{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_886","title":"'Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District, fourth quarter","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":["1991-04/1991-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","School discipline","Gifted persons","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["'Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District, fourth quarter"],"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/886"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1377","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing on Construction''","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":["1991-03-20"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School buildings","School facilities","School improvement programs","School board members","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing on Construction''"],"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/1377"],"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":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_810","title":"Court filings: District Court, notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals; Court of Appeals, order; District Court, notice of cross appeal to the Court of Appeals; District Court, motion for approval of school construction; District Court, two orders; District Court, joint motion of the parties for enlargement of time; District Court, motion to close and relocate schools; District Court, memorandum in support of motion; District Court, 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":null,"dc_date":["1991-03"],"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":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School buildings","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals; Court of Appeals, order; District Court, notice of cross appeal to the Court of Appeals; District Court, motion for approval of school construction; District Court, two orders; District Court, joint motion of the parties for enlargement of time; District Court, motion to close and relocate schools; District Court, memorandum in support of motion; District Court, 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/810"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_1176","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes","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":["1991-02-13/1991-12-19"],"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 board members","School boards","Educational planning","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes"],"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/1176"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting February 13, 1991 ECEIVED NOV 5 1991 Office of Desegregation Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 5:40 p.m. on February 13, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The vice-president, Mrs . O. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. J. L. (Skip) Rutherford Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mrs. Robin Armstrong ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The vice president called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members . PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: To conduct an appeal hearing at the request of Kenneth Walker. APPEAL HEARING: In a hearing closed to the public, the Board heard testimony from the administration and from Kenneth Walker and his mother in connection with the recommendation for expulsion. After hearing all the testimony and questioning by Board members, Dr. Steele recommended that the Board uphold the administration's recommendation to expell Kenneth Walker for the remainder of the school year and to invite him to return to the Board for consideration for readmission to summer school. Mr. John Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Skip Rutherford A seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. W ADJOURNMENT : Ms. Pat Gee moved to adjourn. Mr. Rutherford seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no furthe r business to come within the call for the special meeting, the meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. ,\nK~~T WILLIED. (BILE) HAMILTON, SECRETARY APPROVED: L1T'l'LE ROCK SCHOOL DJS'l'RlCT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Minutes of Special Meeting February 21, 1991 NOV 5 \\991 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 4:12 p.m. on February 21, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Bill Hamilton Mr. J. L. (Skip) Rutherford Mrs. Robin Armstrong ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruths. Steele Mrs. Pat Kumpuris CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 4:12 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members, which constituted a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of hearing a student's appeal of an expulsion recommendation. STUDENT HEARING: At the request of Pat Pisanello, the Board heard testimony in a closed hearing from the administration and from the student concerning the incident which led to an expulsion recommendation. After questioning by the Superintendent and the Board members, the Superintendent recommended that Pat Pisanello be allowed to enroll .A at Southwest Junior High on strict probation and that he and his ,a, family participate in whatever counseling programs that cc1n be prescribed\nthat he participate in after-school tutoring in order to work on his grades and to prepare for the MPT test. Further, the Superintendent said she expected him to be in school every day with no unexcused absences and expected his grades to show a definite upward trend. Mrs. o. recommendation. unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: G. Ms. Jacovelli moved Gee seconded the the Superintendent's motion, and it carried There being no further business to come within the call for the special meeting, the meeting adjourned at 4:52 p.m. upon motion by Mrs. Jacovelli, a second by Ms. Gee, and unanimous approval of the Board members. Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President Willie D. Hami!ton, Secretary APPROVED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Minutes of Board of Directors Special Meeting March 14, 1991 5 1991 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 5:07 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Or. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli Mrs. Robin Armstrong Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. J. L. (Skip) Rutherford (Joined meeting at 6:45 p.m.) ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The special meeting was called to order at 5:07 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members, constituting a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering a proposal for girls' soccer and to conduct appeal hearings for students. PROPOSAL FOR GIRLS' SOCCER: Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the proposal for girls' soccer and recommended that the parent booster group provide the funding necessary for officials, registration fees for girls' participation in soccer, transportation of students to practices and games, and uniforms. Further, a consultant/aide may be hired by the parent booster group. The consultant/aide will work with the coach/sponsor, who will be a District employee and who will be at all practices and games. School district officials will coordinate the scheduling of games. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. STUDENT HEARINGS: The Board conducted an appeal hearing in closed session on behalf of Alex Williams. After all evidence and testimony had been presented, Dr. Steele recommended that Alex be allowed to enroll in the alternative school for the 8th grade if space is available\nto allow him to petition for reinstatement at the beginning of the 1991-92 school year\nto go to the school and apologize to the teacher in front of the class along with his mother. Ms. Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli assumed the chair and Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion failed three (3) to two (2), with Mr. Moore, Ms. Jacovelli, and Ms. Armstrong casting the dissenting votes. Mr. John Moore moved to expell Alex. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried with three (3) affirmative votes. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Gee dissented. The Board conducted an appeal hearing in closed session on behalf of Michael Walker. After all evidence and testimony had been presented, Dr. Steele recommended that Michael be permitted to enroll at Southwest Jr. High School's in-school suspension program and that he be returned to the regular program based upon his behavior and performance\nthat he be required to enroll in Changing Directions\nand that his readmission be under strict probation. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. RECESS The Board recessed for a break at 6:45 p.m. and reconvened at 7:10 p.m. Upon reconvening, Mr. J. L. (Skip) Rutherford joined the meeting. REVOCATION OF PROBATION: The Board conducted a hearing in closed session on the recommendation that Kevin Bartin's probation be revoked. After hearing the testimony and considering evidence presented by Mr. Rudolph Howard, Dr. Steele recommended that Kevin Bartin be expelled for the remainder of the school year. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. STUDENT APPEAL HEARING The Board conducted a hearing in closed session at the reques t of Brian Doss. After hearing testimony and considering the evidence in the case, the Superintendent recommended that the Board uphold the recommendation that Brian be expelled and allowed to petition the Board for reinstatement at the beginning of the next school year. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing in closed session at the request of London Stewart. After hearing testimony and considering the evidence in the case, the Superintendent recommended that the Board uphold the recommendation that London Stewart be expelled from school for the remainder of the year. Mr. John Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it failed three (3) to three (3). Dr. Mitchell, Mrs. Jacovelli, and Ms. Gee dissented. Mr. Rutherford, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Moore voted in favor of the motion. Dr. Steele recommended that London be allowed to enroll in the Alternative School and that he receive whatever counseling services available, take part in Changing Directors, and be allowed to petition the Board for reinstatement for the next school year. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried five (5) to one (1). Mr. John Moore dissented, RECOMMENDATIONS ON LONG-TERM SUSPENSIONS: Mr. Rudolph Howard presented information on the long-term suspension recommendations of 34 students. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board uphold the long-term suspension recommendations of the following students: Calvin Blair, Stacey Boyd, Latisha Brown, Lenika Brown, Stacey Burton, Angela Burgess, Anderson Coleman, Monte Cooney, Katrina Davis, Charles Dickerson, Sedrick Fowler, Chris Foster, Marquis Frazier, Lee Groston, Jeremy Gray, Douglas Gray. James Gurley, Clark Harris, Bobby Hart, Rafeal Johnson, David Jordan, Andre King, Rodney Lewis, Brian Mccuen, Nathan Merriweather, Marlon Miles, Keloe Paige, Tommy Pearson, Lashawn Porch, Wilbert Purifoy, Jim Ray, Joe Randall, Michael Traylor, and Quinton Royal. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Rutherford seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special meeting, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. upon motion by Mrs. Jacovelli, a second by Mr. Rutherford, and unanimous approval of the Board. Willie D. Hamilton, Secretary APPROVED: __Y_ ___.'\nL\"'--~---~_/_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Minutes of Board of Directors Special Meeting April 29, 1991 NOV 5 1991 Office of Desegregation 1.1 nitonng The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 5:11 p.m. on April 29, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. J. L. (Skip) Rutherford Mrs. Robin Armstrong Ms. Pat Gee MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. John Moore ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 5:11 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members, which constituted a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called fo r the purpose of hearing a presentation on the modifications to the desegregation plan. PRESENTATION: - Dr. Steele introduced the District's legal counsel, Mr. Chris Heller. Mr. Heller reviewed the process used by the staff and told the Board that the staff had pulled together changes as o result of the Tri-District Plan and made it fit with the settlement plan written in 1988. He said the process involved trying to blend the plans and obtain agreement of the parties. Having received a copy of the modified plan in advance, Board members asked questions about certain modifications, Mr. John Walker answered questions and made comments about tpe plans for incentive schools. Following the Table of Contents, the Board reviewed each section of the modified plan, asked questions, and received explanations, and made suggestions for language to be included or deleted from the plan. The Board recessed at 8:15 p.m. for a break and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. STUDENT EXPULSIONS: Mr. Rudolph Howard directed the Board's attentton to the listing of disciplinary sanctions J:lreviously forwarded to the Board. The administration's recommendation for disciplinary action against the following students were approved by the Board of Directors upon motion by Mrs. Armstrong, a second by Mr. Rutherford, and unanimous approval of the Board: The expulsion of Terrance Booker, Douglas Clayton, Frankie Foreman, and Latasha Morgan~ and the long-term suspension of Michael Alexander, Greg Burnett, Michael Carter, Terrance Dixon, Travis Edgar, Patrick Ellis, . James Fairchild, Alfred Flowers, Dorkus Foreman, Willie Gaines, Kortney Hampton, Broderick Jones, John Long, Corey Lovelace, Jeremy Rudder, Andre Scaife, Kevin Sims, Bllis Thomas, Anthony Toombs, Geoffrey Tucker, Gary White, Jamarco Woods, and Andre Wyatt. PRESENTATION OF VOLUME II CHANGES: The Board continued its review of the proposed modifications to the desegregation plan, and again follQwing the Table of Contents, the Board reviewed the changes and received explanations, and made suggestions. It continued the same process 'r'i th the Interdistrict Plan. ADJOURNMENT: Th~re being no further business to come within the call for the special meeting, the meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m. u~on I  ' ' , motion by Mrs. Jacovelli, a second by Mrs. Armstrong, and unanimous consent of the Board members. fu:'.Katherineifchell, President Willie D. Hamilton, Secretary APPROVED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS NOV 5 1991 Offi.::e of Desegregation Monitoring Minutes of Joint Meeting Between Little Rock School District Board of Directors and New Futures for Little Rock Youth Board of Directors Held On May 1, 1991 A joint meeting was held between the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and the New Futures for Little Rock Youth Board of Directors at 5:45 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Mr. Tom Dalton, Chairman of the New Futures Board, presided. THOSE PRESENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli Mr. J. L.  (Skip) Rutherford Mrs. Robin Armstrong Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Tom Dalton Mr. Vic Snyder Mr. Mahlon Martin Mrs. Kay Patton Ms. Amy Rossi Judge Joyce Warren Ms. Othello Faison Mr. Paul Berry Dr. Ruth Steele Mr. Al Porter Betsy Benson Mariam Sharpe Stan Schneider Don Crary Linda Young Estelle Matthis Dianne Woodruff Skye Winslow Pat Kumpuris Cynthia Howell David Woolsey Mr. Tom Dal ton introduced Mr. Stan Schneider from Met is A Corporation. w, Mr. Schneider presented a report compiled by his company which represented about 2 1/2 years of work. Both Boards hod been furnished a copy of the report in advance. He indicated that the statistical information contained in the report is baseline data. Discussion ensued concerning racial disparity in achievement in Little Rock. Board members asked questions and made comments concerning the data presented. In closing, Mr. Dalton thanked the members of the two Boards and expressed appreciation to Mr. Schneider for his presentation. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the joint meeting, it adjourned at 7:40 :~ ~ / Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President ~~72 ~ illie D. Harnt1on,Secretary APPROVED: ----\"q_..,._d-........,_.d-'--_.,-0,-'-[_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL OISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Minutes of Board of Directors Special Meeting on June 18, 1991 NOV 5 1991 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:05 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. J. L. (Skip) Rutherford Mrs. Robin Armstrong Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members, which constituted a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting had been called for the purpose of deqicating a right of way at Henderson Junior High School and to conduct a work session on the 1991-92 budget. DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY: Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the material supplied to the Board in which the right of way strip at Henderson Junior High School is described in detail. The Special Meeting June 18, 1~91 Page Two Superintendent recommended that the Board approve the right of way at Henderson Junior High School. Mr. Skip Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. BUDGET WORK SESSION: Dr. Steele and Mr. Chip Jones presented a draft of the 1991-92 operating budget and \"walked\" the Board through each page, explaining specific portions that address increased costs or concerns previously expressed. Dr. Steele explained the process the administration used to develop the budget, i.e., meeting with individual principals. The administration also reviewed the capital expenditires budget and the McClellan Community School budget. Board members asked for specific pieces of information before the budget is presented for final approval. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special meeting, the meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m. upon motion by Mr. Rutherford, a second by Mrs. Armstrong, and unanimous approval of the Board members. D~Katherine Mitchell, President Willie D. Hamiiton, Secretary APPROVED: -------- \"' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 27, 1991 OCT 2 8 1991 TO: Off1ce of Dese ga, Board of Directors FROM: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools~ SUBJECT: SCHEDULE FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR 1991-92 I have listed below the recommended dates for the Board of Directors' regularly scheduled Committee and Board meetings for FY 1991-92. These dates fall on the third and fourth Thu~sday of each month with the exception of November and December. The dates in November and December were adjusted to avoid a conflict with Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. I recommend that you approve the dates li~ted below for the 1991-92 Board Committee and Regular meetings: Committee Meetings 5 p.m. on: July 18, 1991 August 15, 1991 September 19, 1991 October 17, 1991 November 14, 1991 December 12, 1991 January 16, 1992 February 20, 1992 March 19, 1992 April 16, 1992 May 21\n1992 June 18, 1992 Regular Board Meetings 6 p.m. on: July 25, 1991 August 22, 1991 September 26, 1991 October 24, 1991 November 21, 1991 December 19, 1991 January 23, 1992 February 27, 1992 March 26, 1992 April 23, 1992 May 28, 1992 June 25, 1992 ... LI'l'TLE ROCK SCHOOL DIS'l'RICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, l\\RKJ\\NSAS NOV 5 1991 Minutes of Board of Directors Special Meeting July 18, 1991 Office cf D segrega,1on Nionitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:07 p.m. on July 18, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. Willie D. Hamilton Mr. J. L. (Skip) Rutherford Mrs. Robin Armstrong Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDRE: ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members . Mrs. Jacovelli joined the meeting at 5:15 p.m. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of hearing an update on the desegregation case\nto hear a report on New Futures\nto approve a right-of-way easement at Geyer Springs Elementary School\nto evaluate the Superintendent\nand to conduct an employee hearing. Board at Directors Special Meeting July 18, 1991 UPDATE ON DESEGREGATION CASE Page Two Mr. Chris Heller explained the District's legal position as a result of the Eighth Circuit Court's order of December 12, 1990, and Judge Susan Wright's order of June 21, 1991. He explained judges normally view issues on which all parties to a case agree. Further, he explained the problems of implementing a two-year old plan without revisions that none of the parties agree with. He announced that the District will file a document on Monday, July 22 that will comply with the District Court's order but that none of the parties agree with the document and don't believe it is in the best interest of students. He asked the Board to ask the appeals court to direct the district court to allow agreed-upon items to have some consideration. He explained that the Joshua Intervenors had already filed notice of appeal and that the Pulaski County Special School District was expected to appeal within a day or so. He assured the Board that the appeal court could handle the question expeditiously and he would like to ask the District Court for a stay of Judge Wright's order until the appeals court rules. Extensive discussion ensued concerning how we got into this situation, i.e., trying to comply with various officials' directives. Following the discussion, Mr. Skip Rutherford moved to appeal and request a stay on the appropriate legal issues. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion. Additional discussion ensued. The motion carried unanimously. NEW FUTURES REPORT: Mrs. Kay Patton reported on the New Futures Board's recent trip to Hot Springs, Virginia, in which New Futures Boards from across the nation gathered to discuss how to collaborate and strengthen the New Futures effort\nhow to use information as a building tool\nand how to involve more and more people to solve problems of youth. She discussed the importance of school reform to the New Futures effort. She announced that the Casey Foundation will award some incentive grants for which our city will compete. She issued an invitation to the school district Board to have the LRSD Board president or her appointee to serve on the New Futures Board. Board members asked questions concerning how Little Rock's New Futures program compares with other cities' programs. Several New Futures Board members offered explanations of the differences and similarities. In closing, Ms. Patton asked to hear from the school board concerning what technical assistance it needs. Dr. Mitchell expressed appreciation to the New Futures Board members who came to the meeting and accepted the invitation to have a LRSD Board members serve on the New Futures Board. - RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AT GEYER SPRINGS Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the Right of Way Easement map showing the three parcels of land that need to be conveyed, two permanently and one will be for construction only bordering Geyer Springs Elementary School. She recommended that the easement be approved. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovell i seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A copy of the easement map is attached to these minutes and made a part hereof. RECESS: The Board recessed the special meeting and conducted the Board Committee meeting which is regularly scheduled on the third Thursday of each month. RECONVENING: The special meeting was reconvened at 7:15 p.m. and immediately recessed for a break. Upon reconvening, Mr. Skip Rutherford moved for an executive session. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. After the vote, the Board decided to do the employee hearing prior to retiring into executive session to conduct the Superintendent's evaluation. EMPLOYEE HEARING: The Board conducted a hearing at the request of Mr. Glenroy Charles in connection with a recommendation to terminate his employment with the District. The Board heard testimony from Mr. Charles' supervisor, Mr. Rudolph Howard, and from Mr. Charles in his own behalf. Mr. Charles was represented by Mr. Frank Martin. The administration was represented by Mr. Jerry Malone of the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark lawfirm. After hearing the testimony and considering all evidence, the administration's legal counsel asked that the Board uphold the administration's recommendation for the terminaton of Mr. Charles' employment based on his unsatisfactory teaching performance in the following areas: (1) classroom organization\n(2) classroom management\nand (3) professional relationship with students. Mr. John Moore moved that the Board uphold the administration's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried with six (6) affirmative votes. Dr. Katherine Mitchell abstained from the vote. SUPERINTENDENT'S EVALUATION: The Board retired into executive session to conduct the evaluation of the Superintendent. Upon reconvening at 10:04 p.m., the president announced that no action was taken during the executive session. Mrs. Jacovelli moved to commend the Superintendent, Dr. Ruth Steele, on a job well done and to extend her contract for another year. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Upon motion by Mrs. Jacovelli, a second by Mr. Moore, and unanimously approval by the Board members, the special meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President JI)~ D,~ iITie D. Hamilton, Secretary APPROVED: _ ___\nr.__,-\"'-~-'d:\"---_Cf_/_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Minutes Of Board of Directors Regular Meeting July 25, 1991 NOV 5 1991 Office cf Dese regation Morr! nng The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled monthly meeting at 6:05 p.m. on July 25, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. J. L. (Skip) Rutherford Mrs. Robin Armstrong MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Pat Gee Mr. John Moore ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. ACTION: CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The vice-president, Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Dr. Mitchell joined the meeting at 6:06 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. II. ACTION: READING OF THE MINUTES The chair directed the Board members' attention to the minutes of the special meeting on March 6, 1991\nthe special meeting on May 16, 1991\nthe special meeting on June 22, 1991\nand the regular meeting on June 27, 1991. Mr. Skip Rutherford moved approval of the minutes with one exception: the meeting on June 22, 1991 should indicate the presence of Dianne Woodruff instead of Board of Directors Regular Meeting July 25, 1991 2 Dianne Wood. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and the minutes as corrected were unanimously approved. III. PRESENTATIONS A. Superintendent's Citations Dr. Steele presented citations to the teacher and student ex officio Board members commemorating their service to the Board and expressed appreciation for giving up part of their summer to serve on the Board. The teacher was Ms. Lovetta Stewart from Wakefield Elementary School and Miss Kim Stephens, a senior at McClellan High School. B. Citizens Committees None reporting. C. Board Members Dr. Mitchell told the Board and audience that she had visited the summer program sponsored by New Futures at Pulaski Heights Junior High School and was impressed by what she saw. She said she talked with some of the students individually and concluded that the program had peen very successful. She commended Gene Parker and the others who worked with the program. IV. REPORT: REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Mr. Frank Martin spoke on behalf of the support personnel, indicating that in spite of administrative assurances to the contrary, eight (8) bus drivers were terminated immediately after their contract with the LRCTA expired. He also urged the Board to address concerns of the support personnel. In addition, he urged the Board to pay the custodians' retroactive pay that has never been granted. Mrs. Selma Douglas read a petition signed by approximately 60 residents of the Pankey Community opposing a community center in their area. She told the Board that the District made the right decision when it tore down the old Pankey school building. Ms. Leslie Brooks spoke in favor of the Community Center at Pankey. Mr. Randy Douglas spoke in favor of the Pankey Community Center. Board of Directors 3 Regular Meeting July 25, 1991 Ms. Nccee Bell spoke in favor of the Pankey Community Center. Mr. Melvin Moss spoke in favor of the Pankey Community Center. Rev. McNeal, Pastor of First Baptist Church in Pankey, spoke in favor of the Pankey Community Center. Ms. Janie Bledsoe spoke in favor of the Pankey Community Center. Rev. C. E. McAdoo spoke in favor of the Pankey Community Center. Mrs. Barbara Douglas reviewed the meeting held between she and her attorney and representatives of the school district and its attorney. She told the Board that an agreement had been reached wherein the District would deed the Pankey School land to the organization with a reversion clause. She urged the Board to continue working in the spirit of this meeting. Mr. Austin Porter spoke in favor of the Pankey Community Center. V. ACTION ITEMS A. Donations The Superintendent, Dr. Ruth Steele, directed the Board's attention to the slip sheet containing a proposed donation of an 8 foot wire mesh satellite dish valued at $2,500 from First Electric Cooperative. She recommended that the Board accept the donation. Mr. Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the donation of 410 posters and 260 resource books to our social studies department by Mr. Dick Pauley, former owner of Sunshine Publishers of Jacksonville, Arkansas. Mr. Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovell i seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. B. Proposal Regarding Pankey Dr. Steele reviewed the discussions between the parties representing the Pankey community and the administration and its attorney. She also reviewed the contacts by other residents of the community who oppose the District deeding the property over for a Bo\n:ird of Directors Regular Meeting July 25, 1991 comrnuni ty center. In view of the recent events, Dr. Steele recommended that the Board authorize the attorneys to continue to develop the agreement to deed the property to the Association but to delay formal action until such time as we can get a greater consensus as to what the community wants. Mr. Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. c. Energy Grant Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the grant award of $196,210 from the u. s. Department of Energy for energy conservation measures as delineated in the printed agenda. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. Policies for First Reading The Superintendent directed the Board members' attention to the proposed policies for first reading which are in the printed agenda as follows: Board-Staff Relationships\nPurpose of curriculum\nstudent Learning Outcomes\nCurriculum Development\nEducational Alignment\nInstructional Materials\nTesting Programs\nCurriculum Monitoring\nSchool Improvement Plan\nLittle Rock School District Staff Development\nand Compliance with State and Federal Laws. Dr. Steele recommended that the proposed policies be approved for first reading. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Rutherford seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Dr. Steele also directed the Board members' attention to the proposed policies on Chemical Dependency and the Use, Possession, Sale or Transfer of Controlled substances and/or Alcoholic along with regulations. She recommended that the Board approve the proposed policies as reflected on the slip sheet. Mr. Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. E. Policies for Second Reading The Superintendent recommended that the Board adopt the policies in the printed agenda on second reading and directed the Board meI11bers' attention to the correction to the policy on Termination or Nonrenewal of Classified Staff. Mr. Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting July 25, 1991 F. 1991-92 State Compensatory Education Allotment 5 The Superintendent recommended that the Board approve the 1991-92 State Compensatory Education Allotment for funds to assist students in the fourth, seventh, and tenth grades who scored in the lower quartile on the basic battery of the spring achievement tests. Mr. Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. G. Chapter 1 Application for 1991-92 School Year Dr. Steele recommended approval of the proposed Chapter 1 Application for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Dr. J. J. Lacey, Jr. introduced Ms. Fatima Agbar, Chairman of the Parent Advisory Committee. H. Personnel Changes Dr. Steele recommended that the. Board approve the employment of Mr. James Ivey as Manager of Support Services at an annual salary of $54,600 plus $1200 car allowance. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Superintendent recommended that the Board accept the resignation of Mr. Chip Jones with regret and that it approve the employment of Mr. Dewayne Hodges as Security Supervisor. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Superintendent recommended that the other personnel changes listed in the printed ~genda be approved as published. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Rutherford seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. I. Financial Reports Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the reports slip-sheeted into the agenda and previously to them. She recommended that they be approved as financial furnished published. recommendation. unanimously. Mr. Rutherford moved the Superintendent's Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried Board of Directors Regular Meeting July 25, 1991 VI. REPORTS OF SUPERINTENDENT A. Report on Attendance Policy - Laws/Penalties 6 Dr. Steele told the Board that the administration will continue to review current laws and Board policy. There was no further discussion on this report. B. Report on Weapons and Assault Regulations Dr. Steele reported that the administration is continuing to work with the Safety and Security Review Committee. She announced that she and a group of other leaders met with the Governor to discuss the escalation of violence. She told the Board that she felt a real movement in the entire community to creating safety net for kids in very positive ways. Board members asked for a report about the meeting and what is going to be done about gang violence. VII. RECESS p.m. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None The Board recessed at 6:59 p.m. and reconvened at 7:30 STUDENT OR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS The Board conducted a hearing in closed session on behalf of Stacy Lewis. After the Board heard all testimony and questioned the administration, the student, and the student's mother, Dr. Steele recommended that Stacy be expelled for the 1991-92 school year and that he be allowed to petition for reinstatement for the second semester. Dr. Steele further stated that she supported Mr. Howard's suggestion that Stacy be engaged in some type of matriculation prior to petitioning for reinstatement. It was suggested that Stacy might want to pursue a slot at the Juvenile Justice Center. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting July 25, 1991 ADJOURNMENT 7 There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board, Mrs. Jacovelli moved to adjourn. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. :idL..flJJt/ Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President Id~ v ~ -~ Willie D. Hamilton, Secretary APPROVED:_----.f__\nl._~_-_9_/ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Minutes of Board of Directors Special Meeting July 29, 1991 NOV 5 1991 Office of Dt\"\nsegregat'on Mor,110 ing The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 5:08 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The vice-president and the president presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. Willie D. Hamilton Mr. J. L. (Skip) Rutherford Mrs. Robin Armstrong Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The vice president called the meeting to order. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members, which constituted a quorum. Dr. Mitchel 1 and Ms. Gee joined the meeting shortly after roll call. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The special meeting was called for the purpose of discuss i ng personnel matters. EXECUTIVE SESSION: - Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved to retire into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Willie D. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board retired into executive session at 5:09 p.m. Mr. John Moore left the meeting at 5:58 p.m. The Board reconvened from executive session at 6:31 p.m. Upon reconvening, the president announced that the Board had been discussing personnel matters and that no action was taken. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Skip Rutherford moved to adjourn. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President Willie D. HanITit.on,secret APPROVED: __f_ .,..\u0026gt;e.2:_\n}=---'7_/ _ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting August 5, 1991 NOV 5 1991 Office of Dese rega,:i\nn M..,n,! ring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 5:10 p.m. on August 5, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The vice president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. J. L. (Skip) Rutherford Mrs. Robin Armstrong Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The Board secretary, Mr. Bill Hamilton, called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. Mrs. Jacovelli joined the meeting shortly after roll call. Upon joining the meeting, Mrs. Jacovelli, as vice president, assumed the chair. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering three (3) employment recommendations\na resolution on the sales tax election\nand to conduct two employee hearings. EMPLOYMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: Dr. Steele recommended that the Board employ Arma Hart , s Desegregation Facilitator at a salary of $55,432.80. Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Superintendent recommended that the Board employ June L. Looper as principal at Terry Elementary School. Ms. Pat Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion. During discussion, Board members and the superintendent commended Alice Stovall for a job well done during her term as principal at Terry Elementary School and expressed confidence that she will perform equally well as the District's Director of Reading. Following discussion, the motion carried unanimously. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board employ Barbara Means as principal at Fair Park Elementary School. Mr. Skip Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. RESOLUTION ON SALES TAX Dr. Steele recommended that the Board adopt a Resolution in support of the city's proposed one cent sales tax which will be on the ballot on October 8, 1991. The Superintendent recommended that the Board adopt the Resolution. Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved adoption of the Resolution. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A copy of the Resolution is attached to these minutes and made a part hereof. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS: In a closed session, the Board conducted a hearing at the request of Don Strickland in connection with a recommendation to terminate him from his job as a bus driver. After hearing all testimony, considering evidence, and questioning by Board members and the Superintendent, the administration asked the Board to uphold the termination recommendation of Mr. Strickland as per the earlier findings. Mr. John Moore moved that the Board retire into executive session. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board retired into executive session at 7:26 p.m. They reconvened at 8:15 p.m., whereupon the chair announced that no action was taken during executive session. Dr. Steele recommended that Don Strickland's suspension without pay be upheld from January 15, 1991, until the date the bus drivers report for the 1991-92 school year. Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. In a closed session, the Board conducted a hearing at the request of Denita Williams in connection with a recommendation to terminate her from her job as a bus driver. After hearing all testimony, considering evidence, and questioning by Board members and the Superintendent, the administration recommended that the Board uphold the suspension without pay and the termination recommendation. Mr. John Moore moved to retire into executive session. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board retired into executive session at 10:15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:18 p.m. Upon reconvening, the chair announced that no action had been taken. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board uphold the suspension without pay for the period of time from the date it began until the date bus drivers report back to work and that she be on performance probation with a very strong admonition that any profane language of any kind will not be tolerated, including \"Shut the hell up.\" Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Upon motion by Mrs. Armstrong, a second by Mr. Moore, and unanimous approval by the Board members, the special Board meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President Willie D. Hamilton, Secretary APPROVED: r ~\n), d- - CJ/ ----=------=------'\"'------'-'---- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Minutes Of Board of Directors Regular Meeting August 22, 1991 NOV 5 1991 Office oi Desegregat:on Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:02 p.m. on August 22, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. J. L. (Skip) Rutherford Mrs. Robin Armstrong Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: None Ex OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Veda McClain Miss Carla Wade ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. ACTION: CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The president called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. II. ACTION: READING OF THE MINUTES Board of Directors Regular Meeting August 22, 1991 2 The president directed the Board members ' a tte ntion to the minutes of the special meeting on February 18, 1991\nt he special meeting on February 21, 1991\nthe special meeting on March 14, 1991\nthe special meeting on April 29, 1991\nspecial meeting on May 1, 1991\nspecial meeting on June 18, 1991\nspecial meeting on July 18, 1991\nregular meeting on July 25, 1991\nspecial meeting on July 29, 1991\nand the special meeting on August 5, 1991. Mrs. 0 . G. Jacovelli moved approval of the minutes as submitted. Mr. Skip Rutherford seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. III. PRESENTATIONS: A. Superintendent's Citations Dr. Steele presented Superintendent's Citations to the teacher and student ex officio Board members for this month: Mrs. Veda McClain from Washington Elementary School\nand Miss Carla Wade from Parkview Magnet School. B. Citizens Committees None reporting. C. Board Members Mr. Skip Rutherford, recognizing that this is his last regular Board meeting as a member of the Board of Directors, reviewed the accomplishments over the past three years and thanked various indi victuals, including his family and his employer for allowing him the time to serve as a Board member. Dr. Katherine Mitchell presented Mr. Rutherford a plaque commemorating his service to the Board and thanked him for his hard work during his term of service. Board members, individually, paid tribute to Mr. Rutherford for his term of service and gave him gag gifts representative of some of his notable stands and characteristics. Dr. Mitchell reported that the Board had conducted its annual \"pre-school tour of schools\" and found that the schools are ready. She challenged the faculties and administration to find solutions to our problems and to find ways in which all students can achieve success. She also asked that we develop respect for each other and respect for each other's heritage. IV. REPORT: REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Board of Directors Regular Meeting August 22, 1991 3 Mr. Muskie Harris spoke on behalf of a group of citizens who are interested in renovating Quigley Stadium. He asked that the District make the stadium a higher priority or allow the renovation committee to take it over. He asked that the Board budget appropriately for Quigley Stadium. Mrs. Debbie Velez invited Board members to participate in PTA activities this year. Mr. Frank Martin asked the Board to reconsider its decision not to extend the ESP contract and complained of problems encountered by bus drivers. He also complained that the election procedures are too restrictive and said he only wants an opportunity for the ESP employees to choose for themselves whether they want representation or not. Ms. Charlsie Beck reviewed various problems she had encountered with the supervision personnel at the Transportation Department. Ms. Laretha Jackson warned that there is a \"storm brewing\" in the Transportation Department because of the unfair treatment. of bus drivers by supervision personnel. She asked the Board to extend the ESP contract until after the election. Ms. Gwen Porter Cole, a special education bus driver, asked the Board to do an audit of the Transportation Department and to consider the bus drivers' concerns. V. ACTION ITEMS A. Donations of Property Dr. Steele recommended that the Board accept the donation of a weed eater by the Baseline PTA to Baseline Elementary School. