies Citizens participate in planning for and assisting in school improvement The school sends students into community settings to gain a variety of experiences  * *  * *  * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 January 15, 1992 TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Attached Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Paula Specialist Grier, M, Incentive School Staff Development Estelle Mathis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs Incentive School Latin Enrichment Program Update is the requested update on the Incentive School Latin Enrichment Program for the January Board Meeting. Please contact me at extension 2005, if you have any questions. AttachmentUPDATE ON THS INCENTIVE SCHOOL LATIN ENRICHMENT PROGRAM JANUARY 15, 1992 In the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) Desegregation Plan (Volume II - March 23, 1989), a Latin Enrichment Program was proposed for implementation in the Incentive Schools during the 1989-90 school year. The focus of the program was on using Latin words and myths as a means to improve English skills and not on teaching formal Latin grammar. It was to have become a part of the English language arts classes at the fifth and sixth grade levels in the Incentive Schools and had as its purpose that of: (1) increasing reading and vocabulary skills, (2) improving standardized test scores, and (3) enhancing the self-image of learners. Because of the delay in the court approval of the District's Desegregation Plan, the Latin Enrichment Program has not been implemented as.originally scheduled. The District has now targeted the 1992-93 school year In preparation for this. for the implementation of this program. original proposal has been and updated oy English/Foreign Language Supervisor, the Director of Reading, Incentive School Staff Development Specialist, the Director of reviewed the Staff involved Development, and an out-of-state consultant currently in a similar Philadelphia. program in the School District of As a result of this review, it is proposed that the Latin Enrichment Program targeted for 1992-93 following components. consist of the 1. Purpose: To incorporate Latin instruction into the language arts blocks of the Sth and 6th grade classes for approximately fifteento twenty minutes per day for the purpose of: (1) increasing reading and vocabulary skills, (2) improving standardized test scores, and (3) serving as a link between the English language arts and foreign language programs, and (4) enhancing the (Number 3 is an addition to the self-image of learners, original purpose.) 2 . Staff Development: a. Five days of summer workshops conducted by the out-of- This is a change from the original state consultant. proposal of six hours (one day) of inservice training because it is now believed that a longer period of inservice is critical to ensure effective the implementation of this program. The five-day training will consist of curriculum development. implementation of program demonstration lessons content. and assessment strategies.Incentive School Latin Page 2 Znrichnient Progran b. Four one-hour workshops throughout the school year (two each semester) to provide additional teacher training and to address any concerns/issues that may workshops as were originally proposed). arise (sane c. Teachers will have the opportunity to become more proficient in Latin by enrolling in a college cours designed especially proposed). for them (same as originally 3 . Budget: Because of the changes recommended component, a new budget has been developed. or the staff development increase of $800.00 and is based on 29 teachers. It reflects an 4 . The Classroom Instructional Materials Printing Inservice Materials Inservice Consultants Fees \u0026amp; Expenses College Course Materials College Course Instructor's Fee Inservice Stipends Total $ 870.00 1,740.00 870.00 3,400.00 580.00 1,200.00 1,450.00* $10,110.00 *If teachers are on an extended contract, this line item will be more. Evaluation: Throughout the year, the program will be monitored by the principal in each building. Supervisor, Specialist. and the Incentive the English/Foreign Language School Staff Development At the end of the 1992-93 school year, a formal district-wide assessment of the program will be made, assessment will be based on surveys and test data. This Implementation Plan included in the LRSD 1989 Desegregation Plan (pp. 47 changes. 49) has been revised to reflect these proposed An updated version is attached.IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COST OBJECTIVE ACTIVITIES PARTICIPANTS PERSON RESPONSIBLE COMPLETION DATE EVALUATION 1. To provide awareness of the Latin program to incentive school principals and staffs l.a. Present implementation plan proposal to associate superintendents and assistant superintendents l.b. Schedule awareness meeting with principals of incentive schools l.c. Develop agenda for principals' meeting l.d. Conduct awareness meeting with principals Associate \u0026amp; . Incentive Assistant Supts.School Staff .January 15,1991 Plan Presentation -0- I Dev. Specialis (ISSDS) Assistant Superintendant March 2, 1992 Heeting on Calendar -0- 1 Asst. Supt. ISSDS March 2, 1992 Printed agenda -0- Principals of incentive schools English/FL Super. March 16, 1992 ISSDS Dir. of Reading Concerns/questions expressed by principals -0- 2. To provide inservice to participating teachers l.e. Schedule awareness meeting with current Sth \u0026amp; 6th grade teachers in incentive schools l.f. Conduct awareness meeting with current Sth \u0026amp; Sth grade teachers l.g. Identify Sth \u0026amp; Sth grade teachers who wish to remain at incentive scho l.h. Recruit and fill vacan-ci es Asst. Supt. March 16. 1992 Heeting on Calendar -0- 5th \u0026amp; 6th grade teachers at incentive schools Principals )1S 2.a. Requisition instructional materials ISSDS April 14, 1992 Meeting agenda -0- Principals Dir, of Human Resources Princi pals Dir. of Human Resources ISSDS May 1,1992 July 1, 1992 Hay 1, 1992 List of identified 5th \u0026amp; 6th grade teachers Identi fied 5th 5 6th teachers at incentive schools for 1992-93 Arrival of materials -0- -0- $580 (lid ter tils I OBJECTIVE ACTIVITIES 2.3. Duplicate copies of above materials 2.C. Schedule 5 inservice meetings of 6 hours eacf 2.d. Develop agenda for above 5 meetings 2.e. Conduct above 5 meeting' 2.f. Contact UALR about . offering college course 2.g. Schedule above college course 2.h. Implement above college course 2.i. Schedule four one-hour inservice workshops in local bui1 dings/cluster district-wide 2.J-, Conduct above four inservice workshops IMPLxME'ITATIOM PLAN PARTICIPANTS Teachers and Principals PERSON RESPONSI3LE COMPLETION DATE I Incentive School Staff Dev. Spec. (ISSDS) July 1, 1992 June 1, 1992 EVALUATION One copy for each teacher Meetings on Calendar ISSDS ISSDS and Consultant July 15, 1992 Printed agendas Consultant and ISSDS August 17, 1992 Agendas and materials English/For. Lang. Supervi sor Incentive School Staff Dev. Spec. June 1, 1992 Course proposal UALR official Teachers t Teachers Principals Incentive School Staff Dev. Spec. Incentive School Staff Dev. Spec. ISSDS Principals Incentive Schoo! Staff Dev. Spec. pecember 1,1992 May, 1993 September 1,1992 May 1,1993 (2 per semester) PijS 2 I COST I $1,450 printing -0- -Q- $580 materials $3,200 consultant fee \u0026amp; expenses $1 ,450 stipends  (if on extended contract, this I amount j/i I increase.) -0- Identified dates/timesz place Completed course Meetings on Calendar Meeting agendas -0- $580 inatei'ials I $1,200 i nt Tilt Lor i fee- -0- I $290 inateri.-ils $200 consul taut fee OBJECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Page\nI ACTIVITIES PARTICIPANTS [PERSON RESPONSIBLE COMPLETION .DATE EVALUATION COST 3. To Implement the elementary Latin program in Sth i 6th grades at incentive schools 3.a. Schedule time for classroom instruction Teachers Principals August 15, 1992 School's instructional schedule -0- 3.b. Purchase/duplicate/ create student material\nTeachers Incentive School Staff Dev. Spec. ongoing Materials ready for classroom use $290 materials 4. To evaluate the elementary Latin program 3.C. Incorporate Latin program into district's language arts program 4,a. Monitor classroom acti vi ties 4.b. Identify student growth on standardized tests 4.C. Develop student, teacher, parent assessment survey 4,d. Disseminate above surveys 4.e. Compile survey results 4.f. Submit final evaluation report to associate and assistant superintendents Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers Principals\nEnglish/FL super. j Dir. of Reading Princi pals ISSDS, Reading Di English/FL Super. Principals Incentive School Staff Dev. Spec. Principals Incentive School Staff Dev. Spec. Incentive School Staff Dev. Spec. ongoing May 3, 1993 May 28, 1993 April 15, 1993 May 3, 1993 May 28, 1993 June 15, 1993 Lesson plans Identified strengths and weaknesses Test data Printed forms -0- -0- -0- $290 printing Completed forms returned Survey data Submitted report -0- -0- -0- ATTACHMENT \"A Master Teacher Committee February 5, 1992 9:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Universities 1. Dr. Robert Hilliard, Director Professional Field Experiences University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR 72032 2. Mrs. Mary Smith, Supervisor Student Teachers Arkansas Baptist College 1600 Martin Luther King Drive Little Rock, AR 72202 3. Dr. Tom Teeter, Associate Dean College of Education University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Little Rock, AR 72204 4. Dr. Alvin Futrell, Director of Teacher Education Services Henderson State University Arkadelphia, AR 71923 5. Dr. Loretta Davenport, Chair Division of Education Philander Simth College 812 West 13th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Teachers 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Beth Sanders - Mitchell Incentive School Marsha Calloway - Franklin Incentive School Marva Pearson - Ish Incentive School Marie Smith - Stephens Incentive School Oudy Mier - Rockefeller Incentive School Frenzella Dodson - Rightsell Incentive School P. Wilson-Robinson - Garland Incentive School Administration 1. Margaret GremiIlion 2. Larry Robertson 3. Paula Grier Principals 1. Ann Mangan 2. 3. Bobbie Goodwin Franklin DavisATTACHMENT \"B Teacher Demonstration Committee February 6, 1992 9:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Teachers Phil Davis - Garland Incentive School Barbara Banks - Mitchell Incentive School Brenda Hammonds - Franklin Incentive School Elaine Self - Ish Incentive School Kimberly Harness - Stephens Incentive School Beth Foti - Rockefeller Incentive School - Early Childhood Mel via Mathis - Rockefeller - Elementary Barbara Fincher - Rightsell Incentive School Principals Robert Brown Stan Strauss Donita Hudspeth Lonnie Dean Admi ni strati on Margaret Gremillion Larry S. Robertson Paula GrierTO: FROM: THROUGH: Little Rock School District January 7, 1992 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services ^(^Irs. Diane Rynders, Coordinator, Gifted Program /y,jj^Mrs. Mable Donaldson, Supervisor, Gifted Program Patty Kohler, Director, Division of Exceptional Children Armrs. Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent, Educational Programs and Staff Development SUBJECT: Status Report on Incentive Schools The Gifted Office is working cooperatively with the Gifted Specialists and principals in each of the Incentive Schools. The Gifted Specialists are providing ALL students in the Incentive Schools with Enrichment. The Enrich-ment Curriculum is based on the skills contained in the GT Scope and Sequence. The Specialists have been asked to work closely with the regular classroom teachers in emphasizing writing and research with all students. Speciali sts have been instructed to teach critical thinking and reading skills in the content areas during the enrichment period and were given materials and instruction in this area during a meeting on December 2, 1991. Family folklore, literature appreciation, and hands-on science are a few of the different topics that some of the specialists are focusing on. of the Incentive Schools are participating in Odyssey of the Mind, The Stock Some Market Game, Quiz Bowl, The Invention Convention, and are hosting science fairs. The Gifted Office has worked with the Specialists, and when necessary has provided training and/or information for each of these events. The Gifted Office has developed a form for monitoring the Gifted Program in all the schools in the areas of: Identification, Scope and Sequence, Staff Development, K-2 Enrichment, and Curriculum, been or will be monitored is listed below: Information on schools that have School Monitoring Date 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. DR:MD:PK:mh Rockefeitl ler Stephens Garland Franklin Mi tchel1 Rightsei 1 Ish 3-21-91 12- 4-91 12-11-91 1-14-92 1-16-92 1-21-92 To be scheduled 8 I O West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (5O1).574 ,5501 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 January 9, 1992 To: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregat ion From: nnis Glasgow, Supervisor of Science Through Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development Subject: Monitoring/Supporting Incentive School Programs Sc i ence * Science lab equipment and staff been provided for grades 3-6 in development has each Incentive School. This will facilitate the use of a hands-on discovery and exploration approach to learning sc i ence . * Last year all incentive school teachers were given a 2 hour inservice on using hands-on science. * I have visited each Incentive School once or more this year to monitor the set-up of the science labs, grades 3-6. * I am providing the Incentive Schools with \"Invent Amer i ca II student handbooks and two Coordinator's handbooks. II Invent America\" is one avenue for emphasizing the scientific method and practical applications of science. A science fair is another way to meet this goal. * Incentive Schools have been provided science supply kits and refills have been sent when requested. These supplies are used by K-6 teachers to provide hands-on science. * Nothing specific has been done about the homework information packets, although Macmi11an/McGraw Hill has an excellent series of booklets for grades K-6, titled Helping Your Child at Home With Science. I will provide information about this program to Mrs. Gill so she can share it with the Incentive School Principals. TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 January 14, 1992 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services FROM: fJ^jyTTrt^rie A. McNeal, Supervisor Social Studies THROUGH: 'V^bstelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent Educational Programs and Staff Development SUBJECT: Desegregation Update - Incentive Schools The following focus on desegregation activities for Incentive Schools: *Review of Building Environment - Visitations were conducted at Garland (January 10, 1992) and Rockefeller (January 13, 1992) - each school's visual displays depicting social studies themes, including multicultural and African/African American topics were evident. *Classroom/teacher visitation at Rightsell was conducted on January 8, 1992. present outcomes of visitation: observations - Classroom visitation The following re- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Learning environment attractive and motivating. Multicultural and African American visuals present. Social Studies history concepts and skills being implemented. Social Studies lessons promoted pride for students with teacher examples of African American leaders and history. Students attentive, on task, and involved in the learning. ^African/African American History Program and Rites of Passage Program - All Incentive School principals were inserviced about the above programs on December 9, 1991. Copies of resource materials were given to each principal to share with teachers and consider for purchase. Teachers received copies of both Inservice for teachers programs the week of December 9, 1991. on the implementation of each program was conducted on January 13, 1992 at two (2) cluster meetings, Franklin and Rockefeller. In addition, teachers were inserviced in how to infuse Social Ski 11s-Family Folklore into the core instructional program with implementation of the African/African American and the Rites of Passage Programs.I I I MONITORING REPORTS I \"a* 4% 2* Garland 3615 W. 25th Little Rock, AR 72204 'Sunply Tnmtformational\" Incentive Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr., Principal Phone: (501)671-6275 1% !!' BL * JL-.JlM.P\nTO: Mr. Janes Jennings, Assoc. Superintendent for Deseg. FROM:^l^jRobert L. Brown, Jr. SUB J: Response to Educational Equity Monitoring DATE: January 15, 1992 The following responses are being provided to address the noted concerns of the nonitorin team: 2.2 Staff members have been instructed to bring all area into compliance with the expectations set forth in the guidelines. 2.3 11.3 The IRC Reading Dept, has been providing assistance to several teachers. Additionally, requests have been made through Central Office Administration to assist staff in making adjustments in the instructional program to meet the students level of performance. 6.1 The decrease in academic performanc has been noted and shared with the staff and parents of Garland Incentive School. School Improvement plans have been developed and filed with the appropriate offices. o 12.10 Doors were open because of a mistake on the part of the school's administrator. The teachers have now received the appropriate instruction. cc: Larry Robertson Arma Hart LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mitchell Elementary School 2410 \u0026amp; Battery Street Phone (501) 375-6931 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation FROM: ita Hudspeth, Principal DATE: January 15, 1992 SUBJECT: Response to Areas of Concern on Monitoring Visit December 16 AREA OF CONCERN: School needs to be remodeled, carpet and blinds should be changed to brighten colors. brighter colors. School walls should be printed Library and media center is not large enough. RESPONSE: The above concern has been forwarded to the appropriate departments and personnel. LI ROCK SCHOOL I '' DISTRICT Rightsell Elementary School 911 West 19^ Street Phone 324-2430 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 January 8, 1992 TO: Mr. James Jennings, Associate Supeymtendent FROM: Mrs. Bobbie H. Goodwin, Principal RE: First Monitoring Report by the Department of PRE 2.2 Concerns were shared with staff. cleared up on or before January 24, 1992. We will strive to have the things cited Teachers with parents by telephone, written notices, and home visits. are making contact 6.1 Strategies for student achievement are listed in our School Improvement Plan. With the exception of Grade 4, all grades' Total Basic Battery increased between 1.1 and 1.9 on the 1991 MAT-6. 11.1 Contact is being made with parents by telephone, written notices and home visits. Timeline for compliance is January 24, 1992. 12.4 Written requests have been submitted to Maintenance regarding the hanging objects. The writing on the doors and walls inside restrooms on the 2nd floor has been removed. 12.10 Teachers have been instructed to keep classroom doors locked at all times. Periodic checks will be made throughout the day. cc: Mr. Larry Robertson, Assistant Superintendent Mrs. Arma Hart, Desegregation Facilitator TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services FROM: Anne Mangan, Principal, Rockefeller Incentive School RE: Response to First Monitoring Report conducted by the Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation DATE: December 27, 1991 AREAS OF CONCERN: 2.2 After concern was made known at the conclusion of the monitoring visit, a check of teacher records was made and it was determined that the records that were not up-to-date were those of either a long term substitute teacher (who should not have been held totally responsible for the completion of all classroom records until given full charge of the classroom) and a teacher who was teaching in a new teaching assignment and was still a little unsure of the required procedures at that new position. Corrections have been made to assure accurate record keeping. 6.1 The annual school plan and the school improvement plan (Chapter I) addresses the identified weaknesses and needs of the student body with specific plans made to make improvement on test scores and increased understanding of the curriculum areas. The goal is to increase knowledge and decrease disparity of achievement in various student sub-groups. 7.3 The number of students receiving resource services is a total of 10. The resource teacher is assigned to Rockefeller only half time. The resource teacher serves the identified students in the regular classroom most of the time and in very small groups in her assigned classroom space - no more than 4 students at a time. The space is certainly adequate for that small number of students. The teacher was offered several much larger spaces for resource and she refused. After it was determined that she did not want one of the spaces offered, the wiring for the computer was installed in the present location. 8.1 Students have been recommended in a proportionate number to match with the school population. However, the approval of students to be identified as gifted at Rockefeller rest in the hands of the Little Rock School District gifted and talented office. That office sends us the names of all students who are allowed to be placed in the program. 10.6 Several meetings with parents have been held in the homes. No meetings have been held in local churches or community centers. It has been discussed with the incentive school coordinator and it is my understanding that she will help by planning some meetings in just such community locations. I have spoken to Rev. Banks at the Metropolitan Church close to Rockefeller and he has been receptive to our having meetings at his church. 12.4 Needed improvements have been reported to the building engineer and to plant services for repair: rest room damages, burned out lights, and pot hole. 12.10 Classroom doors and all outside entrances are monitored regularly to insure that they are locked and all safety and security measures are being properly implemented. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Stephens Elementary School 3700 West 18 Phone 671-6350 Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 January 15, 1992 TO: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegreg^ion Monitoring and Community Services FROM: Lonnie S. Dean, Principal SUBJECT: FIRST MONITORING VISIT - EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING TEAM Listed below are the responses to the concerns of the Educational Equity Monitoring Team on November 14, 1991. 2.2 - I am monitoring all records and will make sure records are current and complete. 12.4 - The graffiti on the portable building has been reported to plant services, and will be removed ASAP. 12.10 - All staff is constantly reminded of this security policy. All doors will be locked from the outside except the front door. cc: Arma Hart, Desegregation Faciliator Larry Robertson, Assistant Superintendent VOCATIONAL EDUCATION TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: 1. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 6, 1992 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services ^rnes A. Miller, Director, Vocational Education . Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs Update Report on Desegregation - January, 1992 Review Course Offerings: Course offerings are in the processing of being reviewed as a part of the Curriculum Revision process presently under way. committee of teachers has been identified which will assist in this review A process. One meeting of this committee was held in December, and other meetings are scheduled on January 13 and 14, 1992, and in February. 2. Offer Open House: An open house is planned for Metropolitan Vocational Center during American Vocational Education week, the second week in February, 1992. 3. Student Brochures: Brochures on course offerings at Metropolitan have been in place for several years, and no changes have been identified as being needed at this time. No further reproduction of brochures will take place until a thorough review and coordination with the L.R.S.D. Communications Department is completed. 4. Equipment Fair: \"Employment Fair\". This is a typographical error. This objective should read Ms. Martha Allen, Counselor at Metropolitan, is serving on the planning committee to plan the annual \"Jobs Fair\" chaired by Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston. Vocational Department staff have participated in planning and conducting this fair since its inception. 91/JAM/035 January 17, 1992 TO: James Jennings FRMl: Debbie Milam SUBJECT: Desegregation Update The following is an update on the areas you requested per your memo of January 2, 1992. The information on training is for November and December since a ccsiprehensive schedule was turned in October 15. Bstabli^ a Barents in Loaming Program, a ocnramity-sL^parted effort to involve parents in the learning process. See individual workshops below for training provided. Discussion and planning is going on to decide on a series of workshops to be offered for parents. The National PTA's \"Common Sense\" four-part workshcp series has been ordered and will be offered by VIPS to cosponsor with school FTAs. VIPS will then publicize IPSD's \"Common Sense\" parents by school in our newsletter. VIPS staff are also preparing the APPLE series of workshops for presentation. Provide workshops for parents cn such topics as discipline, learning aides, stu^ skills, academic tutoring. Tutoring workshops were provided for parents at Mabelvale and Badgett Elementary Schools during November. The following workshops will be offered for parents at Rockefeller and Ish on January 18: Recipes for Home Learning, Motivating Your Child to Succeed in School and Improving Your Child's Study Skills. Improving Your Child's Study Skills will be repeated at McClellan Community High School on March 24. Training workshops on being offered on an \"as needed\" basis for Incentive School mentors. An \"Orientation to Volunteering in the Little Rock School District\" is being prepared and will be offered on a regular basis and/or by request by the VIPS staff. Three workshops were provided for retired senior volunteers at the Shepherd Center during November and December. A workshop is planned January 21 for seniors at Parkway Village Retirement and January 22 for a tutoring workshop for parents at Fulbright. Four orientations will be held for mentors in the Junior League sponsored Wonders of Work program.Develop and expand the parent volunteer programs. Five hundred parent surveys were distributed -to parents of children at Surveys asked about incentive schools through COPE distritution centers. interests and obstacle to parent involvement. Tutoring workshops were provided for parents at Mabelvale and Badgett Elementary Schools during November. Meetings have been held with parents and stciff at Garland, principal and a teacher at Badgett, and the VIPS Chairperson at Forest Heights. Information has been requested on a family reading program that could be duplicated at any school. VIPS Coordinator met with incentive school principals on January 13 to discuss expanding their volunteer programs. Holiday learning activites for tutors were sent to Badgett, Fulbright, Mabelvale, McDermott and Pulaski Heists Elementary. Provide braining for school personnel on 'the use of volunteers in 'the school. Training has been provided to five staff people at Badgett and one teacher at Rockefeller. VIPS Coordinator met with incentive school principals on January 13 to discuss in their schools. pvpanding volunteer programs VIPS Incentive School Coordinator has also met with all principals as well as the staffs Rockefeller and Ish. Meetings to explain Partners in Education have been held at Western Hills, Terry, Bale, Mitchell, Forest Park and Garland. Increase the iimter of minority partners. The Council for African American Progress partnered with Garland. Women in Energy, which had a black president at the time, partnered with Cloverdale Elementary. Negotiations are currently going on with the following potential partners: Harold Flowers Law Society, Neuro-Psychiatric Diagnostic Clinic, Kappa Alpha Psi Alumni Chapter, J\u0026amp;M Products, The Willis Group, DIGNITZ, Watershed, Cradle Central Arkansas Chapter of the Black Data Processing Association, Care, Philander Smith College and Joe Anderson Contruction. RSVP Catering, a small business owned by a woman, partnered with Henderson. Our Neighborhood newspaper is expected to partner with a school in southwest Little Rock soon. Set I?) meeting with leaders in the city to explain our programs and danonstrate the quality of our schools. Presentations have been provided to Parkway Village Retirement Home residents.Jo Stewart with North Little Rock School District, Rosa Allen of Beebe who is starting a VIPS program there and an educational philanthropic organization. Monthly meetings are held with the Chamber of Commerce Partners in Education subccmmittee and Education Committee, an advisory committee for Incentive School Parent Involvement, VIPS Board of Directors and the Junior League Wonders of Work Committee. Visits have been made to two ministers of churches in neighborhoods close to incentive schools. Six ministers of downtown churches with predominantly black congregations agreed to distribute recruitment flyers for incentive school mentors. Two training workshops have been held for all business partners in all three districts. CEO Principal for Day was held during American Education Week. Approximately thirty business leaders shadowed IPSD principals for part of a day. A press conference was held at the Chamber of Commerce on November 22 to publicize the CEOs' experiences. Two articles ran in the Arkansas Democrat. a League of Women Voters ran an article on VIPS in their November newsletter to their members.f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street RECEIVED TO: Little Rock, Arkansas Har7h 26, 1992 LRSD Board of Directors 72201 MAR 2 6 1992 desegregation FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for 7^'3 Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services THROUGH: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools 3^ SUBJECT: Update on Desegregation - March The following areas will be addressed in this month's update on desegregation: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Area Schools Communications Early Childhood Education Guidance and Counseling HIPPY Incentive Schools Multicultural Curriculum Summer School'1 Update on Desegregation March page two AREA SCHOOLS (See memos from Margaret Gremillion, Larry Robertson, and Dr. Angela Sewall - including addendum). COMMUNICATIONS (See memo from Dianne Woodruff). EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Timelines for ordering materials, supplies, and equipment: a. b. Equipment for new four-year-old classes will be ordered by May 1, 1992 Materials and supplies will be ordered by June 1, 1992 Timelines for hiring staff: a. b. Teaching and aide positions for new four-year-old classes will be announced in June on the known vacancy list. Positions will be filled through the normal procedure of screening, interviewing, and principal recommendations. Inservices will be provided for teachers of four-year-old programs during the beginning of school and throughout the school year. The inservices will include but not be limited to the following areas: - Licensing Requirements - Classroom Management - Child Development and Behavior - Portfolios - Developing Centers and Units - Transitional Activities GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING (See memo from Jo Evelyn Elston). HIPPY (See memo from Marian Shead).5 Update on Desegregation March page three INCENTIVE SCHOOLS (See memos from Arma Hart, Catherine Gill, and Larry Robertson). MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM During the 1992-93 school term, two new magnet schools will be operative in the district and a variety of new courses will be offered to students. Workshops for appropriate staff members will be conducted beginning in mid-June and run through the week prior to pre-school, mid-August. Additional workshops and seminars will be conducted throughout the school term for staff members at these schools. SUMMER SCHOOL (See desegregation update addendum from Dr. Angela Sewall).LITITE ROCK SCHOOL DIST ' CCT 810 WEST MARKHAM SIRE I LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 19, 1992 TO: Mr. James Jennings, Associate Superintendent - Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services FROM: \\\\'''^^^'Iargaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent - Elementary SUBJECT: March 1992 Board Report Part X - Response to Desegregation Item, \"Provide Training for School-Based Improvement Teams (to Involve Staff and Parents) Uho Will Train Staff at the School Site with Annual Maintenance' Tvzelve of my nineteen area schools have gone through the COE (Comprehensive Outcome Evaluation) training. They are engaged in the study of data about their schools and are measuring them against the standard established by the research on xdiat makes schools effective. From this comparison, the schools will develop goals for the next five (5) years and will write strategies to accomplish their goals. The modification of these goals xcill be made as test data and surveys are examined each year. The school staff is divided into teams to study targeted areas i.e. parent and conmunity involvement, teacher effectiveness, school climate, monitoring and assessment, student achievement, and i\\CA standards, tach school may choose different targeted areas to study according to their needs, but all schools must target student achievement. Update and training are provided by our State Department contact and school principals. o A visiting team assigned by the State Department visits the COE schools and examines the educational setting of the school, including courses of study, learning materials as xvell as student needs and interests. The team tries to assess the effectiveness of the total school plan in meeting the educational The team interviews the objectives the school has established for itself. steering coninittee members and interacts with each other in order to best val idate the proper COE actions. At the conclusion of the COE visits, written reports with positive recommen- dations and strategies for the schools to consider for implementation are sent to the principals and their respective assistant superintendent. reviews these reports with the school's staff and parent committees. cycle then repeats itself for the nexj school year: ( __ _ students, and parent surveys\nreview the discipline The principal The disaggregate test data\nanalyze the teachers, reviex* reports\nevaluate teacher and student attendance\nand then, inservice cormit- tees to begin work on any areas needing remediation. Part II - Overview My February report gave you a detailed description of the programs that were scheduled for Black History Month in each school and the names of the guestsMarch 1992 Board Report- Margaret Gremillion March 19, 1992 Page 2 who came to the classrooms. It was a busy month with so many of these excellent programs scheduled in addition to all the award assemblies and the RIF (Reading is Fun) distribution for 4th graders across the District with no expense to the schools. As of March 16, sixteen (16) of my nineteen area schools have received approval on their Academic Incentive Grants. Due to the freeze on the grant money during the first semester and the late timeline, many of the schools will use only part of their money to implement those programs that can successfully serve their students at this time of the school year. Hopefully, the remainder of the funds can be added to the 1992-93 grants. This will enable the principals to start their tutoring program as soon as school starts. This month I am reviewing the Educational Equity Monitorng Reports with the principals to discuss the strengths and areas of concern that have been identified. The principals are now turning in their MPT tests and will be getting inserviced on the new Stanford 8 materials by Sterling Ingram's staff on Friday, March 27. Part III - School Highlights Badgett Seventy-three students in grades 2-6 are in the afternoon tutoring classes from 3:05 - 5:00 p.m. Eight certified teachers are on duty. Fourteen studemts are in the Tuesday evening classes at the First Methodist Church at Eighth and Center Streets. The students are picked up at home by the volunteers and and are taught one-on-one in the class at church. Fun activities are also planned for the students, the children. This program will continue through the 6th grade for Bale A parent involvement make-and-take workshop, a hands-on science inservice, and an orientation session for mentors, mentorees, parents, and teachers are three excellent projects that have been on-going at Bale. Brady The principal is teaching a microscope study class in the intermediate grades. Chicot Eighty-six students are in the afternoon tutoring classes. Forest Park An exemplary project on display was the annual Science Fair.j'arch 1992 L.