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Superintendent directed the Board's attention to the request by the Federal Aviation Administration through Mr. Philip S. Woodruff, to donate fifty (50) Computer Flying Simulation videos for use in our schools. She recommended approval of the donation. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. B. Board Policies for Second Reading Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the policy on Board-Staff Relationships\nPurpose of Curriculum\nStudent Board of Directors Regular Meeting August 22, 1991 Learning Outcomes\nCurriculum Development\nEducational Alignment\nInstructional Materials\nTesting Programs\nCurriculum Monitoring\nSchool Improvement Plan\nLRSD Staff Development\nCompliance with State and Federal Laws\nChemical Dependency\nand the Use, Possession, Sale or Transfer of Controlled Substances and/or Alcohol. The Superintendent recommended adoption of the policies on second reading. Mr. Hamil ton moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Rutherford seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. c. Appointment of Ex Officio Financial Secretary Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the appointment of Jim Ivey as ex-officio financial secretary effective September 1, 1991. Mr. Hamilton moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. Desegregation Case: Appeal Issues Mr. Chris Heller reviewed the legal position in connection with the issues of the budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the extension of millages. Board members asked questions of Mr. Heller and of the Superintendent. Mrs. Jacovelli moved to instruct the attorneys to appeal the matter of the budget of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried four (4) to two (2) with one abstention. Mr. Hamilton, Dr. Mitchell, Ms. Jacovelli, and Ms. Gee voted in favor of the motion\nMr. Moore and Mr. Rutherford voted in opposition to the motion\nMrs. Armstrong abstained. Following discussion concerning the extension of millages, Dr. Steele recommended that the Board vote to appeal the issue of the extension of millages. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried four (4) to three (3). Mr. Hamilton, Dr. Mitchell, Mrs. Jacovelli, and Ms. Gee voted in favor of the motion\nMr. Rutherford, Mrs. Armstrong, and Mr. Moore voted in opposition to the motion. E. Personnel Changes Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the slip sheet on which Leon Adams is recommended to be employed as the Director of Federal Programs. Discussion ensued concerning Mr. Adams' qualifications. Mr. Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried Board of Directors Regular Meeting August 22, 1991 5 five (5) to two (2), with Ms. Gee and Mrs. Jacovelli casting the dissenting votes. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the personnel changes in the printed agenda. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried five (5) to one (1) with Mrs. Jacovelli casting the dissenting vote. Mr. Rutherford was out of the room when the vote was taken. F. Financial Reports Dr. Steele recommended approval of the financial reports contained on the slip sheet to the agenda. Mr. Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Rutherford was out of the room when the vote was taken. VI. REPORTS OF SUPERINTENDENT A. Update on Desegregation Implementation Mr. James Jennings reported. Board members asked questions. Mr. Lionel Ward reported on Romine' s plans for the Interdistrict School program. B. Report on Testing Dr. Steele and Mr. Sterling Ingram reported. Discussion ensued concerning the desire of some Board members for longitudinal studies on students' MAT-6 performance. Further discussion centered around remediation plans from past year and whether or not they had been successful in ensuing years. c. Update on Curriculum Revisions Dr. Steele informed the Board that this is the first report as a result of the \"No More Excuses'' report. There was a brief discussion with Mrs. Matthis concerning this report. D. Report on Safety and Security The Superintendent directed the Board members' attention to the slip sheet entitled \"Safe Schools\" Plan, a 53-point action plan. Discussion ensured concerning the status of the pol ice resource officer program. Dr. Steele informed the Board that Mr. Dal ton will meet with the secondary principals on September 3. Further discussion centered around the new drug dog. Board of Directors Regular Meeting August 22, 1991 VII. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None STUDENT AND/OR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Milo Jefferson 6 Mr. Howard reminded the Board that it had taken Milo's petition for reinstatement under advisement and that it needed to vote on his request. In a closed session, Mrs. Armstrong moved to deny reinstatement and refer Milo to the Juvenile Justice Center or Adult Education, and upon his successful matriculation in one of these programs for one year, he may petition for reinstatement. Mr. Skip Rutherford seconded the motion, and it carried four (4) to (0) with only Mr. Rutherford, Mrs. Armstrong, Ms. Gee, and Dr. Mitchell voting because they were the four Board members who originally heard the petition. London Stewart Mr. Howard presented London Stewart's petition for reinstatement. Discussion ensued among Board members. Mrs. Armstrong moved that the record will reflect that London was expelled retroactively for the spring of 1990-91 semester and that he be allowed to re-enroll under strict probation for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion. Discuss ion ensued concerning his school assignment. Mr. Hamilton called the question. The vote on the call for the question carried four (4) to three (3) with Mr. Hamilton, Dr. Mitchell, Mr. Moore, and Mrs. Armstrong cast votes in favor of calling the question\nand Mrs. Jacovelli, Mr. Rutherford, and Ms. Gee voted in opposition to calling the question. The vote on the original motion failed four (4) to three (3) with Mr. Rutherford, Mrs. Armstrong, Ms. Gee, and Mrs. Jacovelli voting in opposition to the motion\nand Mr. Hamilton, Dr. Mitchell, and Mr. Moore voting in favor of the motion. Mr. Hamilton moved to allow the District to reinstate London Stewart and for the staff and district to determine the best school setting for him. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion, and it carried five (5) to two (2). Mr. Rutherford and Mrs. Armstrong cast the dissenting votes. Odell Alexander, Cedric Casey. Samuel Johnson. and Larry Robinson Mr. Howard directed the Board members' attention to the administration's recommendation to reinstate Odell Alexander, Board of Directors Regular Meeting August 22, 1991 Cedric Casey, Samuel Johnson, and Larry Robinson. Mr. Hamilton moved the Administration's recommendation concerning these four students. Mr. Rutherford seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board of Directors, Mr. Rutherford moved to adjourn. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Approved: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS NOV 5 1991 Minutes Of Special Board Meeting August 15, 1991 Office of Desegrvgatic,1 Mu, !O, ing The Little Rock School District Board of Directors met in a lawfully called special meeting at 5:35 p.m. following the regular Committee meeting on August 15, 1991. The meeting was held in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. J. L. (Skip) Rutherford Mrs. Robin Armstrong Ms. Pat Gee MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. John Moore ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruths. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 5:35 p.m . The roll call revealed the presence of four ( 4) Board members, which constituted a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The president announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of ratifying the Act 10 distribution of funds\nto consider a permanent construction easement to Southwestern Bell Telephone at Jefferson Elementary School\nto conduct a discussion on personnel\nand to consider student petitions for reinstatement. RATIFICATION OF ACT 10 DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS: Dr. Steele explained the features of the tentative agreement reached by the District's negotiating team and the Little Rock Classroom Teacher's Association. She informed the Board that the teachers had already ratified the agreement and recommended that the Board do so. Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Skip Rutherford seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE The Superintendent directed the Board members' attention to the map and explanation of the 10' X 15' easement to Southwestern Bell Telephone to build a communications equipment station at Jefferson Elementary School. She recommended that the Board give approval for the administration to proceed with the execution of the necessary documents to convey the strip of land to Southwestern Bell Telephone. Mr. Skip Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. PERSONNEL DISCUSSION: Mr. Skip Rutherford moved to retire into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board retired into executive session at 5:42 p.m. and reconvened at 6:37 p.m. Upon reconvening, the president announced that no action was taken during the executive session. STUDENT PETITIONS FOR REINSTATEMENT: Michael Rice and Naomi Jones Charles Murry and Brian Thornton Mr. Howard presented the administration's recommendation to reinstate Michael Rice and Naomi Jones to the Alternative Learning Center\nto deny Charles Murry's petition for reinstatement and to refer him to the Juvenile Justice Center\nand to deny Brian Thornton's petition for reinstatement. Mrs. Armstrong moved the administration's recommendation. Mr. Rutherford seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Brian Doss Mr. Howard presented the administration's recommendation to reinstate Brian Doss under strict probation for the first semester of the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Rutherford moved the administration's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Steven Brown Mr. Howard presented the administration's recommendation to reinstate Steven Brown. Steven appeared in person and answered questions from Board me~bers. Dr. Steele recommended that Steven be reinstated on str1ct probation and that any threats or difficulty at school will be grounds for immediate expulsion. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Clifton Fry Mr. Howard presented the administration's recommendation that Clifton not be reinstated. Clifton appeared in person along with his mother. After questioning from Board members and the Superintendent, Dr. Steele recommended that Clifton not be allowed to attend school and be given an opportunity to attend the Adult Education Center. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried three to one with Mr. Rutherford casting the dissenting vote. Following the vote, Mr. Rutherford appealed to the Board to refer Clifton to the Centers for Youth and Family for residential treatment in order that he might get counseling. By consensus, the Board agreed to his referral to the Centers for Youth and Family and that he can be admitted to the Centers as a Little Rock School District student if it is necessary for admission but that he must appear again before the Board before being reinstated to regular school. - Ryan Parker Mr. Howard presented the administration's recommendation that Ryan be reinstated on strict probation for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Jodie carter, Principal at McClellan High School, concurred with the recommendation. Ryan appeared in person along with his father. After questioning by the Board and Superintendent, Dr. Steele recommended that Ryan be allowed to enroll at J. A. Fair High School on strict probation. Mr. Rutherford moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Anthony Guerra Mr. Howard presented the administration's recommendation that Anthony not be reinstated. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent' s recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Milo Jefferson Mr. Howard presented the administration's recommendation that Milo not be reinstated. Milo appeared in person along with his mother. Board members questioned Milo. Mrs. Armstrong left the meeting at 8:02 p.m. so the Board no longer had a quorum. Board members continued to talk with Milo, following which it decided to take his case under advisement and vote at a special Board meeting on Tuesday, August 20. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special Board meeting, the meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m. upon motion by consensus of the remaining Board members. Approved: J!.1:M*~1trl!:J-tt\u0026amp;nt ~1\n~iJ~ry LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 8:37 a.m. on September 26, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The vice president, Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mrs. Robin Armstrong Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Burgin, Teacher Representative Mr. Adam Kirby, Student Representative ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The vice president called the meeting to order at 8:37 a.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of discussing concerns about the upcoming ESP election. DISCUSSION OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE ESP ELECTION: Dr. Steele told the Board that the administration has a very serious concern about the way in which the ESP election campaign has been conducted. Specifically, she said Board policy prohibits campaigning on District property and that the policy has been violated numerous times. She directed the Board members' attention to the copies of letters and other information indicating that the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association had been notified that they were violating District policy. She further informed the Board that the administration does not have the liberty of selecting which policies it enforces and which ones it does not enforce. Board members questioned Mr. Frank Martin, Executive Director of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association. Mr. Martin complained that he did not have adequate notification of the meeting and questioned the manner in which the special meeting was called. Mr. Martin maintained that the policy concerning campaigning on District policy is a new interpretation and has never been enforced in this way before. Mrs. Eleanor Coleman told the Board that she was angry and disappointed. She said she was informed of the special meeting at - 7:58 a.m. Following discussion, Mr. John Moore moved that the Board cancel the representative election scheduled for October 1 and not allow the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association to conduct another election until 1992-93. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and after more discussion, the motion carried five (5) to one (1), with Mr. Hamilton casting the dissenting vote. ADJOURNMENT: Mrs. Armstrong moved to adjourn. Mr. Moore seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:11 a.m. 0. 0. G. lli, 'President Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED:__._/,_/__,\n.\"-'/_-____ Z-'---1/- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIAL SECRET BALLOT for Little Rock School District Custodians Do you wish to b Association as your so e salary, fringe benefits and worki MARK AN 'X' IN THE SQUA  YES D  tie Rock Classroom Teachers tive for negotiations for D DO NOT SIGN THIS BALLOT. Fold and drop in ballot box. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIAL SECRET BALLOT for Little Rock School District Aides Do you wish to be e Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association as your sole tative for negotiations for salary, fringe benefits and wor - ~---------+,----+-+---+-+-~--------- DO NOT SIGN THIS BALLOT. Fold and drop in ballot box. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIAL SECRET BALLOT for Little Rock School District Bus Drivers and Bus Driver Aides Do you wish to be ep Association as your .:\u0026gt;L\u0026gt;M::\n..,-a salary, fringe benefits and MARK AN 'X' IN THE SQ YES _ ,. D the Little Rock Classroom Teachers resentative for negotiations for ns? DO NOT SIGN THIS BALLOT. Fold and drop in ballot box.  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Minutes Of Board of Directors Regular Meeting September 26, 1991 J I 3 1 \\992 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled monthly meeting at 6:06 p.m. on September 26, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. T:he president, Dr. Katherine Mitchell and the newly elected president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. Members Present: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli Mr. Willie D. \"Bill\" Hamilton Mrs. Robin Armstrong Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Members Absent: None Ex Officio Members Present: Mr. John Burgin, Teacher Ex Officio Member Mr. Adam Kirby, Student Ex Officio Member Also Present: Dr. Ruths. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. ACTION: CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The president, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. Board of Directors Regular Meeting September 26, 1991 II. ACTION: READING OF THE MINUTES 2 The president directed the Board members' attention to the minutes of the minutes of the special meeting on August 15, 1991, and the regular meeting on August 22, 1991. Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved to approve the minutes as published. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. III. CONSENT: CONSENT ITEMS Dr. Steele announced that new partnerships had been formed between Falcon Publications and Booker Magnet School. She reviewed the terms of the partnership agreement and recommended that the Board approve it. Mr. John Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Superintendent announced that a new partnership had been formed between Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages and the District. She reviewed the instructional activities that would occur as a result of the partnership, using the Yellow Pages as a resource. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the partnership. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. IV. PRESENTATIONS: A. Superintendent's Citations Dr. Steele presented a Superintendent's Citation to Jackie Porchia, a student from McClellan Community High School, in recognition for her selection for the 1991 Master Learner Award for demonstrating the most academic improvement in 1990~ Ms. Portia accepted the Citation in person and received a standing ovation. Dr. Steele also presented a Superintendent's Citation to Martin Swint, a 24-year veteran teacher at Central High School, in recognition of his selection as the 1990-91 Vocational Teacher of the Year. A Superintendent's Citation was also presented to the Community Involvement Team at Levi Strauss for their generous grant contribution to the Alternative Learning Center. Dr. Steele also expressed appreciation to John Burgin and Adam Kirby for their service to the Board as ex officio members this month by presenting them with a Superintendent's Citation. Board of Directors Regular Meeting September 26, 1991 B. Citizens Committees None reporting. c. Board Members 3 Dr. Mitchell commended the Biracial Advisory Committee for hosting a reception for the Board members just prior to the regular meeting. She also recognized a Boys Scout troop in the audience from Mabelvale Elementary. Ms. Pat Gee announced that she had observed very positive activities going on in the District during three visits to Dunbar Jr. High, Fair Park Elementary School, and Washington Magnet School. She encouraged the media to publicize the positive things. Mrs. Armstrong commended the staff for the extra effort it put forth to ensure a smooth opening of school. V. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Prior to beginning this section on the agenda, Dr. Steele reminded the speakers that Board policy prohibits employees from making false or vicious remarks about an employee or supervisor of the District. She said that allegations of wrong-doing by employees will be investigated. She pointed out that the grievance procedure is available to everyone and that it will be followed. Luke Smith, representing Hall High School's Student Council, presented flowers to the Board as a way of thanking the Board for its work on behalf of the District and told the Board that the students are looking forward to a good year. Ms. Lee Abernathy complained that she had been called in by a supervisor and asked if anyone had approached her to join the union. She informed the Board that this was a violation of her rights. Ms. Irma King told the Board that the drivers need a union and the Board does not know what their conditions are. She asked the Board to let them vote on representation, Ms. Theretha Jackson said the security at tonight's meeting made her feel bad. She complained that she runs three runs even though the administration at the Transportation Department disputes this fact. She asked the Board to look at what is going on. Mr. James Adams said he runs three runs and doesn't get an extra dime for it. Board of Directors Regular Meeting September 26, 1991 4 Ms. Nettie Nichols complained that she had applied for another position in the Transportation Department, that she was the most qualified for it and had the most seniority but denied. She said Virgil Jones used profanity and degraded her. She complained of sexual harassment. She warned that there would be a revolution that will shock Arkansas and the nation. Reva Rhodes complained that she had been sexually harassed by someone at the Transportation Department. Gwen Porter-Cole said the drivers need a voice and asked that the Board do an investigation of the Transportation Department. Jackie Jones said she is not allowed to voice her opinion. Said she wants her supervisor to stand up for her. Eleanor Coleman told the Board that she objected to the way in which the early morning special meeting was called. She objected to the \"kangaroo court\" that was conducted at the special meeting earlier today and complained that the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association was accused and sentenced without a fair trial. She told the Board that she asked only for fairness. Selma Hobby reported that the administration building's United Way campaign had been very successful and that 11 of the 14 departments in the building were 100 percent in contributions to United Way. Sid Johnson, President of the Arkansas Education Association, told the Board that their action earlier today to cancel the ESP election five days before it was to take place was unfair. He spoke of the need for representation for employees because the District is so large and asked the Board to calmly reverse itself. Willie Givens urged the Board to allow the ESP personnel to choose whether or not it wanted to have representation. Michael Rice, the parent of a handicapped student, informed the Board that his son used a trained dog to assist him at Mann Junior High School and related how happy his son was with school. He explained that he sensed some uneasiness on someone's part about the dog's presence at the school although he had not received any complaints about the dog from school personnel. He asked Board members to let him know if they knew anything about what was going on. Board of Directors Regular Meeting September 26, 1991 5 RECESS The Board recessed at 7:05 p.m. The Board reconvened at 7:25 p.m. PRESENTATION OF PETITION Mrs. Eleanor Coleman presented the Board with a petition requesting a special Board meeting. Dr. Steele announced that the Board and administration are very concerned about the problems related to the Board concerning the Transportation Department, and therefore, the administration will do whatever it takes to eliminate the problem. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Donations Dr. Steele directed the Board's attention to the donation requests as follows: Mr. Carl R. Stapleton asks permission to donate a computer system with accessories and software to the school to be used in classrooms\nThe Jefferson PTA asks permission to donate a refrigerator to Jefferson Elementary School for use in the teacher's lounge. Dr. Steele recommended approval of the donation requests. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. B. Election of Officers The chair called for nominations for president of the Board of Directors for 1991-92. Ms. Pat Gee nominated Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli. Mrs. Armstrong moved that Mrs. Jacovelli be elected by acclamation. There being no other names to be placed in nomination, Mrs. Jacovelli was elected president by acclamation on a six (6) to one (1) vote. Dr. Katherine Mitchell cast the dissenting vote. Mrs. Armstrong nominated Mr. John Moore as vice president of the Board for 1991-92. Mrs. Jacovelli moved to elect John Moore as vice president by acclamation. There being no other names to be Board of Directors Regular Meeting September 26, 1991 6 placed in nomination, Mr. Moore was elected vice president by a unanimous vote of the Board. Mrs. Jacovelli nominated Ms. Pat Gee as secretary of the Board. Mr. Hamil ton moved to elect Mrs. Gee as secretary by acclamation. There being no other names to be placed in nomination, Ms. Gee was elected as secretary by a unanimous vote of the Board. Following the election of new officers, Dr. Mitchell presented the gavel to Mrs. Jacovelli, who in turn presented Dr. Mitchell with a souvenir gavel to commemorate her service to the Board as president during 1990-91. Dr. Mitchell expressed appreciation to her fellow Board members and expressed hope that the Board will continue to focus on our children so they will get their needs met. C. Interdistrict School Sites Dr. Steele asked that this item be tabled until next month. After expressing some concerns, Mrs. Armstrong moved to table to October with the provision that the administration bring all the relative facts that pertain to the interdistrict plan along with the recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. Drug Free Schools and Communities Grant Dr. Steele recommended approval of the submission of the grant application to the Arkansas Department of Education. Mr. John Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. E. Levi Strauss Grant The Superintendent recommended that the Board approve the acceptance of a $7,000 grant from Levi Strauss which will help fund the parent support and involvement group for students at the Alternative Learning Center. Mr. Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. F. Resolution for Sale of Construction Bonds Mr. Mark McBryde from Stephens, Inc. summarized the process for taking bids and selling the issue in the amount of $15,100,000, representing the final installment of the renovation and improvement program the voters approved in 1990. He furnished the Board with a Resolution confirming the sale of the bonds to Merrill Lynch \u0026amp; Company and recommended its adoption by the Board. Board of Directors Regular Meeting September 26, 1991 7 After discussion of the issue, Mrs. Armstrong moved adoption of the Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Delivery of Bonds\nand Prescribing Other Matters Pertaining Thereto. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. G. Personnel Changes Dr. Steele suggested that the Board retire into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mrs. Armstrong moved to retire into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Moore seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board retired into executive session at 8:02 p.m. and reconvened at 9:26 p.m. Upon reconvening, the chair announced that the Board had been discussing personnel matters and that no action was taken. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the personnel changed reflected in the printed agenda. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Superintendent recommended that the Board approve the employment of Berthena Dunn to the position of intern administrator at Washington Magnet School as reflected on the slip sheet and asked that Ada Keown's name be removed from the slip sheet. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. H. Financial Reports Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the financial reports as published in the printed agenda. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. VII. REPORTS OF SUPERINTENDENT A. 1990-91 Districtwide Annual Report The Superintendent directed the Board and audience to the 1990-91 Districtwide Annual Report which outlines the District's work toward achieving its goals. B. Update on Desegregation Mr. James Jennings presented the update on desegregation implementation. Board members asked questions and Mr. Jennings and Dr. Steele responded. There was discussion about the status of textbooks in schools and recruitment. Board members asked that we keep them informed about our progress on recruitment. Board of Directors Regular Meeting September 26, 1991 C. Report on Volunteers in Public School and Partners in Education This report was deferred to a later date. 8 D. Elementary Social Studies Multicultural Curriculum Guides Dr. Steele explained the curriculum guides are in draft form. She further told the Board that the committee is using sections from the core curriculum and State Department guides. Dr. Steele assured the Board that the curriculum will be approved by the Board before it is implemented. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS Dr. Steele announced that she is in the process of forming a committee to investigate specific allegations of misconduct by Transportation Department personnel. IX. STUDENT AND/OR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the uncontested expulsion recommendations of Latisha Brown and Theodus Brown. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board discussed the petitions for reinstatement presented by Mr. Rudolph Howard and upon motion by Mr. Hamilton, a second by Mrs. Armstrong, and an affirmative vote by five members of the Board, the Board took the following action: Nashid Ashwood - Accepted the administration's recommendation for reinstatement. Carmen Byrd - Accepted the administration's recommendation for reinstatement to the Alternative Learning Center. Felicia Boyd - Accepted the administration's recommendation for reinstatement to the Alternative Learning Center. Monte Cooney - Accepted the administration's recommendation for referral to the Juvenile Justice Center. Deon Sheard - Accepted the administration's recommendation for reinstatement. Lavone Thomas - Accepted the administration's recommendation for reinstatement. Board of Directors Regular Meeting September 26, 1991 9 Marcus Whitaker - Accepted the administration's recommendation for reinstatement. Chester Sims - Accepted the administration's recommendation for reinstatement. Mrs. Jacovelli and Mr. Moore voted in opposition to the motion. The Board discussed the reinstatement petition of Farris Deloney, following which Mr. Moore moved the accept the administration's recommendation following Farris' mother's testimony before the Board that the student be reinstated on the condition that he enroll in the counseling program and if he does not complete the program he will be expelled again. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Bill Hamilton left the meeting at 10:32 p.m. The Board discussed the reinstatement petition of Clifton Fry following which Dr. Steele recommended that Clifton be allowed to enroll in the Alternative Learning Center and be evaluated for counseling. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried five (5) to one (1) with Mr. Moore casting the dissenting vote. The Board asked Mr. Howard to ask Laquanda Jacobs and Antwain Mayes to appear in person before the Board at the next Board meeting\ntherefore, no action was taken concerning these two petitions for reinstatement. Upon motion by Mr. Jackson and a second by Mrs. Armstrong, the Board voted unanimously to accept the administration's recommendation on Derrick Williams and Reginald Strain, which was to reinstate Reginald Strain and to reinstate Derrick Williams to the Alternative Learning Center. The Board discussed the reinstatement petition of Michael Tillman, following which Dr. Steele recommended that Michael be allowed to reinstated on strict probation and be assigned to a New Futures School. Dr. Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting September 26, 1991 ADJOURNMENT 10 There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board of Directors, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to adjourn. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:37 p.m. o. G. Jacove7::President Pat Gee, Secretary Approved:_~/-0_---'d...,,,_,,~--C/c.....:/'-- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting September 19, 1991 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:35 p.m. on September 19, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mrs. Robin Armstrong Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of approving ballots for the ESP representative election on October 1 and to consider student disciplinary recommendations. APPROVAL OF BALLOTS: Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the proposed ballots previously furnished to them and recommended that the Board approve them. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A copy of the approved ballots are attached hereto and made a part hereof. STUDENT DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS: In a closed session, Mr. Rudolph Howard presented students' requests for reinstatement to school. After reviewing all the information presented in the background materials and in dialogue with Mr. Howard, Mr. Hamilton moved the administration's recommendation on the petitions for reinstatement. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried by a vote of five (5) to two (2). Mr. Moore and Ms. Gee cast the dissenting votes. The administration's recommendation on the petitions for reinstatement were as follows: Reinstated Kevin Barton to the Alternative Learning Center\nReinstated Donna Bone with the suggestion that the District enroll her at a New Futures School instead of Henderson\nReferred Richard Bracy to the Juvenile Justice Center for one year\nReinstated Darren Carr\nReinstated Donnie Graham\nReinstated Jimmy Hollins\nReferred Juan Jordon to the Juvenile Justice Center or the Alternative Learning Center for one year\nReinstated Steven King to the Alternative Learning Center for year\nReinstated Jos Wheeler\nReinstated Marcus Winston to J. A. Fair High School\nReinstated Brenda Bell\nReinstated David Patrick. rt was emphasized that all of the reinstated students were on strict probation. RECESS: The Board recessed for a break at 6:32 p.m. and reconvened at 7:13 p.m. STUDENT HEARINGS: The Board heard testimony from Nathia Grayson's father. After hearing all testimony and considering the testimony and evidence presented, the Superintendent recommended that the Board uphold the administration's recommendation to expel Nathia Grayson for the remainder of the 1991-92 school year. Mr. John Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board heard testimony from the hearing officer concerning the expulsion recommendation of Shannon Ryan. After considering the testimony presented by Mr. Howard and considering the matter, the Superintendent recommended that the Board accept the recommendation of the EMT team and suspend Shannon for 10 days. Mr. John Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board considered the background material in connection with the recommendation for the emergency removal of Rod Mcclinton and to refer him to the Juvenile Justice Center. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved the administration's recommendation. Mrs. Robin Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board considered the recommendation for the long-term suspension of Terrence Saulsberry. Mr. Hamilton moved the administration's recommendation for long-term suspension. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mrs. Armstrong moved to adjourn. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come within the call for the special meeting, the meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m. THERINE MITCHELL, PRESIDENT WILLIE D. HILTON,SECRETAR APPROVED: // ~ /- 9/ ..... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1991 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:10 p.m. on October 14, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Moore (Joined meeting at 6:15 p.m.) Mrs. Robin Armstrong Mr. Dorsey Jackson ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruths. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members, which constituted a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering student disciplinary recommendations, and to conduct an employee hearing. She announced that the hearings will be closed. APPEARANCES BY STUDENTS SEEKING REINSTATEMENT: The Board heard testimony from Mr. Howard, Mr. Everett Hawks, and the mother of Tyrone Devlin's mother in connection with Tyrone's petition for reinstatement. Board members asked questions and considered the testimony. Dr. Steele recommended that Tyrone Devlin be reinstated to Cloverdale Junior High School on strict probation for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Bill Hamil ton moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Antwain Mayes failed to appear for the hearing. Following discussion among Board members, the student hearing officer, and the Superintendent, Dr. Steele recommended that Antwain Mayes be reinstated to the Alternative Learning Center under strict probation. Mr. Hamilton moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Howard directed the Board members' attention to the uncontested long-term suspension recommendations. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board confirm the long-term suspensions of Fabian Abraham, Camel Springs, Willie Tyler, Kerry Wilson, and Shannon Scales. Mr. Hamilton moved the Superintendent's recommendations. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Howard directed the Board members' attention to the uncontested expulsion recommendations. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board confirm the expulsion recommendations of Charles Greer, Frank Lockhart, and Antonio Johnson. Mr. Hamilton moved the superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. EMPLOYEE HEARING: Mr. John Moore joined the meeting just as the hearing began. The Board conducted an appeal hearing on behalf of Becky Wilkerson. Mr. Brady Gadberry represented the District administration and Mr. Frank Martin represented Ms. Wilkerson. After hearing testimony from Dick Johnson, Director of Transportation, and Ms. Wilkerson, opening and closing arguments by Mr. Gadberry and Mr. Martin, and questioning by Board members, Mr. John Moore moved to go into executive session. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board retired into executive session at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened at 7:37 p.m. Upon reconvening the chair announced that no action was taken during executive session. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board uphold the termination recommendation of the administration. Ms. Pat Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special meeting of the Board, Ms. Gee moved to adjourn. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. O. G. Jaco7J.i,President jtfJ\u0026amp;etary APPROVED: _ ____.._,//_--___.\n2-~/_-_i .__I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 1, 1991 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 6:05 p.m. on October 1, 1991, in the Administration Building, 810 West Markham street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The special meeting was called as a result of a petition signed by fifty (50) citizens in accordance with Board policy. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mrs. Robin Armstrong Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Scott Morgan, Teacher Representative ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting had been called in response to a petition from 50 citizens. Mrs. Jacovelli called on Mrs. Eleanor Coleman, president of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association. Mrs. Coleman told the Board that she assumed the position as president of the LRCTA with a number of goals, one of which was to bring harmony within the ranks of our members and the administration. She briefly reviewed her goals and told the Board that she would like to get back to work on those goals. She asked that the Board reconsider its vote of last week and allow the LRCTA to conduct a representative election. She reviewed her perception of the misunderstanding concerning campaigning on District property and assured the Board that she never intended to violate District policy nor did she conduct her business with malice. She further assured the Board that if it votes to allow the election, the policy will be followed. Mr. Frank Martin informed the Board that the sentiments expressed by Mrs. Coleman were the sentiments of all the union representatives and members. He told the Board that the LRCTA try to represent its members as well as it can and all they want is to be treated with dignity and respect. He told the Board that he fully understood management's responsibility. He asked the Board to give the ESP personnel a chance to choose their spokesman relative to hours, wages, and working conditions. Board members asked questions, following which Dr. Steele told the Board and audience that she appreciated the acknowledgment by Mrs. Coleman and Mr. Martin that District policy will be adhered to. She assured the Board that the administration will abide by it and the administration will enforce it. She reiterated that the situation the administration finds itself is that it is obligated to enforce the policies of the Board and it can't be selective in which ones it enforces and which ones it doesn't enforce. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board declare a thirty (30) day period starting today when no one says anything except for the fact that the investigation of the transportation department will continue. At the end of the thirty days the administration will provide to LRCTA a list of names and addresses of ESP employees derived from our payroll, which means that they should be as up to date as possible at that particular time. Then assuming that there are no violations of district policy, we will hold an election sixty days from today, which will actually be December 2 because that is the Monday, the closest time that the election can be held\nthat the campaign will be conducted according to Board policy and that Brady Gadberry and Frank Martin work out the details as to the voting procedures and present a recommendation for us to consider. In the meantime, an investigation of the Transportation Department will continue down two tracks: one will be an internal track where specific allegations will be investigated, and in fact that investigation is already proceeding by some individuals who are employed by our District in other departments they are investigating the charges that have been alleged and were alleged in the last meeting. Those include such things as sexual harassment, favoritism, and discouragement to join the union. The second track is a public track and that involves an evaluation of management practices and employee relations at the Transportation Department. For the last several days I have been involved in the process of selecting a committee to assist with that investigation, and I have asked several people to help us. There are two who have committed as of today to be on the committee and the others will let me know tomorrow or the next day as we form a balanced committee in terms of race and sex of people who are prepared to deal with the intricacies of the management of a large department, but two of the people who have committed to serve on that committee will be Mahlon Martin and Woodson Walker. Others will be added tomorrow. We will ask that they conduct as thorough investigation as they possibly can\nthat they talk with a number of people\nthat they issue findings of fact\nand that they come to us with some recommendations around those two broad areas. In the meantime between now and December 2, I think I have outlined generally what is supposed to be done during the sixty day period. The thirty days during which the campaign will be conducted between the end of October and the first of December should be done strictly according to Board policy and then the election can be held on December 2. In the meantime also, the policies of the previous contract and the provisions of the previous contract which the Board voted to leave in effect until such time as a new contract was established with the exception of grievance timelines and termination timelines will continue. That is my recommendation to the Board. Mr. John Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and following discussion, it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come within the call for the special meeting, the meeting adjourned at 6:26 p.m. upon motion by Mr. Moore, a second by Mr. Hamilton, and unanimous approval by the Board members. 