-.port-Margaret Gremillion !\n. 19, 1992 Page 3 Fulbright An International Fair and Spell' '.g Bee the last we\nprojects. of February were excellent Mabelvale All students will be attending \"Rumplestiltskin\" at the UALR Children's Theatre this month, ment trip. Many writing activities will result from this enrich- McDernott A Student Recognition Program and Grandparents Day were two of the many successful events held this nine weeks at the school. Meadowcliff Using the AP\u0026amp;L Grant contribution from the school's Partner-in-Education, the counselor is holding parent workshops (\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_132","title":"Development Guidance Handbook: A Resource and Planning Guide","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1992"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Childhood development","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Development Guidance Handbook: A Resource and Planning Guide"],"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/132"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["booklets"],"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   00 l\u0026gt;EvElopMENTAl GuKiANcE HAN\u0026lt;lbook 0000 0000 A RESOlRCE ANd PlANNiNG GuidE Arkansas Department ci Education    DEVELOPMENTAL GUIDANCE HANDBOOK: A RESOURCE AND PLANNING GUIDE PUBLISHED BY ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Burton Elliott Director General Education Division Emma Bass Associate Director Instructional Services Division Gayle Teal Coordinator Curriculum Section J.B. Robertson Specialist Guidance, Counseling \u0026amp; Career Education Marlene Bush Specialist Guidance and Counseling #4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 1987, Reprinted 1992 DEVEL0El1ENI:AL GUILWCE HAND8CXJK: A~ AND PUNNlt\nQJlI\u0026gt;e TABLE OF cnmNrS Fore\u0026gt;rd . ............................................................... . iv Acl\u0026lt;Ix::M ledgoe,ts ......................................................... . V Introot1etioo ............................................................ . Iles igrt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Plamil'lg, arld ltq\u0026gt;lE!IDIE!Tltat ioo.          ..    . .                               3 ~rel\"letlS i ve ProgratD Res()llrces ..................... c                      5 El !Dell tary Scl1cx:\u0026gt; 1 Yea.rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Middle/ Junior High Scl1cx:\u0026gt;l Years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 High Scl1cx:\u0026gt;l Years. Appendixes A. A Systems Approach to Individual Leaming and Development. .. B. Ccmrunity-Based Advisory Calmittee ............................. c. AS:A Position Statement : The School Counselor and the Qiidance and CcA.lnseling Program ... D. ASCA Positioo Statement : The School Counselor and Developmental Qiidance . E. Sources for Identifying Possible Grant or funding . F. Other Sources of Grants and Funding .... G. PlaT'II\"lir\u0026gt;g arKi Evalt1at ioo Resoo.rces  . 17 21 25 29 32 36 40 41       ----- The Standards for Accreditatioo of Arkansas Public Schools required the Arlcansas Department of Educatioo (AI) to develop statewide goals to be used by school districts as a fnllDEY:\u0026gt;rlc for district plaming. Therefore, the ADE divisioo of iliidance Services developed the K-12 ~ and Sequence iliidance Cm-ricuh.111 Qiide to provide statewide goals . aria ooJecf ives_ ~e and counseling.--n'exibility was given to local school districts for the ac~lislnent of these goals and objectives. The.following docunent, the Developmental Qiidance Handbook:~ Resource and Planning Qiide, is intended to supplement the aforementioned K-12 Scope and Sequence Chidance Curriculum iliide. It is also intended to assist counselors in developing a systematic, ~rehensive, developnental guidance progran to meet the needs of all students. Its purpose is to assist the local planning process, not to prescribe. The Devel~tal iliidance Handbook: A Resource and Plaming iliide has been prepared iri aoose-leaf notebook in order to facilitate partial revisions and updating. Your suggestions for improvement, additions to chapters or specific useful resource materials are always welcane and encouraged  iv The Department of Education Guidance Services extends its thanks to the following C001Dittee members who reviewed this docunent and suggested revisions during its develoIXJlellt: Mary l.o.l Miles Elementary School Counselor Carlisle School District Suzanne Ward K-12 School Counselor OJachita School District Jeannie York High School Counselor Kirby Sch:x\u0026gt;l District ~lph \\oA'\\iteside K-12 School Counselor DeValls Bluff Sch:x\u0026gt;l District Dave Floyd Ele11entary Education Supervisor Department of F.ducation F.arl Walton Secondary Education Supervisor Depa\"\"tr'..d'lt of Education Arlcan.sa.s Department of F.ducation, Guidance Services Thelma R. Cook iliidance Supervisor State GED ~inistrator Lynda D. Ha\\wkins Coordinator Guidance, Career Education and GED Testing Rick Griffin Secondary Guidance Specialist J.C. Smith, Olair Q.iidance and Career Education Supervisor Special thanks and recognition are extended to the following for giving their permission to use their materials: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Madison, Wisconsin American School Counselor Association Alexandria, Virginia V       The educational, personal/social, and career development needs of students in the state's public schools can be more effectively met with a kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) guidance program that systematically and ~rehensively addresses developmental stages loihlch students experience as they progress through school. The following systematic approach is based on the works of Benjamin IHooo, Erik Erikson, Robert Havighurst, Lawrence l\u0026lt;ohlberg, Abraham Maslo.1, Jean Piaget. and others (see Appendix A). It is based on the recognition that all pupils pass through specific developmental stages as they mature. Wlat happens or fails to happen to children/adolescents developmentally will toore than likely detennine lifelong attitudes toward learning and help or hinder the acquisition of skills, attairroent of career goals, and evolvement of satisfactory attitudes about self, soc iety, family and career. School guidance program.5 mJSt be structured to anticipate the personal/social, career and educational needs of pupils and ensure t hat these .~s are met. Such an approach stresses prevention of problems by provid1.ng students with age-appropriate skills and information through instruction, group interaction, and individual COl.D'lSeling. There are numerous human resources in schools and ccrmunities to draw upon. A systematic approach to guidance can help make certain that the skills of the cOLmSelor are used to opti.nun advantage\nthat the invaluable work of psychologists, nurses and social workers interfaces with the guidance program\nthat the classroan teacher's already important guidance role is strengthened\nand that parents and other camunity resource people are kept informed and urged to participate more actively in the education of children. Parents have a particularly important role to play, as their guidance of children begins before and continues after the school experience. Family assistance and encouragement are critical as children develop thoughts and ideas about career choice, learning, them.selves and others. Thus. guidance of pupils as they develop personally, socially, occupationally and educationally is the responsibility of the entire K-12 staff, parents, ccrmunity and local business and industry persorme 1. A ccmparison of traditional school guidance efforts with roore contemporary developmental guidance program.5 is shol.n below. In this cooiparison, the anphasis shifts fr001 working Ioli.th individuals to w10rking with all students, fran renediation to preventioo and fran unplanned/unstructured to systematic/accountable. Traditional Crisis Counseling Infonnation Service Career Infonnatioo Service Schedul ing/Programning Reactive Clerical /Task-Oriented Unplanned llis true tu red Maintain., Status Q-Jo Developaental Preventive Plus Crisis Counseling G.lidance Curriculun Career Planning and Development Program Management Proactive Goal-Oriented Plarmed Daily Activities Accountable Evaluates and Olanges Deeign The overriding goal of the developmental guidance plan is to provide for pupils in grades K-12 a cauprehensive, responsive school counseling program suited to their developmental needs as growing, maturing citizens. The developing stages of children and adolescents may be seen as a predictable series of progressive changes. These changes should lead forward rather than backward and there is a definite relationship between each state of develo?J)E!nt and those that precede or follow it. Those reading and using this plan should think of school counseling and guidance in the context of a program intended to assist pupils with learning readiness, school adjustment and school achievement, career development and goal setting. Such a school COl.D'lSeling program llllSt be : 1. K-12 in scope, 2. based on the develoi:xner,tal needs of pupils, 3. preventive in nature, 4. managed and coordinated so that it is an integral part of the total educational program and S. formed around a delivery system with counselors at the core and the services of others integrated into a total program. The delivery system is structured into three levels to clearly show the relationship of resource providers to canprehensiveness of programs. Level I. The school counselor is the primary program delivery resource, and the program may be limited in scope by the number of pupils to be served by the counselor(s) and other factors. U!Yel II. The counselor is the core and the cla.ssrocm teacher added in. flexibility in guidance pr~ramning, groups, and the invaluable resources of the delivery system, with the classrOOOJ This new dimensia, provides more an opportl.ality to reach students in of the teacher. U!Yel Ill. The counselor is at the core of the delivery system. The classroom dimension expands that system. In addition, the efforts of school staff, coom.mity members, parents and business/industry representatives are coordinated into a program that meets the develoi:mental needs of all students. It is ~rtant to note that the levels are CIJIIJ.llative and interdependent. As the school counseling and guidance program develops from Level I to Level III, the rn.tDber of impediments or barriers to program design, operation and management diminish sharply, and the involvement of all school staff expands proportionately. 2       ~ and lllpl.-entat:ion . Major Dew-J1,w+1tal Areas. The plan focuses on three major areas of student developnent: ~. Penonal./Social and Career/Vocational. These are the types of functional life canpetencies each person IIIJSt attain in order to learn, achieve academic success, and prepare for a satisfying and productive career. lleveLf\\w+Jt91 Student eo.petencles. Specific student canpetencies are listed \\.D'lder each major developmental area. The c~etencies represent basic skills each person should master in order to deal effectively with daily life situations. The ~tencies are listed across age and grade levels and are consistent with children's general physical and intellectual capabilities at various stages. Deli~ Systell. Counselors, parents, school staff, ccmrunity members and business/industry/labor representatives are incorporated into the guidance program delivery system. The school district guidance program manager organizes district resources to address the greatest llllDber of student needs. Resowoe Organization and ~t. Research and experience suggest that develoflDE!fltal guidance is more functional or less ft.uictional as levels of resource organization and management rise or fall. Programs in which the CCA.D1Selor is the sole resource provider may be limited. G.lidance programs which involve a variety of school staff as well as camunity/business/labor/ . industry members are able to more efficiently help students attain skills and canpetencies. (See Appendix B, Advisory c.cmnittee). The key to a successful program is organization and management of guidance providers best suited to assist students in achieving life skills and caupetencies. It is important to note that the levels of resource organization and management described in this plan are c,m1Jative. Devel.qaental COl!petencies and Me8ource ~t The folloong pages are intended to provide local district planners with a matrix which incorporates the K-12 developmental caupetencies, the levels of resource organization and management, and sample activities and strategies that could be used to teach students about the ~tencies. Level I organization relies primarily upon the CCU1Selor. Level II incorporates participation of others on the school staff. Level 111 programning depends upon the interaction of all identified resource providers. The levels are rot independent of one another, but each builds upon the activities and strategies designed for the one before it. Level III is the ID'.)St caq\u0026gt;rehensive delivery approach, as it incorporates the resources of Leve ls I and I I. 3 ~-12 Developaental Coapetencies Developmental guidance is based on the premise that, as all children mature, they pass through various developmental stages vital to their growth. During these stages, specific kinds of learning and developaent must occur to ensure optimal progress. A developmentally based delivery structure spans the K-12 years and matches student competencies that must be mastered with the delivery systems most appropriate for age - or grade-level groups. Elementary school children respond well to situations in which they Lean About and become aware ot new things and ideas. They also need opportunities to explore what they are learning and to try out new things. Midjle/junior high school-aged students are ready for Understanding and experiaentation as they continue to absorb new facts and ideas. High school students need to Apply what they have previously learned and to constantly move toward increased understanding and \u0026amp;dditional knowledge. Developaeotal Student Coapetencies Elementary School Middle/ Junior High School High School Learning About Understanding Applying Learning About Understanding Applying Learning About Understanding Applying 4 ~-12 Leaning Coapetencies ~-12 Personal and Social Coapetencies ~-12 Career and Vocational Coapetencies       CXIHBHl!NSIVB PIIDIAH mDID'S School c~elors help all pupils by establishing individual, graJJ\u0026gt; and classroom contacts with them, collaborating with teachers, and coordinating with other school or connunity guidance r~sources. The clinic.al skills and knowledge base of the counselor are l1I08t effectively used if effort is directed in an organized way toward making the school, the teachers and the curriculum sensitive to those aspects of personal develoi\nment most associated with life success. Counselors serving different school populations function differently, due primarily to variations in the developmental stages of students and in school organization. \\ohatever the setting , however, COU'\\Seling and guidance are functions integral to the school that are maximized i.ihen counselors collaborate with others. Develofm!1tal guidance programs as organized in the Developoontal Q.iidance Handbook provide a three-level approach. At Level I, the focus is on the cOtD1Selor(s) and \"'1.at can be a~lished with that limited delivery resoorce. Level II builds upa1 the unique skills of the school crunselor in conjunction and collaboration with the other staff in the school. Level Ill uses the school program and also parental and cCIJID..U1ity involvement and input to organize the DX)St effective and efficient guidance program. Other individuals in addition to the school counselor play an i.qx\u0026gt;rtant part in the guidance of children and adolescents. Each level of guidance progra111Ding in the DeveloJXDE!!1tal Q.iidance Handbook formally involves these other individuals to varying degrees, sanetimes as resoorces and sanetimes as primary deliverers. CA1 the following pages, involvement levels have been delineated for school boards, superintendents, principals, guidance directors, classroan teachers, vocational education coordinators, vocational education teachers, special education teachers, pupil services staff, ccmrunity business and irrl.lstry representat i ve.s , and parents. As the comprehensiveness of programning increases, so irust the involvement of others. This involvement nust be coordinated, or the systematic approach to develoJXDE!!1tal guidance will be lost. Level I involvement of others is primarily supportive. Level II programning utilizes the abilities of others on the school staff and coordinates their participation in guidance activities. At Level Ill, the counselor and the other hLman resources of the school and COITlll..lllity are used as the delivery system. Level Ill programning depends on the collaborative efforts of many to provide a canprehens i ve guidance program for all pupils. 1. SQOJL BQ\\RD MD1BER A. Supportive--Recogni zes the state standard ...tiich requires that cx:,unseling be available to all K-12 students  B. Particip.\ntive- -Provides ad~ uate financial support for the program in such areas as personnel , staff development, cleric.al support and materials . 5 c. lnterdependent--Supports policies for delivering the guidance program as an integral part of the total educational process so that all of students' development needs are met. 2. DISTRICT AIMINISTRATOR A. Supportive--Understands the guidance needs of school populations. Establishes and reviews counselor job descriptions in the cootext of developmental guidance. 8. Participative--Works with the school board, faculty, acininistrative staff and coom.mity to secure support for develo}Defltal guidance. Insures that the guidance staff is represented on the district acininistrative council. C. lnterdependent--Views all s..::hool personnel as having a part to play in an articulated developmental guid~nce p~re:D. Provides leadership for an active, ongoing guidance program. Requires accountability and evaluation of the progress toward goals, objectives and develoi:mental student outccxnes. 3. BUIIDOC PRINCIPAL A. Supportive--Establishes a positive climate for implementing the guidance program. Recruits qualified personnel and provides them with the necessary facilities, time, equipment and clerical staff. Assists  with a public relations program that will eq\u0026gt;hasize guidance as an  integral part of the total school program. B. Participative--Works closely with the guidance staff to plan, ~lement and evaluate the guidance program. Uses the guidance staff to plan in-service, evaluatioo or assessment of guidance program. Encourages parents, COIIIII.Jl1ity members, and bJ.siness and industry representatives to participate in the education system. Assures that the guidance program staff is relieved of excessive clerical and non-developmental guidance duties. C. Interdependent--Encourages staft members to upgrade skills and knowledge for implementing guidance programning. F.ncouraging counselors to assume managerial role to facilitate the establisl\"IDent of a developmental guidance program. Monitors program effectiveness for the goals, objectives and developmental student ootcomes identified in the guidance program. 4. DIRECTOR OF CURRICUUM A. Supportive--Infuses develofXl)eOtal guidance awareness through curriculun. Assists to identify curricular resources for the guidance program. B. Participative--Coordinates the guidance program with other district  curricuhns. C. Interdependent--\\.,lorks with guidance staff to plan, implement and evaluate the comprehensive developmental guidance program. 6    S. DIRFL\"'llE OF GUICWCE A. Supportive--Provides the district \u0026amp;:binistrator and school board with informatioo oo funding, personnel, program and evaluation needs. Praootes professional growth of all guidance personnel. 8. Participative--Establishes a systematic approach to making guidance available K-12. Seeks and maintains cooperative working relationships with all personnel whose roles and responsibilities affect the development and implementation of the guid....'1Ce program. Provides leadership for development of the appropriate guidance program ~lementation plans. Coordinates regular, planned meetings \\iihere counselors share information, consult on specific problems, and develop and refine systemwide programs. C. Interdependent--Works with administration and supervisory staff to plan and develop the K-12 guidance curriculLID. Assigns staff and coordinates all curricular guidance activities. Coordinates the guidance program and the resQlU\"ces provided by teachers, parents and others. Pranotes a cauprehensive, pupil services ioodel delivery system. 6. PSYQl.}L(X\nISI, SOCIAL \\.ORKER, SQO)L NUR.5E A. Supportive--Coordinate referrals to other guidance service persormel. Camunicate regularly oo district pupil service programs. 8. Participative--Work with the guidance staff to provide infonnation to school/ccmDJnity about \"at-risk\" students and assist with programning designed to reduce those risks. Utilize a cauprehensive pupil services team approach to coordinating programs and services for students in crisis. C. Interdependent--Are involved in planning. implementing and evaluating the guidance program so that all students receive systematic guidance based on learning, personal/social and career/vocational needs. 7. voc.ATIOOAL IDX:ATIOO TFMl-lERS A. Supportive--Assist vocational education students to achieve specific vocational ~etencies which wi 11 enable them to gain entry into an occupational or post-secondary setting. 8. Participative--Work cooperatively with counselors to provide ~loyment counseling, placement and follow-up services for students enrolled in vocational courses and cooperative programs. C. Interdependent--Work with counselors and entire staff to ensure that all students receive instruction or information on occupations, ~loyability skills, current job market and intervi\u0026amp;'i.ng techniques. Participate in the various activities of planning, i~lementing and evaluating the guidance progam . 7 8. TF.AOIERS A. Supportive--Refer studmts to counselor for assistance. Create positive, interactive relationships with students and provide a primary. basis for intellectual, social and emotional growth. B. C. Participative--Request assistance frcn counselor to plan and implement guidance activities in academic and vocational curriculun. Participate in guidance programning, i.e., as co-facilitators of groups, in advisor/ advisee progr~, as primary instructors in sane areas and support students in crisis. Interdependent--~ize the value of developmental guidance. Use subject areas to assist students in developing personal/social, career and learning ~tencies. Work as team members to plan and implement guidance activities essential to the overall development of students. 9. BUSI.NESS AND 1NIU5TRY REPRESmrATIVE.5 A. Supportive--Provide speakers, field trip opportunities and school daI01Strations to increase student knowledge of the work world in their ccmrunity. B. Participative--Provide information and opportunities for students to participate in co-op programs, job-shadowing, and work experience. Encourage and participate in student organizations. C. lnterdependent--Provide up-to-date labor market information, co-op and  apprenticeship sites, and mentorships for all students. 10. PARENTS A. Supportive--Provide support for children through participation in parent conferences, school activities and volunteerism. Work with teachers and counselors to support their children's learning, personal/social, arxi career/vocational growth. B. Participative--Partici.pate in school curricular, extracurricular and guidance activities serving their children. Praoote guidance as an ~rtant part of education. C. Interdependent--Participate on the guidance catlllittee that will facilitate i~lementation of the guidance program. Serve as mentors and models for classes. 11. cntfJNIT'i SERVICES AGF.R:IE:5. A. Supportive--Establish camunication and referral channels. B. Participative--Provide information oo services available to students and families. C. InterdepE:ndent--Participate in planning and implementatioo of a guidance program that includes services and activities provided by the c001JU11ity agencies. 8     KIJNINfMY sam. 1IAIS Children in elementary school have already begun to acquire learning, personal/social and career/vocaticnal conipetencies. The following plan describes specific, fundamental coq\u0026gt;etencies that should be addressed through the framework of a developmental guidance program. The goal is to take a preventive, instructional approach by planning the guidance program around the coq\u0026gt;etencies elementary school-aged children nust acquire and to ensure that program services will be delivered to all elementary students. The strategies and activities listed are suggested ways to address the coq\u0026gt;etencies. The exact programing fornaat and delivery responsibility IIJ.lSt be detemined by each district as it goes through the ~lementatioo process and procedures. As the level of resources increases, the strategies and techniques become oore caq,rehensive. The mphA.sis oo prevention and utilization of available resources makes it a oost-effective approach  9 Eleaeotary School Learoiog Coapetenciea lll!llt and 1'\\at is expected of sru:lents. U1derstam strengths, abi litie. s am how to learn 11DSt effectively. lhierstam relationships alDlg ability, effort and the quality of schoo 1 achieYBIBlt. rstam how to assess learning needs am 'Wh?re to seek help. Uooers tam the process of sett  ueaningful schoo 1 achievellB1 t goals . Level of l.eaoarce and llanageaeot Counselors Be available for inch - vidual CCU1Seling. Provide service to teactr ers cmceming speci fie children. Consult with PlJltidisciplinary Teans oo specific edocat ion needs of s tuden ts. \\obrk in:livicrually with child on how best to Counselors  School Staff I)) grrup 'WDrlc vi th a 11 children to provide orientatioo to scoool. Assist staff to ~iz.e learning how to learn. Calduct stuient asse.sslll! llts of incf i vidua 1 learning styles am share results vi th students . Identify children \"at Aiisist vi.th coordination risk\" and respcn:I to their of activities that exhibit needs. relaticn,hips betlieell effort am product. \\obrk vi th in:! i vidua ls I)) t.eall,IOric that pro-who need assistance in vides children vi tn se lf-eva luat ioo . asse.s91Blt opportuu ties ~ certain all children 50 they bec\u0026lt;ae ccmfort- 1.Diers tan:! who is avai 1- ab le vi th the process . able to help . \\obrk vith stu:ients who dem:nstrate a lack of interest in scmol. Level I Teach the process of goal setting in curricular and ertracurricular activites. Level 11 10  Sct,ool Staff  Parents  . C~lty  Business/Industry  l'teet vi.th parents of all kindergarteners. Explain guidance programs to studellts and parents. Provide staff in-service in learning styles and identification of sai:e. Establish parent/comunity voh.nteer tutoring progrc1115. Secure staff agreerent oo S\u0026lt;J1E cause and effect rules for the sch:x:\u0026gt; 1. Get rosiness / ~try Ul?lt on mtivatioo techniques and the value of work. Train staff to clearly explain tests, rep::irt cards, achievene,t IIE.asures and interest inventories to children and parents . Assist in developing p grims illustrating the need to set goals\nassist parents to help children set and achieve goals . Level 111    Eleaeotary School Personal/Social Cc:.petcncies Exhibit conflictresolution ski-lls . th adults and peers. Exhibit respect for individual freedcms and ri~ts of self and others . lhiers tam the COll56JUeflCe5 of actions for self and others. lhiers tam the influence that Jitysical, emtional an:i intellectua 1 behaviors have on ooe another. Be aware of own em,t ion.a 1, Jitysica 1 and intellectual deYe 10p1Hlt . Levels of Resource Organization and Naoageaent Counselors W:\u0026gt;rk vi th s ti.den ts who are \\nable to resolYe conflicts in an acceptable 1MJ111er. ~l individually vi.th s tuicn ts who infringe on r~ts of others. W:\u0026gt;rk with eroups of individual 5 who appear ln:fWare of the ca\\Slequences of their actions. W:\u0026gt;rk individua 1ly vith stuients who 00 not ll'lderstar.:! tOJ Jitysical and enotional oody fu1c t ion.s are interrelated . W:\u0026gt;rk vi th children tnaware of tlx?ir own deYe lopieit . Assist teachers vi th students who are deYe lop-Ent. ally immture. Level I Counselors  School Staff W:\u0026gt;rk vi th stuicnts to minimize conflicts. W:\u0026gt;rk vi.th groups of students to foster an appreciAtion for ri~ts and freedan of others.  School Staff  Parents   Coaaun1ty  Business/Industry c:arry rut staff devel0p- 11E1t on positive conflict re.solution methods as opposed to p.nishrents. lb staff develo1J151t to ensure that individual freedcrrs and ri~ts are exanincd th~ the curriculun. Assist in activitcs lJ1 the PrCJTOte classrCXJTI visits classroan that illustrate by police or Judges. the in1)0rtance of taking re5JXX1Sibility. Crndoct activities which allow sti.dents to share camon concerns regarding Jitysica 1 and mvtiona 1 deYe lop!Cn t. lb grotq:\u0026gt; work vi th stuicnts who evidence camon devel\u0026lt;J111e1tal difficulties. Organize day vith senior citizens. W:\u0026gt;rk vi.th staff to erilance tn:lerstanding of how all aspects of chi 1- dren' s developrent i.apact on le.a ming. Fonn grrups to assist parents in tn:lerstanding children's developrental processes. Teach curricular mi.ts on Sensitize staff to re-- specific deYelop!Elltal spect stwcnts' individ-areas. unl rates of growth tiona}, chysical and l.fltel edual. Level II Level 111 11 Eleaentary School Personal/Social Coapetencies (continued) Learn to cmrlllnicate with peers .n1 adults in varirus ha!E, sch?o 1 and cannm ty settings . CDnse 1 vi th children who are having difficulty expressing thBmelve:s. [evelop a posi- \\t\u0026gt;rk with stu:ients who ti ve se 1f and so- are oot adjusting we 11 to cial self-coocept. scrool. lhlers tarn the concept of engoing change in sdX\u0026gt;OOl, hcnE and camuri ty lives. lhlerstand .n1 respect differences am:ing people's cultures, lifestyles, attituies and abilities. Ass i.s t teachers .n1 parents vi th these stu:ients . Co.nse 1 ind i vidua 1 chi 1- dren who are having difficulty in new situations. Provide i..\"'ld i vidua 1 co.nse ling to solve specific relationship conflicts. Level I ~iz.e camuucation in the classroan by stnrturing time for talking .n1 sharing. Coordinate program5 that msure positive scooo 1 experiences for a 11 stu:ients . Cadtrt grrup work to explore dwl8(! an:i oow it relates to the ind i vidua 1. D:\u0026gt; group work .n1 tean teaching to ll'Ddel good interpersonal relaticnships. lt:Jde 1 good interpersooa l relationships schoolvide. Level II l 2 Coordinate activities in schoo 1 and rut that encru.rage camuricatioo bet\\oleel1 children and those they need to be able to talk to. 1.brk to help parents and teachers U'Xlers~ the i.n\u0026gt;rtance of a positive se If-concept and how to foster it in all children. Recognize the rapid changes in technology and give stulerlts opportl. ni ties to see new IIBChines. Coordinate activites that =age broadening range of acquaintances. Provide staff and camunity with opportl.llities to learn about varirus cultures represented in the school PCOJlation. Level Ill       Eleaeotary School Career/Vocational Coapetenciea Levels of Resource Organization ~ and l'laoageaeot --------~elors School Staff  Parents Counselors + Coapeteocies + Coaaunity ---- Counselors School Staff + ------ Business/Industry Acquire know 1- edge about different occupa-t icns and changing uele/femle roles. BecCJIE aware of personal in-terests and preferences. I.earn oow to cooperate .-id coexist with others in wrk and play. Lhierstand \\lhat it OEa1S to wrk and hOW' school wrk re lat.es to future plans. la::areaware of '-Urlds beyood the imlai ia te experience. Provide occupa t iooa 1 Provide i.n formation Qx:mhnate efforts to infometion to be used by ~ the aedi.a center, have a variety of all teachers as a cooperative and field people speak to classroan re.!nlrce. trips. classes about their \\i,rk vith stuierits ~ have vocational or\nr,\nocatiooal interests aoo discuss oow they 11BY purSlE them. Provide i.n:ii vidua 1 ~ seli.ng to help stuierits solve specific relationship con.fl ic ts . Te.an teach a tni t on careers and the wrld of wrk. Ck\u0026gt; group wrk to enable stuients to becall! aware of their vocational interests and lifestyle preferences. Form a CCU1.Selor and teacher teaD for ac ti vi - ties that vi 11 encourage cooperation. Develop career awareness curr iculun or Jfu lo.soi\ntiy that provides for oogoi.ng career edocat ioo in the classroan. .A:\u0026gt;rk vith iniividual  Te.ach activities to s tuien ts to develop self- edlance 5raI'eJle.5S of self awareness. Level I in relation to the rest of the wrld. Level II 13 ~tions. Coordinate ccma.nity efforts that allow sttr dents to purStE their vocational interests outside of scoool. Carry out staff develc,ir IIEfl t to p['l'.Jll)t.e cooperat im as a scoool Jfulo. soi\ntiy. Encoura,o\ne !'C' lat ions hips ~ labor and ioous try and school concerning curricuh.rn that realist ica 11 y nEe ts the needs of the i.n:ii vidua 1 and society . Provide staff in-service to illustrate the need to be aware of se 1f in order to re late we 11 with others . Level III Kiddle/Junior Bigb School Years Students in middle/junior high school have unique developmental needs. This time of life brings much of the physical, emotional and cognitive growth and change that human beings go through . To assist students with this growth process, the following charts address age-specific competencies, and the strategies and techniques are suggested ways to address these competencies. Exact programming format and delivery responsibilities must be determined by each district staff as it goes through the implementation process and procedures. Please note that as the levels of resources increase, strategies and techniques become more comprehensive. Kiddle/Junior High School Learniag Coapeteocies Develop internal acadmri.c IIDtivatioo . Develop good sttdy skills. l)?velop a sense of the future and how to IIDVe toward it. lb:iers taro strengths and abilities and how to learn DDSt effectively F.xhibit problem-so 1 ving skills. Cotrue 1 inh vidua 1 srudeflts who laclc academic 11Dtivatioo. Rt\u0026gt;rk with gr-oops of stu:ients who h:lve poor sttdy skills . D:\u0026gt; inh vidua 1 ~rk with stu:ien.s who lack tn:ler-s taro ing of oow actions af f~t cxn,equences. Participate oo l'tlltidisciplinary Teaii\n. A.5s is t individuals to approach probl8DS in a logi ca 1 l!B\"ller . Level I Discuss with stuien ts lll1d parents 111\u0026gt;tivatioo lll1d how it rel.ates to academi C per fol\"llllllCe . ~lliJi! staff to ex.!llt'\" ine assigrne,ts lll1d requin!lll!flts and to promote basic sttdy skills. Pramte participatioo in future problm 90lving. Inform parents abrut learning styles and tutoring strategies . ~lliJi! utili.z.atioo of prob lSIHIO 1 ving skills in the classrocm. Level II 14 Develop i.ncen ti ve partnershi p.s with local rusiness/ in:iustry to prmote academic perfornence. Rt\u0026gt;rk with parents to e,able them to assist their children with stu:iy ski l ls and ~ rk . c.arry rut staff develop- 11e1t on in\u0026gt;rt.ance of stwents obtaining a future/goal orientatioo. D:\u0026gt; staff deve lorent oo learning styles and adapting te.ach.ing strategies to lll!Jet the needs of stuients. Provide infornetioo for pa.rents and others oo the ilqx\u0026gt;rtance of problemsolving skills. Level III    Kiddle/Junior High School Personal/Social Collpetencies  . . ~ 1. .. .is of lesource Or~ , and llanageaent School Staff  ~ Counselors Puent,  Coapetencies  C-mity --------- Counselors School Staff  Business/Industry lh:ie rs t.aixl CAnse l inii vidua l s tu- D:\u0026gt; g'\"OJP w::\u0026gt; rk to di.scu.,s Assist staff to plan !XJYSical, EmJ-- dents \\n:lble to cope vith the rapid changes s tu- humn grCMh and develop-tional, and the i r rapidly changing dents a.re exper ieocir'b . Delt Classes. inte llectua 1 bodies and/or 01Dtions. Assist parents vith growth and devel-growth and deve lop!Hlt ~t. issues. te.,e lop self and Ca.n9e 1 stuient.s who haYe W:Jric vi th grrups to ex- W:Jric to help parents and social self- a negative se lf-coocept . plore iniivirual differ- teachers tn:lers taro the cx:n::ept. ence.s and gain an accep-- ~rtance of a i:ositive ta'lCe of them. se l f-coocept and row to Teadl stuients self-foster it in all children as ses91Bl t and se lf-  referral technicrues . Urrlers tan:! and D:\u0026gt; group canse ling to Provide CUIT icu lar and Assist staff in develqr develop peer solve specific relatiexr extracurricular ac:tiv- ing curricular offerings relation.ships. ship cmflicts. ities \\Auch encourage which deal vi th inter-heterogeneow and tom:,g-enea.. i.s re lat ion.ships. persooal relationships. Exhibit i:ositive W:Jric vi th s tuien ts who Assist teachers an! par- Carry out staff develop-attitu: ie toward exhibit a negat ive atti- ents at~ting to relate l!Blt oo creating a i:osi-scmol, fairi.ly tu:1e toward scmo 1. to s tuients vi th a nega- tive scmol clillBte. and self. tive attituie. learn to w.nse 1 in1 i vidua l O::nh: t group sessions Assist staff to a:odel ccma.ni ca te stuients having di ff icu 1 ty oo flmri.ly camanicatioo good ccnmnicatioo vi th parents . re la ting to their parents . and relations. skills. Provide inf onmt ioo oo ccnmni ty resrurces for faai 1 y couise l in.R . learn to cope CAnse l inii virua l D:\u0026gt; group w::\u0026gt;ric oo stress Plan staff develoient IWi th life I S pres- stuients lI'\\Bble to cope redoctioo ard/or coping oo stress reductioo and sures, defeats vith stress. slcil L'l. ~ing excess stress and soccesses. i, s ta.lents. learn to deal Colnse 1 in1 i vidua 1 s tu- D:\u0026gt; group w::\u0026gt;ric to exp lore Provide infonmt ioo oo vi th oogoing den ts having di ff icu 1 ty row the manging ,..,rld changes in the w::\u0026gt;ric changes in per- i..n::lerst.and ing row and vill ~t oo stuients. w::\u0026gt;rld and row to be scna 1 and aca- why the w::\u0026gt;r ld is changing. prepared for them.  dsaic life . Level 1 Level II Level III l 5 Kiddle/Junior Bigb School Career/Vocational Coepetencies Ulderstand dee is ioo-,mking skills. 1.arn to cope vith transition in school, halE cn:1 camurity lives. Becare i.' lfo med about alternative edocat iona 1 an:! vocational choices an:! prep-aration for them. 'Relate persooal interests to broad occupa-tional areas. lh:lerstand aro use camurication skills. 1.arn humn cooflict mnage- IIBlt vi th adu 1 ts aoo peers. learn that sex role sterecr typing, bi.as, or discrimination limit choices , ~mnities ochievme1t. \\i:\u0026gt;rlc vi th stu:ients ~ exhibit an inability to IIBke decisions. ..,ld orientations to fa-mi 1 iarize s tu:ients vi th the expectations of the new envircnEnt . Comsel stu:ients having di f ficu ~ ty a:! just i.ng to new envi n:nieits . Provide ~ti ona 1 and edoca tiona 1 inforneticri to a 11 te.achers . Ehsure that s tu:ients liderstand the ~t of ~se choices. .ldninister interest in- 'A:!ltories to stu:ients to acquaint then vi th their interests. \\i:\u0026gt;rlc ... i th s tu:ien ts hav-i. ng difficulty ccmn.ni - cat i.ng vi th peers or adults. \\i:\u0026gt;rlc vi th s tu:ien ts 1'tlo are l.llab le to re.solve ccnflicts in an accept-able l!B\"ller. Ca.nse 1 vi th s tu:ient s 1'tlo are having difficulty imla.ng choices. Level I Carey rut dee is iOl'Hl8king an:! problem-solving ac-t ivities for grmos .r.oo classes . Have class roan dLSC\\JS-sions cri e:\u0026lt;pectat ions in new envirameits am how to respond appropri - ately. C.OOrdinate efforts to have guest speakers cri varirus ~tional areas. Provide d 1scu.ss ions for s tu:ien ts cri how interests are related to occupa-tional choices. Teach camu1icaticri skills. Provide interpersooal camuricaticri worlcstlp5. ~ grn4) worlc vi th stu-dents to better lider-staxl differences in in-di vidua 1 respmse.s to conflict. Inform stu:ients and par-ents about the career op-portuuties open to both sexes. Level 11 16 Provide staff develOl]IB1t cri how dee is ion naking can be incorporated into a 11 curricular areas . \\i:\u0026gt;rk vi th teachers, par-ents, an:! others to assist students in tran-siticri periods. C.OOrdinate camini ty re-sources to IIBke a 11 s tu-dents lll)re fully aware of voca t iona 1 coo ices aro the edocation required for them. Carry rut staff develop-rrent activities on inter-ests, OC::upf!tiooal ~I~~ ca~eer Provide staff develov- IIBlt \u0026lt;rl requiring good ccmn.nicaticri skills in all subject-area classes. ~ staff deve l01]1B1t on positive conflict resolu-t ion 112tln:Ls . Prarvte a career day fe.aturi.ng pare,ts aro camu1i ty IIBibers woo worlc in tra:litional aro naitra:litional careers . Level Ill       High School Years High school is the gateway to further education for some students and the last formal educational experience that others will have. The following competencies take into account the important choices that students must make during their high schocl years and lists the skills they will need as they mature educationally, personally and vocati onall y . The strategies and techniques described in the charts are suggested ways of helping students acquire the competencies. Programming format and delivery responsibilities must be determined by each school district staff as 1t goes through the implementation process and procedures. Once again, as the level of invested resources increases, strategies and techniques become more comprehensive. High School Learning Coapetencies . ------ ~e lors Levels of Resource Org + and Kanageaeot School Staff  Parents Coapeteocies Counselors + + C-Unity ------------ Schoo 1 Sta ff + Counselors Business/Industry lhlerstand learning abi li - ties am oow best to apply them. BecCIIE infor.!Bl alnlt self ~ assess-l! Blt techniques . Learn to set reali.stic goals am ~lop strategies to reach them. lh:ierstand the sdro 1 curri culun am the ~ pact CO-ll'se selection wi 11 have on future plans. lhders tand the school errvi roollEl1t am what 1s expected. WJrk \"\"1th l'\\Jltidisci-p Ii.nary Tean for s tu:ients experiencing learning difficulties. Schedule iro i vidua 1 coo-fererces to discuss re-sults of standardized tests . WJrk with s tu:ients irn i - vidually to help them set short - am loog-tem goals. l'ee t with irn i vidua 1 stuients to discuss future p 1ans . Colnse 1 iroi vidua 1 s tuden ts mable to coofonn to the scoool l!Blt am/or f\u0026gt;XPeC tat ions . errviron- Level I Gi ~ am exp lain to Stu-dents iroividual learn-ing style i.r'M!ntories. D:J gro.ip 1o1::\u0026gt;rk oo tnder-staroing what tests as-sess , oow to take them ani haw to learn f ran the results . lbld gro.ip discussion.s oo goa 1 setting ani strategies to help stu-dents reach goals. l'eet with group.s of stu:lents to discuss the need for choosing classes care fu 11 y. Tean teach to discuss the schoo 1 errvi rcn!'fflt am its expec tat ioos with all stu:ients. Level II 1 7 D:J staff deve lCJ?IBI t oo learning sty 1 es am adapting teaching strategies to aeet needs of stlrlents. Assist staff to gain a better tnders tand ing of stan:iardized tests am the i.n3c t they have oo stu:lents. Provide staff developll'E'flt to stress need for students to set goals am nethods Of helping them do so. Assist staff as they develop am articulate curricu 1 t.m across the district. Utilize rosiness/industry nert:ers to speak oo the re la-t 1 on.sh1 p of school am 1o1::\u0026gt;rk. Level Ill High School Persoaal/Social Coapetencie  Levels of Resource Organisation ~ and llaaageaent Counselors ------------- School:Staff ------------- Parents Counselors Coapeteocies + + COlaUDi ty --------- School Staff + Counselors Busioess/lodustrv ~rstaoo IEY5ica l , aiotiona 1 and inte llectua l growth cnl deYE! l op!Bl t. Learn to cope with change al:! plai for the future. CGulse 1 in:l i vidua 1 s tudents having difficulty coping with deve lop!Blt. Teach an:i teao teach groi,th an:i deve)opn?Ilt cnl to, they are inter-re lated. Cou,sel in:lividual stu- C\u0026lt;n:hrt ~ work to dents tnable to cope with discuss the chariging cha1ge. world am to, it i.q\u0026gt;ac ts on stuients . Assist staff in developing curriculun which addresses all areas of deve lop!Blt. Ck\u0026gt; stat f deve lopta1t oo the ~t of change oo Stooeflts. I I.earn ht.man Orient new stuients al:!/ or frestmen. \\i:\u0026gt;rk with in:li vidua 1 D:\u0026gt; ~ work to discuss in:liviooal differeoces Get input f rem t:us iness / industry oo techno logica 1 change am the future. ,. Ck\u0026gt; staff deve lopren t oo coo.flic t re.so lu- stuients tnab le to rein: lividual differences tioo skills with solve cooflicts in a adults and peers. positive mmer. and to minimize coof1 icts. Understand and ~reciate one's CMl capabilities and those of others. Provide opporturi ties for Ck\u0026gt; ~ work oo \\Dier-interact ioo with in:l i - starxi ing one 's own capavidua ls of varying abil- bi lit ies al:! to, best to thierstaoo perscnal re latiooships and to, to establish an iniepement identity. To..!\ne responsi - bility for persmal decisioo.s . ity. Cou1.se 1 in:l i vidua 1 students experiencing di f fi - cu 1 ty developing per-sen. al relatiooships. Cou1.sel with stuients \\IOO are wi 11 ing to take respons i bi li ty for actiCX\\5. Level I u.,e them. lbld 91811\n..-roup disCU5sions oo relaticnships, the need to ~ independence and construe ti, -e lll!a'lS of doing so. \\i:\u0026gt;rk vi th peer grwps to prcm,te a.iarene.ss of impact of decisioo.s aoout issues such as drin!ung and drivi.r1_g i!l1d others. Level II 18 and dea 1 ing with them in the c lassrCXIIl. Invo lye school/ ccrmuni ty with Special Olympics or other similar activities. Ck\u0026gt; staff developrent oo \\n:ierstaooing snreits' needs for inieperdence and good personal relaticnships. Secure camuu ty / schoo 1 collaboration to publi-c i:ze ~rtance of neking infonred dee is ions aoout coot.eqiorary issues. Level Ill   Bigb School Career/Vocational eo.petencies Levels of Resource Organization ~ and Nanageaent ~-~------- -------- School: Staff ----------- -------- Parents Coapetencies Counselors + . + C~ity ------- Counselors School Staff + Business/Industry lhiers tam Colnse l in:1 i vidua 1 s tuani develop deci- dents experiencing dif- Team teach tni t m deci - sim uaking an:l career choice. Assist staff in iocorJXr rating dee is iorH!aking skills into their curriculuns. sirn-1!Blcing ficulty lIBking decisioos. skills. U'lderstam the world of work an:l its expectations for enploy11e1t. Becme inf orne:1 aoout ~ timal/work alternatives. th:iers tam cm t inn.ls changes of mle/ feDBle roles an:l how this relates to career choice. !Eve lop the interpersona 1 skills necessary for ha.maly in the worknlace. BecaIE in-fo rne:1 about upto- date ~loyllBlt opportunities during and after high sdr:x\u0026gt;l. Provide 11Bterials m occupa tion.s and postsecoodary inst i tut ioos . Tuan with tusiness/~ try experts to te.ach tnits m ~loyue1t expectations. Assist staff to iocorJXr rate world-of~rk expectations soch as p.nctuality, respollSibi!ity, arrl ac=tability into the cl\nissroan. \\.brk with in:iividual stu- lt:lld group discussions of Provide staff deve lorr-dents m post.seccn:lary educatimal arrl work al- l'IBlt m postsecco:1ary ed-educational an:l worx al- tematives after high LCatimal an:l work al-ternatives. schxll. tematives. \\.brk vith individual s tu:len ts experiencing difficulty with the dlalging roles of IIB1 and \\QIEl'l. Gotnsel with stulents displaying a lack of i.nterpersona l skills . l'llke ~lO'fl!Blt opport\\ ni ties arrl career p lnri.ng 11B teria ls avai 1- ah le for stuient use. Level I lt:l ld group discuss ims m how the changing roles of mles and females msy affect career opporttnities. r:o group work or tean teaching to discuss how interperscnal skills are required for hanrooy in the workplace . Ccl'dr t grc,..ip5 to exp lore var irus ~ loyue1t an:l career opport\\ni ties . Te.an teach tni ts oo ~ loyue1t opport\\ni ties. Level II 19 ~age parent invo 1 vellBl t as s tu:len ts exp lore educa t iooa l arrl \\,Q rk alternatives. Assist staff to gain understaming of ha,, societal attitu:ie.s ~t on rrele/femle role develoirl'IBlt. r:o staff deve loren t on how interpersroal skills are essential for all s tu:len ts as they enter the \\,Qrld of work. C.OOrd ina te camuni ty resrurces to give stuients opport\\nities to learn of ru:ierrus and varied careers. Provide 11B1torships for s tu:lents in areas they wish to explore. Level Ill High School Career/Vocation.al Collpetenciea (continued) eo.peteocies Levels of Resource llaoageaeot and llaoageaent Counselors  School Staff Form tentative Provide current aateri.als r:o group work oo goal career gmls am for career awareness an1 setting and stratpg:ies strategies to exploratioo. for reaching goals. reach then. lh:lerst.an:l lifestyle prefe ences am re late thsn to occupational interests. \\i:\u0026gt;rk with im i vidua 1 studen ts to discuss ~ tional interests. Level I Provide opportmities to discuss lifestyles am various occupat icna l interes ts with ccmn..ni ty lll!dlers . Level II 20  School Staff  Parents  C-JDity  Busioess/Iodust Assist staff to develop CUITiculllll that will help sttdents set career  goals am strategies to reach then. Assist staff to incorprate infornetion on varirus lifestyles am occupational interests into the c:urr icu lllll. Level III    Appendix I\\ A Syate Approach to Individual Learning and ' Developaent by Oenn is Van Oen lteuve 1 The pupil competencies in the preceding developmental plan are based upon the work of a number of developmental theorists. Appendix A presents a compilation from developmental theories of age-appropriate capabilities, skills, and behavior and the guidance need9 of cl1ildren and adolescents at the various developmental 3tages. r.-rging Physical Expected Age/Grade and Paychological Nicro-Syate llacro-Syatea Identifying Develoi-ntal Functional Sir.ilia General Guidance Level Capabi lilies Integration Integration Behaviors Correlates Repertoire Weeda ~ 1-4 -Sensory lll)tOr skills -lbfy awareness ~ -\u0026lt;llserving -Preaocial -IIMic p:,ysical lll)tor -Recognition of wic years differentiation skills security and support -Ba, ic recall/oerory -Se If-awareness I. Family -Testing p:,ysical -Iq,Jbive -Sensory knew ledge from primory and Prescrool -language -Security 2. Sibling, -Imitating ( l.oevi.nger) processing secoroarynw::ro-acquisition/ usage -Imitation and ~ -0,eying/ -SeMori.notor  la!J! -Self-control-systans ~ical motor skills nodeling styles conforming (Piaget) j:ilysical and social -Stinulatioo of -t1snaging bod i l y I. Child care micro-~st.8T!9 - lrlllgi.na t ion/ nnctioos adult -ttxleling -Psychological -~ling/ thrrug, inc identa 1 S)\u0026lt;IOO I ic inagery 2. Chi Id care survival usage am s true lured -Sin1\u0026gt; le cause- 111lt.eB -leorizing orientation, learning situations -\"Pre!tent\" time effa:tive ). Qilture p:,ysical -0.Jltural absorpti.\u0026gt;n provided thrrug, orientatioo relationships 4, Family and -labeling satisfaction necro-systans camulity (!'eslow) -Sense of obedience religirus -Immdiate and c~e of -Ba,ic and consist\"'1t lll)ral gratification -~sical rrorality behavior set of personal, orientation (Kohlberg) 90Cial, rultural, -AckncwledlJlell of am rroral paraieters -ICJnintegrated sources of established thrrus\n, 1cncwledge (Bloon) gratificatioo the nw::ro-syst..,.,, -Synt,olic play -Basic sense of fair -Reinforcerrent for (H!Jit) play inte \\lectua I and -Ol!:ni t ion 90Cial achievenEnts (OJi I ford) 21 Eaerging Physical Age/Grade 11!.1:pected and Psychological Micro-Syate llacro-Syate Identifying Deve loi-eota l Functional Skills General Guidance Level Capabi litiea Integration Integration Behaviors Correlates Repertoire Need  !,, 5-10 -Concre te operations -Jlmreness of Primary -Recogn1 zi.11,p, -concrete opeJ\"ations -Sense of fair play -Basic evaluation and )'1!8rS on reality self in social (Piaget) llllllitoring kill context l. Flllli ly Grade K-6 -5\u0026gt;'rllolic --ling -Social carpetition 2. School - Social nodeling and cooperation -Basic problem-oolv- representation am -Sense of J . ~rs -Short - term (Bandura) ing techniques to reflex knowledge coo fonni ty and predic ting -\\h:ler land the cope vi th inte lice tu- duty ~ -Self-protectiw, 111111ning of persona I al and social con- -Active nerory -Effec tive verbal coofonnist, expectation flicting situations -Awareness of l. Local cann..nicatioo opport.iiist ic -Effective language psychological comu,ity (u,evinger) -now the c riteria for i-Social ethics usage seU 2. Ne iij\\bort.ood -lru,iij\\t into self-evaluation J. Orurch, clubs causes of things -Safety, love, (i:tiysicsl and o-Basic learning tech- -Inventions of Sense of i:tiyical , -Socio- affection, intellectual) nique., and habits abstract coot,i.na- inte llectua 1 enconcmic -Im,ginll\\g belongingi,e.,s ti.on, and potency status (\"\"'low) -lfnowledge of t-AecotJ,i t ioo of sociA l assoc iAt ions --:Ultur~I -Olnvert ing authority and duty \"'4'POr t sys tan, Acclimation to -Qnler identifies- 30Cial, cultural httitase --Traru,fonmtion.9 ~formi ty. dl. ty. ( parents , schoo 1 social approval Responsibility for staff, chJrt-11, peers, tion atxl and gender -Group/ tean (l\u0026lt;ohlberg) I.earning aro1 soc iA 1 camu,ity, ,-,iijlbors) re lat i.onslnP\" stereotyping aeroership -\u0026lt;:onvergen t relationshi1Jt1 thinking ~n,hension, i'hyical Se 1f\" 1!0li tor ing responding (Bloem) Sense of persona 1 fa luate the qua Ii ty coordination -O\u0026gt;operating potency ( locus of of various '4Jport f)cpenled ~ry (Qiilford l cootrol) systalrl amreness of -0,eying C\u0026amp;\u0026gt;Se-1! ff ec t o-Effecuve intra- am rCoping skills for re lat ionshi ps -Role playing inter-persona 1 personal welfare\n-T\"\"'ral aria,- -Respon:J ing carm.nicat ioo i:tiYsical, intellec-talion to past- tual, social ard -Peroonal satis- o-Social adaptation : present-future Bllltional faction Iii.th 1 units of coofonnity learning ard and deviation -Social C\u0026lt;Jll!Ulication achieving Social nonm training -Labeling H-t,ral nonm -Ability to effective-- IdentifyinP, k)J l tura 1 nornl5 ly uti liz.e ard in- -terorizing Self-concept of ~ate various micro identity \u0026amp; co-support systea: 22 l\\ge/Grade Eloerging Physical Expected and Psychological Micro- System Macro-System ldentifyinr. Deve lopeen ta l Functional Level Skills General Guidance Capabilities Integration Integration Bebaviorn Correlates Repertoire - Needs .. l-\\g,, l!-14 -fonMl opPrations -ldentificatlon of Prizrery -React irtR -Initial formal Problmr-solving -Study Skills yc.ar-:i se If -cooccpt and operaticns techniques -Abstract \u0026amp; logical self-esteen in I. fsni ly -Revolting -Problmr-90lving brwtes 7-9 thtnl\u0026lt;i.ng fsni ly, school, I-Ind ividual \u0026amp; Sltua-- Application of processes peer contexts 2. Peer group -Screening tional role thinking content knowledge -Self-concept of (Piaget) -Clarification of per-tnt. el lectual an:l -Sense of potency J . School -Applying Sense of sonal, 90Ci.al an:l !0Cl81 identLty to lnflueoce -Validation of self- responsibility to religious value perSOMl an:l 14 . (a,mlll 1.) ....:lvtnei.ng efficacy se If an:! others in system -Initial intrO-'Jl\"Ction :,oc ia 1 systeJr\u0026lt;I 90Ci.al contexts an:l utilLzation of ~ -Sorting '-Se If -referent -tCnclwledae of sex reflex knowledge -Acknowl.edjJle,t tho.J81,t ( 8ondur a) Acti\"\"' ..,_ of self roles-iq,licationa of per90Ml lo.iltural an:l -.ll.l:lgi.ng and ,oc ia l esteem for educational/ -Tine-pro Jectill'C intellectual an:l status affL IL.a- -Social cognition 90Ci.al roles slu lls 90Cial tiO'l.'3 -coping Evaluation of self in capabilities -f'et.a-cogni ti\"\" per90Ml an:l 90Ci.al -f-it\u0026gt;ack on persona I -Sexuol identity -Local \"\"'1ia -ttxleling know ledge ( F lave 11 ) situaticn, achi\"\"\"\"\"\"'u am re90lutLon -Affiliation with \u0026amp; p:,htics perfoms,ce refereoce grrups -\u0026lt;ll\u0026lt;xlsing -lnterper90Ml Sense of cooperation -Local laws ca,cordaoce an:l collaboration -Ba lance between - Awareness of arY1 rrore., -Preparing cooper at ion an:l pararet.ers of (90Cial an:! -Esteen (Kohlherg) Self-m\u0026gt;tivation an:! i.rdepenlence i.ndepen:lence religious) -ValuinP, reinforcme.nt -Self -respec t/esteen techniques ,. -llecisiOIH!llking -Sex-role -Local -\u0026lt;:ater,orizing (l'laslowl processes orientation concepts of ~ ien t irusness Value identity an:l work and -Cl!lSsi fying ( lnevinger) rronitoring -Sense of contro I an:l product ,vity -0: stinr,uishinr, -Application, Sex-role orientation responsibility for -C-x,pcrat inr, vah~~BtJ11) per90na I behavior -=r t Guilford) -~1~~~ 2)  Faerging Phyeical Age/Grad, and Expected Peycho logica' !licro-Syate llacro-Syste ldentifyinc Develoi-eotal Functional Ski lle General Guidance Level Capabilities lntegrat ion Integration Behaviors Correla tee Repertoire lleede fv!t, 15-19 -Mature fonrsl -Awareness of year operations personal ~ Ac:.carrmdating -Fonno I ope rat ions -Responsibi hty for -Dec i iO\u0026lt;Hreking CPiaaet \u0026gt; personal decisions kill potencies I. Peer group lntcgratmg Grades -Abotract ond logical 2. Scoool/work -Synthesis/e valuatioo -Recognitioo of skills, -Goa 1-attai.nnent 10-12 thinking -Se lf-coocept in sett~ Projecting \"\"\"\"\"tency scaling various 90Cial 3. Friends -f\\n:twMl past- cootexts -Interacting --Organizatioo/ -Sense of self-evalua- -Effecti\"\" camuiica- pre.serit-future tine ~ Exchanging characteriz.at i.on t ion in var iou., tion perspecti\"\" -lnternaliz.at ion (Sloan) situation., -Psycoo-physical of values I. Fllllli ly -coping Self and ituatiooal h\u0026gt;UXlarous/ Persona 1 assertive- llllni to ring and integration -Eva luat ioo of 2. Social tatus -Nonaging integrated nes based oo evaluaticn -Per\"\"\" l potency to self in social (present \u0026amp; -Synthes lling ( Loevingerl \"\"\"\"\"tence and tecmiqu,,s act l4)00 concrete ccrttexts aspirations) -Se lf-actua lizati.on int.ere.st., and abstract klserti\"\"\"\"\" -Academic an:! - OJltural -Produ:: ing (Maslow) -COl 1.aboratioo, training realities social self- coofonnity/ -1.nve,ting cooperatioo skills to departure -{.ni\"\"rsal ethic -Problem-so 1v ing t\"flature 5)'!Ttlolic esteen -Creating (Kohlberg) achieve personal C'Clll!U'lication tecmiqu,,s -Awareness of -Gamulity goel in social -cm., lex ne, ta l shift fran groups -Evaluating -Eva luat ioo coot.ext -tlocro-sy tan pasi\"\" to -Social an:! -.Jwging ( OJ.i I ford) associations \u0026amp; -Ability to uti liz.e integratioo proacti\"\" religious past learning tecnii.q.es relationships ~ring projectioo 110res -Ability to project -ilecognitioo of self- -U,ique reality -\u0026lt;Dvernne,t -\u0026lt;ri tiquu,g esteem future goe ls/ coping style -11:\u0026gt;litics - 9.Jppor ting objective., -coping with -\u0026lt;:arpeti t ion 1R:ertainty an:! -f'edia cooflict -\u0026amp;oronics -Acces rules to persona I gr \"'1th and to soc ia I in-stitutions -Rites of passage 24   Appendix B ~m!ty Pm 11d Qddanoe Callllttee: A \u0026lt;bide for School c.om.elors School counselors have long recognized the need for coommity support in order for their programs to be effective. The ~lete cooperation of the aaninistration and faculty is also necessary. One method of linking the needs of the school and ccmDJnity with the guidance program is through the use of camunity-based guidance camittees. Such coomittees have been used successfully by many school programs and promise to be a potential solutioo to many of the problems facing counselors. This dOCI.IDel\"lt cootains important information for counselors atteq,ting to develop a guidance camittee. What is! guidance ccmnittee?  A guidance comnittee is ~ed of key l.aypen,ons and educators ~ provide lines of camunication bet\"Ween the school and the cOllll1Jl'lity, thereby assisting the COLnSelor in wilding sound programs based upon student needs and camunity needs. There are at least~ major types of guidance ccmnittees. Smaller school districts may have one type, \\olhile larger districts might possibly have both. The first type of a guidance c00111ittee is a cauprehensive district-wide com:nittee. The second type is a wilding (school) level cxmnittee. The makeup of both C01J111ittees \"'1ld be similar, including teachers, a!ininistrators, parents, representatives of b.lsiness and industry, and students  What is the purpose of~ guidance camittee? The primary ?J.rpose of a guidance coomittee is to do what cannot be dooe effectively by the guidance staff alone. The CXX11Dittee seeks to emphasize the creation of a program that constantly strives to better serve the student, teachers, parent and school administration, as well as the coom.mity. The cannittee extends the arms of the guidance pi.-ogram into the school and the COIIIJU'lity, expands the potential for a greater production of ideas and resoorces, and increases the mnber of workers and leaders available to carry rut programs and projects. Since the COOJDittee is ~sed of a variety of interest groups, it serves to keep the lines of camunication open between these groups and the school. The use of a guidance comDittee should result in a rwre active and productive guidance program. How can! guidance camittee help school counselors? Guidance camittees can help counselors to effectively meet the needs of students in many ways. A guidance comnittee can uniquely solve problems that a counselor might be unable to on his/her own. It can be very helpful in keeping a guidance program current, monitoring new camunity trends and other local needs. It provides advice and counsel regarding the development and maintenance of meaningful programs. The C01111ittee can help develop rationale for new and expanded career guidance programs. It can develop a line of support for the counselor both within and wi.thoot the school, providing assistance in the area of public rel.ations--getting infonnation aboot the program to the media, sclx\u0026gt;ol patrons and the rest of the camunity. The members of the caJJDittee can provide liaison, with coorruni.ty leaders, professionals or 0rganizations \\olhich can assist in meeting the objectives of the guidance ~rogram. 25 Appendix B (continued) The guidance C0111Dittee serves to iq\u0026gt;rove channels of C0lllll.ll'licatia, between the camunity to the guidance staff. It can help transmit infomation about the services and contributions of the guidance program. Leadership for varirus  guidance projects, such as a career day, can result from the work of guidance coanittees. The guidance C011111ittee serves as an instnnent for developing a greater awareness of the need for aCCOlrltability--encouraging and assisting the continuous evaluatioo of the guidance program. The guidance C0111Dittee can aid the guidance staff in the developnent of a cauprehensive plan for guidance in the school a:rv:J/or district by assisting the counselors with conducting needs assessments, writing objectives and in plaming for program evaluation. By having the broad base a comnittee provides, guidance programs can becane roore respoosive and accountable to all the publics they serve. \\illo should be included in the coanittee? \\ollile there is no single set of criteria for the sel~ction of camnittee members, reasons for selection should include: personal interest in the effectiveness of the guidance progran they will be advising, available time to attend scheduled and special meetings in order to carry out camittee business and respoosibilities, and a general willingness to provide counsel in a manner that will support the general guidance needs of all students rather than the special interests of specific cx:mnittee members. f.ertain me!llbers of the camiittee may be chosen for their expertise in certain are.as such as testing, social work or personlel worlc as the need arises. As stated above, the size and ~ition of coamittees will vary according to type and size of the school or district served. For example, a K-6 elementary school guidance camittee could include a primary and intennediate  level teacher, the principal ard/or assistant principal, parents of both I. primary and intermediate level children, representatives fran local business and industries. Additionally, other pupil persomel service groups, junior high counselors, social welfare or mental health agencies could also be represented. Secondary level ccmnittees will have similar caupositioos and might also include representatives of postsecondary institutions within the COUIJlll'lity. The size of tOOSt school comnittees ranges frooi eight to 12 members. District level comnittees often include one counselor fran each level (or all if a small district), the district's director of guidance (or \u0026amp;binistrator in charge of guidance), a principal ft\"OOI each level, a teacher frcn each level, parents, students, representatives of business or industry, other pupil personnel groups and members of social action or mental health agencies. Additionally, local colleges and military recruiters might have representatives on the coomittee. If the district is in a faming ccmiunity, at least one farmer should be included in the camnittee. If there is a da!linant industry in that ccmamity, a representative of that industry should be included in the comnittee membership. The size of a district coamittee could range fran about eight in a very small district to over 20 in a large district. The building level guidance ccmnittee should be appointed by the principal with input frcn the guidance staff, loihi le district level guidance C001Dittees are appointed by the superintendent with input from the director of guidance  26    Append ix 8 (continued) The coomittee should then elect a chairperson fran its lay membership. The ~election of the chairperson is very critical, as this person will work very closely with the guidance staff and a\u0026lt;hinistration in planning the 1o0rk of the CO'llllittee. The school's COU'lSelor or the district's director of guidance will serve as an a-officio secretary to supervise the preparation of minutes, correspondence, etc. What is the counselor's role in the camiittee's operation? The recognized need for a guidance comnittee, the approval for developing a guidance conmittee and the selection of members to the guidance ccmnittee should orginate frOOl the counselors or professional staff of the school. The guidance comnittee will need help in its efforts to locate, define, clarify and select areas of need that can be trans lated into objectives, goals, programs and projects. The cau:nittee wi 11 need assistance in bringing together materials and resources available to the ccmnittee in pursuing program objectives and in developing techniques for evaluating its 1o0rk. As ex-officio secretary of the coamittee, the counselor 111lSt provide this support to the camiittee. The guidance staff ID.l8t take the initiative in developing a cohesive group in which the participation of all members is desired and sought. The counselors ID.JSt also be prepared to assume the responsibility for the actions of the comnittee, the direction in which it goes and intensity with which it pursues a goal. The staff llllSt provide clerical, mailing and other support services for the camiittee. How are meetings scheduled and conducted? At. least NO full coomittee meetings should be held per year with the counselors aoo/or the camiittee having the option of calling mre if needed. Generally, each meeting should have a specific agenda. The counselors in consultation with the chairperson should set the agenda for each meeting. Generally, the first meeting of the year should include an orientation to the school guidance program. Other meetings should address various program needs aoo projects. Finally, this should be a 1o0rking comnittee. ththing can cut short the enthusiasm of the members than to be a part of a non-functioning, \"in-nameonly\" carmittee. Members of the CC111Dittee should be recognized for their contributions publicly. News releases can help give the needed publicity to the comnittee -urk. \"'1hat are~ problems associated with the use of guidance caxmittees? Qiidance comnittees do not always function smoothly. Some coom:,n problems associated with the use of comnittees often include a tendency to want to set policy rather than assist, a lack of understanding of the total functioning of a school, a lack of perspective, an inability to see the program as a whole. The consunption of staff time in providing materials for the C01DJ1ittee, preparing for mailings, preparing minutes and writing reports can also be a problem  27 Appendix 8 (continued) Good selection procedures and orientation are the best way to overcane these probl~. The administrators and counselors are employees of the board  of education. They should listen very carefully to their coamittee, but not sucCUDb to bad advice. They tD.JSt take responsibility for helping the coomittee understand and adhere to board policies, remembering that an advisory coarnittee is siq\u0026gt;ly what the name suggests--advisory. Their function is to help provide accountability and camunity feedback to the progrm. The school is responsible for hearing the camittee's advice and honesty and openly weighing that advice in light of current constraints, resources, etc. 28     Appendix C NIDllCAN saDI. \u0026lt;XINiEUlt ASSCX:IATI\u0026lt;JC (ASCA) PelilTI\u0026lt;JC STATIN!N'l' 1he School Con,e lor md the Qddance and Comselq Plogr. Intrcxb:tim This position of the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) describes the elements of a caoprehensive and developmental guidance and counseling program and the criteria upon which the quantity and responsibilities of qualified, differentiated staff members is based. lhe ASCA statements of counseling role and function for the elementary, middle/ junior high, secondary and postsecondary settings are an integral part of the design and implementation of guidance and counseling programs. fhi~ ''\\,h\n:) am I?