1li,President Pat Gee, Secretary Approved:_/_/,_ _J_~ /~-9,~1/_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1991 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 6:04 p.m. on October 17, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 819 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mrs. Robin Armstrong Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: None EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Scott Morgan, Teacher Representative Miss Regina Wade, Student Representative ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruths. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. The roll call confirmed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of meeting with the Desegregation Monitor and some of her staff. Board of Directors Special Meeting October 17, 1991 MEETING WITH DESEGREGATION MONITOR: 2 The chair introduced Mrs. Ann Brown, the Desegregation Monitor, who in turn introduced Mr. Bob Morgan and Mrs. Melissa Ripling Gulden, two staff members in the Monitor's office. Mr. Morgan explained that his job would be primarily in the financial area and Mrs. Gulden explained that her primary area of responsibility would be in early childhood education. Mrs. Brown emphasized that all staff members would have a primary area of emphasis but would be working as a team on all areas. Mrs. Brown reviewed the background and emphasis of the other staff members: Margie Powell, Horace Smith, and Connie Hickman. Ms. Brown reviewed her philosophy of monitoring. She also reviewed the process her office would use and expressed the desire to work in partnership with the District to help it succeed in its desegregation efforts. Board members asked questions concerning the process. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come within the call for the special meeting, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. upon motion by Mr. Dorsey Jackson, a second by Mr. Moore, and unanimous approval of the Board members. li,President Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Regular Meeting October 24, 1991 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled meeting at 6 p.m. on October 24, 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mrs. Robin Armstrong Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Moore (Joined meeting at 6:44 p.m.) EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Scott Morgan, Teacher Representative Miss Regina Wade, Student Representative ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. ACTION: CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. II. ACTION: READING OF THE MINUTES: The chair pointed out that the minutes had been corrected prior to the meeting and Board members had received a corrected sheet. Mrs. Armstrong moved approval of the minutes of the regular Board of Directors Regular Meeting October 24, 1991 2 meeting on September 26, 1991, as corrected. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. III. CONSENT: CONSENT ITEMS New Partnerships Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the following new partnerships: Women in Energy-Little Rock Chapter and Cloverdale Elementary School\nCentral Arkansas Rehabilitation Hospital and Franklin Elementary School\nMeadowbrook Community Club and Washington Magnet School\nand RSVP Catering and Henderson Junior High School. Mrs. Robin Armstrong moved approval of the partnerships. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Certificates were presented to each of the partners and representatives of the school commemorating the new partnerships. IV. PRESENTATIONS: A. Superintendent's Citations Dr. Steele presented Superintendent's Ci tat ions to Nikeia Talley, a student from Washington Math/Science Magnet School, for being selected to represent the governor as the Youth Representative for the State of Arkansas at the National Children's Dauy Celebration in Washington, D. C. A Citation was also presented to Andrea Anderson, a senior at Parkview Magnet School who was cited for outstanding performance in writing by the National Council of Teachers of English. A Citation was presented to Mr. Cleveland Ellis, a teacher at Ish Incentive School for organizing positive student role models at Ish called Students That Officially Patrol {STOP). Mr. Ellis had some of the students accompany him to the Board meeting. Melinda Milloway Valdez, a speech and debate teacher at Hall High School, was presented a Superintendent's Citation in recognition of her being awarded the Speech Teacher of the Year Board of Directors Regular Meeting October 24, 1991 3 honors for 1992 at the fall Arkansas state Communication Association Convention. Paula Smith, a math teacher at Washington Math/Science Magnet School, was presented a Superintendent's Citation in honor of her being awarded the 1991 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics Teaching. A Superintendent's Citation was presented to five teachers who were presenters at the Arkansas Activities Association Speech Demonstration Day this month at Henderson State University. The five teachers were Fred S. Boosey, Charlene Shehane, Cathy Holladay, Pat Treadway, and Debbie Howell. The Superintendent also thanked this month's ex officio Board members, Scott Morgan and Regina Wade, by presenting a Superintendent's Citation to them. Dr. Steele read a Resolution in memory of Dennis Holloway, a Dunbar Junior High School teacher who died recently. The Board unanimously adopted the Resolution upon motion by Mrs. Armstrong and a second by Ms. Gee. The framed Resolution was presented to Glen Holloway, brother of Dennis Holloway. B. Citizens Committees None reporting. c. Board Members Mrs. Jacovelli urged that everyone treat each other with more respect and with openness. She said she has asked that files be set up that will be opened to the press or anyone who asks to see communications from and to the attorneys in the desegregation case because her goal as president is to promote mutual respect and openness. v. REPORT: REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Gus Blass, III, president of the Quapaw Area Council of Boy Scouts, briefly discussed plans for the participation of Boy Scouts in the incentive schools' after-school program stating that they are planning a field trip once each semester and will pay registration and buy t-shirts for each boy. He said he hoped in the future the District will share these costs with the Boy Scouts. Judy Chunyo, the parent of a child at Bale, commended the services provided by the Department of Exceptional Children and asked that the District increase the financial support for supplies and materials. She suggested that special education children Board of Directors Regular Meeting October 24, 1991 4 should be double-weighted for funding because they require more supplies. She also suggested that the District keep class sizes small. Eleanor Coleman commended the goal of openness. She stated that she received a letter today from the Superintendent that addresses what she was planning to speak about. Lou Ethel Nauden expressed concern about the proposed change in the citizens comments section of the agenda. She asked that the Board not act hastily and chastized the previous comments that some employee comments during Board meetings created a \"circus.\" She urged Board members to get to know the non-certified personnel. Frank Martin spoke in opposition to reorganizing the agenda to change the employee comment opportunity. Paula Alewine told the Board that she was being lied to by the Transportation Department concerning procedure. She said the bus driver left her five year old child at a very busy street nine blocks from her house. She asked that the Board require a - safer procedure for transporting children to and from school. VI. ACTION: ACTION ITEMS: A. Donations of Property Mr. John Moore joined the meeting at 6:44 p.m. Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the donation requests in the printed agenda as follows: Carver PTA requests permission to donate playground equipment, a cookie cutter, and landscapting to the school\nand The Kroger Company #550 wishes to donate a 1990 set of World Book Encyclopedias to the media center at Carver. Dr. donations. recommendation. unanimously. Steele recommended that the Board approve the Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried B. 1991 Consolidated Application for Special Education and Related Services Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the 1991-92 proposal for submission to the State Department of Education. Mr. Board of Directors Regular Meeting October 24, 1991 5 Hamil ton moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. C. Revised 1991-92 P.L. 89-313 Application Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the revised application abstract in the printed agenda and recommended that the Board approve this 1991-92 proposal for submission to the State Department of Education. Ms. Pat Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. Proposed Reorganization of Board Agenda Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the revised policy slip-sheeted into the agenda, stating that the revision has attempted to address Board member concerns. She reviewed the changes and recommended that the Board approve it for first reading. Mr. Hamil ton moved the Superintendent's recommendation for approval for first reading. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion. Following discussion, the motion carried unanimously. E. Recommendation on Salary and Job Analysis Dr. Steele recommended that the Board direct the administration to develop a proposal for conducting a salary and job analysis and present it to the Board for discussion and action at the regularly scheduled Board meeting in November. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion. Following discussion, the motion carried unanimously. F. Consideration of Nominations for Biracial Advisory Committee Membership Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the nominations of Carla Bobo, Larry Davis, Dianne Isbel, Roy Johnson, Herschell Meadows, Kenyon Lowe, and Joslyn Rocker for membership on the Biracial Advisory Committee. Mr. Hamilton moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried six (6) to one (l}. Dr. Katherine Mitchell cast the dissenting vote. G. Policy Modification on the Evaluation of the Superintendent Dr. Steele told the Board that the policy was revised to make it comport with the actual practice of the Board. In addition, the gender was changed to make it as gender neutral as Board of Directors Regular Meeting October 24, 1991 6 possible. She recommended that the Board approve the policy for first reading. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. H. Issues Related to the Desegregation Plan Dr. Steele recommended that the Board allow the administration to make a recommendation for action in November. Mr. Moore moved to table the issues related to the desegregation plan until November. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. I. Lease Agreement with the Little Rock Boys Club Dr. Steele recommended that the Board give approval for the administration to proceed with the execution of the necessary documents to enter into a lease agreement between the Little Rock School District and the Little Rock Boys Club for use of property on and adjacent to Woodruff Elementary School. She pointed out the slip-sheeted diagram of the fence that will be moved. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. J. LEA Assurance of Services to Homeless Children and Homeless Youth The Superintendent reminded the Board that it had reviewed the policies required by the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act and recommended the approval of the assurances. Ms. Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. K. Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Act Grant Proposal Dr. Steele directed the Board members' attention to the proposal in the printed agenda and recommended that the Board approve the request to submit this grant application to the Arkansas Department of Education for funding. Mr. Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried with six affirmative votes. Mrs. Armstrong was out of the room when the vote was taken. L. Teachers of Tomorrow Academy The Superintendent reviewed the proposal for \"growing our own teachers.\" She recommended that the Board approve the request by the Dis~rict to pursue funding from the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation and other sources to establish a Teachers of Tomorrow Board of Directors Regular Meeting October 24, 1991 7 Academy. Dr. recommendation. unanimously. Katherine Mitchell moved the Superintendent's Mr. Moore seconded the motion, and it carried M. Personnel Changes Dr. Steele recommended that the Board approve the personnel changes in the printed agenda. Mr. Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Superintendent directed the Board members' attention to the slip sheet which recommends Jeanette Wagner as Communications Assistant. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Moore seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. N. Financial Reports Dr. Steele recommended approval of the financial report listed in the printed agenda. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Hamil ton seconded the motion. Following discussion about the format of the reports and the need for the bills-paid section, the motion carried unanimously. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved to suspend the rules so the Board might consider a Resolution on Restructuring. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried six (6) to one (1), with Mrs. Jacovelli casting the dissenting vote. RESOLUTION OF RESTRUCTING: Dr. Mitchell directed the Board members' attention to the Resolution on Restructuring which she had provided to them. She then moved adoption of the Resolution. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and following discussion, it carried unanimously. VII. REPORTS OF SUPERINTENDENT: A. Security Update Dr. Steele explains that the report in the printed agenda outlines what has occurred on the police resource officer program. There was a brief discussion of the report. Board of Directors Regular Meeting October 24, 1991 B. Desegregation Update 8 Mr. James Jennings reviewed certain parts of the report. There was a brief discussion. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS Ms. Eleanor Coleman asked questions concerning the proposed revision in the citizen remarks section of the Board agenda. Mr. Frederick Lee spoke in support of continuing to print the bills paid section in the Board agenda. IX. STUDENT DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Rudolph Howard presented the following non-contested disciplinary recommendations: Demarcus Brown - Expulsion Michael Hearne - Expulsion Thomas Sugg - Expulsion Dorain Lyons - Long-term Suspension Tyrone Smith - Long-term Suspension Stacie Swiggins - Long-term suspension. Mrs. Armstrong moved the administration's recommendations on the non-contested expulsions and long-term suspensions. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board considered the expulsion recommendation of Andre Davis in a closed session. Considerable discussion ensued. Mr. Moore moved that Andre be expelled for the 1991-92 school year. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion. The motion failed four (4) to three (3). Mrs. Jacovelli, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Moore voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Gee, Dr. Mitchell, Ms. Armstrong, and Mr. Hamilton voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. Hamilton moved that Andre be left out of school until we find out what the drug is. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion failed four (4) to three (3). Voting in favor of the motion was Mr. Hamilton, Dr. Mitchell, and Ms. Gee. Voting in opposition to the motion was Mrs. Jacovelli, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Jackson. Mrs. Armstrong moved to refer Andre to the Alternative Learning Center on strict probation and for him to be assessed for Fighting Back until it is proven whether the drug is an illegal substance. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion. Discussion ensued and with agreement of Mrs. Armstrong and Mr. Hamilton, an amendment was added to the motion to provide that Andre would reappear before the Board after the substance is identified and the Board will assess his progress and determine Board of Directors Regular Meeting October 24, 1991 9 whether he needs to be expelled or continue his attendance at the Alternative Learning Center. The motion carried five (5) to two .ill with Mr. Moore and Mrs. Jacovelli casting the dissenting votes. The Board heard testimony and considered evidence concerning the petition of LaQuanda Jacobs for reinstatement to school. Dr. Steele recommended that the Board allow her to re-enter the District and to enroll at Mabelvale Junior High School on strict probation. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board heard testimony and considered evidence concerning the expulsion recommendation of Marquez Miller. Dr. Steele recommended that Marquez be expelled for the remainder of the 1991- 92 school year. Mr. Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Armstrong seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mrs. Estelle Matthis explained to the Board Kentry Taylor's team had erred in its conclusion that Kentry's action was not related to his handicap. She explained that she had reviewed the student's test scores and other documentation and was convinced that it is not in the District's best interest to follow the recommendation that Kentry be reinstated to another school on strict probation. She recommended that the Board allow the District to consider some other alternatives and not take any action on this student at this time. No action was taken. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Moore moved to adjourn. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board of Directors, the meeting adjourned at 10:01 p.m. O. G. Jacovli,President Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED:_.,..//-th'---'\"/_-9-..:....c../_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting November 14, 1991 M ( 1 i'J92 Office of 0esogregation Monitoring The Board of Directors met in a lawfully called special meeting at 6:00 p.m. immediately following the regularly scheduled committee meeting. The special meeting was conducted in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. O. G.  Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mrs. Robin Armstrong Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Moore EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Stacy Blacknall, Teacher Ex Officio Mr. Luke Smith, student Ex Officio ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The president called the special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering a Resolution on the personal and real estate tax millages\nto have a discussion on community education, and to conduct student hearings and disciplinary recommendations. RESOLUTION ON PROPERTY TAX: The Superintendent directed the Board members' attention to the Resolution which certifies the personal property tax rate for 1991 at 43.9 mills and the real estate tax rate for 1991 at 43.9 mills. She recommended that the Board adopt the Resolution. Mrs. Armstrong moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mrs. Armstrong left the meeting at 6:10 p.m. DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION: Dr. Angela Sewall reported on her experience in working with the Community Education program at McClellan Community High School. She explained that the Community Education program is a partnership and an outreach to the community. She explained that Mala Daggett, the Director of Community Education, and Mr. Jodie Carter, the principal at McClellan Community High School, share responsibility for the program. Discussion ensued concerning the programs offered to community members from senior citizens through very young children, including the YMCA program in the annex to the school. DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS AND STUDENT HEARINGS: Mr. Rudolph Howard directed the Board members' attention to the non-contested expulsion recommendations of Steven Brown, Roderick Scott, and Quincy Houchin. In addition, he asked the Board to consider the long-term suspension recommendations of Gary Adams, Keven Amos, Adrian Calvin, Telly Clemmons, Willie Dailey, Terrance Davie, Willie Davis, Laron Dean, Charlene Deloney, Terrence Dixon, Romantiney Johnson, Michael Lee, Raymond Mack, Jevetta Martin, Michelle Parker, Marshall Phillips, Allison Poindexter, Antoine Robinson, Jonathan Shackleford, Marcus Smith, Jabez Thompson, Detric Wilson, and Telly Clemons. Mr. Bill Hamil ton moved the administration's recommendations on all the students listed above. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously . In a closed session, the Board conducted an appeal hearing on the expulsion recommendation of Stafrika Henderson. Following a review of the record, testimony, and questioning by Board members, Mr. Bill Hamilton moved that Strafika be returned to Dunbar Jr. High School tomorrow. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. In a closed session, the Board conducted an appeal hearing on the expulsion recommendation of Michael Lewis. After a review of the record, testimony, and questioning by Board members, the Superintendent recommended that Michael be expelled for the remainder of this school year. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.  In a closed session, the Board conducted an appeal hearing on the expulsion recommendation of Jessie Tucker. After a review of the record, testimony, and questioning by Board members, the Superintendent recommended that Jessie be transferred to another school setting on strict probation and that he receive special attention from the counselor at the assigned school. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Jackson moved to adjourn. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come within the call for the special meeting, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. velli, President Ms. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED:  y(,. 