\" \"who can I becaoe as a person?\" and \"HcM can I best contribute to society?\" are questions which quidance and crunseling programs help all individuals to answer. In their design and operation, guidance and counseling programs exist to i~rove the learning enviroroent by involving students, staff, parents, C001Il.111ity and others who influence the learning and development of the persons served by the program. Through individual and group contacts over a period of time, the counselor has a major role in helping all persons develop more adequate and realistic concepts of themselves, becane aware of educational and occupational opportunities and integrate their understanding of self and opportunities in making informed decisions. PrugtM Galls A guidance and counseling program provides for direct involvement of a service to students, staff and coom.mity in order to facilitate achievement of the following program goals. Assists persons in developing: 1. A better understanding and acceptance of themselves\ntheir strengths and limitations\naptitudes, needs, values, interests and worth as unique individuals\n2. Interpersonal relationships on the basis of ID.ltual respect\n3. Problem solving and decision making\n4. Accepting increased responsibility for their educational, occupational and avocational development. Standards These standards are set forth in a manner which allows local school districts, institutions, agencies and others to design and implement guidance and counseling programs consistent with the unique needs found within each setting. 29 Append ix C ( cont irrued) Ptc.t 1. There is a written guidance curriculLDD developed by counselors and with  the involvement of appropriate others, specifying the overall guidance and counseling program as it involves and relates to the needs of the person in the school, institution, agency and c00111.J11ity. 2. The basic program of guidance and coLD1seling involves the process of consulting, providing information and coordinating services for all students. The program is ccq\u0026gt;rehens i ve, deve lo?J)!1ta l and is imp lenented through the guidance curricultn and through specialized approaches. Orientation, information, appraisal, placement, follow-up, follow-through, referral and research activities are included in the program. 3. There is evidence that all persons throughout the school, institution, agency and coomJ11ity have on-going opportunity to par t icipate in the guidance and counseling program. 4. There is evidence that the guidance and counseling program is systematically planned, i~lemented and evaluated. 5. There is evidence that the guidance and counseling program may be continued on an extended basis during periods -.hen classes are not in session as deemed appropriate for each school district, institution or agency. \\.,hen each school district, institutioo or agency deans that these additional services are desired, counselors should be appropriately compensated. 6. The guidance and counseling program should be cCllmll\"lity oriented. If  services are to be provided to preschoolers, dropouts, graduates and other , coom.mity citizens, additional staffing needs to be provided. 7. CcA.Jnselor-taught or initiated LD1its in decision making, values clarification, career planning, test taking/study skills and/or similar tD1its are offered. 8. The guidance and counseling program serves three-to five-year-old children and their parents -.here pre-elementary school settings exist and there is an existing elementary guidance and counseling program. 9. The guidance and counseling program provides other innovative service(s) or activities ...tlich are designed to meet lD'lique needs. St:aff ASCA holds the position that appropriate m.lDbers of staff shall be employed to i~lement a guidance and counseling program designed to meet the needs of the persons involved in tne program. There is a direct correlation be~en the quantity and quality of guidance counseling services and the mnber to provide that service. 1. The guidance and counseling staff is qualified and appropriately certified/licensed according to state agency standards. 2. The guidance and counseling staff is responsible for the design, implementation anrl evaluatioo of the services and activities prescribed in the program. 30   Appendix C (continued) 3. Professional, secretarial and/or paraprofessional staff are adequate in rnnbers to meet the objectives of the guidance and counseling program. 4. Provision is made for staff to attend or participate in intra and inter-professional meetings and activities inside and outside the state. Facilities Appropriate and meaningful guidance and counseling activities with individuals and groups take place in a wide variety of settings, the specific environnent often being detemined by circunstances. There are, however, continuing student, program and staff needs in which privacy and confidentiality of conversation and records require specific counseling facilities. 1. Each counselor is provided with pleasant, private quarters conducive to conferences of a confidential nature and adequate in size to accoomodate three to five persons. 2. The counseling facilities are located in an area readily accessible to students and others. 3. Each C01.D1Selor's quarters is equipped with adequate telephone service. 4. A conveniently located area adequate for group guidance and counseling activities is available. 5. Adequate provision is made for the storage and display of all records and materials used by the counselor(s) in carrying out the guidance and counseling program. 6. Career resource center(s) are established and appropriately staffed to facilitate use of career awareness, exploration, planning, preparation and progression of materials, equipment and supplies. Mllt.erlals and Bquii-erit There is adequate budget for purchasing, maintaining and developing the materials and equii:xnent necessary to achieve the objectives of the guidance and counseling program. Adopted 1974\nreviewed and reaffinned 1980\nrevised 1986 31 Appendix D Aaeri.c.an School Comae lor Aeeocf.atiaa (ASCA) Poeltiaa Statment 1he School Colnse lor and lleelopaental Qddanoe Luring recent years a m.nber of counselor educators and school counselors have advanced the proposition that c'JUOseling can and should becooie tD:\u0026gt;re proactive and preventative in its focus and llX)re developmental in its content and process. Viewed in the context of an evolving societal emphasis upon personal growth and an expanding professional expertise , developmental guidance has resulted in a potentially dynamic and prcxnisi~ c1pproach to the helping relationship of the school counselor. The concept of developmental guidance has been discussed under various rubrics, such as (deliberate) psychological education, h\\nan relations training and preventive mental health. Develonental guidance is reaffirmation and actualization of the belief that guidance is for all students and that its purpose is to maximally facilitate personal develonent. Definition  Develonental guidance is that caoponent of all guidance efforts lolhich fosters planned interventioo within educational and other human development . services program.5 at all points in the human life cycle. It vigorously still1llates and actively facilitates the total development of individuals in all areas--personal, social, emotional , career, rooral-ethical, cognitive, aesthetic--and to praoote the integration of the several canponents into an individual lifestyle. fndor8CM!Dt The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) formally endorses, supports and encourages the incorporation of developmental guidance in the role and function of the school counselor. Antee :ecients In the past the role of the schcx\u0026gt;l counselor has suffered Eran the restrictions of historical precedent, philosophical tradition, financial support, achinistrative definition, and counselor selection and preparation. Counselor functions have often been limited to crisis management, adjustment coordinatioo, vocational guidance, and clerical and quasi-administrative tasks. Catalysts Pr~ted by cultural change, progressive philosophy, advancement of knowledge and methodological improvement in the behavioral sciences, a climate of open public discourse, pressures of educational accountability,  institutional ecunanics, and professional survival, the \"traditional\" ~rk of the scl':\u0026gt;ol COLTI\u0026amp;elor is in need of well-seasoned revisioo. 32   Appendix D (continued) Direction If counseling is vie-wed humanistically, holistically and canprehensively--that is, developmentally--then the rationale for develoinental guidance is clearly defined : cOll'lseling should be habilitative as well as rehabilitative, proactive as well as reactive, preventative as well as remedial, skill-additive as well as problem-reductive and characterized by outreach as well as availability. Developmental guidance is the S\\IIIDative terminology which connotes this E!fll)hasis. Specifically, then, developmental guidance refers to the process and content of confluent human development as prOOJOted by planned, ~rposeful and sequential intervention. Content The content of developmental guidance will vary according to the developmental levels, stages and needs of participants\ncounselor carpetence and resources\nand other factors. Examples of programs of contemporary interest include the follOJing: tn.man development (theories, stages, tasks, principles)\ncareer develonent (awareness, exploration, selection, employability skills)\nacademic development (achievement motivation, study skills, test preparation, test wiseness)\ncoom.mication skills\ninterpersonal relations\ndecision making\nvalues clarification\nmarriage and family planning\nparent education\nmoral development\naffective education\nconflict resolution\nleadership training\nassertion training\nrelaxation training\nhuman sexuality\ndrug education\ndeath education\nand situational adjusonent and self-management (divorce adjustment, depression management, weight control, behavior modification). This list is not exhaustive. lntervent: ion Many means and resources for developmental guidance intervention are available, and counselors should select fr\u0026lt;XD among these alternatives according to needs identified in his or her work situation. Examples of means ol:: delivery include : mini-courses, academic release time \"from designated classes for developmental guidance activities, curricular scheduling of guidance activities, extended hours (after school and evening,) and classroan guidance. Ex.:uq:\u0026gt;les of techniques and resources include : resource centers and libraries\nprogramned texts and workbooks\nco-facilitation and consultation with teachers\nparaprofessionals, peer counselors, and others\ncounseling and educational kits\ncurricular aids, media, bibliotherapy, cinematherapy\ncontracting\nand experiential education. Examples of strategies include : direct service delivery, consultation, team teaching, peer facilitating and paraprofessional counseling. Medi.ta of Delivery In terms of efficiency, as well as effectiveness, group approaches are the preferred medium of delivery for developmental guidance activities. By definition, \"group\" refers to a natural or created cluster of individuals, as small in mnber as two or of lD'llimited size. The clusters may be identified as families, cl.assror:xns and grades, employees, clients or other canposites of persons who cane together as a result of shared need or purpose, COIIIDOn attributes and/or other coincident characteristics. 33 Appendix D (continued) COllpeteocies Essential preparation for develo.xnental guidance intervention involves a  thorough understanding of hunan development (descriptive and theoretical)\nknowledge of counseling t,heory and pr act ice\ncaupetence in COLD1Seling techniques and group processes\nskill in program develo.xnent and management\nassessment, appraisal and diagnostic skills based on developmental concepts\npractical canpetence in basic statistics, applied research and program evaluation methods\nand specific knowledge in the area of developmental emphasis. The ca.mselor should be personally effective and comfortable in all areas in which developmental guidance intervention is offered. Develo(Xl)ental guidance specialists llJJSt, at a minillUD, be able to effectively deal with questions such as : what are the general characteristics, expectations, tasks and behaviors of individuals at this state of development? What are this individual's characteristics , expectat i ::x-1s , tasks and behaviors? What can impede the process of develo(Xl)ent for thi_s individual? \\oh.at will facilitate the process of develofXl)ent for this individual? Because the emphasis oo develo(Xl)ental guidance is fairly new, cCU1Selor educators may need to roodify the counselor education curriculum in order to prepare ca.mseling students as proficient developmental interventionists. Because such an approach has often been taught as an ideal rather than as reality, as an attitude instead of a skill, counselor educators may be required to further develop their educative role. Counseling students should seek to add the skills of develo(Xl)ental guidance intervention to their repertoire--if necessary, through adjuncts and (. _.. alternatives to the usual counselor education curricula. Practicing counselors ~ _ whose programs did not include developmental guidance coo:iponents should seek to acquire the skills of develoixrental guidance intervention as part of their professional renewal efforts . The developmental guidance counselor should be involved in a continuing program of professional improvement in developmental guidance expertise and strategies. ~tencies may be acquired. maintained and improved through a variety of means, for example, graduate study, loQrkshops, institutes and seminars, meetings and programs of professional associations, self-study of journals, contemporary texts and instructional manuals, in-service education, continuing and extended education, inteniships, and consultation. Iaplemntatial Many administrators, teachers, other school personnel, students and parents will be unaccustomed to the concept, intent and outcane of develofXl)ental guidance\ntherefore, the counselor's competence nust be visible\nprogram develoinei,t and planning thorough\nrationale for programs convincing\nconduct of procedures professional\nand programs ~ured, evaluated and reported effectively, both formally and informally. Implementation strategies for the initiation of develofXDental guidance will  require both asfertiveness and ingenuity. The entire guidance coommity, ASCA and its constitue:-.t organizations should strive to loQrk in harroony to facilitate th2 i~lementatim of developmental guidance programs.   Appendix D (continued) The true impact of the develOfOental guidance concept loses meaning when discussed as a lofty goal, abstract concept or as an isolated piece of rhetoric. For the concept of a sequential and develoinental guidance program to be truly meaningful to both the professional staff as well as parents and students, it tDJSt be part of a c~rehensive K-12 guidance plan. A plan which states its aims in measurable outcomes for all students, specific activities and a built-in evaluation procedure with provisions for necessary annual revisions. ' There is a necessity for some fonn of needs assessment which addresses the legitimate needs of the entire school cOOJru11ity. The counselor needs to be realistic in evaluating time and fiscal parameters. A curriculum for each grade level or special area is then developed, implemented, assessed and revised annually. In-service education needs to be considered when necessary. School counselors need to develop their abilities to teach the attitudes necessary to enhance the academic success of their counselees\ni.e., for a student to succeed in geooietry, the student needs more than the usual mathematical concepts. In addition, they need to deal with structure, boredan, intimidation and frustration. The plan should be presented to the appropriate educational agency for adoption. The effects of a written ~rehensive K-12 guidance plan helps the consumer to realistically become aware of the goals, objectives and true roles of their local guidance department. Cbidelines There are several general principles which should help insure quality and effectiveness in the implementatiCl1 of develoinental guidance: 1. The program should be systematic, sequential and cauprehensive. 2. The program should be jointly founded upon developmental psychology, educational philosophy and counseling methodology. 3. Both process and product (of the program itself and the individuals in it) should be stressed. 4. All the personal dooiains--cognitive, affective, behavioral, experiential and envirorniental--should be emphasized. 5. Programs should emphasize preparation for the future and consolidation of the present. 6. Individualization and transfer of learning should be central to program procedure and method. 7. Evaluation and corrective feedback are essential. Adopted, 1978\nreviewed and revised 1984 35 Appendix E DRZS Kit llBlrlfYDI\nRliSl.BLI QWII Ol PlN\u0026gt;UE taK:1.ESIN!llrATICB Printed Sources Amual Register of Grant Support: A Directory of 1'\\nU.~ Sources. Qdcago: Marquis Profealonal fublicatlone. 1985. Contains large section oo grants in education (pp. 4fJ7-67) in the areas of: Educational Projects and Research, General\nElementary and Secondary \u0026amp;iucation\nHigher Edur....ation Projects and Research\nand Scoolar Aid Programs. Also lists funding sources ifl th..? broad areas of: Humanities, International Affairs and Are.a Studies\nSpecial Populations\nScience\nSocial Sciences\nPhysical Sciences\nLife Sciences\nand Technology and Industry. 'Die Fomdatioo Directory. New Yodt: 1be Fcamdation Center. 1985. Standard source for identifying foundations\narranged by state, and indexed by foundation name, geographic areas of funding, types of support , and subject. 'lbe 1983-84 ~ of Grant Halting Fcamdations With Aaaets of Over $1.000.000 or Grants of \u0026lt;\u0026gt;Yer $100,000. Harteda.le. NY: Public Service Materials Center, 1982. Surveys principal f~dations in tenn.5 of : when to apply for grants, geographic restrictioos, how to apply for funds, in lolhat fields grants are awarded, and prospects for funding. \\here laeric.a's Large F\u0026lt;ll.Ddatioos Hake 'Ibeir Grmts. 8art:9dale, NY: fublic Service NaterW.a Center. 'This is the !IX)St ccxq:\u0026gt;lete representative record ever published giving the specifics of grant-making by leading foundations in this COlD1try. Includes over 650 foundations in every part of the natioo, most with assets of $10,000,000 or more.\" How to Write Soccessful Corporate Appeals. With Pull ~les. 8artadale, NY: Public Service Nateriala Center. \"James Sinclair, a leading authority on corporate fund raising, opens his   files to reveal all his secrets of writing successful appeals to  corporations--and provides you with an extraordinary range of grant\nnnring samples.\" 36    Appendix E (continued) 'Die Cmpl.eb! Qri.de To Corporate 11\\ni la.laing. Hartedale, NY: Public Service Hatertal.s c.enter  \"To begin with, this book is a superb technical manual. You will never again wooder how or ~t you should do to win corporate support. Special sections of the book tell you how to raise corporate funds if you are a l.D'liversity or hospital, a rultural institution, an advocacy organization, social service agency, or smaller institution.\" 1he Corporate Fmd Ra.is~ Directory. Hartsdale, NY: Public Service Materials r.enter. \"Now accurate up-to-date inforamtion is available on the huge $3.5 billioo grant-making program o~ America's top corporations. Here you can find out ..iho to approach at e.ach corporation, primary areas of giving, typical grants, special insights and other vital information.\" New Ways to Saroeed With Fa.niatims: A Qlide for the Reagarl Years. Hartadale, Ill: Public Service Nateriala Cent.er. \"Joseph Deamer has written an important new book designed to help nonprofit organizations not only survive the Reagan years, rut to grow stronger through increased foundation support. le is the first book that provides specific strategies for different ncnprofit institutioos to understand during the next two years in approaching foundations.\" Holl To Ge(: GoYenaent Grant.e. Hartsdal.e, NY: Public Service Hatertal.s Center. . \"Finally, there is a book describing in simple, straight forward language how yCA.Ir institution should go aboJt securing govetTeOtal grants--fran yCA.Ir first organizational step to the final accounting of how your institution spent the funds.\" Federal Ft.ming Glide for Kle.entary aid Secxndary ll'docatioo. ~. OC: Fd.JcatiM Ptmd~ Research Cancll, 1980. Provides overview of the Department of I-.:ducatioo and federal aid to education in general, as well as new eligibility requirements and 1980 budget allocations. ' Federal aid programs are divided into broad areas: educationally disadvantaged children, impact, vocational educatioo, cultural programs, shared revenues, etc. 1he Casebook: Aid-To-Mlcatioo Prugnw of Lead~ Business Q:ocems. New Yorlt: C-Oic,cf 1 for 1\"'1rwrfa1 Aid to \u0026amp;tocatian, 1978. M cngoing report that ~iles details on the aid-to-education activities of saDe corporations active in this field that are willing to let others know lolhat types of programs they support and how. 37 Append ix E ( cont irrued) EUil PlinUng Soun:es lll!lillletter. lboeob:~ Willi.a and Betty Wil.aan, 1978-~t:e. K:,nthly reference newsletter for elementary, secondary and special education, with infomation en federal, state, f~tion and corporate grants. Fomdatim Ji'tnd ntalJI: A Chide for Grantseeken. New Yorlt: 'lhe li'omdet ian Center, 1981 . Qiide by Carol M. Kurzig, designed to help both novice and experienced grantseekers beccme more familiar with the 1oK\u0026gt;rld of tcuidations. Goverrment Docunents Catalog of Federal Donx\u0026gt;estic Assistance (annual). Federal Grants and Contracts Weekly. Catalog of Federal Education Assistance Programs (1980). ED 1.29:980 Application for Grants Under Training Personnel for the Education of the Handicapped. ED 1.2 :T 68/5 Instructions and Application for Grants Under the Special Needs Program. ED 1.2:SP 3/2 Application for Grants Under the Secretary's Discretionary Program. ED 1.2:SE 2/986 Application for Grants Under Secondary Education and Transitional Services for Handicapped You th. ED 1.2:SE 1/986 Application for Grants Under the Secretary's Discretionary Program for Mathematics, Science, Canputer Leaming and Critical Foreign Languages. ED 1.2:M 42/2/986 Application for Grants Under Magnet Schools Assistance Program. ED 1.2:M 27/986 Application for Grants Lnder Handicapped Oli ldren 's F.arly Education Program, Demonstration and Auxiliary Activities Projects. ED 1.2:H 19/5 Application for Grants Under the Endc:MDE!S1t Grant Program. ED 1.2:~ 2/3   Application for Grants. Supplemental Funds Program for Cooperative FAfucation.  ED 1.2:C 78/3 ... Application for Granes Under the Cooperat ~ve Education Program. ED 1.2:C 78/2 )8    Append ix E (continued) On-line Sources Fomdatioo Di.rectory. On-line equivalent of the hard copy directory. Fomdatim Gamts ID:ies. Contains information on grants awarded by more than 400 major American philanthropic foundations, representing all records fran the Fc,.mdation Grants Index section of the bimonthly Foondation News. QWIIS. Source to more than 4,000 grants offered by federal, state and local goverrments, comnercial organizations, associations, and private foundations. All grants included carry application deadlines up to six months ahead. Mat ional Fomdat ions. Provides records of all 22,100 lhited States foundations liolhich award grants, regardless of the assets of the foundation. Many smaller funding sources not listed in the Foundations Directory may be found here. Other Sources of Information Federal Infonnatioo Centers U.S. General Services Administration 18th and F Sts., N.W. Washington, OC 20405 (202) 566-1937 The Foundation Center 888 7th Ave. New York, NY 10106 (212) 975-1120 (800) 424-9836 39 Appendix F ODD SIJRZS CW QWll'S AND Plll\u0026gt;DE Address Rockefeller Foundation 308 East Eighth St. Little Rock, AR 72202 (S01) 376-6854 The American Association for Counseling and Develoixnent FOlD'ldation 5999 Stevenson Ave. Alexandria, VA 22304 Arkansas State Recognition Program Arkansas Department of Education Career Education Mini-Grants Arkansas Department of Education Carnegie Corporation of New York 437 Madisoo Ave. New York, NY 10022 (212) 371-3200 The Field Foundation, Inc. 100 East 85th St. New York, NY 10028 (212) 535-9915 William T. Grant Foundation 919 Third Ave. New York, NY 10022 (212) 752-0071 lttleson Foundation, Inc. 14 East 60th St., Suite 704 New York, NY 10022 (212) 838-S010 W.K. Kellogg Foundation 235 Porter St. Battle Creek, Ml 49016 (616) 966-2000 The Ford Foundation 320 East 43rd St. New York, NY 10017 Deadline Four Times a Year Dec. ,Mar. ,June,Sept. Decenber February Spring All Year All Year All Year All Year Early Fall Spring and Fall Additional infonnation is available in The Foundation Directory available in most public libraries. 40       Appendix G PINliOO Ml\u0026gt; KVALLII\\Tl\u0026lt;lt RISlRJlS Collison, B. B. Needs assessment for guidance program planning: a procedure. The School Counselor, November 1982, 30(2), ~15-21. Conducting ~ Needs Assessment. Highlights .. an ERIC/CAPS Fact Sheet. Ann Arbor, MI: ERIC/CAPS, 1982. Dameron, J. D., ed. The Professional Colmselor: Callpetencies, Performance Guidelines and Assessment. Alexandria. VA: AA.CD, 1980. Diamcnd, E. E. Development of the Joint Camiittee Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects and materials. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Develof:CDE.Ot, July 1985, 18(2), 51-57. F.pperson, D. L. and Pecnik, J. A. Counselor Rating Form--short version : further validation and cooiparison to the long form. Journal of Counseling Psychology, January 1985, Bill, 143-6. Hayden, C. and Pohlmann, N. Accountability and evaluation : necessary for the survival of guidance programs? NASSP Bulletin, October 1981, 66(447), 29-33. Healy, C. C. suggestions. Formative evaluation in career education : problems and Jrurnal of Career Education, December 1982, 9(2), 134-4U. Kelly, F. R., Jr. and Ferguson , D. G. Elementary scrool guidance needs asssessment : a field-tested rocx:lel. Elementary School GJidance and Counseling, February 1984, .!!Ll2_, 176-80. Lewis, J. D. Q.i idance program evaluation : how to do it. The School Colmselor, November 1983, l!..Q.2_, 111-9. Lanbana, J. H. Q.iidance accountability: a new look at an old problem. The School Counselor, Hay 1985, 32(5), 340-6. Maher, C. A. and Bennett, R. E. Planning and Evaluating Special Education Services. EnglE.\"wOOCl Clitfs, NJ : ?rentice-ltiil, 1984 . 4 I Appendix G (continued) Matczynski, T. J. and Rogus, J. Needs assessment: a means to clarify the goals  of secondary schools. rwiSP Bulletin, January 1985, 69(477), 34-40. Wiggins, J. D. Steps to take in evaluating a school's guidance program. NA.SSP Bulletin, October 1981, 66(447), 29-33. Wysong, H. E. Needs Assessment in Counseling Qiidance, and Personnel Services. Searcii!Ight bibliograpny. Ann Harli:\u0026gt;r, Ml: ElUC/CAPS, 1983. A Qiide for the Development of a Counselor Evaluatioo Plan, ASCA, 1981. 42   a Care Paekage for ne-w  eletnentarY, counselors Indiana Department of Education Division of IIuman SerYiccs / Pupil Personnd Services October, 1984 A \"CARE PACKAGE\" fOR NEW ELEMENTARY COUNSELORS Every counselor at one time or another is a \"new\" counselor. ft may he that very first counseling joh or it may be a new school assir.nment that the corporation has maJe. Maybe it's a new job in a Ji ffercnt school system or another state and maybe it's the request o[ the counselor to experience a different school setting or n Jifferent counseling situation. And maybe it's the beginning o [ a ne,, program in a corpora ti on that has never had an elementary counselor. No matter what the reason, there will be a time and maybe several times when a counselor is given the task of establishing a new counseling program in a school. It's an exciting time, challenging the counselor to use every possible resource to communicate to his/her public the role of the counselor. To assist elementary counselors in this responsibility, the following \"Care Package\" has been developed. Although there arc numerous ways to communicate this information, the purpose of the \"Care Package\" is r.o provide samples of ideas and methods for establishing the role of the counselor. Classroom guidance presentations, letters and suggestions are included along with a step-by-step plan for organizing the counseling program. Improvising anJ adapting this package with the counselors own skills, abilities, and resources is both expected and encouraged. Sections: I. 11:-ive a Statement [I. In the Beginning 11 I. .rust [or Kids IV. Communicating with Parents V. ~lanaging and Organizing Your Time 1 SECTION I !lave a Statement: rrom this section one should be able to answer two basic quest ions. \"Why have an elementary gui\u0026lt;lance program?\" and \"\\'Jhat docs an elementary counselor do 7 \" It is valuable for administrators in every school corporation to have a written statement answering those two most basic questions. Rationale Philosophy Objectives Role Goals function o matter what words one wants to use to answer these questions, these samples of how others have handled the task might be helpful. Included are: A. Counselor Education Program Objectives B. Statements from House of Representative Bill S477 - September 28, 1979 C. American School Counselor Association's Position !'aper D. A school corporation's program description 2 - COUNSELOR EDU CATI ON PROGRAM OBJECTIVES FOR THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COUNSELOR (TENTATIVE) Nelson and Segrist Purdue University In preparation for counseling and guidance activities, the counselor reaches out toward children: a. Talks about his program in classrooms. h. Brings small groups of younger children to his office to familiarize them with the setting and the selfreferral process. c. Develops and maintains friendly, informal contact in such settings as the halls, playground, lunchroom. d. Participates with children in appropriate, informal ways, such as engaging in games with them. The counselor engages in individual counseling: a. h. C. d. e. f. g. h. 1. J . k. l. m. Is informed in the area of counseling theory. Demonstrates use of a variety of counseling approaches. Produces comfort in the child. Arranges a comfortable, familiar environment. Engages the child in discussion of appropriate topics. Encourages the child to discuss his concerns. Facilitates expression by the child. lle1ps the child to understand his concerns and place them into perspective. Confronts the child, as appropriate, about his selfdefeating, inappropriate modes of problem solving. At the same time, provides minimal leads for the child. Helps the child to develop plans for appropriate action. Is alert to the child's avoidance behaviors. Is able to terminate counseling relationships leaving the door open for further discussion. The counselor engages in group counseling and guidance: a. Ts informed in the area of group counseling theory. h. Is able to incorporate different theoretical models. c. Encourages voluntary group formation. d. Arranges the formation of appropriate groups. e. Functions in group formation so that readiness to share is an expectation of group members. f. Helps to develop in the group a \"we\" feeling. g. Helps to develop in the group an expectation that all may help a child and all may receive help. h. Is willing and able to intervene in the interests of developing a setting in which children expect to work on concerns. 1. Is ahle to help the group develop problem solving approaches. J. encourages confidentiality. k. llclps group me:mbers to focus on particular is~ues. 1. Encourages the group to examine its own interactive processes. 3 The counselor consults with teachers, parents, and children: 3. Is informed in the area of consulting theory. h. Inspires confidence in those with whom he consults. c. Demonstrates a willingness to consult with others. \u0026lt;l. Develops a cooperative atmosphere rather than a superior-subordinate relationship. e. runctions so as to elicit teacher, parent, etc., responses toward the child which are enhancing. f. Is willing to make specific suggestions where appropriate. g. Helps teachers and others develop programs to meet the needs of children. h. Is willing and able to confront those using procedures which seem antithetical to progress. 1. Is able to contribute to deeper understanding of children by adults and accepts the need to gain from other adults in his own understanding. J Conducts case conferences relevant to concerns about children. The counselor is a participant in producing change in the school environment: a. Informs himself about the environment. h. Searches out environmental effects upon students. c. Confronts environmental problems as necessary. d. Considers and incorporates changes in his own program where necessary. The counselor engages in research and evaluation: a. Seek-\nto determine the effects of his own program. h. Seeks to determine the problems affecting students and teachers. c. Seeks to understand the specific setting in which he is involved. cl. Designs experimental programs and determines their effects. The counselor understands human behavior: a. Is informed in the area of human behavior. h. Observes children in varied settings. c. Ts aware of physical and developmental differences. d. Ts aware of hierarchical differences in children's needs. e. rits his understandings and his approaches together. f. Is aware of situational (home, school, neighborhood) effects on the child. The counselor respects others: a. Iloes not manipulate against others. h. Involves others in decisions relevant to them. c. Encourages the confrontation of issues hy those affected. d. racilitatcs genuineness in others. 4 The counselor in his own person: a. Demonstrates that he accepts and respects himself. h. Is aware of his own needs. c. Is engaged in coping with his own needs. \u0026lt;l. functions in ways which demonstrate openness, honesty, and genuineness. e. Is courageous. f. Is alert and well informed. g. Is sensitive to others, aware of both verbal and non-verbal components of behavior. h. Is a responsive human being. 1. Is a potent being. The counselor understands basic principals of education: a. Is an informed student of principles of education. b. Considers individual differences. c. Respects the values of helping relationships. d. Is aware of the values of openness and honesty. e. Understands developmental processes of early and middle childhood. f. Understands the elementary school as a social system. 5 ELEMENTARY GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING SERVICES l\u0026lt;J\\TTONJ\\LF I . The elementary school of today is no longer protected and isolated from society 's problems and concerns, rather, it has hecome a setting where the early symptoms of these problems are being displayed. 2. Elementary school children arc, therefore, increasingly vulnerable to these external pressures as they attempt to acquire personal and social skills in addition to academic competencies. :S. Early symptoms of these pressures are underachievement, school disinterest, classroom disruption, and truancy which result in acute societal and economic burdens. 4. Without early and appropriate intervention, these pressures arc manifested as juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, school vandalism, failure, and the loss to society of s. fully functioning and competent adult members. l11 no other setting is the establishment of a foundation for self-discipline and positive mental health more critical. It is here that school children absorb and adopt views related to human and societal values, attitudes toward self, work, antl toward individuals from other cultures and ethnic origins. 6. Positive learning environments for children require a comprehensive coordinated effort of the school, the home and the community. The elementary school counselor is a professional uniquely qualified to facilitate such cooperative efforts witl1in an established guidance and counseling program. ROLE The role of the guidance counselor is to assure the accessibility of developmental guidance and counseling to all children of elementary school age by establishing comprehensive guidance pro grams . Implementation of these programs is to be performed hy a ce rtified elementary school counselor. 1. Counseling in groups and individually, with all children to\n1ss1st them in school and life adjustment tasks\ne.g., helping them learn to make choices and to accept responsibility for choi ces made, learning to solve their own problems, developing positive attitudes, values, and work habits, acquiring basic un\u0026lt;lcrstandings of the world of work, increasing their human relations skills, and learning to make reasoned adjustments to the demands and responsibilities associated with family, school and community membership. 6 2. Consulting with teachers, parents, educational specialists, administrators, community members, and others to establish and maintain the best possible environment for learning and personal growth. 3. Coordinating school and community resources in behalf of all children, including those whose special needs require additional and unique services, such as handicapped, gifted and talented, learning disabled, limited English-speaking, economically disadvantaged, and culturally different. FUNCTION Counselor functions would also include, but not be limited to the following activities: 1. Recognizing early indications of social maladjustment, child abuse and neglect, and other physical and emotional problems requiring immediate intervention and appropriate referral services. 2. Providing information leading to the reduction of racial and ethnic prejudices, sex-role stereotyping, and an increased regard for the worth and dignity of all individuals. 3. Conducting classroom guidance sessions for children in areas of citizenship, interpersonal skills, improved study habits, meaningful use of leisure time, impact of one's behavior on others, self-management, effective use and the conservation of natural resources. 4. Providing teachers with assistance concerning an individual student. 5. Conducting teacher discussion groups on classroom management techniques, differing learning styles and developmental stages of children. 6. Providing information about the work, ethics, career awareness, and other factors affecting career development, such as the interactions of business, industry, government and labor in the larger society. 7. Conducting family discussion groups on parenting skills, home-school cooperation, and parent-teacher relationships. 8. Coordinating the guidance activities with administrators and other school specialists to assure optimal delivery of guidance services. 9. Coordinating liaison activities between the elementary and middle-school/junior high school settings that assure effective articulation of developmental guidance and counseling services. J 7 TIIE UNIQUE ROLE or TflE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COUNSELOR APGA Position Paper Rationale Consistent with the philosophy of education, elementary school counseling concerns itself with children in the developmental process of maximizing their potential. The elementary counselor works within the educational framework and the child's total environment to enable each child to arrive at an identity and learn to make choices and decisions that lead to effective functioning as a worthwhile being. Particular attention and time need to be given in the educational program of young children to provide training and opportunities to learn decision-making skills. Individuals make the choices and decisions that ultimately determine their behavior and their learning. Elementary school counselors, be cause of their specialized training, provide service and leadership in this area as it is integrated into the total s ci1ool experience. Elementary guidance and counseling builds upon the belief that human beings must have continuous experience of challenge, achievement, and success. The school creates situations in which children find themselves needed and wanted by others. Teachers can demonstrate to pupils that they matter as individuals and are accepted as they are, by their teachers as well as by their peers. The teacher plays the primary role in working with children and the counselor aids the teacher in making education more meaningful to each child with the implementation of an appropriate guidance and counseling program. Oh_jectives As an elementary school guidance and counseling program is composed of more than a professional counselor, it is imperative that our objectives represent all of the various populations. We arc then able to communicate more clearly our responsibilities and goals and the manner in which they relate to the total education and environment of the child. I. For A. l3  C. ]). E. individual children (age-appropriate): To be able to identify themselves by description, likes, dislikes, interests, skills and similar concern. To be able to define their role in the family, school setting, neighborhood, and community. To have a positive feeling of self and be able to verbalize self-feelings in a straightforward, comfortable manner without fear of non-acceptance. To ?e abl~ to_recognize their own shortcomings and accept their l1m1tat1ons, then proceed to work toward improvement as goals are set. To he acceptant of other people and be able to identify and work toward solving conflicts in relationships. 8 F. To feel good about learning and working and, when distress occurs, be able to use appropriate skills of problem-solving and decision-making to reach a level at which they are able to cope. G. 10 ~ave interest in the future and engage in some fantasizing of possible life roles. I!. To have a realistic understanding of the interrelatedness of people and the world of work and services and the part that the child, other members of the family and acquaintances play in it. II. For teachers, administrators, and parents in the child's life: I L I . A. R. C. n. for A. B. C. ll. I:. To understand and accept the child's self-concept and work toward determining with them positive changes\nthen to provide guidance and support as each child endeavors to make those changes. To relate to the child as a worthwhile human being, so that the child can use acceptable and appropriate relationship behavior. To provide teaching, experiences, and opportunities for learning decision-making skills and grant the child the dignity to live with and learn from mistakes without criticism and ridicule, or without \"taking over\" the decision-making. To seek help for themselves when necessary in order to provide the most effective learning environment for the child. the counselor: To be a congruent human being comfortable in both personal and professional life to the extent that the counselor can functLon for the best intercc.t of those served. To accept each person (child and adult), in the professional environment, with all accompanying feelings and behaviors, and help the counselee with unique training and skills to define needs and concerns. To provide the guidance and counseling appropriate and acceptable for the counselee. To be able to identify changes and objectives reached hy counselee and interpret them to others. To serve as an advocate for the child within the adult structure of the school and community. 9 Submitted by: TI PPCCANOE SCHOOL CORPORATION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAM Marjorie R. Sharples and Kathy Coder Elementary Counselors, Tippecanoe School Corporation September 1980 PHILOSOPHY The main goal of elementary guidance is to assist schools in personalizing and humanizing the educational process for all students. This can be accomplished by helping children better understand themselves and others, and by helping them recognize the opportunities, rcsponsihilities, and choices which education and life provide. fn addition, due to the pressures of an increasingly complex s ociety, children often encounter problems which may require appropriate supplementary adult support. Counselor assistance in early identification of difficulties and early intervention can aid children, parents, and teachers deal with and grow through these experiences. We believe in the importance of the following: - working with and being an advocate for all children, - functioning as team members with children, school personnel, and parents, - recognizing the potential for growth and change, - seeing the elementary school setting as a place where effective living skills can be learned, - valuing the importance of affective learning, and heing flexible enough to meet the needs of children in a particular school setting while utilizing the unique talents of a specific counselor. Tn conclusion, we believe it is important to help children develop\nin appreciation for life in general, and human life in particular, through accepting, understanding, and celebrating themselves and others. We want to help children grow in increa s ingly more satisfying relationships with the world. Elementary guidance is an integral part of the total educational experience. We cannot separate the academic growth from the social emotional growth of the child. The elementary counselor wi11 focus on the total growth potential of each child in the elementary school. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES We sec the elementary counselor's role as part of a team effort involving the student, school personnel, and parents in very interrelated ways. Students are our main concern. They can help themselves and each other in many ways. 10 Our goals with students are: to help children develop a self-awareness, to help children develop a positive self-concept, to help children develop a positive attitude toward school and learning (focus is on topics such as motivation to learn, responsibility for self and to others), to help children develop good relationships with peers, parents, teachers, and siblings, to help children improve their communication skills, to help children develop effective decision-making skills, to help children deal with personal concerns: developmental tasks, crises, school related problems, home concerns, health and physical development, to help children to develop an awareness of the world of work and preparation needed to participate in it, and to ease the transitions between school settings (i.e. mobile students, preschool/kindergarten and elementary/ junior high). Teachers and other school personnel have tremendous influence on the child's school environment. Our goals with school personnel are : to help teachers identify students with special needs and abilities, to help teachers with classroom management, to be aware of teachers' needs and provide support individually and collectively through inservice training groups, resource papers dealing with teacher concerns, guidance activity ideas, etc., to assist teachers with affective education and career education, to participate in curriculum development and evaluation when appropriate, to help teachers utilize school and community resources and support personnel (I.E. GLASS, Family Service Agency, Wabash Valley Mental Health Society, etc.). Parents are the third vital part of the guidance team. Our goals with parents are: to help parents understand child growth and development, to foster good home/school cooperation and understanding, to enhance parent/child communication and relationships, to familiarize parents with community resources, and to provide support. 11 _J . ADMINISTRATION OF GUIDANCE PROGRAM In order to function as a guidance team, some coordination an\u0026lt;l administration must take place. Therefore, the elementary counselors will: regularly develop, interpret, implement, and evaluate the guidance activities within TSC elementary schools, interpret the elementary guidance program to the community, initiate and assist in planning a total k-12 guidance program, be knowledgeable about and utilize community resources, plan and carry out an ongoing evaluation of the elementary guidance program using input from students, parents, teachers, and other school personnel, be aware of available guidance materials and be able to evaluate their quality and usefulness in our guidance program, and he accountable for the use of their time by keeping records of their activities and regulary sharing these records with administrators. COUNSELOR ACTIVITIES To accomplish these objectives, counselor methods and activities might include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: introductory contacts with all classrooms, individual and group counseling sessions with children, contacted through self referral, teacher, parent, or other referral sources, teacher and parent consultations, classroom observations, classroom guidance activities, career awareness activities with classes, curriculum development and evaluation when appropriate, organizing pupil information so it is more readily usah]c by teachers, parents, and students, (i.e. test results, psychological reports, etc.), teacher inscrvice activities, parent education groups, kindergarten and junior high orientation meetings, consultation with community resources, cooperation with nurses, speech therapists, psychometrists, an\u0026lt;l special teachers to provide coordinated evaluation and services, and serving as a child advocate on various committees within the school system. 12 A. Inservice day hefore the children come to school in the fall, give a presentation to all principals and teachers of all schools. 1. Include a rationale - \"ChanBing Times and the Needs of Society Today.\" 2. Explain the Role - film, \"Developmental Counseling in the Elementary School.\" 3. Recruit an \"expert\" from somewhere else to assist you with this program. (e.g., State Department consultant or a principal from a nearby city who has a counseling program.) B. Initial meeting with principal in your building. l. Talk about your role. 2. Discuss how you would like to explain your role to the staff of the building. 3. Arrange a time to speak at an upcoming staff meeting. 4. Invite him/her to watch the introduction lessons you will be doing with kids. S. Listen carefully to his/her expectations of the role of the counselor. 6. Learn all you can about the special needs and character of your school. C:. l. xplaining your role to teachers. I. Short letter or introduction. 2. Go around the building and visit each teacher 1n his/her classroom. a. Explain role b. Ask for referrals C . Request a time to visit your role to children. with the children will to tc\n-ichcrs.) ~- c\nRJ , Folders. t::::__-, 14 the class to explain (Your activities explain your role t'r\\G...k:'e o.. ~older- -+or eo..c.h ~!c,_c.V\\tr 4. ~ couple of months after starting the program, arrange a time to discuss the program with your teachers. Possibly have the principal lead the discussion. Include the following questions: a. So far, what are some things you like about the guidance program? b. Do you see any potential problems or have any concerns about the program? Is there anything you feel uneasy about or uncertain or need more information? c. What is something you can \u0026lt;lo to help the guidance program grow? 15 \"Si~i\"\\,+1ca.\"-\"t- rc\\~+-ior-csh.,ps.  ~+ct..l\"'+ w ~ i-h. C, t\\ e. ~: tt-\\ e. \\A,JOY\"c:l - H\n\\ 1, l'm very pleased to be a part of this school and am looking forward to meeting each of you! To help you understand my role as your guidance counselor, I've jotted down some ideas about my position. Elementary counseling is classifed by H.E_.W, as a service program and must serve only those children who have been identified through a Title I instructional programs as Title I students. I wi 11 need your help in identifying the Title I children in your room. The next few weeks I'll be asking about a convenient time to come into your class to explain to your children my role as a counselor. I've included a folder with this information as a convenient place to keep your guidance materials. Every now and then you will be receiving information, ideas, and notes from me which I hope will be helpful and useful. /\\gain, yourself to I am excited to be here and hope you will introduce me.f ~ ~~ _ ~~ ~ FACTS ABOUT MY ROLE AS YOUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GUIDANCE COUNSELOR: Who- I am an adult friend to children and a resource person for you. llow-r sec children individually, in small groups, and \u0026lt;luring classroom presentations f see children mostly on the basis of self-referral and if you suggest I talk with someone. When- I '11 be at your school 2 \u0026lt;lays a week. Why- I strongly believe ~hildren hcncfit from h:iving an adult friend just to talk with, an\u0026lt;l 1 LIKE children. What- The things I talk about with children include: Self-concept Self-awareness Career awareness Study habits Peer relationships Feelings Concerns from home Attitudes Etc. Where- 16 My room is across the hall near the principal's office. Stop by. SECTION I I I Just for Kids: This i tern in the \"Care Package\" is labeled - \"Just for Kids.\" They arc the reason that all the previous activities have been Jone. All those activities have been setting the stage for the counselor to he able to begin to develop relationships with children in the school. The following lessons are suggestions of ways to introduce the role of the counselor to children. A. K-2 Puppet Talk B. Frog Puppet Show C . Co un s e l or ' s Bag 0 . ? - Role of the Counselor E. Self-Referral Poster F. Coloring Book 17 The second visit to the classrooms should be some kind of a presentation on how to have a classroom discussion. This will give the children an idea of what you expect from them. It will also be modeling for teachers a classroom management technique. rhcse ideas need to be reinforced every time you do a classroom guidance activity for the first few months. /\\. DUSO characters: 1. Don't clam up. 2. Stick to the point. 3. Raise your hand. 4. Listen carefully. 5. Work together. IL Clues to a good classroom discussion (Dr. Linda Myrick) 1. A hand - raise your hand. 2. A mouth - share your ideas. 3. An ear - listen to others. 4. A mouse sitting on a chair - sit as quiet as a mouse. What is this a picture of? How will this help in a discussion? C. Magic Circle rules 18 Introducing the Counselor Grade level: K-2 Materials: an an\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_405","title":"Discipline correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School discipline","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/405"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY BUSINESS CASE TRUANCY REDUCTION PROGRAM The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on providing a learning environment that meets the academic, social and emotional needs of all students. It is further committed to ensuring that all students receive a quality education in a desegregated environment. Over the years, the District has begun to recognize a growing truancy problem which has an adverse effect on the student's academic achievement and emotional and social development, thereby frustrating the District's ability to carry out its educational mission in the community. To address this problem, the Little Rock School District has joined in a partnership with community leaders, youth servicing agencies and the Little Rock Police Department to develop and implement a truancy pick-up program that should have a significant impact on reducing truancy in the Little Rock School District. A. BACKGROUND In the spring of the 1992-93 school year. a group of concerned citizens composed of community leaders, youth servicing agency representatives and Little Rock School District officials formed a collaborative to explore an effective response to the alarming number of school aged children and youth who are truant from school on any given day. During school hours, school aged youngsters were being observed standing on street corners, shopping centers or roaming in neighborhoods. in malls and other The number of calls from concerned citizens. business proprietors and parents to District offices to report truant students had become more frequent and added to the growing concern. In response to the problem, the collaborative developed a proposal that would take advantage of permissive legislation (Act 867) passed by the Arkansas Legislature in 1989, which authorizes school districts to partner with the in local police department Using the provisions implementing a joint truancy reduction plan. the collaborative developed a truancy reduction of this Act, proposal called Project STAY (Support Truancy Alternatives for Youth) and presented it to the LRSD Board of Directors for their review and approval on October 28, 1993. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION In the 1992-93 school year. Little Rock School District elementary and absences. secondary students logged 227,414 (full day) unexcused School absences are excused only when a child is ill\nwhen a family emergency exists, i.e., death in the family, seriousfamily member or other extenuating circumstances in the immediate family of the student exist, or if the student is participating in a school sponsored activity that has been approved in advance by an appropriate school district official. School absences that are not excused violate Act 292 passed by the Arkansas legislature in 1991. This act requires that \"a child between the ages of five years and seventeen years, both inclusive, who has not been officially excluded from school must be in attendance . II The District also believes that it is necessary to require students to be punctual and in attendance for instructional purposes each school day. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES To address the truancy problem the Little Rock School District has attempted a number of strategies over the years. The District revised its attendance policy at the beginning of the 1989-90 school year providing for increased parental contacts, clearly defined court referral procedures and more strict consequences for unexcused school absences as a way to discourage school truancy. However, the problem continues and appears to be alternatives used have included court referrals worsening. Other and the establishment of a Truancy Review Committee. COURT REFERRALS The parents of students covered under the state compulsory school attendance laws (5 years through 17 inclusive) are referred by school administrators to the Little Rock Municipal Court. Parents/guardians who are found to be negligent in their responsibility to ensure the daily school attendance of their child/children may be fined up to $ 50.00 per day as provided for through Act 473 of 1989. This intervention's effectiveness is limited to those truancy cases in which the parent is clearly shown to be at fault for the child's non attendance. In those cases where the minor child refuses to attend school in spite of the parents efforts, the Municipal Court does not deem it appropriate to fine the parent. These cases have been referred to the Pulaski County Juvenile Court on a FINS (Families in Need of Services) petition. Because of the overwhelming number of serious juvenile cases the Pulaski County Juvenile Court has to deal with, truancy cases are a low priority and are not heard in a timely manner. Additionally, the fee structure for filing a FINS petition with the Court is also a barrier because many parents are financially unable to pay the filing fee. Unfortunately, very little support for truancy problems is available through the Juvenile Court.D. TRUANCY REVIEW COMMITTEE (TRO A Truancy Review Committee was established in the 1990-91 school year as an intervention in truancy cases for students enrolled in the four restructured supported by New Futures. junior high schools Families were referred to the TRC as an alternative to Municipal Court referral. However, because so few schools participate, its impact on the overall truancy problem in the District is marginal at best. The committee has not been activated for the 1993-94 school year. To do nothing further to address the issue of truancy in the LRSD would be perceived by the community at large as an abdication of the District's responsibility as an educational institution. Moreover, the District recognizes that a problem of this magnitude cannot be resolved by the LRSD without the support and involvement of the total community. RECOMMENDATIONS Through a collaborative planning process over the last six months involving church leaders, parents, school and city officials, youth service provider agencies and other concerned community citizens. a truancy reduction proposal was developed. Its goals are to: Reduce the truancy rate in the Little Rock School District. Identify non-enrolled school-age children/youth. Provide follow-up and support to truant stuaents to ensure regular school attendance. Increase communication between the school district and parents of truants. Promote broad-based community involvement in addressing school/community concerns. This proposal unites the Little Rock School District and the Little During school Rock Police Department in a unique partnership. hours. Little Rock patrol officers will stop and question schoolage children and youth who are observed in a public area to If the students cannot determine why they are not in school. provide documentation that their absence from school is legitimate reason, the patrolman will transport the student to a center designated by the Little Rock School District located at 4800 West 26th Street. Students will be processed by center staff and returned to their assigned school either by a parent/guardian for a All cases will be followed up by center or by LRSD personnel. staff to ensure that the issues that precipitated the truancy have been resolved. Our recommendation is cost-effective because of the fiscal and it provides a high visibility human support of the partners\nstrategy which has the support of parents, the business community and other community leaders\nand it will present a consistentmessage to students and parents that school truancy will not be tolerated in the District. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of the Truancy Reduction Program is to reduce the truancy rate of LRSD students covered by the Arkansas Compulsory School Attendance Law (ages 5 through 17 years, inclusive). EVALUATION CRITERIA The LRSD will evaluate the ,program to determine its effectiveness by using the following criteria: decrease in truancy rate of targeted students when compared with 1992-93 attendance data\nimproved communication between parents and the school district as measured through parent contacts and structured feedback\nincreased support and involvement of the community in addressing school/community issues and concerns. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS It is expected that the implementation of a collaborative truancy intervention program will have a positive impact on both the school The community will be reassured of the District's and community. commitment to the education of all children. The success of this project will open the door for other collaborative opportunities between the District and community groups as they arise in the future. Desegregation Plan The education of all students in the LRSD is one of the cornerstones of the desegregation plan. Successful implementation of this program will support this commitment. Court Orders No negative impact is noted. Political Factors Failure to act aggressively to address the truancy problem would be perceived negatively by the community. Risks Inability to sustain funding for the program in future years may be an issue that will need addressing. Timing The truancy program is currently being implemented with excellent support from the Little Rock Police Department and other community partners. Failure to continue the programwould cause the District to loose valuable community support in resolving a problem that requires response. G. RESOURCE ANALYSIS united community a The District share of the costs for implementing this program through the end of the 1993-94 school year are projected to be $58,943 to cover personnel, transportation, utilities, equipment and supplies. Our community partners have pledged $63,840 to support the program financially and are also assisting in the recruitment and training of the volunteer staff. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this project are church leaders, the Little Rock Police Department, youth servicing agencies. New Futures and other concerned citizens. These supporters recognize the need for a total community response to the education of all children and youth in the city of Little Rock. Detractors to the program may be parents or other citizens who have misinformation regarding the programs goals and a lack of understanding of the role to be played by the Little Rock Police Department. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The assistant superintendent for secondary schools and the director of pupil services have primary responsibility for program implementation and monitoring and to ensure that objectives are accomplished as outlined in the proposal. Monthly status and written quarterly reports will be presented to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors.NEW FUTURES FOR LITTLE ROCK YOUTH SUSPENSIONS AND EXPULSIONS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY, 1992 are We gelled 1 patrons and citizens do, that our The Board of New Futures for Little Rock Youth has become increasingly alarmed by the large number of students who suspended or e^melled from Little Rock schools each year, recognize, as all patrons and citizens do, that our schools must DG S3.f6 places in which, teaching^ and leaming\" can occur. However, in reviewing the data available to us on suspended students, a profile of many students who are both socially and academically at great risk emerges. These students should be targeted for special academic and social interventions, not simply sent home to wander the streets or to watch television. By following the school career of these students for even one additional year, it is apparent that, without effective programming for these students, their problems frequently become worse. The students become increasingly unable to pass their courses, more likely to be absent, to be retained, and to eventually drop out of school. We, the Board of New Futures for Little Rock Youth, therefore, request a meeting with the Little Rock School District Board to discuss the following recommendations and to develop plan of action. a Recommendations\n1) 2) 3) Carefullyreview the current Students Rights and Responsibilities Handbook in order to: a) b) limit the use of school exclusion to only those offenses which pose serious danger to the staff and students of a school ensure parents and students full due process rights to appeal any act of school exclusion regardless of the length. Institute effective training for principals, assistant principals, and teachers on alternative discipline techniques, on the psychological and developmental needs of youth at risk, and on methods for deescalating aggressive behaviors. Increase opportunities for teachers to learn new, more effective teaching strategies for actively engaging all students in the learning process.Suspensions and Expulsions Page two 4) 5) Review the current operation of in-school suspension programs to ensure they are being used as an alternative to school exclusion rather than as a way of excluding students from the classroom who would not have been suspended  anyway, and to ensure effective progT-A-m-rm' ng and teaching occurs. Work closely with the businesses and service organizations in the community to expand the availability of mentoring and tutoring programs for all students in the bottom quartile on standardized tests. 6) Develop effective alternative educational programs for suspended or expelled students to enable them to continue their education. (Effective educational models have been developed throughout the nation which have proven successful in altering both the behavior and achievement of similar students. Often these programs are operated by the school district in partnership with youth serving agencies or local businesses.) 7) Implement in every school effective, on-going human relations training for both the students and faculty. 