2... PULASKI COUNTY P.O. Box 2659 little Rock, AR 72203-2659 372-8330 OFFICE OF CAROLYN STALEY County Clerk and Registrar PULASKI COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ROOM 100 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-2325 PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL ESTATE ITERIM MILLAGE ADJUSTMENT COUNTY: PULASKI TAXING UNIT: LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS THIS IS TO CERTIFY: PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR 1991 43.9 SIGNATURE Manager of Support Services TITLE 810 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201 ADDRESS November 14, 1991 DATE tHLLAGE. RATE \u0026amp; REAL ESTATE TAX RATE FOR 1991 43.9 Coun1y Court LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKfiAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Board of Directors Special Meeting November 19, 1991 MAY 1 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School Distr ict met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:04 p.m. on November 19 , 1991, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Robin Armstrong Dr. Katherine Mitchell EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Stacy Blacknall, Teacher Representative Mr. Luke Smith, Student Representative ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_494","title":"Incentive Schools: Census analysis report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991-02-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Demography","Educational statistics","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Census analysis report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/494"],"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\nPopulation change for Caucasians and African Americans in Arkansas counties\n1 qq Census Analysis Shows 12.0% Net Outmigration of Arkansas Blacks q Dr. Lawrence L. Santi Ms. Mary A. McGehee Division of Demographic Research University of Arkansas at Little Rock Little Rock, AR 72204 501-569-8571 q February 9, 1991 q The present note is the fifth in a series of reports produced by UALR's Division of Demographic Research over the past couple of weeks on population change in the State and counties of Arkansas, q as reflected in recently released data from the 1990 Census of the Population. q q In the first note, we analyzed patterns of overall change from 1980 to 1990 in the population of Arkansas counties, and in a second installment, we decomposed these patterns of overall population change into portions attributable to natural increase (the excess of births over deaths), on the one hand, and to net Our third and fourth notes were q migration, on the other. concerned with population change among the two major racial groups in the State, showing first, how overall population growth rates differed between whites and blacks, and second, how the racial composition of Arkansas counties changed over the 1980s. qq In the present note, we merge these two lines of inquiry with race-specific decompositions of overall population growth in Arkansas counties into natural increase and net migration components (i.e., we perform such decompositions separately for the white and the black populations of the State). qq The logic of these decompositions is quite simple. We begin with the 1980 Census count of persons of a given race living in a particular county. We calculate a \"natural increase\" component by subtracting the number of deaths occurring to persons of that race over the decade from the number of births occurring to women of that race. Adding the natural increase component to the initial 1980 population gives us an \"expected\" 1990 population, which is then compared to the \"actual\" 1990 Census count to arrive at an estimated \"net migration\" component. 1 We recall that the recently released 1990 Census count of persons of all races showed an overall population growth for the State as a whole of 2.8%, which was decomposed into a 5.1% growth due to natural increase and a 2.3% loss due to net outmigration. I When we examine these numbers separately for whites and blacks, we see significant differences between the two racial groupings. The white population of the State of Arkansas experienced 2.9% overall growth during the 1980s, attributable to a 3.7% natural increase and net outmigration of 0.8 '6  By way of contrast, the black population experienced no overall growth during the 1980s (a measured increase of 144 persons, which constitutes 0.0% of the State's 1980 black population), due to the countervailing effects of 12.0% natural increase and 12.0% net outmigration. In the balance of this report, we examine population growth and its components at the county level, separately for whites and for blacks. Population Change and Its Components Among Whites The data on which this discussion is based are presented in 4 Each of the Tables lA, IB, IC, and ID, and Maps lA, IB, and IC. four tables contains the same basic information, and differ only in the order in which counties are listed. In Table lA, counties 4 4 are listed in alphabetical order, while in Tables IB, IC, and ID, counties are sorted in order of percentage change in population, percentage natural increase, and percentage net migration, respectively. Tables IB, IC, and ID present the detailed data that are presented in broader categories in Maps lA, IB, and IC, respectively. As far as overall change in the white population of Arkansas counties is concerned, the relevant data are presented in Table Thirty-nine of the State's 75 counties (just over IB and Map lA. ' _ half) experienced white population growth, while the remaining 36 experienced decreases. The greatest increases occurred in Faulkner, Benton, and Saline Counties, all of which experienced The I white population growth of 20% or more over the 1980s. greatest decreases were observed in the Delta counties of Phillips and Lee, each of which experienced white population 1 declines of approximately 20%. The major portion of white population growth in the State of Arkansas occurred in a northwestern quadrant delimited by drawing lines north and west from Lonoke County. Indeed, within this general area, only the counties of Pulaski, Newton, Conway, and Searcy experienced overall white population losses during the Outside of this northwestern quadrant, the counties of 1980s. Grant and Craighead also experienced fairly strong white population growth. Decreases were observed in the white populations of most counties in eastern and southern Arkansas, including those counties commonly referred to as Delta counties. Having reviewed patterns of overall growth and decline in the white population of Arkansas counties, we now turn to an examination of the specific demographic forces underlying these migration. patterns of overall change, i.e., natural increase and net \\ 1 . Data on patterns of natural increase are presented in Table IC and Map IB, while net migration data are displayed in M i i Table ID and Map IC. 2q Focussing first on patterns of natural increase, we observe that 57 of Arkansas' 75 counties (76%) experienced positive natural increase (i.e., more births than deaths) within their white populations. The overwhelming majority of these counties saw \"slight\" rates of natural increase, i.e., rates of less than \"Moderate\" rates of natural increase among whites (5.0% to 5.0%. q 9.9%) were observed in 12 of the State's more metropolitan counties. 7 '  ' '' ' --i-ij 10.0%. In no county did natural increase among whites exceed q Slight natural decreases among the white population (i.e., more deaths than births) were observed in 18 counties, the greatest The counties q being the 5.6% decrease seen in Baxter County, experiencing natural decrease were, of course, counties with \"older\" populations. q Despite the fact that 52.0% of Arkansas counties experienced growth in their white populations during the 1980s, only 41.3% the q (31 counties) experienced net inmigration of whites\nremaining 44 counties (58.7%) experienced net outmigration of whites. The counties of Faulkner, Benton, and Baxter experienced the highest rates of net white inmigration, all with 10-year inmigration rates of 19% or more. q At the other extreme were the Delta counties of Desha, Chicot, Phillips, and Lee, all of which experienced net white q outmigration of 19% or more. Indeed, all eastern or Delta  counties, with the exceptions of Lonoke, Greene, and Craighead, i experienced net outmigration of their white populations during These findings suggest that the lack of economic the 1980s. 1 q opportunities in the Delta affects whites as well as blacks, even though the economic status of whites who remain in the Delta is significantly better than that of their black counterparts. q This preliminary review suggests three distinctive \"types\" or \"patterns\" of population change among the white population of the q State of Arkansas. The first of these might be called the q \"metropolitan growth\" pattern, in which population growth is fueled both by solid rates of natural increase and strong net inmigration. The experiences of Faulkner and Benton Counties, the two fastest growing counties in the State, best exemplify this first growth pattern. The second basic pattern of white population change might be called the \"rural loss\" pattern, in which population declines occur as a result of strong forces of outmigration overwhelming lower rates of natural increase. This pattern is characteristic of most counties in eastern and southern Arkansas. A third pattern might be referred to as the \"older growth\" pattern, in which population growth is based exclusively on net inmigration offsetting the effects of negligible or even negative natural increase. this pattern of growth. Baxter and Cleburne Counties are exemplars of 3F In setting forth these three basic \"growth scenarios\", wenote that in no case does significant overall growth in the white population (i.e., growth of 5.0% or more) occur in the absence of net inmigration. Natural increase or decrease can enhance or retard overall rates of population growth for whites, but patterns of net migration appear to be the main driving force of population change among whites in the State of Arkansas. (Tables lA, IB, IC, and ID, and Maps lA, IB, and IC are presented in the following 11 pages. The discussion of county-level population change among blacks begins on Page 16\nTables and Maps for blacks begin on Page 18.) the comparable I I M 4 RI I TABLE 1A: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER) I COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS NAT INC XNATINC ESTHIG XESTHIG I I I 4 I I 4 4 4 4 4 Arkansas Ashley Baxter Benton Boone Bradley Calhoun Carroll Chicot Clark Clay Cleburne Cleveland Colimbia Conway Craighead Crawford Crittenden Cross Dallas Desha Drew Faulkner Franklin Fulton Garland Grant Greene Henipstead Hot Spring Howard Independence Izard Jackson Jefferson Johnson Lafayette Lawrence Lee Lincoln Little River Logan Lonoke Madison Marion Miller Mississippi Monroe Montgomery Nevada Newton Ouachita Perry Phillips Pike Poinsett Polk Pope Prairie Pulaski Randolph 19280 19230 27252 76644 25950 9736 4354 16067 8217 18133 20558 16826 6657 17270 16414 59884 35413 27928 15287 6533 11231 12940 42196 14319 9897 64106 12527 30573 16413 23626 10858 29304 10724 18697 53235 16970 5979 18221 6912 8547 10370 19630 30101 11277 11246 28322 42748 8240 7688 7664 7700 19441 7098 16100 9907 25052 16837 37758 8679 254697 16614 16816 17511 30964 94968 28038 8012 4357 18416 6692 16344 18031 19292 6681 16564 16139 64449 40974 28152 14343 5873 9500 12530 54644 14644 9969 66770 13491 31627 14888 23066 10504 30344 11266 16081 47878 17632 5884 17223 5449 8611 10820 20083 35395 11435 11899 29464 40689 6862 7718 6856 7582 19702 7780 12915 9621 22797 17035 44126 8170 252554 16322 -2464 -1719 3712 18324 2088 -1724 3 2349 -1525 -1789 -2527 2466 24 -706 -275 4565 5561 224 -944 -660 -1731 -410 12448 325 72 2664 964 1054 -1525 -560 -354 1040 542 -2616 -5357 662 -95 -998 -1463 64 450 453 5294 158 653 1142 -2059 -1378 30 -808 -118 261 682 -3185 -286 -2255 198 6368 -509 -2143 -292 -12.8 -8.9 13.6 23.9 8.0 -17.7 0.1 14.6 -18.6 -9.9 -12.3 14.7 0.4 -4.1 -1.7 7.6 15.7 0.8 -6.2 -10.1 -15.4 -3.2 29.5 2.3 0.7 4.2 7.7 3.4 -9.3 -2.4 -3.3 3.5 5.1 -14.0 -10.1 3.9 -1.6 -5.5 -21.2 0.7 4.3 2.3 17.6 1.4 5.8 4.0 -4.8 -16.7 0.4 -10.5 -1.5 1.3 9.6 -19.8 -2.9 -9.0 1.2 16.9 -5.9 -0.8 -1.8 2284 2387 2881 11870 3701 1009 440 2167 1019 1997 2231 1863 722 2172 2229 8400 5841 4237 2144 752 1554 1649 6710 2019 1109 7957 1670 4043 1986 2982 1606 4199 1100 2011 6631 2367 698 2483 851 944 1393 2805 4468 1672 1320 4383 7624 1023 855 835 1077 2796 1024 2226 1288 3457 2316 6098 1027 39730 2094 2166 1809 4410 8468 2920 1288 484 1964 848 1782 2636 2167 704 2007 1732 5395 3491 2296 1528 909 1103 1188 3660 1624 1245 8880 1280 3182 1824 2492 1361 2984 1493 2059 5042 2112 827 2207 713 754 1009 2370 2839 1289 1364 3037 4161 1011 989 1006 690 2394 855 1743 1140 2648 2082 3381 911 21935 1823 118 578 -1529 3402 781 -279 -44 203 171 215 -405 -304 18 165 497 3005 2350 1941 616 -157 451 461 3050 395 -136 -923 390 861 162 490 245 1215 -393 -48 1589 255 -129 276 138 190 384 435 1629 383 -44 1346 3463 12 -134 -171 387 402 169 483 148 809 234 2717 116 17795 271 0.6 3.0 -5.6 4.4 3.0 -2.9 -1.0 1.3 2.1 1.2 -2.0 -1.8 0.3 1.0 3.0 5.0 6.6 7.0 4.0 -2.4 4.0 3.6 7.2 2.8 -1.4 -1.4 3.1 2.8 1.0 2.1 2.3 4.1 -3.7 -0.3 3.0 1.5 -2.2 1.5 2.0 2.2 3.7 2.2 5.4 3.4 -0.4 4.8 8.1 0.1 -1.7 -2.2 5.0 2.1 2.4 3.0 1.5 3.2 1.4 7.2 1.3 7.0 1.6 -2582 -2297 5241 14922 1307 -1445 47 2146 -1696 -2004 -2122 2770 6 -871 -772 1560 3211 -1717 -1560 -503 -2182 -871 9398 -70 208 3587 574 193 -1687 -1050 -599 -175 935 -2568 -6946 407 34 -1274 -1601 -126 66 18 3665 -225 697 -204 -5522 -1390 164 -637 -505 -141 513 -3668 -434 -3064 -36 3651 -625 -19938 -563 -13.4 -11.9 19.2 19.5 5.0 -14.8 1.1 13.4 -20.6 -11.1 -10.3 16.5 0.1 -5.0 -4.7 2.6 9.1 -6.1 -10.2 -7.7 -19.4 -6.7 22.3 -0.5 2.1 5.6 4.6 0.6 -10.3 -4.4 -5.5 -0.6 8.7 -13.7 -13.0 2.4 0.6 -7.0 -23.2 -1.5 0.6 0.1 12.2 -2.0 6.2 -0.7 -12.9 -16.9 2.1 -8.3 -6.6 -0.7 7.2 -22.8 -4.4 -12.2 -0.2 9.7 -7.2 -7.8 -3.4 5r I I Saint Francis Saline Scott Searcy Sebastian Sevi er Sharp Stone Union Van Buren Wash i ngton White Woodruff Yell 16383 51361 9585 8808 87566 13097 14390 8961 34361 13258 97229 49012 7683 16551 14722 62215 10035 7750 88719 12081 13908 9687 32414 13845 108743 52509 6502 17172 -1661 10854 450 -1058 1153 -1016 -482 726 -1947 587 11514 3497 -1181 621 -10.1 21.1 4.7 -12.0 1.3 -7.8 -3.3 8.1 -5.7 4.4 11.8 7.1 -15.4 3.8 2273 7276 1225 975 13364 1670 1486 1115 4590 1379 15628 7122 929 2240 1725 3894 1160 994 8562 1538 1946 1029 4047 1527 8248 4987 963 1956 548 3382 65 -19 4802 132 -460 86 543 -148 7380 2135 -34 284 3.3 6.6 0.7 -0.2 5.5 1.0 -3.2 1.0 1.6 -1.1 7.6 4.4 -0.4 1.7 -2209 7472 385 -1039 -3649 -1148 -22 640 -2490 735 4134 1362 -1147 337 -13.5 14.5 4.0 -11.8 -4.2 -8.8 -0.2 7.1 -7.2 5.5 4.3 2.8 -14.9 2.0 I State Totals 1890322 1944744 54422 2.9 265698 196287 69411 3.7 -14989 -0.8 I SOURCES: DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. I I a aa 6 TABLE IB: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE CHANGE) COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS MATING XNATINC ESTHIG XESTHIG I 4 4 4 4 4 4 Faulkner Benton Saline Lonoke Pope Crawford Cleburne Carroll Baxter Washington Perry Stone Boone Grant Craighead White Marion Izard Scott Van Buren Little River Garland Mi Iler Johnson Yell Independence Greene Logan Franklin Madison Ouachita Sebastian Polk Crittenden Lincoln Fulton Montgomery Cleveland Calhoun Pulaski Newton Lafayette Conway Randolph Hot Spring Pike Drew Howard Sharp Columbia Mississippi Lawrence Union Prairie Cross Sevier Ashley Poinsett Hempstead Clark Jefferson 42196 76644 51361 30101 37758 35413 16826 16067 27252 97229 7098 8961 25950 12527 59884 49012 11246 10724 9585 13258 10370 64106 28322 16970 16551 29304 30573 19630 14319 11277 19441 87566 16837 27928 8547 9897 7688 6657 4354 254697 7700 5979 16414 16614 23626 9907 12940 10858 14390 17270 42748 18221 34361 8679 15287 13097 19230 25052 16413 18133 53235 54644 94968 62215 35395 44126 40974 19292 18416 30964 108743 7780 9687 28038 13491 64449 52509 11899 11266 10035 13845 10820 66770 29464 17632 17172 30344 31627 20083 14644 11435 19702 88719 17035 28152 8611 9969 7718 6681 4357 252554 7582 5884 16139 16322 23066 9621 12530 10504 13908 16564 40689 17223 32414 8170 14343 12081 17511 22797 14888 16344 47878 12448 18324 10854 5294 6368 5561 2466 2349 3712 11514 682 726 2088 964 4565 3497 653 542 450 587 450 2664 1142 662 621 1040 1054 453 325 158 261 1153 198 224 64 72 30 24 3 -2143 -118 -95 -275 -292 -560 -286 -410 -354 -482 -706 -2059 -998 -1947 -509 -944 -1016 -1719 -2255 -1525 -1789 -5357 29.5 23.9 21.1 17.6 16.9 15.7 14.7 14.6 13.6 11.8 9.6 8.1 8.0 7.7 7.6 7.1 5.8 5.1 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.4 2.3 2.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.1 -0.8 -1.5 -1.6 -1.7 -1.8 -2.4 -2.9 -3.2 -3.3 -3.3 -4.1 -4.8 -5.5 -5.7 -5.9 -6.2 -7.8 -8.9 -9.0 -9.3 -9.9 -10.1 6710 11870 7276 4468 6098 5841 1863 2167 2881 15628 1024 1115 3701 1670 8400 7122 1320 1100 1225 1379 1393 7957 4383 2367 2240 4199 4043 2805 2019 1672 2796 13364 2316 4237 944 1109 855 722 440 39730 1077 698 2229 2094 2982 1288 1649 1606 1486 2172 7624 2483 4590 1027 2144 1670 2387 3457 1986 1997 6631 3660 8468 3894 2839 3381 3491 2167 1964 4410 8248 855 1029 2920 1280 5395 4987 1364 1493 1160 1527 1009 8880 3037 2112 1956 2984 3182 2370 1624 1289 2394 8562 2082 2296 754 1245 989 704 484 21935 690 827 1732 1823 2492 1140 1188 1361 1946 2007 4161 2207 4047 911 1528 1538 1809 2648 1824 1782 5042 3050 3402 3382 1629 2717 2350 -304 203 -1529 7380 169 86 781 390 3005 2135 -44 -393 65 -148 384 -923 1346 255 284 1215 861 435 395 383 402 4802 234 1941 190 -136 -134 18 -44 17795 387 -129 497 271 490 148 461 245 -460 165 3463 276 543 116 616 132 578 809 162 215 1589 7.2 4.4 6.6 5.4 7.2 6.6 -1.8 1.3 -5.6 7.6 2.4 1.0 3.0 3.1 5.0 4.4 -0.4 -3.7 0.7 -1.1 3.7 -1.4 4.8 1.5 1.7 4.1 2.8 2.2 2.8 3.4 2.1 5.5 1.4 7.0 2.2 -1.4 -1.7 0.3 -1.0 7.0 5.0 -2.2 3.0 1.6 2.1 1.5 3.6 2.3 -3.2 1.0 8.1 1.5 1.6 1.3 4.0 1.0 3.0 3.2 1.0 1.2 3.0 9398 14922 7472 3665 3651 3211 2770 2146 5241 4134 513 640 1307 574 1560 1362 697 935 385 735 66 3587 -204 407 337 -175 193 18 -70 -225 -141 -3649 -36 -1717 -126 208 164 6 47 -19938 -505 34 -772 -563 -1050 -434 -871 -599 -22 -871 -5522 -1274 -2490 -625 -1560 -1148 -2297 -3064 -1687 -2004 -6946 22.3 19.5 14.5 12.2 9.7 9.1 16.5 13.4 19.2 4.3 7.2 7.1 5.0 4.6 2.6 2.8 6.2 8.7 4.0 5.5 0.6 5.6 -0.7 2.4 2.0 -0.6 0.6 0.1 -0.5 -2.0 -0.7 -4.2 -0.2 -6.1 -1.5 2.1 2.1 0.1 1.1 -7.8 -6.6 0.6 -4.7 -3.4 -4.4 -4.4 -6.7 -5.5 -0.2 -5.0 -12.9 -7.0 -7.2 -7.2 -10.2 -8.8 -11.9 -12.2 -10.3 -11.1 -13.0 7 4I  Dallas Saint Francis Nevada Searcy Clay Arkansas Jackson Woodruff Desha Monroe Bradley Chicot Philli ps Lee 6533 16383 7664 8808 20558 19280 18697 7683 11231 8240 9736 8217 16100 6912 5873 14722 6856 7750 18031 16816 16081 6502 9500 6862 8012 6692 12915 5449 -660 -1661 -808 -1058 -2527 -2464 -2616 -1181 -1731 -1378 -1724 -1525 -3185 -1463 -10.1 -10.1 -10.5 -12.0 -12.3 -12.8 -14.0 -15.4 -15.4 -16.7 -17.7 -18.6 -19.8 -21.2 752 2273 835 975 2231 2284 2011 929 1554 1023 1009 1019 2226 851 909 1725 1006 994 2636 2166 2059 963 1103 1011 1288 848 1743 713 -157 548 -171 -19 -405 118 -48 -34 451 12 -279 171 483 138 -2.4 3.3 -2.2 -0.2 -2.0 0.6 -0.3 -0.4 4.0 0.1 -2.9 2.1 3.0 2.0 -503 -2209 -637 -1039 -2122 -2582 -2568 -1147 -2182 -1390 -1445 -1696 -3668 -1601 -7.7 -13.5 -8.3 -11.8 -10.3 -13.4 -13.7 -14.9 -19.4 -16.9 -14.8 -20.6 -22.8 -23.2 State Totals 1890322 1944744 SOURCES: 54422 2.9 265698 196287 69411 3.7 -14989 -0.8 DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. I I I 1 I t  1 8  I TABLE IC: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE NATURAL INCREASE) COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS MATING XMATINC ESTMIG XESTHIG I I 4 aaa a Mississippi Washington Faulkner Pope Pulaski Crittenden Crawford Sa Ii ne Sebast i an Lonoke Newton Craighead Miller Benton White Independence Cross Desha Little River Drew Madison Saint Francis Poinsett Grant Conway Boone Ashley Phillips Jefferson Greene Franklin Perry Howard Lincoln Logan Chicot Hot Spring Ouachita Lee Yell Randolph Union Lawrence Johnson Pike Polk Prai rie Carroll Clark Sevier Hempstead Stone Columbia Scott Arkansas Cleveland Monroe Searcy Jackson Marion Woodruff 42748 97229 42196 37758 254697 27928 35413 51361 87566 30101 7700 59884 28322 76644 49012 29304 15287 11231 10370 12940 11277 16383 25052 12527 16414 25950 19230 16100 53235 30573 14319 7098 10858 8547 19630 8217 23626 19441 6912 16551 16614 34361 18221 16970 9907 16837 8679 16067 18133 13097 16413 8961 17270 9585 19280 6657 8240 8808 18697 11246 7683 40689 108743 54644 44126 252554 28152 40974 62215 88719 35395 7582 64449 29464 94968 52509 30344 14343 9500 10820 12530 11435 14722 22797 13491 16139 28038 17511 12915 47878 31627 14644 7780 10504 8611 20083 6692 23066 19702 5449 17172 16322 32414 17223 17632 9621 17035 8170 18416 16344 12081 14888 9687 16564 10035 16816 6681 6862 7750 16081 11899 6502 -2059 11514 12448 6368 -2143 224 5561 10854 1153 5294 -118 4565 1142 18324 3497 1040 -944 -1731 450 -410 158 -1661 -2255 964 -275 2088 -1719 -3185 -5357 1054 325 682 -354 64 453 -1525 -560 261 -1463 621 -292 -1947 -998 662 -286 198 -509 2349 -1789 -1016 -1525 726 -706 450 -2464 24 -1378 -1058 -2616 653 -1181 -4.8 11.8 29.5 16.9 -0.8 0.8 15.7 21.1 1.3 17.6 -1.5 7.6 4.0 23.9 7.1 3.5 -6.2 -15.4 4.3 -3.2 1.4 -10.1 -9.0 7.7 -1.7 8.0 -8.9 -19.8 -10.1 3.4 2.3 9.6 -3.3 0.7 2.3 -18.6 -2.4 1.3 -21.2 3.8 -1.8 -5.7 -5.5 3.9 -2.9 1.2 -5.9 14.6 -9.9 -7.8 -9.3 8.1 -4.1 4.7 -12.8 0.4 -16.7 -12.0 -14.0 5.8 -15.4 7624 15628 6710 6098 39730 4237 5841 7276 13364 4468 1077 8400 4383 11870 7122 4199 2144 1554 1393 1649 1672 2273 3457 1670 2229 3701 2387 2226 6631 4043 2019 1024 1606 944 2805 1019 2982 2796 851 2240 2094 4590 2483 2367 1288 2316 1027 2167 1997 1670 1986 1115 2172 1225 2284 722 1023 975 2011 1320 929 4161 8248 3660 3381 21935 2296 3491 3894 8562 2839 690 5395 3037 8468 4987 2984 1528 1103 1009 1188 1289 1725 2648 1280 1732 2920 1809 1743 5042 3182 1624 855 1361 754 2370 848 2492 2394 713 1956 1823 4047 2207 2112 1140 2082 911 1964 1782 1538 1824 1029 2007 1160 2166 704 1011 994 2059 1364 963 3463 7380 3050 2717 17795 1941 2350 3382 4802 1629 387 3005 1346 3402 2135 1215 616 451 384 461 383 548 809 390 497 781 578 483 1589 861 395 169 245 190 435 171 490 402 138 284 271 543 276 255 148 234 116 203 215 132 162 86 165 65 118 18 12 -19 -48 -44 -34 8.1 7.6 7.2 7.2 7.0 7.0 6.6 6.6 5.5 5.4 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -5522 4134 9398 3651 -19938 -1717 3211 7472 -3649 3665 -505 1560 -204 14922 1362 -175 -1560 -2182 66 -871 -225 -2209 -3064 574 -772 1307 -2297 -3668 -6946 193 -70 513 -599 -126 18 -1696 -1050 -141 -1601 337 -563 -2490 -1274 407 -434 -36 -625 2146 -2004 -1148 -1687 640 -871 385 -2582 6 -1390 -1039 -2568 697 -1147 -12.9 4.3 22.3 9.7 -7.8 -6.1 9.1 14.5 -4.2 12.2 -6.6 2.6 -0.7 19.5 2.8 -0.6 -10.2 -19.4 0.6 -6.7 -2.0 -13.5 -12.2 4.6 -4.7 5.0 -11.9 -22.8 -13.0 0.6 -0.5 7.2 -5.5 -1.5 0.1 -20.6 -4.4 -0.7 -23.2 2.0 -3.4 -7.2 -7.0 2.4 -4.4 -0.2 -7.2 13.4 -11.1 -8.8 -10.3 7.1 -5.0 