8) Encourage the faculty and staff of each school to develop innovative approaches to retaining and educating these students, including adopting a district policy which establishes a process for local schools to obtain waivers from any existing district policies which limit their ability to implement effective alternatives. The Board of New Futures for Little Rock Youth stands ready to assist the Little Rock School District in these effoirts. As a community, we cannot ignore the serious needs of these students. We must jointly develop effective ways to keep these students attending school, engaged in learning, and acquiring the social skills needed to succeed in life.NEW FUTURES FOR LITTLE ROCK YOUTH SUSPENSIONS AND EXPULSIONS FACT SHEET In 1989-90, more than 1600 junior and senior high students suspended were 199091, more than 2000 junior and senior high students suspended were  The length of time out of school ranged from 3 days to year a full The number of students suspended is approximately the same as suspending the total student bodies of three junior high schools There are 47 offenses which may result in the suspension of junior and senior high students. suspensions for a full semester.) (44 Of which may result in Black students are suspended at twice the rate of white students. Students are suspended as early as kindergarten. stuaents are kindergarten. Each year for the past 3 years, more than 500 elementary age students have been suspended from school. Of the junior and senior high students suspended for 3-10 days in the 1989-90 school year: 1) One out of every four was over age for his/her grade level 2) s. 5% of them were expelled later in the same year 3) They were three times as likely as their non-suspended peers to be retained in their current grade 4) Almost 1 out of 12 dropped out of school before the ended year 5) 6) More than 500 of them were suspended more than once 60% of them failed one or more courses (twice the rate for those not suspended). If one examines these same students the following year, problems appear to have grown worse rather than better, end of the school year 1990-91: the By the 1) 1 out of 3 were over age for their grade (thrss times the rate of the non-suspended students)Suspensions and Expulsions Page two 2) More than half of them failed one or more courses (twice the rate for the non-suspended students) 3) 5. 40% of them were suspended again 4) 5% were expelled (seven times the rate of the suspended students) non- 5) 6) One out of 10 were retained in their-current grade (three times the rate for the non-suspended students) More than 1 out of 7 dropped out (twice the rate for the non-suspended students) Data on students receiving long-term suspensions (i.e. greater than 10 days) was not available. However, it is reasonable to assume the impact of a longer absence from school is likely to be even worse. A survey ac^inistered in 1990-91 indicated that of the students suspended in 198990 who took the survey: 1) Almost half were from poor families 2) One out of every six had a child 3) More than one out of three scored in the lowest quartile on standardized reading tests, 03--0T-93 11:12 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst 0I))I 121002  003 A Sam Johnson 23 Ivy Drive Little Rock, Ar. 72209 Hay 5, 1393 received Members of the Board Little Rock Public Schools MAY 7 idjJ SUPT'S OEFICt 810 W. Markaham Little Rock Ar. 72201 Dear Members of the Board\nAs per my telephone conversation with Ms. Dana DeVore of tnt Transportation Department on May 4, 1993 I am writing this bO notixy you or a situation which has occurred on the bus Dana DeVore roubS which leaves Henderson Junior High School and makes a stop at the corner of Greenway at Ardmore in the Meddowclifi Subdivision. on this route. My son, (Michael) Scott Johnson is a commuter A few weeks ago the driver of this bus, wnich is black, told all the white kids to \"get your white asses to the back of the bus\". She has also on occasion told these kids to \"shut your damn mouths. She has si a case of discrimination and This is clearly know is against the law, Segregation, which I'm sure you treatment of my son function properly in any form or fas and I refuse to allow this \"0 continue. If our school system is to 'dice and racism cannot be tolerated by your employees. Also on May 3, 198' permanent seats or\nwere loading the bu: .e kid bus. at Henoe.\nhis bus were assigned told Scott to get out of that seat. me afternoon as the kids r the trip home a kid ---- Scott replied that he couldn t because the seat had been assign  to him by the driver. At this point this kid hesran tn ,.\nracial remarks At this point this kid began to to Scott and made filthy references to the kid to sit down and leave him alone my wife. Scott told Then without warning this kid hit Scott in the face with his fist provoking Scott to defend himself. Apparent y both kids have been suspended from the bus for ten days. nave The next bay, May 4, 1993, this kid told Scott that he was really going to hurt him now and he better watch his back. a threat and must be treated seriously. tnreat I would like to know why this kid can make threats like this and This is remain at school. still I don't care what you have to do but I demand that my son's safety be provided for. The Little Rock Public Schools has allowed discriminated against by a bus driver, my son to be has failed to provide\" Oo (it 93 11:13 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003.-003 for, his s, afety,. and. ha. allowed threats cf b.^dil., made against him without doing anything about it. something had been done of bodily harm to be If weeks ago when the kids told illiams about the remarks made by this bus driver the other events most likely would never have happened. The Litbie Rock Public Schools has clearly been negligent in Mr. s. most likely would never have happened. carrying out it's responsibilities. I expect an immediate and thorough investigation of this mai.ter and request a report in writing of your findings and whii - - - -ac ti- v- e act' i on you pl an to tak* e so that I may determine if further action is warranted. It is my CG  is warranted. expectation that this driver will be relieved of her duties as a bus driver for the Little Rock Public Schools. Thank you expedient response. for your cooperation as I will be awaiting your Sincerely, Sam Johnson (if-: V n/ufKfr JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNEITE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 December 16, 1993 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: 'txm im DEG 1 7 1593 Guice cl 0\ngrogalicn ll\u0026lt; iHitoring I am appearing tonight along with Mr. Michael Booker on behalf of the students who were expelled or recommended for expulsion from Forest Heights Jr. High School on November 19, 1993._ All of them are class members and none of them were given notice and other I, therefore, intend to guarantees provided by your handbook. . . _ present this matter to Judge Wright at the earliest possible opportunity. My presence and participation at and in the proceeding tonight is not to be considered requirements of due process guaranteed by your own rules.   ----------1 a waiver of the I am again asking that you administratively reinstate these children and all others who have been denied due process either this year or in the past if they are class members. Thank you for bringing these matters to the attention of the Board and for your own consideration of them. Very truly yours, W. IMZa Walker JWW:lp. cc: Ms. Ann Brown Jerry Malone, Esq. Chris Heller, Esq. P.S. Rogers, your acting secretary, just called to give us the names of some witnesses at the purported hearing Ms. tonights I do not consider that either strict or substantial compliance with the requirement that this information be provided in a timely fashion at least twenty four hours before the hearing.I\n- h (J/' ,'Z.A?it\u0026gt; 'e- LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501-324-2032 Jan 6 95 16:15 p. or-if *5 ? Confirm commitment and readiness Develop action plans  10. Action plans fe?' \" ! i ic ii. I r I 1 I J r,l 'it h 7 5 'a / if Tw ii ^5.1 m Vl / 2? .' AUwSnl \u0026lt;i4 ?j- :TMi I b TO 1^ 'SiVJ. * V*. St gf B  Conduct basic awareness session(s)  Explore system capacity and design Prepare for planning Communicate about planning  Collect vital signs data Build strategic planning team Conduct first planning session * 1. Beliefs  2. Mission  3. Parameters 4. Interna] Analysis 5. External Analysis 6. Competition 7. Critical Issues  8. Objectives  9. Strategies Communicate draft plan ( Ia. Build action teams 13C5?^ 'Tt A .M Conduct second planning session  Achieve consensus action plans  Affirm consensus strategic plan Prepare implement tation schedule (with supporting resource plan) Obtain board approval Develop capacity for implementation  Communicate approved strategic plan  Develop mutual expecta- - tions and system desigjy^  Systemize site involvement Validate plans and process continually  Regular reviews  Periodic updates 31'I ip i 1-^. O 1994 COtONlAl-CAMBRIDOE NUNAGEMENT GROIT, I,S'j z^SHSTvT^ SB LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501-324-2032 Jan 6 95 16:14 P.Ol January 6, 1S95 To: From: Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Fax t 371-0100 Linda Young Little Rock School District 324-2112 This is to confirm the meeting on Wednesday, January 11th at 1:30 p.m. in your office with Dr. Williams, Leon Modeste and I regarding the Strategic Planning Process. Attached is a framework of the Strategic Planning Process for your review. Looking forward to our meeting on Wednesday. Thank You, dnda Young t  Itan fl* - -O ADMIN. RJLDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Oct 18 95 11:40 P. 02/02 LrrrtE Rock School District News Release October IS, 1995 For more Infomiation: Snellen Vann, 324-2020 Student DieclpHne Training u- Rock School District administrators will attend student dlsclpij\n^ raining .se.ssions on Thursday. October 19, 1995. Laidlaw Transit will present the training sessions, entitled \"Teaching Responsible .Thinking'tesed on author Edward Fords book, ''Discipline for Home and school\". The sessions are being presented in conjunction with National School Bus Salcty Week (Octotjcr 16-20. 199.5). .'I Elementary schixil principals tvili attend a training session beginning at 9:30 a.m., and secondarj school administrators will IJarilclpate in a 1\n30 p.m. presentation. Both di.scipline training sessions will Ite held at the tiansportatlon office at 5400 Murray Street. -I 1 I '  liH I J Media Note: LRSD School Board members have been Invited to attend the discipline training sessions. A special meeting situation exists if more than one board member attends.  i 1 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas ZaSOl  (501) 324.2000 l,R:D admin. BuirirNG Fax:1-501-324 ?03'\u0026gt; Ppf' lz 96 11:59 P.02/03 LiTriE Rock School District I PRESS RELEASE SCHOOL. arre:sts decline April 12. For more information: Snellen V'ann, 324-2020 Sgt. Al Dawson, 376-4631' The number ol arrests in Little Rock public schools has dropped significantly this school year, according to figures released by the Little Rock Police Department fLRPD). Through March the number of misdemeanor arrests declined 32% compared to last school year. During the same period felony arrests dropped 33%, \"The school resource officer program in our secondary schools has helped us Oenrendously?' said Dr. Henrv P Williams, Little Rock School District Superintendent. \"We believe the resource officers help our students better understand their civic responsibilities. Dr. Williams also credits school principals, teachers, and school security stall lor iheii work with students. Numbers compiled by die LRPD show: Misdemeanor Arrests 1996 School Year 1995 School Year % Decrease 168 246 32% Felony .Arrests 1996 School Year 1995 School Year % Decrease 39 58 33% (morel 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, /Arkansas 78301  (501 8000 LP?D AD^IN. BUlDING Apr 12 56 12:00 P, 03/03 School ArresLs Page 2 of 2 The total number of calls for police assistance increased this year due to more stringent reporting requirements under Act 888. That legislation requires principals to contact police regarding all possible felonies and other violent criminal acts. During the 1990 school year there have been 903 calls tor police assistance, compared to 558 calls during the 1995 school year\nmis reflects a 62sf\nincrease.1.'! 07 1 r .31 I.RSO COMAU\\'IC.T1 ODA| 1^ 002/002 mUMMCl 1050! 324 202.) 3 A, Little Rock School District special Board Met ring For Immediate Release March 13, 1997 For more information' Suellea Vaau, 324-292(i I he L ittle Reck School District ( LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting this afternoon m corjtinction wth its regular agenda meeting. The special meeting will be held for student disciplinaiy actions. Tne meetings will beghi at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD A.iministration Building, SIC West Markham. 810 West Markh-^m Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 {5011524-2000 Memo To: Ann From: Margie Subject: PCSSD Discipline Report Date: March 24, 1997 This report covers the first semester of the 1996-97 school year and provides data on the main discipline categories, three of which result in students being removed from the schools or the busses. The categories are: student suspensions, bus suspensions, expulsions, and assignments to Saturday School. With the exception of expulsions, the report contains data on the number of offenses and data on the number of students involved under each category. It is difficult to determine trouble spots from a discipline report that covers only one semester\nhowever, I asked Melissa to check data from the same time period during the 1995-96 school year. These are our findings: Although black students received proportionately more discipline sanctions than white students, the situation is especially egregious when it comes to expulsions. While the percentages average at 54%(W) and 46%(B) in all other categories, black students represented 73% of the expulsions in 1995 (1 sem.), and 65% of the expulsions in 1996 (I** sem.). Adkins, Clinton, Harris, Jacksonville, Oak Grove, and Sylvan Hills elementary schools suspended several students during the first semesters (9 or more students)\nhowever, only Harris and Jacksonville Elementary showed a high degree of disproportionality for both semesters. Robinson Elementarys data revealed high disproportionality, but too few students were involved to make a judgement. Over a 2 year period, most of the secondary schools had some disparity with the percentages of black students suspended, but, suspension numbers for Scott Alternative and Mills were especially noteworthy. Jacksonville HS, Oak Grove JH/SH, and Robinson SH had suspension rates that were more reflective of their student populations, for the two semesters examined. The most glaring problem in the secondary schools was the sheer number of students suspended. In the first semester of 1995 we had 1420 students walking the streets for 3 or more days, and in 1996 we had 1595 during that same time!Ann Page 2 March 24, 1997 Baker and College Station have excellent suspension records for both years - 0! The percentage of elementary children suspended from busses was equivalent to the number of secondary students suspended from the busses. Clinton was the only school to show disparate percentages for both semesters. Bayou Meto suspended a combined total of 36 students from the busses during the first two.semesters of each year. For the most part, elementary schools do no seem to use Saturday school as a discipline tool. Most of the elementary school data reflect no referrals to Saturday School. A couple of schools, Murrell Taylor and Pine Forrest, had few suspensions and few or no bus suspensions for both semesters. A few schools seemed to be trying to get it right by referring significantly more students to Saturday school than suspending them, but except for Baker, no school was consistent for both semesters. No elementary students were expelled during either of the semesters covered. Fuller JH, Oak Grove JH/SH, Jacksonville N., Sylvan Hills JH, Mills, and Jacksonville S., show disproportionate expulsion rates for both semesters covered. In any case, an average of 70 students were expelled during the first semester of the 1995 and 1996. The average number of black students expelled for the same time period was 48. 7 Overall, black females received a disproportionate number of discipline sanctions in all categories reported for both semesters covered. Baker has the best discipline record in the district: No students suspended from the school or busses in [the first semesters of] 1996 and one suspension 1995. No Saturday school assignments for either of the semesters covered. Perhaps a longitudinal study may be in order. In some cases, (Mills or Fuller JH for example) the students come from tough neighborhoods where settling disputes often involve violence. Children bring their neighborhood culture to school with them. In other cases, the problem may be poor classroom management, discipline policies that are unfair or unrealistic, or lack of a school-wide program to address problem solving or interpersonal relations skill training. I wouldnt mind doing a discipline report on the PCSSD that covers several years of data.Memo To: Ann From: Subject: Meeting with Dr. Roberts \u0026amp; Ms. Elson: Discipline - Hall HS Date: June 26, 1997 I met with Dr. Roberts and Jo Evelyn Elson to discuss the parameters of the assessment of discipline practices at Hall HS. From the outset. Dr. Roberts made it clear that he did not want an in-depth assessment, such as a longitudinal study, nor did he want a wide-range investigation where we interviewed school personnel or patrons. I recommended that the data collected reflect the race and gender of the students and the referring teachers as well as teaching experience, grade level taught, reasons for referral, and where indicated, reasons referrals were overturned by the Hearing Officer. We agreed that if any discipline referrals or specific offenses seemed excessive, than further inquiry would be necessary. In addition, I pointed out to the both of them that they had archival data in their building-level bi-racial reports. I suggested that they examine several of the reports to determine if any problems with discipline or other related areas had been noted. Those reports would serve as the voices of the parents. They both liked that suggestion. Dr. Roberts indicated that he did not want too much of an ODM presence because of the moratorium on monitoring\nhowever, because the district-wide bi-racial committee had become involved in the main discipline issue (the terroristic threatening case), and were planning on taking some kind of legal action, he wanted to be able to testify that ODM had helped with the inquiry. We batted around several names to serve on the inquiry team. They were still mulling over names when I left.7 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 July 9, 1997 Air. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 BY FAX Dear John: Thank you for sending me the Monitoring Report of Hall High School of the Little Rock School District, prepared by Mrs. Carolyn Cooley on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors. I have also received copies of letters you sent to Don Roberts in which you raised concerns about matters at Hall High. .As you are aware, the current moratorium has suspended ODMs monitoring activities in the LRSD, but it has not halted my contact with Dr. Robens. Don and I have discussed the events at Hall High, and I have offered him my assistance in assessing the situation at the school. He has asked my office to help develop a procedure that will enable the district to review and evaluate the discipline practices at Hail. I have assigned my associate, Margie Powell, to participate in designing the review process. Margie has met with Don and is presently working with the districts Director of Pupil Services, Jo Evelyn Elston, to develop the procedure which the district itself will implement. It is my hope that, by assisting in this manner, we will help the LRSD strengthen its own resolve and resources for problem prevention as well as problem resolution. Sincerely yours, CF Ann S. Brown co\nDon RobertsOffice 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 Memo To: Les Gamine From: Ann Bro Subject: Upcoming ODM Monitoring in the LRSD Date: February 4, 1999 I want you to know that my associate, Margie Powell, will be undertaking a monitoring project in the LRSD over the next few weeks. Margie will be reviewing district records to determine the types of disciplinary sanctions used in the LRSD and the rates at which black and white students are disciplined in the district's schools. I believe that Margie has already spoken to Dr. Linda Watson and Jo Evelyn Elston about her monitoring project. Margie explained that our report will be similar to that which we published last year on discipline in the Pulaski County Special School District and one we will soon publish on the North Little Rock School District. As is our routine, we will share our findings with the district before we publish our report. If you have any questions, please dont hesitate to call me or Margie. As always, we appreciate your cooperation.03/03/1999 16:33 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/01 For Immediate Release March 3, 1999 SOURCE/CONTACT: Suellen Vann Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2020 (501) 324-2023 (fax) MEDIA alert: What: Announcement regarding LRSD student discipline report for the first semester. When: Thursday, March 4, 1999 /O'-3 0 Where: Media Center Pulaski Heights Junior High 401 North Pine Who: Dr. Les Gamine, LRSD Superintendent\nPulaski Heights principal Nancy Rousseau, teachers and students also will be available to answer questions. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 sevann@lrscladm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us For Immediate Release March 4,1999 For more information\nSuellen Vann, 324-2020 School Discipline Improves in Little Rock The number of student disciplinary actions fell significantly in Little Rock public schools during the first semester of this school year. At a news conference this morning Little Rock School District Superintendent Les Gamine attributed the improvement in student behavior to efforts by parents, teachers and principals and to alternative educational programs implemented during the past year. Our classroom teachers identify children who are not able to learn in the regular classroom, and we assign these children to our high-tech alternative programs, Dr. Gamine explained. Many of these students are extremely bright and are capable of working with specialized software to learn the required course work at their own pace. Gamine announced that the total number of suspensions and expulsions during the first semester of the 1998-99 year was 2,344, compared to 2,706 last year, which represents a 13.4% decline. All of the 2,344 disciplinary actions were suspensions, except for one expulsion. Last year 78 students had been expelled by midyear. This years lone expulsion involved a student with a firearm at a bus stop in the community, not on a school campus. About 5% of discipline problems occur on buses and at bus stops. The disciplinary action comparison for the first semester of this year and last year is as follows: 1997-98 1998-99 Change Suspensions 2,628 2,343 -10.8% Expulsions 78 1 -98.7% (more) Page 2 of 2 School Discipline The improvement in disciplinary actions was greater for African-American students than for white students. Suspensions and expulsions of African-American students dropped by more than 15%. Gamine pointed out that the 2,344 disciplinary sanctions were levied on 1,712 students, some of whom received multiple sanctions. Those students represent less than 7% of the districts student body. Gamine expressed concern that students who miss class work while they are suspended frequently become discouraged because they fall behind the academic pace of their peers. Many of these children eventually drop out of school. Gamine added that the new programs have accomplished dual objectives. We have succeeded in keeping these children enrolled in school and working toward graduation, while allowing our regular classroom JJ teachers to teach those students who can learn and maintain appropriate behavior in class. Gamine said. Were pleased with this start weve made in improving discipline and the learning climate in our schools, but we still have much to do, Gamine added. We will continue to work with parents, teachers, principals and our community partners and to improve our instructional program which we feel will better engage students. The district monitors student discipline as one component of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which addresses school discipline and academic achievement. Jt LI tl ~r n f r tr tr ftTO: FROM\nSUBJECT\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 July 30,1999 John Walker, P.A., Attorney at Law Joshua Intervenors Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent Student Discipline 1998/99 Disciplinary Management Report (Semesters) As per your request, you will find a copy of the First Semester Disciplinary Management Report attached. A copy of the Second Semester Report will be forwarded to you as soon as it is completed within the next two weeks. Please feel free to contact my office at 324-2169 if additional information is needed. AttachmentRECbVi LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AUG 8 1999 I ^rHCE OF MONITORJfiQ 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201____________ Phone: (501)324-2170 E-mail: lwatson@ alc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LINDA WATSON, Ed. D ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT _________STUDENT DISCIPLINE Fax: (501) 324-0536 July 30, 1999 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation \u0026amp; Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Powell: The information you requested from our office is enclosed. These reports (dated from 92/93 through 98/99 school year) reflect the actual number of students sanctioned by race and gender for each year. Please do not hesitate to contact Student Hearing if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Linda Watson, Ed.D Assistant Superintendent Enclosure f/ / 9 I I e 'P'' / 0 J *5 received Recidivism Report - Black/White AUG 8 1999 Tear\n93 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once OmCECF DESEGREGATION MONfraW LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Senior High CENTRAL 58 39 14 3 2 0 116 FAIR 98 62 34 17 0 0 211 HALL 96 32 45 12 3 0 188 MCCLELLA 69 22 14 1 0 0 106 METRO 24 3 4 2 0 0 33 PARKVIEW 22 4 10 1 0 1 38 Junior High CLOVR JR 72 44 22 7 DUNBAR 105 69 29 11 FORST HT 116 77 17 11 HENDERSN 131 75 10 2 MABEL JR 72 50 16 7 MANN M/S 52 29 23 3 PULHTJ 113 41 24 4 SOUTHWST 123 47 26 10 Elementary BALE 1 0 2 0 BASELINE 4 0 0 0 BOOKER 18 5 3 1 BRADY 8 0 0 0 CARVER 3 5 1 0 CHICOT 6 1 6 0 CLOVR EL 5 0 3 0 DODD 11 4 8 1 FAIR PRK 8 4 1 0 FORST PK 10 3 1 0 FULBRIGH 2 1 0 1 GARLAND 7 1 0 0 GEYER SP 6 5 0 0 Senior High 692 0 0 145 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Junior High 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 221 219 145 108 182 207 1442 3 5 27 8 9 13 8 24 13 14 4 9 11 Wednesday, July 28,1999 Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 93 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM OF Total Elementary GIBBS 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 ISH 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 JEFFRSN 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 MABEL EL 4 4 6 0 0 0 14 MCDERMOT 8 4 , 3 0 0 0 15 MEADCLIF 17 22 2 2 1 0 0 MITCHELL 4 1 2 0 0 0 7 OTTER OR 6 1 0 0 0 0 7 PUL HT E 19 27 5 3 0 0 0 RIGHTSEL 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ROCKFELR 19 30 8 2 1 0 0 ROMINE 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 STEPHENS 9 2 0 0 0 0 11 TERRY 8 1 0 0 0 0 9 WAKEFIEL 6 1 0 0 0 0 7 WASHNGTN 8 1 0 0 0 0 9 WATSON 18 26 WEST HIL 10 18 4 4 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 WILSON 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 WOODRUFF 3 2 3 0 0 0 8 Elementary 378 Wednesday, July 28,1999 Grand Total 2512 Page 2 of 2RECEIVED Recidivism Report - Black/White AUG 8 1999 Year: 94 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONUDfllNG LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM OF Total Senior High CENTRAL 70 50 23 6 0 0 149 FAIR 80 37 29 9 2 0 157 HALL 93 45 29 16 1 1 185 MCCLELLA 79 24 6 3 0 0 112 METRO 18 11 3 4 0 0 36 PARKVIEW 33 13 20 5 0 1 72 Junior High CLOVR JR 93 51 21 6 DUNBAR 96 67 28 12 FORST HT 112 67 23 10 HENDERSN 113 64 10 2 MABEL JR 101 58 18 7 MANN M/S 61 51 17 11 PUL HT J 81 43 26 5 Elementary SOUTHWST BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CHICOT CLOVR EL DODD FAIR PRK FORST PK FRANKLIN FUL8RIGH GARLAND GEYER SP Wednesday, July 28,1999 120 46 23 8 1 3 16 3 7 2 2 17 5 9 0 10 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 2 2 1 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 Senior High 711 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Junior High 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 205 213 189 184 140 155 199 1457 2 3 21 4 13 2 6 22 11 10 2 14 3 Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: S'* Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM OF Total Elementary GIBBS 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 JEFFRSN 3 0 1 0 1 0 5 M L KING 12 14 1 1 0 0 0 MABEL EL 5 4 4 0 0 0 13 MCDERMOT 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 MEADCLIF 7 2 4 1 0 0 14 MITCHELL 2 12 PUL HT E 10 18 9 6 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 RIGHTSEL 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 ROCKFELR 8 5 2 1 0 0 16 ROMINE 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 STEPHENS 6 0 0 1 0 0 7 TERRY 5 0 0 0 1 0 6 WAKEFIEL 12 15 0 2 1 0 0 WASHNGTN 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 WATSON 13 18 3 2 0 0 0 WEST HIL 5 3 1 0 0 0 9 WILLIAMS 4 0 1 0 0 0 5 WILSON 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Elementary 288 Wednesday, July 28,1999 Grand Total 2456 Page 2 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 95 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF Senior High CENTRAL 100 35 16 4 FAIR 75 33 7 6 HALL 108 17 24 5 MCCLELLA 94 26 8 4 METRO 8 10 4 1 PARKVIEW 27 14 26 7 Junior High CLOVR JR 105 48 27 3 DUNBAR 119 70 26 15 FORST HT 109 63 21 11 HENDERSN 123 86 24 10 MABEL JR 82 42 18 10 MANN M/S 53 48 23 9 PUL HT J 90 35 30 8 SOUTHWST 124 83 26 15 Elementary BALE 5 3 0 0 BASELINE 3 1 0 0 BOOKER 8 1 4 1 BRADY 14 5 2 3 CARVER 7 0 1 0 CHICOT 20 4 3 3 DODD 7 1 2 0 FAIR PRK 21 3 3 1 FORST PK 8 1 1 0 FRANKLIN 33 6 0 1 FULBRIGH 4 2 2 0 GARLAND 11 2 0 0 GEYER SP 2 1 0 0 Wednesday, July 28,1999 RECEIVED AUG 8 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION M0NIT0R1K8 OM OF Total 1 0 156 0 2 2 0 0 Senior High 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 2 Junior High 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 156 134 23 74 664 183 231 204 243 153 135 165 251 1565 8 4 14 24 9 30 10 28 10 40 8 13 3 Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 95 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM OF Total Elementary GIBBS 12 7 3 2 0 0 0 JEFFRSN 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M L KING 3 1 2 0 0 0 11 MABEL EL 26 40 6 5 2 0 1 MCDERMOT 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 3  2 MEADCLIF 10 18 MITCHELL 26 36 2 1 0 8 1 1 0 0 OTTER CR 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 PUL HT E 15 19 RIGHTSEL 17 21 ROCKFELR 16 24 3 3 5 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ROMINE 5 1 0 0 0 1 7 TERRY 12 14 0 1 0 1 0 WAKEFIEL 7 2 2 1 0 0 12 WASHNGTN 13 16 WATSON 14 20 WEST HIL 12 17 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 WILSON 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 WOODRUFF 0 2 1 1 0 0 4 Elementary 485 Wednesday, July 28, 1999 Grand Total 2714 Page 2 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 96 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF Senior High CENTRAL 145 72 37 16 FAIR 118 61 26 10 HALL 85 36 20 9 MCCLELLA 122 52 11 5 METRO 25 14 3 0 PARKVIEW 31 13 8 6 Junior High CLOVR JR 129 91 17 12 DUNBAR 113 48 32 13 FORST HT 151 52 19 5 HENDERSN 112 80 36 5 MABEL JR 98 66 25 11 MANN M/S 60 38 29 2 PUL HT J 91 32 18 6 SOUTHWST 159 83 22 16 Elementary BADGETT 7 0 1 0 BALE 20 5 0 0 BASELINE 11 5 4 0 BOOKER 25 5 6 1 BRADY 17 2 1 0 CARVER 9 0 0 0 CHICOT 38 13 6 4 CLOVR EL 2 0 0 0 DODD 3 2 1 0 FAIR PRK 15 12 1 1 FORST PK 10 13 3 2 FRANKLIN 45 16 4 2 FULBRIGH 26 3 7 1 Wednesday, July 28,1999 FECE!VED AUG 8 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OM OF Total 0 0 270 0 3 1 0 0 Senior High 3 4 3 1 0 1 0 2 Junior High 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 154 192 42 58 931 254 212 230 234 200 130 147 282 1689 8 25 21 37 20 9 62 2 6 29 29 68 42 Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 96 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Elementary GARLAND 26 35 GEYER SP 11 21 6 5 1 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 GIBBS 8 4 5 1 0 0 18 JEFFRSN 3 4 0 0 0 0 7 ML KING 9 2 8 0 0 0 19 MABEL EL 23 37 9 3 2 0 0 MCDERMOT 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 MEADCLIF 21 31 MITCHELL 17 21 6 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 OTTER CR 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 PUL HT E 36 10 55 RIGHTSEL 12 ROCKFELR 12 ROMINE 12 TERRY 21 10 37 7 4 6 1 1 1 1 0 0 . 0 8 0 1 2 1 0 6 1 2 2 1 0 4 1 1 0 WAKEFIEL 0 0 0 5 0 4 1 WASHNGTN 20 40 WATSON 60 14 78 WEST HIL 12 18 6 4 8 2 2 4 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 WILLIAMS 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 WILSON 7 2 1 0 0 0 10 WOODRUFF 8 2 2 1 0 0 13 Elementary 849 Wednesday, July 2S, 1999 Grand Total 3469 Page 2 of 2RECEIVED Recidivism Report - Black/White AUG 8 1999 Year: 97 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITQRIMQ LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM OF Total Senior High CENTRAL 142 76 34 9 2 0 263 FAIR 68 39 15 10 0 1 133 HALL 80 41 12 10 3 0 146 MCCLELLA 102 43 11 4 1 0 161 METRO 17 5 2 0 0 0 24 PARKVIEW 31 11 34 11 3 2 92 Junior High CLOVR JR 177 95 9 9 DUNBAR 120 57 43 13 FORST HT 166 80 34 19 HENDERSN 143 68 19 19 MABEL JR 93 51 26 8 MANN M/S 65 38 28 6 PUL HT J 93 30 14 6 SOUTHWST 114 57 10 11 Elementary BADGETT 8 2 1 1 BALE 18 7 5 2 BASELINE 24 6 4 0 BOOKER 27 2 4 2 BRADY 13 3 1 1 CARVER 26 3 8 0 CHICOT 60 17 7 3 CLOVR EL 10 0 2 0 DODD 18 0 4 0 FAIR PRK 19 2 5 2 FORST PK 10 9 2 0 FRANKLIN 25 6 3 1 FULBRIGH 29 11 1 1 Senior High 819 3 8 4 3 1 2 0 0 Junior High 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 296 241 303 252 179 140 143 193 1747 12 33 35 35 20 37 93 12 22 28 21 36 42 Tuesday, July 27,1999 Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 9^ Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Elementary GARLAND 3 2 1 0 0 0 6 GEYER SP 12 24 8 2 1 1 0 GIBBS 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 JEFFRSN 2 1 1 0 0 0 4  4 M L KING 21 39 MABEL EL 34 17 64 MCDERMOT 19 28 MEADCLIF 21 28 6 9 3 5 0 4 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 MITCHELL 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 OTTER CR 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 PUL HT E 34 18 58 RIGHTSEL 10 16 ROCKFELR 20 38 5 0 0 1 5 5 0 9 0 3 1 1 0 0 ROMINE 8 2 5 0 0 0 15 TERRY 14 28 7 6 . 0 1 0 WAKEFIEL 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 WASHNGTN 29 10 46 WATSON 22 31 WEST HIL 29 36 5 0 1 0 5 2 1 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 WILLIAMS 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 WILSON 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 WOODRUFF 14 5 1 0 0 0 20 Elementary 925 Tuesday, July 27,1999 Grand Total 3491 Page 2 of 2a RECESVED Recidivism Report - Black/White AUG 8 1999 Year: 98 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM OF Total Senior High ALT LEARN 34 13 5 1 3 0 56 CENTRAL 127 60 28 14 0 0 229 FAIR 90 50 4 4 1 0 149 HALL 115 41 17 8 7 0 188 MCCLELLA 118 42 8 6 4 3 181 METRO 13 3 1 1 0 0 18 PARKVIEW 30 17 22 10 3 0 82 Junior High ALT LEARN 0 2 0 0 CLOVR JR 171 95 10 8 DUNBAR 111 57 38 21 FORST HT 133 66 32 14 HENDERSN 179 67 20 8 MABEL JR 92 65 18 9 MANN M/S 73 34 19 10 PUL HT J 79 40 11 4 SOUTHWST 121 69 19 10 Elementary BADGETT 4 4 0 0 BALE 10 6 2 0 BASELINE 32 12 4 0 BOOKER 25 3 5 0 BRADY 21 6 2 3 CARVER 27 4 5 0 CHICOT 56 13 13 3 DODD 11 4 5 0 FAIR PRK 10 13 1 0 FORST PK 18 10 2 1 FRANKLIN 29 5 3 2 Senior High 903 0 0 2 9 8 4 3 1 3 2 3 Junior High 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 6 2 1 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 299 237 250 278 186 142 136 223 1753 8 18 48 34 34 37 88 21 25 31 39 Tuesday, July 27, 1999 Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 9 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM OF Total Elementary FULBRIGH 20 10 36 3 3 0 0 GARLAND 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 GEYER SP 7 7 2 1 0 0 17 GIBBS 1 7 2 0 0 0 10 JEFFRSN 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 M L KING 18 39 MABEL EL 34 12 13 65 8 8 5 4 0 0 1 1 MCDERMOT 7 6 2 1 0 0 16 MEADCLIF 19 25 4 1 1 0 0 MITCHELL 8 5 1 0 0 0 14 OTTER CR 11 14 PUL HT E 32 16 51 RIGHTSEL 12 15 ROCKFELR 18 34 2 3 6 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 1 0 ROMINE 8 1 6 1 0 0 16 TERRY 23 35 WAKEFIEL 23 11 34 WASHNGTN 21 36 WATSON 61 15 86 WEST HIL 15 28 5 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 2 0 3 3 2 2 8 5 0 0 0 WILLIAMS 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 WILSON 35 11 46 0 0 0 0 WOODRUFF 9 1 3 0 0 0 13 Elementary 1018 Tuesday, July 27, 1999 Grand Total 3674 Page 2 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 99 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF OM Senior High ACC LEARN 0 2 0 0 0 AGENCIES 19 1 3 2 0 ALT LEARN 15 1 3 1 0 CENTRAL 81 40 30 7 1 FAIR 55 39 7 5 1 HALL 95 54 15 9 9 MCCLELLA 103 52 5 5 1 METRO 16 8 1 0 1 PARKVIEW 37 21 26 32 1 Junior High ALT LEARN 69 18 9 1 CLOVR JR 145 65 10 4 DUNBAR 87 40 26 9 FORST HT 141 86 47 17 HENDERSN 118 58 9 6 MABEL JR 87 55 20 13 MANN M/S 54 32 24 10 PULHTJ 109 46 17 4 SOUTHWST 77 47 15 8 Elementary BADGETT 5 2 1 0 BALE 10 3 3 0 BASELINE 19 4 1 0 BOOKER 21 5 8 1 BRADY 9 2 1 1 CARVER 11 2 1 1 CHICOT 60 18 10 2 CLOVR EL 1 0 0 0 DODD 6 2 5 2 Tuesday, July 27,1999 RECEIVED AUG 8 1999 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITOflIKS OF Total 1 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 3 25 20 159 109 184 169 26 117 Senior High 812 1 0 98 5 2 6 2 3 2 2 5 Junior High 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 230 166 300 194 178 123 178 153 1620 8 16 25 36 14 15 91 1 15 Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 99 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM OF Total Elementary FAIR PRK 16 24 6 1 0 1 0 FORST PK 0 3 4 0 0 0 7 FRANKLIN 38 52 FULBRIGH 11 16 8 3 2 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 GARLAND 0 2 4 0 0 0 6 GEYER SP 15 13 29 GIBBS 14 22 JEFFRSN 11 25 M L KING 21 12 39 MABEL EL 19 13 44 MCDERMOT 21 10 35 MEADCLIF 14 22 2 9 3 9 5 0 6 3 3 2 1 0 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MITCHELL 7 1 0 0 0 0 8 OTTER CR 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PUL HT E 22 14 40 RIGHTSEL 11 18 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 ROCKFELR 11 3 4 3 0 0 1 ROMINE 7 1 2 0 1 0 11 TERRY 20 31 6 4 1 0 0 WAKEFIEL 8 1 6 1 0 0 0 WASHNGTN 13 3 4 4 0 2 0 WATSON 9 2 7 0 0 0 0 WEST HIL 17 32 9 5 1 0 0 WILLIAMS 10 2 7 1 0 0 0 WILSON 46 13 63 2 0 0 2 WOODRUFF 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 Elementary 805 Tuesday, July 27,1999 Grand Total 3237 Page 2 of 2'v I Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECBVS0 May 2, 2000 MAY A 2U00 Uff sGt Of OfSEGflEGATJOM MONnWB Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: We announced at the April 27' Regular Board Meeting that we are seeing continuing improvement in several critical indicators. During the third quarter, student behavior continued to improve in the schools. Our third quarter discipline report indicates a 21 % decrease in the number of suspensions from the same period last year. The number is significantly lower with only 1,255 suspensions during the quarter. More students are staying in school as evidenced by the decline in the number of dropouts. This years third quarter dropouts are 67% below last year. There were 150 dropouts during the third quarter in 1998-99, while there are only 50 dropouts during the third quarter this year. We might be able to attribute some of this fantastic progress to more participation by the community and especially parents within our schools. Volunteer hours increased 8% this year, from 237,336 volunteer hours to last year to 255,937 for 1999-2000. And now for the best news! We had already started a trend the previous year with expulsions and suspensions and that trend is continuing. We are encouraging students to take more challenging courses in order to prepare for college...and careers. Enrollment in Advanced Placement courses by African- American students has risen by 48% from 471 during the 1997-1998 school year to this year's 691. Total student enrollment in Advanced Placement courses increased 25% since the 1997-98 school year, from 1,435 to 1,791 this year. We waited to share this trend because we wanted to be sure of the success rate was accurate and that class drops had not occurred in any great numbers from initial enrollment. These are positive trends that bode well for the District and the future increased student achievement for all students. I thought you would be pleased with the continuing progress of the Little Rock School District. Sincerely, Leslieiy. Carnine Superintendent of Schools cc: Chris Heller 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012s JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law ' 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED NOV - 9 ZOIB OfRCEOF Via Facsimile November 8, 200.0 Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Compliance Issues - Cloverdale Dear Dr. Carnine: This is to bring to your attention another issue relating to the Districts compliance with its revised desegregation obligations. You are aware that Mr. Walker and I have previously complained that black students are disparately disciplined. In addition, we have complained that white students, particularly white females, are given more favored treatment, i.e., they are seldom disciplined, not disciplined at all and are given more favored treatment regarding the issuance of discipline. I am, therefore, raising the issue of compliance with respect to Section 2, paragraphs 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to ... to remedy the effects of past discrimination ... to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race ... and paragraph 2.5.1 LRSD shall ... all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner with respect to the discipline of students at Cloverdale Middle School Academy. You and the administration may take the position that this is another isolated incident, however, if proper investigations are conducted of all your schools including the review of disciplinary referral records, I am convinced that you will find that white students, particularly white females, receive favored treatment with respect to the issue of discipline as compared to black students who are disparately disciplined. We, therefore, request that Mr. James Washington, Ombudsman and/or your designee including Dr. Linda Watson investigate the complaint that we have received that at least one white female student at Cloverdale Middle School Academy was not appropriately disciplined after admitting that she referred to a black classroom teacher as a stupid bitch. May I suggest that they review the referral records at Cloverdale for now to determine validity of this particular allegation and determine also whether there has been equity regarding the discipline of black and white students since the beginning of the school year for similar offenses. I would also suggest that they compare several other offenses of black and white students to determine whether they received similar treatment. Mr. Washington and/or Dr. Watson may give me a call in order for me to provide additional information including the name of the white female student at Cloverdale who received the favored treatment. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely/^ Joy C. Springs 0 / Joy C. Spring \u0026gt;5' '' On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ cc: Mr. James Washington Dr. Linda Watson Mr. Junious BabbsC^ JOHN V/. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Dttle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 ^ECEfVEo n - 9 2300 Via Facsimile November 8, 2000 GF Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: Please be advised that on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors, this office continues to monitor the Districts good faith efforts to comply with the revised desegregation plan and provide equal educational opportunities to all children, particularly to the black students in the District. I believe that the District is obliged to consult and share with Joshua its adoption, development and implementation of new programs which may enhance and/or adversely affect its desegregation efforts. We understand that the District is implementing a new program, CICs - Continued Instruction Centers and/or short term suspension centers. This program appears to be at least one major change in the way that discipline is being handled in your District and we are not fully informed of its intentions. I have a general understanding of the services being provided by the center, however, I would like to have more information about the program. By copy of this letter to Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent for Student Discipline and Hearings, I am requesting that she assist you in providing the following information: 1) a copy of the notice inviting Joshua to panicipate in the development of the centers: 2) a copy of the program design and services\n3) a copy of the rules and regulations governing the centers\n4) a listing including the addresses of the centers and criteria used for the location of the centers\n5) the date of implementation of the centers\n6) a copy of the notice to parents advising them of these centers\nand 6) any reports that have been developed which reflect the success of the CICs to date. 1 have received several complaints from parents that the centers are not accessibility to their children. In addition, it does not appear to be fair for students to have access to the centers and have their discipline records cleared and for other students who do not have access to maintain their discipline records. Where is the fairness or equity?By copy of this letter to Mr. James Washington, Ombudsman, he may contact this office in order that 1 may share the names of the parent complainants with him for investigation. Thank you for your cooperation Sincerely, I t ^y C. Springer '4)11 Behalf of Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Dr. Linda Watson Mr. James Washington Mr. Junious Babbs JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Lnru: Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3768 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHUNKC PA. DONNA J. McHenry 8210 Hkndesson Roao Lrrrw Rock, akkambsb 72210 Phone: (601)372-3426  Fax (601) 372-8428 Email: mdiBaryd^wbelijiet Via Fax: 376-2147 October II, 2001 Mr, Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W, Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Fendley: After writing to inform you that I represented Ms. Nona Whitaker and would attend the conference that was set for Monday, you called to inform me that there would be no conference and that the matter would be deferred until today. I accepted your representation in good faith. It now appears that you misrepresented the facts to me. lam informed that a conference did take place between Principal Munns, Ms. WTiitalcer and Ms. Clementine Kelley of the CTA and that disciplinaiy letter was given to Ms. Whitaker. I believe that Ms. Munns acted in bad faith in proceedmg with the conference after your representation that no action would occur in my a \" ----- aiiti /uux icprchcniauon mat no action would occur m my ^sence I imagine Ms. Munns would say that it wasnt necessary for me to be present because Ms. Kelley was there. She is wrong but that should not matter. In view of the fact that this misrepresentation occurred, I am requesting that the warning given to Ms. Whitaker be rescinded. am also requesting that I be allowed to interview in your presence, but separately, each person who was a witness to the event or events which gave rise to Ms. Munns charges. I am also request!^that neither you nor Ms. Munns seek to further taint their testimony regarding the events. This incident is very important as you will recall because we have raised the issue of retaliation by the district in the court proceeding and because your word is supposed to count for something. I am also informing you that I have received today the discipline management report for last year. Alarmingly, Hall High School suspended approximately 30% of its student enrollment semester, a number which was increased during the second semester. More titan tk t students suspended were Black boys which raises my concern that more than half of _  appear to be suspended at one time or another at Hall. In reviewing the Discipline sanctions By Reason Code, virtually all of the children, far too many in number in the first place. t0\u0026lt; TT 100 wdid dtn aainyri ISTft^lZTQSPage Two October 11, 2001 suspended during the first semester for refusing to follow directives were Black as were those suspmded for repeat violations, whatever that means. During the second semester, that number was increased by some 65%. Moreover, when we combine categories 050, 062, 105, it appears that almost half of the second semester suspensions deal with suspensions for failure to obtain pennission or follow direction. This suggests that something is not working at Hall and that an inquiry needs to be made as to why children are disciplined for this, or why they are not following directions in the first place. I note that at Central there were only four category 105 suspensions in tire first semester and none for categories 050 and 062 in the first semester and that there were only eight in those categories during the second semester. The question is again raised as to why Central numbers are token for those offenses but at Hall thej' are so overwhelming. I believe that some of the staff members at Hall are trigger happj in suspending children for almost any reason when their authority is challenged. I am informing you that 1 intend to visit Hall and assist in the representation of a CT A member who is being recommended for discipline by the school principal this afternoon at 3:00 p.m. You are already informed that I will appear at Ms. Munns school at 4:00 p.m. with Ms. Kelley. I expect to be both places or to have my office represented at both places at the appointed times. Si ely, JoJ W, Walker JWW.-Ip cc: _ Ms. Ann Marshall Dr. Ken James Principal Munns Principal Smith Principal Howard Ms. Clementine Kelley te\u0026lt; tt 130 wdid flyi d3\nnoi'i isttfizrasDate: To: Fax: Re: Sender: JOHN W, WALKER, P.A. A//ornej al Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkan.sa.^ 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET October//, 2001 NTs. Ann Marshall 371-0100 John W. Walker, Esq. YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [_____(including cover sheet)] PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \u0026lt;(501) 374-37S8\u0026gt; The infbnnation contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received tills communication in error, please immediate noiily us by telephone, and' return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Ser\\-ice. Thank you. X0\u0026lt; XT 130 TQd 121 udid fitn d3\u0026gt;-noii iLS X0S^^ECHVED NOV - 7 2001 Office OF JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 PAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-2260 November 6, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry PA DONNA J. McHenry 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiiryd^wbell.net Mr. James Washington Office of the Ombudsman Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Mr. Washington: I am writing to request that jjou investigate the complaint of Ms. Avis Thames that her son, D.J., was disparately disciplined by the coach, Mr. Randy Rutherford, at J. A. Fair High School. D.J. was a member of the football team at Fair. It appears that Ms. Thames basic claim is that Coach Rutherford failed to utilize the Board approved discipline procedures for alleged misbehavior by a student. These procedures allow a parent to appeal the decision of the teacher or the assistant principal, in this case the coach, to the building level administrator (the principal). It is my understanding that the principal (Ms. Norman) overruled Coach Rutherfords disciphne decision, yet Coach Rutherford ignored Ms. Normans decision to overturn his decision. Subsequently, Coach Rutherford followed through with his recommended discipline contrary to Ms. Normans decision. These actions, we believe, are in violation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. I call your attention to Sections 2.1, 2.5, 2.5.1 and 2.6 of the Plan. Furthermore, this incident raises a red flag regarding whether coaches believe that they ....................... are obliged to adhere District disciphne policies and procedures during their time with students. Mr. Babbs, this appears to be an area for your shop to monitor at other District schools to ensure compliance with the aforementioned plan commitments By copy of this letter to Dr. James, Mr. Babbs, Dr. Lacey, Dr. Watson and Mr. Johnson, this is to advise that Joshua shares the concerns of Ms. Thames regarding disparate disciphne and Coach Rutherfords failure to adhere to District discipline procedures. After you have had an opportunity to speak with Ms. Thames, she may have some additional concerns. At this time, it is my understanding that the aforementioned items are her major concerns. I would suggest obtaining a copy of Ms. Thames letter to Dr. James along with a copy of D.J.s letter. Finally, we are requesting that you provide to this office a report of your findings including the letter from Ms. Thames to Dr. James and D.J.s letter regarding this incident in order that we may determine whether to invoke Section 8 of the Plan. Iorder that we may determine whether to invoke Section 8 of the Plan. Thank you for your attention to this request. incerely. w izJoy C. Springer On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ cc: Ms. Avis Thames Dr. Kenneth James Mr. Junious Babbs Dr. Marian Lacey Dr. Linda Watson Mr. Johnny Johnson Ms. Ann Marshall . I\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_419","title":"Discipline, court documents","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1992/1994"],"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 discipline","Educational law and legislation","Student expulsion","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, court documents"],"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/419"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["civil court records"],"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\nwwrrr?? PHA Wb. CT? IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RUBY HOLMES, As Next Friend of ORONDE HOLMES, A Minor l.R\u0026amp;.-92-5$8 vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate\nDR. CLOYDE McKINLEY, In His Capacity as Superintendnet of Schools of the Little Rock School District\nO.G. JACOVELLI, PATRICIA GEE, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL, and W.D. \"BILL HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT This case is to redress the Little Rock School Districts failure to properly advise the plaintiff and her minor son of their due process rights regarding an expulsion action of said minor plaintiff from one of the districts junior high schools. Plaintiff believes that because of the districts failure to advise them of their due process rights and because of his race, minor plaintiff is being denied the opportunity to receive an education as promised by the Constitution. 1. Jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1343. Relief is also sought pursuant to the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. 2. Plaintiff Ruby Holmes is the parent of minor plaintiff, Oronde Holmes. They reside within the Little Rock School Districtpr 11, y*!: V A\nlocated in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Both are citizens of the United States of African descent. f V During the 1991- 92 school year, minor plaintiff attended to Southwest Junior High School in Little Rock. ij' O\nR'i Schools. I \"Il .(Hi Defendant Bernd is the Superintendent of the Little Rock Defendants, o.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, John Moore, Dorsey Jackson, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, and W.D. \"Bill Hamilton are members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District and as such, they cetablieh and implement the policies for the operation of the Little Rock Public Schools. This is an action to enjoin the defendants from enforcing any policy, practice, custom or usage of denying written notice of expulsion to minor plaintiff. 5. Minor plaintiff. Oronde Holmes is a black male child 1 K A 3 . 4 . whose birthdate is October 2, 1977. He has performed as a good :A'' S-'Tl- I' i a SI student with an overall grade point average of \"C\" prior to the events addressed herein. On or about May 4, 1992, minor plaintiff was involved in an altercation with another student at Southwest 'ii Junior High School. As a result of said altercation, minor if i I' ft plaintiff received an expulsion recommendation from the school to the district's hearing officer. 6. On or about May 18, 1992, the district's hearing officer upheld the recommendation of the school. On same date, the hearing I 5.2) officer failed to advise plaintiff of her appeal rights to the t.'ir board. Instead, the hearing officer verbally recommended that Isif plaintiffs accept the recommendation of the school and in return he brat 2 s*1 S .c Uy Bist Ut Liulekoct HU. would request that the Board reinstate minor plaintiff for the \u0026lt;  V'ri' t { 'ibV\n1992-93 school year by placing him in Alternative School contingent ft upon his completing the district's \"Changing Directions\" course. f?' 7. At no time did the defendants give plaintiffs written notice to the effect that the oral decision of the hearing officer 1\n.l on May is, 1992, would not be honored. 8. During the middle of June, 1992, plaintiff made inquiry of the district regarding the board action. The hearing officer at I ti 4 3 that time indicated that he had appeared before the board on her ii'f' behalf and that upon receipt of documentation that minor plaintiff had completed the changing directions course, there would be no further problem with his admission to classes in August of 1992. 'I 1 'I 9. On August 24, 1992 when plaintiff sought to enroll minor 'n plaintiff in school, she received verbal notice that minor 1 1 ) J . \\ ft. 'Jif .V plaintiff could not return to school until the second semester of ^5' the 1992-93 school year. Si 'i', 'I!- 10. At some date unknown to plaintiffs, the defendants met to consider plaintiff's case. They did so without affording plaintiffs written notice of the action or an opportunity to be heard. Moreover, when they reached their adverse decision, the 1 1 I 1 l' S'I 5f defendants did not advise minor plaintiff of it until he appeared to enroll at Southwest Junior High School on August 24, 1992. 11. The foregoing action was taken by defendants against Ij ii minor plaintiff due to his race or color and pursuant to district policy in violation of his rights under the Equal Protection and I\nif\nS.s  I w I i I 1. 24  k u. J 3I ('O' J 4 5' ii'iV ::t UyUlslUl Lillie koct n? I LAk HU. LUiyy^HUkH Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and under 42 U.S.C. If, Section 1983. Said action is also violative of the defendants' own IS ,w- rules and of the current plan of desegregation approved by the court. The plaintiff is suffering and stands to further suffer '.I'i I J ''f .t '4\nJ' educational and constitutional harm that is irreparable unless these concerns are promptly addressed and remedied by the Court. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court advance this case on the docket, issue a temporary restraining order restraining defendants from denying access to education to minor plaintiff. ,1 '.1 pendente lite\nand thereafter grant minor plaintiff preliminary and injunctive relief and such other appropriate equitable relief as j, the court may see fit to grant to remedy the violations alleged herein. The plaintiffs further pray for their costs herein including i'. 'll reasonable counsel fees. .'i n -I' H Respectfully submitted, nk if  \nI.' \u0026gt; u 3 I li JOHN W, WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 'I'. ? By: J\ntfl W. Walker - iBar No^ 64046  I. 11 I, DATED: September 16, 1992 I''!, I, t'l dzholmes.ple Ilf J S: ii!r 'II,:# i* .5\u0026lt;' ?{ i! ) 4RECEIVED FILED NOV 19 im Office Of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU^.-S.^D^5J rrOJ.\u0026lt;'^\"1,5^^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J^OV 17 1992 WESTERN DIVISION CAftu LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEH. CLE.IK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION TO SET ASIDE SUSPENSION AND FOR FURTHER RELIEF The Joshua Intervenors move the Court for an Order requesting the immediate reinstatement of class member, John Doe, as a student of the Little Rock School System. He proceeds herein through his mother, Mary Doe. The District is being provided the names of both persons. For cause, the movants respectfully show the Court that: 1. John Doe was eligible to attend Dunbar Jr. High School during the current school term. On September 2, 1992, minor Doe enrolled in the school for the purpose of attending classes. He attended classes for that day. 2. During the 7th period of the day, minor Doe was called to the office at which time he was given a \"behavior report\" wherein he was given notice by the District that he was being recommended for suspension from school. A copy of the report is attached hereto as Exhibit \"A.\" The alleged misbehavior involved an out of school incident which happened during the summer. Adult Doe requested a hearing before the school system's hearing officer, Mr. Rudolph Howard, soon thereafter. The hearing 3.was held on November 2, 1992, almost two (2) months after school started. 4. At the hearing, it developed that the minor Doe was being removed from school on the basis of newspaper reports which related John Doe to alleged criminal behavior. The District obtained its information from newspaper reports. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer determined that the child could return to the school system but could not remain in Dunbar. The child was then assigned to Cloverdale Jr. High School. There was no writing to this effect. 5. John Doe and Mary Doe presented John Doe for admission to Cloverdale Jr. High on November 12, 1992. The principal, Gayle Bradford, told Mary Doe at she had not yet been advised by the Little Rock School District office to admit John Doe, but to call her the next day. Mary Doe called her the next day and was told the same thing. The same situation was repeated on November 16, 1992. 6. On November 17, 1992, Mary Doe went to the school for the purpose of effecting the promised school admission of her child to Cloverdale. She was again told that the School District office had not contacted the school approving the admission. 7. The defendants have effectively denied minor Doe an education since September, 1992. John Doe has been effectively t|i. deprived of equal protection and due process of the laws by his treatment herein including, inter alia: (1) a long term suspension recommendation based upon unrelated allegations away from school of pupil misbehavior\n(2) improper notice and delay in hearing charges against him\n(3) a school district policy of summary suspension for accused criminal activity\nand (4) a policy of emergency removal from school of anyone suspected of engaging in criminal activity away from school. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court issue an immediate Order and injunction to require the defendant to allow the placement of minor Doe in Dunbar Jr. High School where he resides at his choice, in Cloverdale Jr. High School. Moreover, he prays, wherever he is assigned. that he be \"made or, whole\" for the alleged deprivations herein and afforded full and effective remedial relief for the time that he was required to stay out of school. Joshua further prays that the aforementioned behavior report be expunged from minor John Doe's record. Finally, Joshua asks for alternative appropriate and reasonable attorney's fees for this enforcement proceeding. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mai\nd, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this 4 day of November, 1992. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 c:Irsd.mot Jo: FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'JBASTEflN district Arkansas EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC 0 9 1992 CARLR. BRENTS, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PTRfNTTFFS. OEP. CLERK V. NO, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION TO SET ASIDE SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION RECOMMENDATION AND FOR FURTHER RELIEF Joshua moves the Court for an Order requesting the immediate reinstatement of class member, Eugene Doe, as a student on one of the campuses of the Little Rock School District. He proceeds herein through his mother, Carolyn Doe. The District is being provided the names of the parties. For cause. the movants respectfully show the Court that: 1. Eugene Doe is a special education student who attended Mabelvale Junior High School. He has attended Mabelvale Junior High from the beginning of the 1992-93 school year until on or about November 30, 1992. 2. On or about November 30, 1992, the school officials gave Eugene Doe's sister. who also attends this school. a behavior report to be delivered to the parent wherein Adult Doe was given notice by the school that her son was being recommended for expulsion from school prior having the required hearing as required by PL 94-142. A copy of the report is attached hereto as Exhibit \"A\". The alleged misbehavior involved an out of school incident which occurred away from school on or about November 23, 1992. Upon receipt of this report, Adult Doe was advised that her son was not to return to school. On or about December 2, 3. 1992, the school held a meeting with Adult Doe to discuss the incident that occurred on or about November 30, 1992 at the Cloverdale Shopping Center located at Chicot and Baseline Roads. 4. At this meeting it developed that Eugene Doe was being suspended from school and recommended for expulsion from the school on the basis of newspaper reports and rumors which related Eugene Doe to alleged criminal behavior. Adult Doe was not provided aihy' evidence that tied her son to the alleged incident. 5. On or about December 8, 1992, Adult Doe was summoned to another meeting with school officials at which time she reguested the reinstatement of her minor son to school. The principal, Mr. Wayne Marshaleck, refused to honor Adult Doe's request. During this meeting school officials attempted to justify the expulsion recommendation given Adult Doe on November 30, 1992 without providing all evidence to Adult Doe prior to the meeting as required by PL 94-142. Defendants LRSD took a statement from minor Doe and failed to notify Adult Doe that a statement had been taken and did not provide her with a copy of same. Adult Doe exercised her constitutional rights and requested that this meeting not proceed. 6. Plaintiffs Eugene and Carolyn Doe respectfully show the Court that Eugene Doe has been denied admission to school sinceNovember 30, 1992 because he is alleged to have been involved in a crime that occurred prior to school hours away from school property which has no relation to his basic right to an education. 7. Defendant LRSD has effectively denied Eugene Doe an education by their actions and deprived him of equal protection and due process of the laws by his treatment herein, inter alia: 1) an expulsion recommendation based upon unrelated allegations away from school of pupil misbehavior\n2) improper notice of hearing charges against him\n3) school district policy of summary suspension for accused criminal activity\nand 4) a policy of a emergency removal from school of anyone suspected of engaging in criminal activity away from school. WHEREFORE, Joshua prays that the Court issue an immediate order and injunction to require the defendant LRSD to allow the reinstatement of minor Doe to Mabelvale Junior High School where he resides or ar his choice. a school whereby he may receive equitable educational opportunities. Moreover, minor Doe prays. wherever he is assigned, that he be \"made whole\" for the alleged deprivations herein and afforded full and effective remedial relief for the time that he was required to stay out of school. Joshua further prays that the aforementioned behavior report be expunged from minor Eugene Doe's record. Finally, Joshua asks for alternative appropriate and reasonable attorney's fees for this enforcement proceeding. Respectfully submitted.Jo: W. Walker Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of November, 1992. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 c:Irsd.mot J- Walker V RECEIVED 4PR 2 6 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 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 W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS MOTION TO DISMISS For its Motion to Dismiss, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states\n1. By motion dated October 22, 1992, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction regarding class member Perry Doe. 2 . By motion dated November 17, 1992, Joshua seeks to set aside the suspension of and further relief regarding class member John Doe. 3 . By motion dated November 17, 1992, Joshua seeks to set aside the suspension of and further relief regarding another class member John Doe. 4 . By motion dated December 9, 1992, Joshua seeks to set aside the suspension and expulsion recommendation of and further relief regarding class member Eugene Doe. 5. Each of the above motions represents an effort by Joshua to litigate alleged constitutional or statutory deprivationsstemming from LRSD disciplinary actions taken against individual class members. 6. LRSD has provided by policy and practice an administrative forum for students, including Joshua class members, to seek redress of grievances. The policies and practices provided by LRSD comport with constitutional due process. 7. This case is not the proper forum for individual class members to seek redress of individual grievances arising from LRSD disciplinary actions. 