4.0 -13.4 0.1 -16.9 -11.8 -13.7 6.2 -14.9 9 I Calhoun Van Buren Fulton Garland Montgomery Cletxjrne Clay Lafayette Nevada Dallas Bradley Sharp Izard Baxter 4354 13258 9897 64106 7688 16826 20558 5979 7664 6533 9736 14390 10724 27252 4357 13845 9969 66770 7718 19292 18031 5884 6856 5873 8012 13908 11266 30964 3 587 72 2664 30 2466 -2527 -95 -808 -660 -1724 -482 542 3712 0.1 4.4 0.7 4.2 0.4 14.7 -12.3 -1.6 -10.5 -10.1 -17.7 -3.3 5.1 13.6 440 1379 1109 7957 855 1863 2231 698 835 752 1009 1486 1100 2881 484 1527 1245 8880 989 2167 2636 827 1006 909 1288 1946 1493 4410 -44 -148 -136 -923 -134 -304 -405 -129 -171 -157 -279 -460 -393 -1529 -1.0 -1.1 -1.4 -1.4 -1.7 -1.8 -2.0 -2.2 -2.2 -2.4 -2.9 -3.2 -3.7 -5.6 47 735 208 3587 164 2770 -2122 34 -637 -503 -1445 -22 935 5241 1.1 5.5 2.1 5.6 2.1 16.5 -10.3 0.6 -8.3 -7.7 -14.8 -0.2 8.7 19.2 I State Totals 1890322 1944744 54422 2.9 265698 196287 69411 3.7 -14989 -0.8 SOURCES: a DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. a a a a a aa 10 TABLE ID: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE MIGRATION) COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS MATING XNATINC ESTMIG XESTMIG aaaaaaa aa Faulkner Benton Baxter Cleburne Saline Carroll Lonoke Pope Crawford Izard Perry Stone Marion Garland Van Buren Boone Grant Wash i ngton Scott White Craighead Johnson Montgomery Fulton Yell Calhoun Little River Greene Lafayette Logan Cleveland Sharp Polk Franklin Independence Miller Ouachita Lincoln Madison Randolph Sebastian Pike Hot Spring Conway Columbia Howard Crittenden Newton Drew Laurence Prairie Union Dallas Pulaski Nevada Sevier Cross Henipstead Clay Clark Searcy 42196 76644 27252 16826 51361 16067 30101 37758 35413 10724 7098 8961 11246 64106 13258 25950 12527 97229 9585 49012 59884 16970 7688 9897 16551 4354 10370 30573 5979 19630 6657 14390 16837 14319 29304 28322 19441 8547 11277 16614 87566 9907 23626 16414 17270 10858 27928 7700 12940 18221 8679 34361 6533 254697 7664 13097 15287 16413 20558 18133 8808 54644 94968 30964 19292 62215 18416 35395 44126 40974 11266 7780 9687 11899 66770 13845 28038 13491 108743 10035 52509 64449 17632 7718 9969 17172 4357 10820 31627 5884 20083 6681 13908 17035 14644 30344 29464 19702 8611 11435 16322 88719 9621 23066 16139 16564 10504 28152 7582 12530 17223 8170 32414 5873 252554 6856 12081 14343 14888 18031 16344 7750 12448 18324 3712 2466 10854 2349 5294 6368 5561 542 682 726 653 2664 587 2088 964 11514 450 3497 4565 662 30 72 621 3 450 1054 -95 453 24 -482 198 325 1040 1142 261 64 158 -292 1153 -286 -560 -275 -706 -354 224 -118 -410 -998 -509 -1947 -660 -2143 -808 -1016 -944 -1525 -2527 -1789 -1058 29.5 23.9 13.6 14.7 21.1 14.6 17.6 16.9 15.7 5.1 9.6 8.1 5.8 4.2 4.4 8.0 7.7 11.8 4.7 7.1 7.6 3.9 0.4 0.7 3.8 0.1 4.3 3.4 -1.6 2.3 0.4 -3.3 1.2 2.3 3.5 4.0 1.3 0.7 1.4 -1.8 1.3 -2.9 -2.4 -1.7 -4.1 -3.3 0.8 -1.5 -3.2 -5.5 -5.9 -5.7 -10.1 -0.8 -10.5 -7.8 -6.2 -9.3 -12.3 -9.9 -12.0 6710 11870 2881 1863 7276 2167 4468 6098 5841 1100 1024 1115 1320 7957 1379 3701 1670 15628 1225 7122 8400 2367 855 1109 2240 440 1393 4043 698 2805 722 1486 2316 2019 4199 4383 2796 944 1672 2094 13364 1288 2982 2229 2172 1606 4237 1077 1649 2483 1027 4590 752 39730 835 1670 2144 1986 2231 1997 975 3660 8468 4410 2167 3894 1964 2839 3381 3491 1493 855 1029 1364 8880 1527 2920 1280 8248 1160 4987 5395 2112 989 1245 1956 484 1009 3182 827 2370 704 1946 2082 1624 2984 3037 2394 754 1289 1823 8562 1140 2492 1732 2007 1361 2296 690 1188 2207 911 4047 909 21935 1006 1538 1528 1824 2636 1782 994 3050 3402 -1529 -304 3382 203 1629 2717 2350 -393 169 86 -44 -923 -148 781 390 7380 65 2135 3005 255 -134 -136 284 -44 384 861 -129 435 18 -460 234 395 1215 1346 402 190 383 271 4802 148 490 497 165 245 1941 387 461 276 116 543 -157 17795 -171 132 616 162 -405 215 -19 7.2 4.4 -5.6 -1.8 6.6 1.3 5.4 7.2 6.6 -3.7 2.4 1.0 -0.4 -1.4 -1.1 3.0 3.1 7.6 0.7 4.4 5.0 1.5 -1.7 -1.4 1.7 -1.0 3.7 2.8 -2.2 2.2 0.3 -3.2 1.4 2.8 4.1 4.8 2.1 2.2 3.4 1.6 5.5 1.5 2.1 3.0 1.0 2.3 7.0 5.0 3.6 1.5 1.3 1.6 -2.4 7.0 -2.2 1.0 4.0 1.0 -2.0 1.2 -0.2 9398 14922 5241 2770 7472 2146 3665 3651 3211 935 513 640 697 3587 735 1307 574 4134 385 1362 1560 407 164 208 337 47 66 193 34 18 6 -22 -36 -70 -175 -204 -141 -126 -225 -563 -3649 -434 -1050 -772 -871 -599 -1717 -505 -871 -1274 -625 -2490 -503 -19938 -637 -1148 -1560 -1687 -2122 -2004 -1039 22.3 19.5 19.2 16.5 14.5 13.4 12.2 9.7 9.1 8.7 7.2 7.1 6.2 5.6 5.5 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -1.5 -2.0 -3.4 -4.2 -4.4 -4.4 -4.7 -5.0 -5.5 -6.1 -6.6 -6.7 -7.0 -7.2 -7.2 -7.7 -7.8 -8.3 -8.8 -10.2 -10.3 -10.3 -11.1 -11.8 11 I Ia aa a Ashley Poinsett Mississippi Jefferson Arkansas Saint Francis Jackson Bradley Woodruff Monroe Desha Chicot Phillips Lee 19230 25052 42748 53235 19280 16383 18697 9736 7683 8240 11231 8217 16100 6912 17511 22797 40689 47878 16816 14722 16081 8012 6502 6862 9500 6692 12915 5449 -1719 -2255 -2059 -5357 -2464 -1661 -2616 -1724 -1181 -1378 -1731 -1525 -3185 -1463 -8.9 -9.0 -4.8 -10.1 -12.8 -10.1 -14.0 -17.7 -15.4 -16.7 -15.4 -18.6 -19.8 -21.2 2387 3457 7624 6631 2284 2273 2011 1009 929 1023 1554 1019 2226 851 1809 2648 4161 5042 2166 1725 2059 1288 963 1011 1103 848 1743 713 578 809 3463 1589 118 548 -48 -279 -34 12 451 171 483 138 3.0 3.2 8.1 3.0 0.6 3.3 -0.3 -2.9 -0.4 0.1 4.0 2.1 3.0 2.0 -2297 -3064 -5522 -6946 -2582 -2209 -2568 -1445 -1147 -1390 -2182 -1696 -3668 -1601 -11.9 -12.2 -12.9 -13.0 -13.4 -13.5 -13.7 -14.8 -14.9 -16.9 -19.4 -20.6 -22.8 -23.2 State Totals 1890322 1944744 54422 2.9 265698 196287 69411 3.7 -14989 -0.8 SOURCES: DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. 12 a A P I 4 CHANGE IN THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 hWTpN Percentage Change SEB MAOISM RANK :-S LdfsAM POLK^ HI FMfiNTC:  ! i EVIEI L RI' SEARCY aSHZRI STONE^? .............. l^^!gS!KlStVT INDEP \n, VAN a\njl corjw PEW\nji, Pl.iLASMlIt GARLfin A' ST_ hot s'-'Rt. iiihiKE A. GRANT Loss of 1 0,0% or more r . CLARK 1 L rAUAS\\ U\\WR /JACK ibs^ V POINSEn . Loss of 5.0% to 9.9% WHnE _ JEFF lOD CROSS jjCflIT-Loss of less than 5.0X RAIR MONI ARKANSAS ST FRAN LEE IILLIPS, Gain of 5.0% to 9.9X Gain of less than 5.0% ) aEVE UNC \u0026gt;\nT DESHA C'U/'Slj l\n'BPArif FREW 5\nGain of 10,0% or more t' IOLUMEJ UNION  .ASHLEY / / :hig\u0026lt; M A p I S : NATURAL INCREASE AMONG THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 'RROLL boone MARIO1 FULTON Percentage Change 1 VIASH '7P' MAOISM l^lfEWTONl SEARCY .GARO SHARI' Decrease of 10.0% or more C^QNE \u0026gt;\u0026lt;L L/l\" r-L-*'.: ilCRAWU:-\n.. TRANK j'oi^N, VAN B IN^Y^ [SCRiRAAIlGGHHEEAAOB 9 - , wwiSwaiiK' '\"Ml fj WPOPEI CCLEB ip/ SEB': LOGAN 1 co NW, TELL SCOTT PERRY. y^MffiPUlASKI Yof IK POLK/\nMONTG GARLND M^NI\n\u0026lt; lH0W WT SPRG grant JEFF PdiNSETT\n: CROSS l-CRfT.' STFRAN:- LEE-IHltLIfe iF Decrease of 5.0% to 9,9% Decrease of less than 5.0% Increase of less than 5.0% sEyi :iajtRK'- CALLAS' Increase of 5.0% to 9.9% L.RiVEBSr 4IL1\nNEV OUACI CALM SCOLUMB piivE UR(C\n'BRAD 5^ :Dl Increase of 10.0% or more \u0026lt; LINION,. ?: ASilLpr : :Hfl AI A P I c : NET MIGRATION AMONG THE WHITE POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 WASH rCRAWp SEB POLK' O BOONE U.iDISfl ' ^301 RAMI' SAft li SI II I OH' FULTON J? IviZARDl SHARI' NEWTON SEARCr JTw tPOPE + V'*? J 'ONM inoIp rjAiCK corw WHTTE-S: sPil E SEMEH L-RIVEI A- /\\PERfrY]ij RAULKi 1^1^ P LILAS KI k i! 'I^IR MQNI GARLND..^ HOT SPRL'l CRAHT CLARK DA! IAS JEFF ar.'E ARKANSAS UHC HFMF's.\n/ N/EV 'T DESrtA^ CLAY?  .'.. A-. iHtgreei \u0026lt;CRAI6I \u0026lt;pdiNSETr - CRO^^ CRIT^ ST LEE '.X IILU^ Percentage Migration J'P7l\n- 10.0% or more out 5.0% to 9.9% out Less than 5.0% out Less than 5.0% in 5.0% to 9.9% in reOLUUB OLIACIJ CALH BPAEl LFREW liSiC'H ASHLEY\nhici 10.0% or more in   Population Change and Its Components Among Blacks I As the State-level numbers indicate, the 1980s constituted a decade of no appreciable growth in the size of the black 12% natural increase was population of the State of Arkansas\noffset by 12% net outmigration to produce no overall change. I At the level of counties, increases in the overall size of the black population were observed in only 6 of the 35 counties for which data are available. (See Table 2B and Map 2A, and Note 1 I for a discussion of data limitations for the black population.) The remaining 29 counties (82.9% of the counties for which data are available) experienced decreases in their black populations I over the 1980s. (Note 1 also reminds us that these 35 counties I encompass 92% of the total black population of the State of Arkansas, so that these 35 counties provide fairly complete coverage of the black population.) The greatest increases in black populations occurred in Howard and Pulaski Counties, with black population growth of 17.4% and i 13.3%, respectively. Lincoln County experienced a 2.9% increase i in its black population during the 1980s, while Crittenden, Union, and Jefferson Counties experienced increases of under 1.0%. I At the other end of the continuum, 10 counties experienced overall black population declines of 10.0% or more, with the greatest decrease occurring in Monroe County, with a 22.9% drop. I a As we examine the demographic dynamics underlying these patterns of overall population change, we begin to see that the demographic experiences of whites and blacks in the State of Arkansas over the past decade are qualitatively as well as quantitatively different. I First, all 35 counties for which data are available showed natural increase (an excess of births over deaths) among their none showed natural decrease (an excess of black populations\ndeaths over births). (See Table 2C and Map 2B.) This contrasts with the experience of the white populations of Arkansas counties, of which 76.0% showed natural increase and 24.0% showed natural decrease. For the State as a whole, the total population (i.e., all races) showed a natural increase of 5.1%. For the black population, only three counties (Bradley, Hot Spring, and Calhoun) showed natural increase below that level. The highest rates of black natural increase were observed in Pulaski and Mississippi Counties, with percentage increases of 17.4% and 16.7%, respectively. However, almost as consistently as all 35 counties showed natural increase within their black populations, all but one of these 35 I counties showed net outmigration of blacks. (See Table 2D and Map 2C.) The only exception to this pattern of net outmigration 16 i V is Howard County in southwestern Arkansas, which showed 7.1% net inmigration of blacks. i V Thirty of the 35 counties for which data were available showed net black outmigration of 10.0% or more, with four of these counties (Desha, Phillips, Lonoke, and Monroe) showing net black outmigration of more than 25.0%.  When its 7.1% net black inmigration is considered together with its 10.3% black natural increase, we see how it came to pass that Howard County experienced the largest overall percentage increase in its black population (17.4%).  The experience of Howard County can be contrasted with that of Pulaski County, the county with the second largest percentage increase in its black population. In the case of Pulaski County,  the 13.3% increase in its black population is attributable to 17.4% natural increase (the highest in the State among any racial group) and 4.2% net outmigration.  This review of population change in the black populations of Arkansas counties suggests yet a fourth \"basic type\" of This pattern is 9 population change, the \"black Delta\" pattern. characterized by significant overall population decline, due to massive outmigration in the face of strong forces of natural increase. This pattern contrasts with the \"rural loss\" pattern 9 observed among whites, in which more moderate overall population declines are seen as the result of strong outmigration and weaker natural increase. 9 Even in the eastern Delta counties, where both white and black populations sustained significant losses during the 1980s, the contrast between the \"black Delta\" pattern and the more general 9 \"rural loss\" scenario is readily apparent. Indeed, the largest percentage decrease in white population occurred in Lee County, where the County's overall white population decline of 21.2% 9 9 exceeded the County's overall black population loss of 12.1%. However, when we decompose these overall decreases into natural increase and net migration components, we see that net black outmigration was nearly as large as net white outmigration (23.2% versus 21.9%) . 9 In Phillips County, the county with the second largest percentage decrease in its white population, the decomposition is even more interesting. Although Phillips County's overall percentage decrease in its white population was greater than that for blacks (19.8% versus 14.4%), decomposition analysis shows that the net outmigration rate for Phillips County blacks was greater than that of Phillips County whites (26.8% versus 22.8%). Although net migration appears to be the driving force of overall population change for blacks just as it is for whites, the strong rates of natural increase obseirved among blacks require that both factors be taken into account in any comparison of population change among whites and blacks in the State of Arkansas. 17 TABLE 2A: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)  COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG, BIRTHS DEATHS HATING ZNATINC ESTMIG XESTMIG ii  II I I  i Arkansas Ashley Bradley Calhoun Chicot Clark Cleveland Columbia Conway Crittenden Cross Dallas Desha Drew Hempstead Hot Spring Howard Jackson Jefferson Lafayette Lee Lincoln Little River Lonoke Miller Mississippi Monroe Nevada Ouach i ta Phillips Prairie Pulaski Saint Francis Union Woodruff 4805 7237 4022 1706 9414 5079 1194 9242 2974 21207 5068 3957 8444 4886 7062 3014 2486 2887 36825 4189 8520 4794 3470 4218 9136 16164 5738 3398 11002 18410 1417 81407 14190 13970 3490 4738 6616 3648 1447 8859 4913 1059 8992 2876 21401 4782 3698 7139 4754 6464 2865 2919 2759 36877 3711 7487 4935 2931 3536 8625 16006 4422 3196 10739 15753 1294 92200 13521 14061 2991 -67 -621 -374 -259 -555 -166 -135 -250 -98 194 -286 -259 -1305 -132 -598 -149 433 -128 52 -478 -1033 141 -539 -682 -511 -158 -1316 -202 -263 -2657 -123 10793 -669 91 -499 -1.4 -8.6 -9.3 -15.2 -5.9 -3.3 -11.3 -2.7 -3.3 0.9 -5.6 -6.5 -15.5 -2.7 -8.5 -4.9 17.4 -4.4 0.1 -11.4 -12.1 2.9 -15.5 -16.2 -5.6 -1.0 -22.9 -5.9 -2.4 -14.4 -8.7 13.3 -4.7 0.7 -14.3 1065 1402 703 271 2027 885 225 1750 546 5333 1254 767 1847 974 1292 513 586 611 8146 726 1894 845 519 855 1770 4307 1180 568 2307 4563 262 21253 3490 3031 713 604 805 504 222 1182 544 134 1059 347 2341 516 482 928 447 814 367 330 357 3772 496 1060 447 317 400 932 1607 738 382 1377 2293 167 7062 1502 1697 472 461 597 199 49 845 341 91 691 199 2992 738 285 919 527 478 146 256 254 4374 230 834 398 202 455 838 2700 442 186 930 2270 95 14191 1988 1334 241 9.6 8.2 4.9 2.9 9.0 6.7 7.6 7.5 6.7 14.1 14.6 7.2 10.9 10.8 6.8 4.8 10.3 8.8 11.9 5.5 9.8 8.3 5.8 10.8 9.2 16.7 7.7 5.5 8.5 12.3 6.7 17.4 14.0 9.5 6.9 -528 -1218 -573 -308 -1400 -507 -226 -941 -297 -2798 -1024 -544 -2224 -659 -1076 -295 177 -382 -4322 -708 -1867 -257 -741 -1137 -1349 -2858 -1758 -388 -1193 -4927 -218 -3398 -2657 -1243 -740 -11.0 -16.8 -14.2 -18.1 -14.9 -10.0 -18.9 -10.2 -10.0 -13.2 -20.2 -13.7 -26.3 -13.5 -15.2 -9.8 7.1 -13.2 -11.7 -16.9 -21.9 -5.4 -21.4 -27.0 -14.8 -17.7 -30.6 -11.4 -10.8 -26.8 -15.4 -4.2 -18.7 -8.9 -21.2 State Totals 373768 373912 144 0.0 84607 39615 44992 12.0 -44848 -12.0  SOURCES\nDIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. I 18 V H TABLE 2B: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE CHANGE) V COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS MATING XNATINC ESTHIG XESTHIG   aaaaaa Howard Pulaski Lincoln Cri ttenden Union Jefferson Mississippi Arkansas Ouach i ta Drew Columbia Clark Conway Jackson Saint Francis Hot Spring Milter Cross Chicot Nevada Dallas Hempstead Ashley Prairie Bradley Cleveland Lafayette Lee Woodruff Phillips Calhoun Desha Little River Lorwke Monroe 2486 81407 4794 21207 13970 36825 16164 4805 11002 4886 9242 5079 2974 2887 14190 3014 9136 5068 9414 3398 3957 7062 7237 1417 4022 1194 4189 8520 3490 18410 1706 8444 3470 4218 5738 2919 92200 4935 21401 14061 36877 16006 4738 10739 4754 8992 4913 2876 2759 13521 2865 8625 4782 8859 3196 3698 6464 6616 1294 3648 1059 3711 7487 2991 15753 1447 7139 2931 3536 4422 433 10793 141 194 91 52 -158 -67 -263 -132 -250 -166 -98 -128 -669 -149 -511 -286 -555 -202 -259 -598 -621 -123 -374 -135 -478 -1033 -499 -2657 -259 -1305 -539 -682 -1316 17.4 13.3 2.9 0.9 0.7 0.1 -1.0 -1.4 -2.4 -2.7 -2.7 -3.3 -3.3 -4.4 -4.7 -4.9 -5.6 -5.6 -5.9 -5.9 -6.5 -8.5 -8.6 -8.7 -9.3 -11.3 -11.4 -12.1 -14.3 -14.4 -15.2 -15.5 -15.5 -16.2 -22.9 586 21253 845 5333 3031 8146 4307 1065 2307 974 1750 885 546 611 3490 513 1770 1254 2027 568 767 1292 1402 262 703 225 726 1894 713 4563 271 1847 519 855 1180 330 7062 447 2341 1697 3772 1607 604 1377 447 1059 544 347 357 1502 367 932 516 1182 382 482 814 805 167 504 134 496 1060 472 2293 222 928 317 400 738 256 14191 398 2992 1334 4374 2700 461 930 527 691 341 199 254 1988 146 838 738 845 186 285 478 597 95 199 91 230 834 241 2270 49 919 202 455 442 10.3 17.4 8.3 14.1 9.5 11.9 16.7 9.6 8.5 10.8 7.5 6.7 6.7 8.8 14.0 4.8 9.2 14.6 9.0 5.5 7.2 6.8 8.2 6.7 4.9 7.6 5.5 9.8 6.9 12.3 2.9 10.9 5.8 10.8 7.7 177 -3398 -257 -2798 -1243 -4322 -2858 -528 -1193 -659 -941 -507 -297 -382 -2657 -295 -1349 -1024 -1400 -388 -544 -1076 -1218 -218 -573 -226 -708 -1867 -740 -4927 -308 -2224 -741 -1137 -1758 7.1 -4.2 -5.4 -13.2 -8.9 -11.7 -17.7 -11.0 -10.8 -13.5 -10.2 -10.0 -10.0 -13.2 -18.7 -9.8 -14.8 -20.2 -14.9 -11.4 -13.7 -15.2 -16.8 -15.4 -14.2 -18.9 -16.9 -21.9 -21.2 -26.8 -18.1 -26.3 -21.4 -27.0 -30.6 State Totals 373768 373912 144 0.0 84607 39615 44992 12.0 -44848 -12.0 a SOURCES: DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. a U.S. DEPARTHENT OF HEALTH AND HUHAN SERVICES, NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. a 19  TABLE 2C: COHPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE NATURAL INCREASE)  COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE XCHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS MATING XNATINC ESTHIG XESTHIG   aa Pulaski Hississippi Cross Crittenden Saint Francis Phillips Jefferson Desha Lonoke Drew Howard Lee Arkansas Union Hi Iler Ch i cot Jackson Ouachita Lincoln Ashley Honroe Cleveland Coltrnbia Dallas Uoodruff Hempstead Clark Prairie Conway Little River Lafayette Nevada Bradley Hot Spring Calhoun 81407 16164 5068 21207 14190 18410 36825 8444 4218 4886 2486 8520 4805 13970 9136 9414 2887 11002 4794 7237 5738 1194 9242 3957 3490 7062 5079 1417 2974 3470 4189 3398 4022 3014 1706 92200 16006 4782 21401 13521 15753 36877 7139 3536 4754 2919 7487 4738 14061 8625 8859 2759 10739 4935 6616 4422 1059 8992 3698 2991 6464 4913 1294 2876 2931 3711 3196 3648 2865 1447 10793 -158 -286 194 -669 -2657 52 -1305 -682 -132 433 -1033 -67 91 -511 -555 -128 -263 141 -621 -1316 -135 -250 -259 -499 -598 -166 -123 -98 -539 -478 -202 -374 -149 -259 13.3 -1.0 -5.6 0.9 -4.7 -14.4 0.1 -15.5 -16.2 -2.7 17.4 -12.1 -1.4 0.7 -5.6 -5.9 -4.4 -2.4 2.9 -8.6 -22.9 -11.3 -2.7 -6.5 -14.3 -8.5 -3.3 -8.7 -3.3 -15.5 -11.4 -5.9 -9.3 -4.9 -15.2 21253 4307 1254 5333 3490 4563 8146 1847 855 974 586 1894 1065 3031 1770 2027 611 2307 845 1402 1180 225 1750 767 713 1292 885 262 546 519 726 568 703 513 271 7062 1607 516 2341 1502 2293 3772 928 400 447 330 1060 604 1697 932 1182 357 1377 447 805 738 134 1059 482 472 814 544 167 347 317 496 382 504 367 222 14191 2700 738 2992 1988 2270 4374 919 455 527 256 834 461 1334 838 845 254 930 398 597 442 91 691 285 241 478 341 95 199 202 230 186 199 146 49 17.4 16.7 14.6 14.1 14.0 12.3 11.9 10.9 10.8 10.8 10.3 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.5 8.3 8.2 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.2 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 5.8 5.5 5.5 4.9 4.8 2.9 -3398 -2858 -1024 -2798 -2657 -4927 -4322 -2224 -1137 -659 177 -1867 -528 -1243 -1349 -1400 -382 -1193 -257 -1218 -1758 -226 -941 -544 -740 -1076 -507 -218 -297 -741 -708 -388 -573 -295 -308 -4.2 -17.7 -20.2 -13.2 -18.7 -26.8 -11.7 -26.3 -27.0 -13.5 7.1 -21.9 -11.0 -8.9 -14.8 -14.9 -13.2 -10.8 -5.4 -16.8 -30.6 -18.9 -10.2 -13.7 -21.2 -15.2 -10.0 -15.4 -10.0 -21.4 -16.9 -11.4 -14.2 -9.8 -18.1 State Totals 373768 373912 144 0.0 84607 39615 44992 12.0 -44848 -12.0 a SOURCES: DIVISION OF DEHOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. a U.S. DEPARTHENT OF HEALTH AND HUHAN SERVICES, NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. 20 H II TABLE 2D: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE MIGRATION) H COUNTY 1980 1990 CHANGE %CHNG. BIRTHS DEATHS NAT INC XNATINC ESTMIG XESTMIG II II Howard Pulaski Lincoln Union Hot Spring Clark Conway Columbia Ouachita Arkansas Nevada Jefferson Crittenden Jackson Drew Dallas Bradley Milter Chicot Hempstead Prai rie Ash I ey Lafayette Mississippi Calhoun Saint Francis Cleveland Cross Woodruff Little River Lee Desha Phillips Lonoke Monroe 2486 81407 4794 13970 3014 5079 2974 9242 11002 4805 3398 36825 21207 2887 4886 3957 4022 9136 9414 7062 1417 7237 4189 16164 1706 14190 1194 5068 3490 3470 8520 8444 18410 4218 5738 2919 92200 4935 14061 2865 4913 2876 8992 10739 4738 3196 36877 21401 2759 4754 3698 3648 8625 8859 6464 1294 6616 3711 16006 1447 13521 1059 4782 2991 2931 7487 7139 15753 3536 4422 433 10793 141 91 -149 -166 -98 -250 -263 -67 -202 52 194 -128 -132 -259 -374 -511 -555 -598 -123 -621 -478 -158 -259 -669 -135 -286 -499 -539 -1033 -1305 -2657 -682 -1316 17.4 13.3 2.9 0.7 -4.9 -3.3 -3.3 -2.7 -2.4 -1.4 -5.9 0.1 0.9 -4.4 -2.7 -6.5 -9.3 -5.6 -5.9 -8.5 -8.7 -8.6 -11.4 -1.0 -15.2 -4.7 -11.3 -5.6 -14.3 -15.5 -12.1 -15.5 -14.4 -16.2 -22.9 586 21253 845 3031 513 885 546 1750 2307 1065 568 8146 5333 611 974 767 703 1770 2027 1292 262 1402 726 4307 271 3490 225 1254 713 519 1894 1847 4563 855 1180 330 7062 447 1697 367 544 347 1059 1377 604 382 3772 2341 357 447 482 504 932 1182 814 167 805 496 1607 222 1502 134 516 472 317 1060 928 2293 400 738 256 14191 398 1334 146 341 199 691 930 461 186 4374 2992 254 527 285 199 838 845 478 95 597 230 2700 49 1988 91 738 241 202 834 919 2270 455 442 10.3 17.4 8.3 9.5 4.8 6.7 6.7 7.5 8.5 9.6 5.5 11.9 14.1 8.8 10.8 7.2 4.9 9.2 9.0 6.8 6.7 8.2 5.5 16.7 2.9 14.0 7.6 14.6 6.9 5.8 9.8 10.9 12.3 10.8 7.7 177 -3398 -257 -1243 -295 -507 -297 -941 -1193 -528 -388 -4322 -2798 -382 -659 -544 -573 -1349 -1400 -1076 -218 -1218 -708 -2858 -308 -2657 -226 -1024 -740 -741 -1867 -2224 -4927 -1137 -1758 7.1 -4.2 -5.4 -8.9 -9.8 -10.0 -10.0 -10.2 -10.8 -11.0 -11.4 -11.7 -13.2 -13.2 -13.5 -13.7 -14.2 -14.8 -14.9 -15.2 -15.4 -16.8 -16.9 17.7 -18.1 -18.7 -18.9 -20.2 -21.2 -21.4 -21.9 -26.3 -26.8 -27.0 -30.6   n I State Totals 373768 373912 144 0.0 84607 39615 44992 12.0 -44848 -12.0  SOURCES: DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK.  