8. If these or any other individual class members have suffered constitutional or statutory deprivations, they should be required to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by LRSD and to file separate actions against LRSD if they are not satisfied by any administrative relief fashioned by LRSD. 9. If Joshua is concerned that certain LRSD policies or practices somehow violate the desegregation plan, those concerns should be brought to the court's attention and. a hearing may be held to address those concerns. if necessary, If individual Joshua class members have evidence of violation of the a desegregation plan, Joshua may certainly call them as witnesses at that hearing. The court, however, should not fashion individual remedies for those class members, because such remedies would be beyond the scope of the court's function in this case, which is to monitor and ensure the implementation of the desegregation plan. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the defendants pray that the individual claims of Perry Doe, John Doe, John Doe and Eugene 2T Doe be dismissed, that Joshua be directed not to file further claims on behalf of individual class members and for all other just and proper relief. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 BY\ny Barj And Ban iher Heller 81083 ew(T. Turner No. 91124 s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 23rd day of April, 1993\nMr. 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 3\u0026lt; Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol St Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 BY: An 4 RECEIVE!) FILED U.S, Dior .ICT COURT., lAS'ERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 7 1993 Office of Desegregation Moniioiing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION may 0 G 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their A attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., and move for an extension of time within which to file their response to Little Rock School District's Motion to Dismiss: In support of said motion, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit: 1. Additional time is needed for counsel to file briefs in support of motions addressed herein\n2 . Opposing counsel will probably likewise need additional time to file its brief in support\n3. This extension is requested. not for the purpose of delay, but in good faith in order that an appropriate response can be field\n4. Opposing counsel has no objection to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time up to and including May 18, 1993 to file a response. Respectfully submitted.JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 . Walker, Bar #64046 ilin W. 640 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record this 6th day of May, 1993. l^prin W. Walkercr RECEIVED FILED U.S. D!ST: .ICT court, EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANS AS MJY 7 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION C may 0 S 1993 _c,f\u0026lt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their I attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., and move for an extension of time within which to file their response to Little Rock School District's Motion to Dismiss: In support of said motion, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit: 1. Additional time is needed for counsel to file briefs in support of motions addressed herein\n2. Opposing counsel will probably likewise need additional time to file its brief in support\n3. This extension is requested. not for the purpose of delay, but in good faith in order that an appropriate response can be field\n4. Opposing counsel has no objection to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time up to and including May 18, 1993 to file a response. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 W. Walker, Bar #64046 \u0026gt;Jplin W. #640 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record this 6th day of May, 1993. W. WalkerIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER filed district court UnoTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 1 4 1993 AHl il brisM iS, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In response to the Little Rock School District's motion to dismiss the Joshua Intervenors' separate motions concerning Perry Doe, John Doe, John Doe, and Eugene Doe, the Joshua Intervenors have requested additional time to file a response. The Joshua Intervenors are granted an extension of time up to and including May 18, 1993, to file a response to the motion to dismiss. No further extensions will be allowed. DATED this Z3 day of May, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTR/C CT JUDGE i3y.. 7 ! THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR79(a) FRCP ON BY ---RECESV^O IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OEC f 7 93 ^Aonito^n^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION TO REQUIRE READMISSION OF CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN EXPELLED FROM THE LITTLE ROCKK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN_ VIOLATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OWN RULES The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to set a hearing for the purpose of determining whether the Little Rock School District has uniformily disregarded its rules regarding notice for students recommended for expulsion. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the Court that the rules of the District are set forth in a document entitled. \"Secondary Students Rights and Responsibilities Handbook.\" The specific rules under which this motion is made appear on p. 27. The Joshua Intervenors further show the Court that on November 19, 1993, there was an incident at Forest Heights Jr. High School which resulted in a number of students being recommended for expulsion by the school principal. Mr. Richard Maple. The expulsion recommendation was considered by the District Hearing Officer, Dr. Linda Watson, and thereafter, was upheld. The Joshua Intervenors further show the Court that the District did not give the parents of the students recommended forexpulsion either notice by certified U.S. mail or by hand delivery of the recommendation for expulsion and the reasons for it. Nor did the District give these parents the date, hour and place that the School Board would consider and act upon the recommendation. Nor did the School District conduct a hearing within ten days of the suspension of the students\nnor was a list of witnesses who would furnish information supporting the principal's recommendation made available to the students at least eight days before the ten day hearing period. The Joshua Intervenors contend that the District has failed to follow its own rules regarding due process and that because of that fact, the students are entitled to readmission immediately. The students who are affected by the November 19, 1993 suspension and expulsion are\n1) Diccie Millen 2) Nicki Brown 3) Cynthia Taylor 4) Martiesha Monts 5) Shana Jackson 6) Charlotte Jackson 7) Tawana Cochran 8) Ruthie Day 9) Chiquita Burks\nand 10) Tondalia McGee In addition to these students, Joshua respectfully moves the Court to readmitted all members of the class who have been denied due process as set forth herein and for appropriate relief by wayof remedial assistance and removal or extinguishment of the offenses for which due process was not given from the students' records. The authority for this motion is the desegregation plan itself and the Court's Orders which have been repeatedly set out that the district must follow its own rules or face the consequences of its own negligence or misconduct. lectfull submitted, 'John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 Mark Burnette - Bar No. 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 Of Counsel: Michael Booker, Esq. 221 West Second Suite 424 Little Rock, AR 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this --- day of December, 1993. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell \u0026amp; Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 n Walked received may 2 0 1993 Office of Desegresation Mcnitanng IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE SUSPENSION AND FOR FURTHER RELIEF The Joshua Intervenors have filed motions on behalf of (a) John Doe, a minor, by his mother, Jane Doe\n(b) Perry Doe, by his parents, Robert and Lennie Storey\n(c) Eugene Doe, by his mother. Carolyn Doe\nand (d) John Doe, by his mother, Mary Doe, seeking to set aside their suspensions and/or expulsions and for further relief. The motion of Perry Doe for temporary and preliminary relief is now moot because several months after this motion was filed, the school district readmitted him to class. The relief being sought by all the \"Does\" is a declaration that the \"emergency removal policy\" is offensive (as set forth below) and that they are entitled to appropriate relief including reinstatement, makeup work, damages and such other relief as the court deems necessary to make them whole. The school district has filed a Motion without supporting brief or authority to dismiss. This Brief addresses the issues raised by Joshua and by the Little Rock School District. All of the \"Does\" are school age children of elementary or junior high age. All were affected and removed pursuant to the district's \"emergency removal policy\" which is found on page 22 ofthe handbook regarding student's rights and responsibilities. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The conduct alleged was that the Does had committed crimes and thus should be kept out of school until their matters were resolved within the criminal justice system. The issue is thus raised of the legitimacy, if not constitutionality, of the Little Rock School District's \"emergency removal policy. II That policy is as follows\nA building administrator may remove a student without an informal hearing if it is determined that the student's continued presence poses an immediate danger to persons or property or may substantially disrupt the school's Whenever a student is removed under orderly operation, these conditions. parent/guardian shall be notified when the informal hearing will be held.   '~z This hearing will normally be provided within three (3) school days. The Desegregation Plan herein requires equitable treatment with respect to discipline based upon race. The Desegregation Plan clearly contemplates that policies which have adverse racial impact will not be tolerated by the court. As of November 23, 1992, ten pupils had been removed from school under the \"emergency removal policy\" within the 1992-93 school year. Nine of the ten a were African American students. All nine had periods of removal from school greater than two weeks. The one white male student was removed for a two week period. The \"Does\" argue that: (1) the \"emergency removal policy\" has a disparate impact upon members of their race\n(2) the II emergency removal policy\" denies them equal protection of the laws\nand, (3) the \"emergency removal policy\" is a violation of the Desegregation Plan. The \"Does\" further argue that their treatment is much more extreme and harsh than that treatment accorded adults who are charged with crimes when thosecrimes occur away from the school system and/or are unrelated to their work in the school system. The same is true for youngsters who may be regarded as having psychological problems or other problems which are not directly related to the school system. In this respect, the \"Does\" argue that there is no state law provision or any other provision within the school district regulations which allow the school district to separate them from others of their age because the II Does II may be perceived to have, or have, problems which differ from those of some other children. Their treatment is thus arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Desegregation Plan herein as well as the Constitution. Tinker v. De Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) , is the seminal case for the proposition that school children do not lose their rights as American citizens when they enter the public schoolhouse door. Tinker basically deals with whether school children may express First Amendment rights within the schoolhouse by a silent, nonviolent method such as the wearing of armbands in opposition to the Vietnam War. Tinker reaffirms, however, the premise that school children may not be removed from the school system for the expression of speech or other activity unless their conduct materially interferes with the requirement of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school citing Burnside v. Byars, 363 F2d 744, 749 (5th Cir. 1966). The essential question raised by Tinker and Burnside for purposes of our case is whether the suspensions herein relate appropriately to the discipline in the operation of the schools attended by, or from which the \"Does\" were rejected.There is no argument here that these students were disciplined for conduct that occurred within the school or that their presence after being arrested or having experienced problems unrelated to school, would interfere with the requirement of \"appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.\" The district's entire rationale for their summary removal of these children is that they have problems outside of the school system which must be addressed before they may be admitted or readmitted to the school system. In this respect, they are treated differently from school district employees who experience arrests for misdemeanor offenses such as reckless driving, shoplifting, driving while under the influence, battery, possession of controlled substances. etc. All adults carry with them the presumption of innocence until proved guilty. There is no policy or practice which requires that school district employees similarly situated be suspended until their cases have been decided within the criminal justice system. Nor is there a requirement that a staff member who manifest psychological problems be removed until such time as that person no longer manifests such problems. The district's policy, therefore, treats school children much more harshly than it treats adults and it does so for no good reason. School children. therefore, can be said to lose their rights at the schoolhouse door when they are merely accused of unlawful or psychologically aberrant conduct. The Tinker commands of equal treatment are, therefore, violated. The challenge herein is not upon the authority of the district to either control student conduct within the schools or to adopt rules which are necessary for the maintenance of discipline amongthe students. Steier v. New York State Education Commission. 271 F2d 13 (2nd Cir. 1959) . We do urge that students are persons under the Constitution and possess fundamental rights which the State must respect. Dodd V, Rambis. 535 F.Supp. 23 (S.D. IN 1981). We do not urge, however, that school officials may not in a limited way regulate conduct of students when that conduct occurs away from school. If this were a case where children were using alcohol or drugs or fighting en route to or from school, we would concede the power of the school district to at least enact rules governing this conduct or misconduct. The only caveat would be that there has to be a direct relationship to a legitimate school purpose and have some reasonable time relationship to a school activity. Douglas v. Campbell, 89 Ark. 254,(1909) and Hunger V. Iowa High School Athletic Association, 197 N.W. 2d 555 (Iowa 1972) . One more recent case holds that a charge of possession of heroin is insufficient to warrant immediate suspension from school. Howard v. Clark. 299 N.Y.S. 2d 65 1969. The basic point we make is that while youngsters have not had an adjudication of guilt on a charge imposed against them, they should not be punished by a public school system by their removal from the educational environment absent compelling reasons. The reasons of the Little Rock School District in the cases at bar are not compelling. The justification for the \"emergency removal provision\" is set forth in a memorandum to the Board of Directors dated March 11, 1991. See Exhibit \"A\" hereto. The justification facially denies education to children who are convicted of minor offenses. Although they may be readmitted to school, albeit, without makeupwork. In order to obtain makeup work, they must first be found innocent. What is the logic of such a policy? What end does it accomplish? Such a policy not only has racial impact, but is not rooted in logic or reason, either. It denigrates the concept of equity which is inherent in the Desegregation Plan. It cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. More heinous is the policy of removing children who have psychological problems. This may include one or more of the \"Does\" herein. In any case, the \"Does\" and other students are not put on notice of what conduct is proscribed by this policy. Moreover, the policy allows school officials the unfettered discretion to remove anyone from school by merely attaching a label to their away from campus conduct or circumstances. Where all of the children who are adversely affected are basically of one race, as here, the practice is suspect. See Exhibit \"B\" hereto. CONCLUSION The challenged practices violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Desegregation Plan as well. We submit that it is also void because it is so vague, especially to school children of tender age and lack of familiarity with adult expectations. Moreover, there is no compelling State interest which supports the removal of children from school for unschool related activity or psychological conditions unless there is a direct connection to the maintenance of discipline or the safety and well being of the students and staffs within the school environment. Merely providing a hearing to such persons as the \"Does\" is insufficient to meet theobjections of the \"Does\" that they are entitled, absent compelling circumstances and proof which is directly related to the school environment, to be eligible to remain on the same footing as others of their same age, grade and other similar circumstance. The \"emergency removal policy\" of the district, which is vague and unjustifiable, has been applied to these African American students in a way which offends the Constitution, the Plan, and a basic sense of fairness. It must be eliminated and the \"Does\" must be given appropriate relief including damages. education and other attention that the court will define in order to allow them to be compensated for the harm which they have suffered as a result of the \"emergency removal policy.\" Respectfully submitted. By: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (5 ) 3-^4-3758 W. Walker 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of 1993. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell and Streett 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 J Walker LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 11, 1991 To: Board of Directors From: iy Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Subject: Interpretation of Emergency Removal Provisions in Secondary Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook The emergency removal provision (see p. 22) of the Secondary student Rights and Reponsibilities Handbook has been used in a number of cases (a total of 42 during the first semestejr) in which students or former students committed criminal offenses away from school. This practice has resulted in inquiries by various court system representatives and newspaper reporters concerning the legality of removing students from school prior to a decision on their guilt or innocence. To reduce the likelihood of being out-of-compliance with due process requirements, we plan to implement the following '' interim measures on emergency removal of students who have been charged with criminal offenses: 1. Students who have been charged with crimes of violence/bodily harm (i.e., robbery, assault and battery) will not be permitted to attend school until a court hearing is held. A student so charged who is not incarcerated will be contacted within three days to arrange for a meeting at which the student will be questioned by school officials, suspended from school and informed of his/her right to a hearing. 2, Students who have been charged with non-violent crimes (i.e., theft, shop-lifting) must meet With  their principal to arrange conditions under which continued attendance might be permitted. 3. Students who have been charged with use, possession, or distribution/sale of drugs or alcohol will be disciplined in accordance with Rule 26 under Category 3 offenses. In cases of students who are removed from school and subsequently are found to be innocent, make-up work will be allowed for days missed from school. PLAINTIFFS exhibitIn addition to these interim measures we are forwarding a copy of this memorandum to Chris Heller to request him to \" review this matter and advise us as to what additional actions should be taken. RS: nr cc: IChris Heller Rudolph Howard t  r I\nf f I ( I @ is j 1 I O froM J)r, 8\u0026lt;r/i//7, 3i\u0026gt;l\u0026gt;^- K^li\u0026gt;ll)}\\ 2-A^er'^EA/Ai^ PtMOx/Di 5 ZC'// re-ifiOJsE -^tD -jbe. (lo) , ai/i\u0026amp;k. P\u0026gt;laiL UJHc Doi'\u0026gt; f re^u/^i I /^Fi. I\u0026lt;^ IJI'tpaSA^ iilio/}Q^ 4c/\u0026gt;/' lUi'''., //le. tif v sJwol l^lc Cn llE\u0026gt;iV'rJ\u0026lt;r, fr'SEA/b r 7 a A- /o T.e/-id\\jefL by' {'he, ]^\u0026lt;!rli''. Ityl C /jF^.^ 3 ,h.U., lOZ IS fOJ' 'r'\\ /l^l-A re^soy^ Of/J. r---- Pwj bs, PcefJi.^ Jose^l:.l_ /3rA P/MC-Po ,5c,\n^ _____6aj\\,._ ______/iM_ I J ]//' '-/M, Di(' -. P^!- ^F. OliVC Pi-li-l 6L I------ --------------- 1) ly\u0026lt;~./\\/u/lr'\u0026lt;:/j e_r t t S.''-iir'P. y-li.li .i(.,lE\\.i seD,D R.e.nSo'i/ SLiiTiS ___C.e''''P''il ____J'j'\u0026gt;.i_r_ C.E'\\il\u0026gt;-iil _____D3M FM Piitbaltyt^l b'J lie.u-^us^i-j Feu^ fibusS f\u0026gt;i:iC.,fhve' M btn- StiS/i'I.^ . Piyc-ljoli!!^ I (Ji I ^.Z 'it'j 1...A '-J M__ ____73/I ____Adz^____ ..MA .. /3/1 DM__ uM ?D ibr/J aht \u0026amp; iilio/fi.. Tta bt. it^hi ra yiLc Ct'KtlfJfil ---\n' I , fitA.'/zer-guBOagu/ 'ItbpL. Dne^ljlMb M ZeMji,.l fcntji LiM of Saiyu ^loJi iffL. It '...-/I J .i. Psyc/lfllcjiCrt I K^'i-^llejL o-i\" Ejbt- Batt l\u0026gt;u^ plaintiffs! received DEC 2 2 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Olfice of Desegregation Monitoring EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF LRSD TO MOTION TO REQUIRE READMISSION OF CLASS MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN EXPELLED FROM THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN VIOLATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OWN RULES The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") or (\"District\"), for its response to the Motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors, states: The LRSD denies each and every allegation contained in the Motion not specifically admitted herein. Further, the LRSD denies that it has violated its own rules and does hereby submit that no hearing is necessary to determine whether the District has disregarded its rules. Based upon reasonable information and belief, the students identified in the pleading have no standing to serve as class members as asserted. have no injuries or damages against the District and can state no cause of action against the District as alleged therein. Namely, a hearing before the LRSD Board of Directors to raise these and other issues on behalf of these students was set for Thursday, December 16, 1993, and was scheduled lnd-puJ.fC8to begin after the regular board meeting. Further, the District learned on the evening of Wednesday, December 15, 1993, that the students would be represented by Attorney John Walker at the hearing on Thursday, December 16. On Thursday, December 16, negotiations occurred back and forth between the representatives of the District and Mr. Walker. Prior to the hearings, a negotiated settlement was reached and all issues were resolved in accordance with the agreeme: among and between the parties. In light of that negotiated resolution, the students were not expelled from the LRSD\nany alleged rule violations were either waived or cured\nit was agreed that the students would remain suspended through the end of the first semester, but would be allowed to take semester examinations and return to school at the beginning of the second semester. The instant Motion was apparently filed prior to the resolution reached by the parties. However, it was filed subsequent to the setting of the Board hearing. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that these students have no cause of action against the District, have no injuries or damages for which relief can be granted. have no standing to represent the alleged class members and are not in need of any hearing as requested in the Motion. Consequently, the Motion should. and must. be denied as being moot. improper for other reasons, or both. Finally, since none of the named students have grounds for any relief and are not proper representatives of any class, the request on behalf of John Doe students cannot be Jrtd-pul.fw 2considered or acted upon at this juncture. Without proper complaining parties, there exists no justiciable controversy. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District prays that the Motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors be denied as set forth herein and for other reasons\nthat the District be granted its costs, expenses and attorney's fees incurred herein\nand all other legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT \u0026lt; Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this ,^/\u0026lt;^^day of December, 1993. Jeirrrryy L. Malone - Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Irad-pul.K* 3 J Mr. Mark Burnett 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 Tim Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Ind-puJ.re* 4 RECa 7 C/r* ?' JUL 2 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Ofice 0? Desegrc-gaiiofi ^k-nSoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED LAoTER^ GTISr.-T\nRI*C-''T iC -AUORUUkRRATTk\n'.oTRICT ARKANSAS 3 0 1993 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions filed by the Joshua Intervenors concerning the suspension of students and the Little Rock School District's failure to reinstate or readmit those students. The motions were not accompanied by briefs in support. The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") did not file vpn responses to the motions. Instead, it filed a motion to dismiss. also without accompanying brief, to which the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") responded. In its motion to dismiss, the LRSD contends that this case is not the proper forum in which to litigate individual claims arising from LRSD disciplinary actions. It states the LRSD has an administrative forum for addressing such grievances and that the Court's function in this case is not to fashion individual remedies but to monitor and ensure the implementation of the parties' desegregation plans. In response. Joshua attacks the LRSD's emergency removal policy. Joshua claims that because the emergency removal policy has a disparate impact upon black students it is in violation of the desegregation plan. Upon review of the motions and Joshua's response, the Court finds that the Joshua motions should be denied. The Court finds that this case is not the proper forum for the individual claims of John Doe, John Doe, Eugene Doe, and Perry Doe. If Joshua believes that LRSD policies violate the desegregation plan, those concerns should be brought to the Court but only after they make a good faith effort to resolve their differences without the intervention of the Court. This dispute over the LRSD's emergency removal policy appears to be one that could be resolved by a good faith effort at communication and cooperation. The Court refers the parties to its Order of May 21, 1993, in which it directed the parties to make a good faith effort to resolve those matters that do not, by their nature, require Court intervention or approval. The parties are further reminded that they are bound by the Local Rules of the court in this case just as they are in any other case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion of the LRSD [doc. 1811] is granted\nthe Joshua motions [docs. 1713, 1714, 1722, 1758] are denied. DATED this ^X^^day of , 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2- OOMPLIANCE rule 58 ON BY mop L^CE WITH IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No, 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court are a number of motions which the Court now addresses: (1) motion by the Joshua intervenors (\"Joshua\") for ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits. follow the incentive school children vs. a [doc.#1929]\n(2) motion by Joshua requesting the Court to address certain issues regarding the budget process of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") [doc.#1949]\n(3) motion by Joshua to require the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules [doc.#2051]\nand (4) motion by the LRSD for approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary [doc.#2090]. I. Joshua moves for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits. follow the incentive school children [doc.#1929]. Joshua also requests the Court to address the following issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD [doc.#1949]: (1) whether the LRSD is required to double fund the incentive schools\n(2) whether, pursuant to the double funding, the LRSD is required to provide scholarship incentives and awards to students who attend or have attended those schools since the settlement plan\n(3) whether the LRSD is required to provide training and educational opportunities related to potential placement in teaching positions in the LRSD to black parents and others who are placed as aides\n(4) whether incentive school personnel who are required to work extended day and extended year programs are entitled to extra compensation for that extra work\nand (5) whether the Ish children are entitled to receive all of their promised incentive school benefits when they attend King Elementary School. The Court denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits. follow the incentive school children. Joshua's motion was filed on August 2, 1993. Ten days after filing the motion, at the August 12, 1993 hearing on the LRSD budget, counsel for Joshua requested that instead of a hearing on this matter, the parties should first be \"directed to sit and try to work this out. tl Transcript, at 10. Joshua went on to state that it is important for Joshua to sit with the school district and in good faith try to resolve these issues without judicial intervention. Id. at 11. The Court agrees and will defer addressing the matters raised in Joshua's motion until such time as -2-the record reflects that the parties have unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the matter without court intervention. The Court likewise denies without prejudice Joshua's motion that the Court address certain issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD. The Court is currently addressing the budget process of the LRSD in an ongoing manner and will continue to do so on its own terms or that of the Eighth Circuit. Moreover, Joshua's motion consists of mere one and a quarter pages (four complete a sentences) and simply does not set forth sufficient grounds for granting the requested relief. II. Joshua moves for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules [doc.#2051], Joshua states that the LRSD \"did not give the parents of the students recommended for expulsion either notice by certified U.S, mail or by hand delivery of the recommendation for expulsion and the reasons for it. Nor did the district give these parents the date, hour and place that the school board would consider and act upon the recommendation. Nor did the school district conduct a hearing within ten days of the suspension of the students\nnor was a list of witnesses who would furnish information supporting the principal's recommendation made available to the students at least forty-eight days before the ten day hearing period.\" Joshua contends that the LRSD has failed to follow its own rules regarding due process and that because of that -3-fact, ths students ars entitled to readmission immediately. As authority for this motion, Joshua cites this Court's previous orders and the desegregation plan. The LRSD has responded to this motion by asserting that the matter is now moot. Specifically, the LRSD states that on December IS, 1993, representatives of the LRSD and counsel for Joshua reached a negotiated settlement and all issues were resolved in accordance with the agreement among arid between the parties. In this regard, the LRSD states that \"the students were not expelled from the LRSD\nany alleged rule violations were either waived or cured\nit was agreed that the students would remain suspended through the end of the first semester, but would be allowed to take semester examinations and return to school at the beginning of the second semester.\" The LRSD states that the motion now before the Court apparently was filed prior to the settlement agreement. In light of the settlement agreement apparently reached between the parties, the Court finds that Joshua's motion for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules should be and hereby is denied as moot. Joshua may refile the motion if the matter is not moot, or if new and relevant circumstances have arisen that would give rise to any relief. III. The LRSD has filed motion for approval of school a construction at Jefferson Elementary [doc.#2090]. By order dated -4'April 29, 1993 , the Court denied the request for approval of construction at Jefferson, stating that the LRSD may repetition the Court for approval of the Jefferson construction after the attendance zones for the King Interdistrict school are firm and court-approved. In addition, the Court requested the following information: the current capacity of Jefferson\nany changes in school capacity that will result from the proposed construction\nand the precise number of portable buildings that will remain at the school as a result of the proposed construction. The LRSD has provided the requested information in the motion now before the Court. Having carefully reviewed the information, the Court finds that LRSD's motion for approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary should be and hereby is granted. However, any new space generated by the construction must be dedicated to the use described in LRSD's motion. Any alternative use would have to be approved by the Court. IV. In sum, the Court denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits, follow the incentive school children, denies without prejudice Joshua's motion that the Court address certain issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD, denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD, and grants the -5-LRSD's motion for approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary, IT IS SO ORDERED this day of April 1994. STATES dist: 21^ jlSTSlCT JUDGE -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 Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eUnited States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":117,"next_page":118,"prev_page":116,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1392,"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}}]}}