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, ANNUAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORTS. 21gl g HI MA^ 2 4 CHANGE IN THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 T Percentage Change BENTON CAvRRFROLL BOONE MARIOT No data lor blacks WASH MADISN NEWTON SEARCY STONE ----- lJI________ - CRAIGHEAD INDEP MISS, CRAW RANK JOHN VAN B POPE CLEB POINSETT Loss of 10.0% or mors SEB LOGAN CO NW Jfaulk TELL SCOK PERRY POLK SEVIEI L RIVER MONTG GARLND SALINI wi- LONG PIKE ^MP .4ILLEfr h . HOT SPRG grant CLARK CALLAS' y.EFF CLE'yE NEV OUACI CALH 'BRAof COLUHB ASHLEY. CROSS WHITE DREW WACK  :CRir- Loss of 5.0% to 9.9% Loss of less than 5,0% Goin of less than 5.0% Gain of 5.0% to 9.9%  Gain of 10.0% or more V J I e: NATURAL INCREASE AMONG THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 ? BENTON CARROLL BOONE MARI 01 ElAX FULTON RAND CLAY Percentage Change WASH MADISN NEWTON SEARCY IZARD SHARP LAWR 'GREENE No data tor blacks STONE CRAW RANK JOHN VAN B SEB LOGAN YELL POPE CONW, SCOTT POLK MONTG PIKE SEVIEI L RIVER HEMP tILLERs\nCLEB TT-'-yFAULK PERRY GARLND SALINI ^r SPRG grant CLARK': . ( : .dDALI^' NEV\\ dtWci CMH 8|!6sbi Tfi INDEP fJACif :RAIGHEAD POINSETT Decrease of 10.0% or more WHITE Decrease of 5.0% to 9.9% Decrease of less than 5.0% Increase of less than 5.0% Increase of 5,0% to 9.9% fASHLEYJ Increase of 10.0% or more 7 V ifJfSil'w, iuNkwi NET MIGRATION AMONG THE BLAGK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 TO 1990 T Percentage Migration BEMTON \u0026gt;RROLL BOONE MARIOI WASH MAOISM T No doto lor blacks CRAW RANK NEWTON SEARCr :Tr ------L-L,I STONE V CRAIGHEAD JOHN 1 INDEP MISS, POPE VAN B CLEB / raACK POINSETT 1 0.0% or moro out 1 SEB LOGAN CO NW, lEAULK YELL WHITE 0 SCOTT PERRT , PULASKI long PRAIR POLK HOW\u0026lt;I MONTG GARLND SALINi s 1 moni SEVEI CROSS ST FRAN LEE IILLIPS. CRIT 5,0% to 9.9% out Less than 5.0% out ^7 PIKE L RIVER HEMP JILLER LAB HOT SPRG grant CLARK 'CALLAS' NEV OUACI CALH GOLUMB UNION JEFF CLEVE 'brad ARKANSASf Less than 5,0% in LING r DESHA DREW ASHLEY :hic\u0026lt; - '|r -\u0026gt;: -I KU- 5.0% to 9.9X In 10.0% or more inMn Notes II 1. The birth and death data used in this report come from two main sources. Data for the white population were compiled from  Arkansas Vital Statistics, an annual publication of the Arkansas Department of Health's Center for Health Statistics. Since this II locally produced publication has only recently begun to present data separately for blacks (as distinct from \"nonwhites\"), we were forced to turn to a different source for our birth and death data for the black population, vital Statistics of the United 11 States, an annual publication of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Center for Health Statistics. M However, the federal publication presents separate data for blacks only for counties whose nonwhite population numbered 10,000 or more or constituted 10.0% or more of the county's total population. As a result, our analysis of the black population is II restricted to those 35 Arkansas counties that met these criteria\nthose 35 counties did, however, encompass approximately 92% of the State's black population in both 1980 and 1990. II If la 25  dJ^ II Despite Differences in Overall Growth Rates, Racial Composition of the Population Remains Relatively Stable 11 Dr. Lawrence L. Santi Division of Demographic Research University of Arkansas at Little Rock II Little Rock, AR 501-569-8571 72204 II January 29, 1991 II A recent report by my colleague, Ms. Mary McGehee, examined black-white differences in rates of population growth for the State of Arkansas and its 75 counties (\"Changes in Population by Race for Arkansas: 1980-1990\", January 26, 1991). In the H present note, we will take another look at the race data from the 1990 Census. H In contrast to Ms. McGehee's report, which focussed on differential growth rates between whites and blacks, the present note concerns itself with the extent to which these patterns of differential change produced change in the racial composition of II Arkansas counties. More specifically, we will examine the black percentages of the 1990 populations of Arkansas counties and see the extent to which these patterns differ from those of 1980. (These data speak more directly to the headline of a story appearing in last Sunday's Arkansas Gazette, \"Racial mix in the Delta is shifting.\" that headline might suggest.) The present results are not as dramatic as The relevant data are presented in four tables which contain the same basic information but have the counties arrayed in different If sort orders. In Table 1, counties are sorted alpabetically by county name, while in Tables 2 and 3, counties are sorted in descending order of their black percentages for 1980 and 1990, El respectively. The data in Table 4 are sorted by the differences in the black percentage of Arkansas counties between 1980 and 1990. These data are also displayed in Maps 1, 2, and 3. II In general, these data show very little change in the racial composition of Arkansas counties from 1980 to 1990. In all, 31 II of Arkansas' 75 counties (41.3% of all counties) registered slight increases in the black percentages of their populations, 25 counties (33.3%) showed slight decreases, and the remaining 19 counties (25.3%) showed no change at all (i.e., change of less than 0.1%, up or down). More specifically, the adjective \"slight\" used above to modify the words \"increases\" and \"decreases\" means changes in black percentages of less than plus or minus 4.0%. Indeed, in only 13 counties did the black percentage increase by as much as a single percentage point, and in only 7 counties did the black percentage decrease by one point or more. The greatest increases in the black percentage of the population were observed in Chicot, Howard, Jefferson, Lee, Pulaski, andH n Arkansas Counties, all of whom experienced increases in their black percentages of 2.0% or more. II II At the other end of the continuum, the greatest decreases were seen in Lafayette, Lonoke, Calhoun, and Little River Counties, all of whom experienced decreases in their black percentages of 2.0% or more. As a summary assessment, patterns of population change in the State of Arkansas during the 1980s have done very little to alter the State's highly concentrated racial distribution. Only three II II counties in the State (Lee, Chicot, and Phillips Counties) had \"majority black\" populations in 1980, and these were the same three \"majority black\" counties in 1990. The remaining 72 counties in the State, and this includes most of those counties we commonly refer to as \"Delta counties\", have been and continue to be \"majority white\" counties. At the other extreme, 21 counties p8.0% of all Arkansas counties) had black populations which constituted less than 1.0% of their total populations in 1980, and the number of such counties increased to 23 (30.7% of all counties) by 1990. (Franklin County and Crawford Counties were the two counties that saw their black percentages slip from just over to just under the 1.0% mark.) H  M II The present note shows little change in the overall racial composition of the State and its counties during the 1980s. However, it is likely that this impression of overall stability in the racial composition of Arkansas' population masks important differences in the underlying population dynamics of the two major racial groupings in the State, and it is likely that these dynamics will vary across counties within the State. The complex n II task of sorting out the relative contributions of natural increase and net migration to the demographic experience of Arkansas during the 1980s is proceeding as the appropriate data become available. II II 2TABLE 1: THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 AND 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER) 1980 1990 COUNTY BLACK TOTAL %BLACK BLACK TOTAL %BLACK CHANGE if If If If H f  fl Arkansas Ashley Baxter Benton Boone Bradley Calhoun Carroll Chicot Clark Clay Cleburne Cleveland Columbia Conway Craighead Crawford Crittenden Cross Dallas Desha Drew Faulkner Franklin Fulton Garland Grant Greene Hempstead Hot Spring Howard Independence Izard Jackson Jefferson Johnson Lafayette Lawrence Lee Lincoln Little River Logan Lonoke Madison Marion 4805 7237 26 50 2 4022 1706 4 9414 5079 3 4 1194 9242 2974 2876 460 21207 5068 3957 8444 4886 3700 154 1 5756 420 5 7062 3014 2486 551 3 2887 36825 273 4189 84 8520 4794 3470 307 4218 0 2 24175 26538 27409 78115 26067 13803 6079 16203 17793 23326 20616 16909 7868 26644 19505 63239 36892 49499 20434 10515 19760 17910 46192 14705 9975 70531 13008 30744 23635 26819 13459 30147 10768 21646 90718 17423 10213 18447 15539 13369 13952 20144 34518 11373 11334 19.9 27.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 29.1 28.1 0.0 52.9 21.8 0.0 0.0 15.2 34.7 15.2 4.5 1.2 42.8 24.8 37.6 42.7 27.3 8.0 1.0 0.0 8.2 3.2 0.0 29.9 11.2 18.5 1.8 0.0 13.3 40.6 1.6 41.0 0.5 54.8 35.9 24.9 1.5 12.2 0.0 0.0 4738 6616 4 124 5 3648 1447 6 8859 4913 6 6 1059 8992 2876 3778 374 21401 4782 3698 7139 4754 4778 99 10 5604 377 20 6464 2865 2919 595 11 2759 36877 309 3711 88 7487 4935 2931 273 3536 3 6 21653 24319 31186 97499 28297 11793 5826 18654 15713 21437 18107 19411 7781 25691 19151 68956 42493 49939 19225 9614 16798 17369 60006 14897 10037 73397 13948 31804 21621 26115 13569 31192 11364 18944 85487 18221 9643 17457 13053 13690 13966 20557 39268 11618 12001 21.9 27.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 30.9 24.8 0.0 56.4 22.9 0.0 0.0 13.6 35.0 15.0 5.5 0.9 42.9 24.9 38.5 42.5 27.4 8.0 0.7 0.1 7.6 2.7 0.1 29.9 11.0 21.5 1.9 0.1 14.6 43.1 1.7 38.5 0.5 57.4 36.0 21.0 1.3 9.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0 1.8 -3.2 0.0 3.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 -1.6 0.3 -0.2 0.9 -0.4 0.0 0.1 0.8 -0.2 0.1 -0.0 -0.4 0.1 -0.5 -0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.3 3.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 2.5 0.1 -2.5 0.0 2.5 0.2 -3.9 -0.2 -3.2 0.0 0.0 3 aa I  aaaaaa Miller Mississippi Monroe Montgomery Nevada Newton Ouachita Perry Phillips Pike Poinsett Polk Pope Prairie Pulaski Randolph Saint Francis Saline Scott Searcy Sebastian Sevier Sharp Stone Union Van Buren Washington White Woodruff Yell 9136 16164 5738 11 3398 5 11002 133 18410 414 1868 2 836 1417 81407 155 14190 1458 2 0 4916 783 100 7 13970 51 1475 1497 3490 352 37766 59517 14052 7771 11097 7756 30541 7266 34772 10373 27032 17007 38964 10140 340597 16834 30858 53156 9685 8847 95172 14060 14607 9022 48573 13357 100494 50835 11222 17026 24.2 27.2 40.8 0.1 30.6 0.1 36.0 1.8 52.9 4.0 6.9 0.0 2.1 14.0 23.9 0.9 46.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 5.2 5.6 0.7 0.1 28.8 0.4 1.5 2.9 31.1 2.1 8625 16006 4422 8 3196 0 10739 119 15753 378 1773 0 1129 1294 92200 146 13521 1348 1 2 5666 787 66 8 14061 41 1676 1703 2991 371 38467 57525 11333 7841 10101 7666 30574 7969 28838 10086 24664 17347 45883 9518 349660 16558 28497 64183 10205 7841 99590 13637 14109 9775 46719 14008 113409 54676 9520 17759 22.4 27.8 39.0 0.1 31.6 0.0 35.1 1.5 54.6 3.7 7.2 0.0 2.5 13.6 26.4 0.9 47.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.8 0.5 0.1 30.1 0.3 1.5 3.1 31.4 2.1 -1.8 0.7 -1.8 -0.0 1.0 -0.1 -0.9 -0.3 1.7 -0.2 0.3 -0.0 0.3 -0.4 2.5 -0.0 1.5 -0.6 -0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 -0.2 0.0 1.3 -0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 State Totals 373768 2286357 16.3 373912 2350725 15.9 -0.4 a SOURCE: DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. aaa 4  TABLE 2: THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 AND 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE BLACK, 1980)  1980 1990  COUNTY BLACK TOTAL %BLACK BLACK TOTAL oBLACK CHANGE II HHHH If II Lee Phillips Chicot Saint Francis Crittenden Desha Lafayette Monroe Jefferson Dallas Ouachita Lincoln Columbia Woodruff Nevada Hempstead Bradley Union Calhoun Drew Ashley Mississippi Little River Cross Miller Pulaski Clark Arkansas Howard Conway Cleveland Prairie Jackson Lonoke Hot Spring Garland Faulkner Poinsett Sevier Sebastian Craighead Pike Grant White Saline 8520 18410 9414 14190 21207 8444 4189 5738 36825 3957 11002 4794 9242 3490 3398 7062 4022 13970 1706 4886 7237 16164 3470 5068 9136 81407 5079 4805 2486 2974 1194 1417 2887 4218 3014 5756 3700 1868 783 4916 2876 414 420 1497 1458 15539 34772 17793 30858 49499 19760 10213 14052 90718 10515 30541 13369 26644 11222 11097 23635 13803 48573 6079 17910 26538 59517 13952 20434 37766 340597 23326 24175 13459 19505 7868 10140 21646 34518 26819 70531 46192 27032 14060 95172 63239 10373 13008 50835 53156 54.8 52.9 52.9 46.0 42.8 42.7 41.0 40.8 40.6 37.6 36.0 35.9 34.7 31.1 30.6 29.9 29.1 28.8 28.1 27.3 27.3 27.2 24.9 24.8 24.2 23.9 21.8 19.9 18.5 15.2 15.2 14.0 13.3 12.2 11.2 8.2 8.0 6.9 5.6 5.2 4.5 4.0 3.2 2.9 2.7 7487 15753 8859 13521 21401 7139 3711 4422 36877 3698 10739 4935 8992 2991 3196 6464 3648 14061 1447 4754 6616 16006 2931 4782 8625 92200 4913 4738 2919 2876 1059 1294 2759 3536 2865 5604 4778 1773 787 5666 3778 378 377 1703 1348 13053 28838 15713 28497 49939 16798 9643 11333 85487 9614 30574 13690 25691 9520 10101 21621 11793 46719 5826 17369 24319 57525 13966 19225 38467 349660 21437 21653 13569 19151 7781 9518 18944 39268 26115 73397 60006 24664 13637 99590 68956 10086 13948 54676 64183 57.4 54.6 56.4 47.4 42.9 42.5 38.5 39.0 43.1 38.5 35.1 36.0 35.0 31.4 31.6 29.9 30.9 30.1 24.8 27.4 27.2 27.8 21.0 24.9 22.4 26.4 22.9 21.9 21.5 15.0 13.6 13.6 14.6 9.0 11.0 7.6 8.0 7.2 5.8 5.7 5.5 3.7 2.7 3.1 2.1 2.5 1.7 3.5 1.5 0.0 -0.2 -2.5 -1.8 2.5 0.8 -0.9 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.0 1.8 1.3 -3.2 0.1 -0.1 0.7 -3.9 0.1 -1.8 2.5 1.1 2.0 3.0 -0.2 -1.6 -0.4 1.2 -3.2 -0.3 -0.5 -0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.9 -0.2 -0.5 0.2 -0.6 5  a R aaa Pope Yell Perry Independence Johnson Logan Washington Crawford Franklin Randolph Sharp Lawrence Van Buren Montgomery Baxter Stone Newton Benton Izard Carroll Cleburne Scott Marion Greene Clay Polk Fulton Boone Searcy Madison 836 352 133 551 273 307 1475 460 154 155 100 84 51 11 26 7 5 50 3 4 4 2 2 5 3 2 1 2 0 0 38964 17026 7266 30147 17423 20144 100494 36892 14705 16834 14607 18447 13357 7771 27409 9022 7756 78115 10768 16203 16909 9685 11334 30744 20616 17007 9975 26067 8847 11373 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1129 371 119 595 309 273 1676 374 99 146 66 88 41 8 4 8 0 124 11 6 6 1 6 20 6 0 10 5 2 3 45883 17759 7969 31192 18221 20557 113409 42493 14897 16558 14109 17457 14008 7841 31186 9775 7666 97499 11364 18654 19411 10205 12001 31804 18107 17347 10037 28297 7841 11618 2.5 2.1 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 -0.3 0.1 0.1 -0.2 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 -0.0 -0.2 0.0 -0.1 -0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 a state Totals 373768 2286357 16.3 373912 2350725 15.9 -0.4 a SOURCE: a DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. aa 6 I TABLE 3: THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 AND 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON PERCENTAGE BLACK, 1990) I 1980 1990 H COUNTY BLACK TOTAL %BLACK BLACK TOTAL %BLACK CHANGE FM nHH II II fl fl fl Lee Chicot Phillips Saint Francis Jefferson Crittenden Desha Monroe Lafayette Dallas Lincoln Ouachita Columbia Nevada Woodruff Bradley Union Hempstead Mississippi Drew Ashley Pulaski Cross Calhoun Clark Miller Arkansas Howard Little River Conway Jackson Cleveland Prairie Hot Spring Lonoke Faulkner Garland Poinsett Sevier Sebastian Craighead Pike White Grant Pope 8520 9414 18410 14190 36825 21207 8444 5738 4189 3957 4794 11002 9242 3398 3490 4022 13970 7062 16164 4886 7237 81407 5068 1706 5079 9136 4805 2486 3470 2974 2887 1194 1417 3014 4218 3700 5756 1868 783 4916 2876 414 1497 420 836 15539 17793 34772 30858 90718 49499 19760 14052 10213 10515 13369 30541 26644 11097 11222 13803 48573 23635 59517 17910 26538 340597 20434 6079 23326 37766 24175 13459 13952 19505 21646 7868 10140 26819 34518 46192 70531 27032 14060 95172 63239 10373 50835 13008 38964 54.8 52.9 52.9 46.0 40.6 42.8 42.7 40.8 41.0 37.6 35.9 36.0 34.7 30.6 31.1 29.1 28.8 29.9 27.2 27.3 27.3 23.9 24.8 28.1 21.8 24.2 19.9 18.5 24.9 15.2 13.3 15.2 14.0 11.2 12.2 8.0 8.2 6.9 5.6 5.2 4.5 4.0 2.9 3.2 2.1 7487 8859 15753 13521 36877 21401 7139 4422 3711 3698 4935 10739 8992 3196 2991 3648 14061 6464 16006 4754 6616 92200 4782 1447 4913 8625 4738 2919 2931 2876 2759 1059 1294 2865 3536 4778 5604 1773 787 5666 3778 378 1703 377 1129 13053 15713 28838 28497 85487 49939 16798 11333 9643 9614 13690 30574 25691 10101 9520 11793 46719 21621 57525 17369 24319 349660 19225 5826 21437 38467 21653 13569 13966 19151 18944 7781 9518 26115 39268 60006 73397 24664 13637 99590 68956 10086 54676 13948 45883 57.4 56.4 54.6 47.4 43.1 42.9 42.5 39.0 38.5 38.5 36.0 35.1 35.0 31.6 31.4 30.9 30.1 29.9 27.8 27.4 27.2 26.4 24.9 24.8 22.9 22.4 21.9 21.5 21.0 15.0 14.6 13.6 13.6 11.0 9.0 8.0 7.6 7.2 5.8 5.7 5.5 3.7 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.5 3.5 1.7 1.5 2.5 0.0 -0.2 -1.8 -2.5 0.8 0.2 -0.9 0.3 1.0 0.3 1.8 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.1 -0.1 2.5 0.1 -3.2 1.1 -1.8 2.0 3.0 -3.9 -0.2 1.2 -1.6 -0.4 -0.3 -3.2 -0.0 -0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.9 -0.2 0.2 -0.5 0.3 7 I g  Saline Yell Independence Johnson Perry Washington Logan Randolph Crawford Franklin Lawrence Sharp Van Buren Benton Montgomery Fulton Izard Stone Greene Marion Clay Carroll Cleburne Madison Searcy Boone Baxter Scott Polk Newton 1458 352 551 273 133 1475 307 155 460 154 84 100 51 50 11 1 3 7 5 2 3 4 4 0 0 2 26 2 2 5 53156 17026 30147 17423 7266 100494 20144 16834 36892 14705 18447 14607 13357 78115 7771 9975 10768 9022 30744 11334 20616 16203 16909 11373 8847 26067 27409 9685 17007 7756 2.7 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.5 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1348 371 595 309 119 1676 273 146 374 99 88 66 41 124 8 10 11 8 20 6 6 6 6 3 2 5 4 1 0 0 64183 17759 31192 18221 7969 113409 20557 16558 42493 14897 17457 14109 14008 97499 7841 10037 11364 9775 31804 12001 18107 18654 19411 11618 7841 28297 31186 10205 17347 7666 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 -0.3 0.0 -0.2 -0.0 -0.4 -0.4 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 -0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.0 -0.0 -0.1 II state Totals 373768 2286357 16.3 373912 2350725 15.9 -0.4 II SOURCE: M DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. fl fl fl 8 a TABLE 4: THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 AND 1990 (COUNTIES SORTED ON CHANGE IN PERCENTAGE BLACK, 1980-1990) 1980 1990 COUNTY BLACK TOTAL %BLACK BLACK TOTAL %BLACK CHANGE li H HH n II nnn Chicot Howard Jefferson Lee Pulaski Arkansas Bradley Phillips Saint Francis Union Jackson Clark Nevada Craighead Dallas Mississippi Sebastian Woodruff Pope Columbia Poinsett Sevier Lincoln White Johnson Drew Fulton Independence Cross Izard Benton Lawrence Greene Marion Madison Searcy Yell Clay Hempstead Crittenden Washington Boone Carroll Cleburne Stone 9414 2486 36825 8520 81407 4805 4022 18410 14190 13970 2887 5079 3398 2876 3957 16164 4916 3490 836 9242 1868 783 4794 1497 273 4886 1 551 5068 3 50 84 5 2 0 0 352 3 7062 21207 1475 2 4 4 7 17793 13459 90718 15539 340597 24175 13803 34772 30858 48573 21646 23326 11097 63239 10515 59517 95172 11222 38964 26644 27032 14 060 13369 50835 17423 17910 9975 30147 20434 10768 78115 18447 30744 11334 11373 8847 17026 20616 23635 49499 100494 26067 16203 16909 9022 52.9 18.5 40.6 54.8 23.9 19.9 29.1 52.9 46.0 28.8 13.3 21.8 30.6 4.5 37.6 27.2 5.2 31.1 2.1 34.7 6.9 5.6 35.9 2.9 1.6 27.3 0.0 1.8 24.8 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 29.9 42.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 8859 2919 36877 7487 92200 4738 3648 15753 13521 14061 2759 4913 3196 3778 3698 16006 5666 2991 1129 8992 1773 787 4935 1703 309 4754 10 595 4782 11 124 88 20 6 3 2 371 6 6464 21401 1676 5 6 6 8 15713 13569 85487 13053 349660 21653 11793 28838 28497 46719 18944 21437 10101 68956 9614 57525 99590 9520 45883 25691 24664 13637 13690 54676 18221 17369 10037 31192 19225 11364 97499 17457 31804 12001 11618 7841 17759 18107 21621 49939 113409 28297 18654 19411 9775 56.4 21.5 43.1 57.4 26.4 21.9 30.9 54.6 47.4 30.1 14.6 22.9 31.6 5.5 38.5 27.8 5.7 31.4 2.5 35.0 7.2 5.8 36.0 3.1 1.7 27.4 0.1 1.9 24.9 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 29.9 42.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 nnnH nNVH Scott Polk Randolph Montgomery Faulkner Newton Ashley Baxter Van Buren Logan Sharp Conway Desha Pike Hot Spring Perry Crawford Prairie Franklin Garland Grant Saline Ouachita Cleveland Miller Monroe Lafayette Lonoke Calhoun Little River 2 2 155 11 3700 5 7237 26 51 307 100 2974 8444 414 3014 133 460 1417 154 5756 420 1458 11002 1194 9136 5738 4189 4218 1706 3470 9685 17007 16834 7771 46192 7756 26538 27409 13357 20144 14607 19505 19760 10373 26819 7266 36892 10140 14705 70531 13008 53156 30541 7868 37766 14052 10213 34518 6079 13952 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 8.0 0.1 27.3 0.1 0.4 1.5 0.7 15.2 42.7 4.0 11.2 1.8 1.2 14.0 1.0 8.2 3.2 2.7 36.0 15.2 24.2 40.8 41.0 12.2 28.1 24.9 1 0 146 8 4778 0 6616 4 41 273 66 2876 7139 378 2865 119 374 1294 99 5604 377 1348 10739 1059 8625 4422 3711 3536 1447 2931 10205 17347 16558 7841 60006 7666 24319 31186 14008 20557 14109 19151 16798 10086 26115 7969 42493 9518 14897 73397 13948 64183 30574 7781 38467 11333 9643 39268 5826 13966 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 8.0 0.0 27.2 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.5 15.0 42.5 3.7 11.0 1.5 0.9 13.6 0.7 7.6 2.7 2.1 35.1 13.6 22.4 39.0 38.5 9.0 24.8 21.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.9 -1.6 -1.8 -1.8 -2.5 -3.2 -3.2 -3.9 II state Totals 373768 2286357 16.3 373912 2350725 15.9 -0.4 SOURCE: DIVISION OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK. 10 MAP 1: THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980 (Source: Division of Demographic Research, UALR) 7 BENTON CARROLL BOONE MARIOI WASH MAOISN BAX FULTON IZARD CRAW WNK NEWTON SEARCY STONE INDEP\nRXGHEAD MISS, JOHN VAN B POPE CLEB T WACK POINSETT LOGAN CONW, lEAULK \u0026gt;0 SCOTT POLK HOW CROSS #crit\nXtell PERRY r I NO\nFpAIR WONTG GARLND SALII HOT SPRG G| PIKE HEMP\nCLARK .DALI .NEV. OU AC' Percentage Black Less than 1.0% 1.0% to 9.9% /SHFRAN \"\nT 10.0% to 19.9% 1 IB 20.0% to 29.9% 'E U DR  : ASHI kRKANSAS\nwoi I 30.0% to 39.9% +0.0% to 49.9% 50.0% or more MAP 2: THE BLACK POPULATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1990 (Source: Division of Demographic Research, UALR) 7 Percentage Black BEMTON .CAvRRFROLL BOONE MARIOl Less than 1.0% WASH MADISN NEWTON SEARCY STQnFV\" J- 7 \"|CiRRAAJJGGHHEEAADD :. CRAW RANK JOHN J VAN B INDEP f MISS, / 1.0% to 9.9% \\ Loswy^ SCOTT POLK fhot MONTG PIKE POPE CONW, PERRT .ND SALINI R SPRG Cl '^El livS'^HEMP j|LLEH WA IK-QAtl IB XlNi CLEB IFAULK POINSETT LONO't L THim 10.0% to 19.9X 20.0% to 29.9% |S^ 30.0% to 39.9% 'E : LII  DI ASHI |de^ +0.0% to 49.9% a 50.0% or more li MAP 3: CHANGE IN THE BLACK PERCENTAGE OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES, 1980-1990 BENTON \u0026gt; 1 ,RROLL BOONE WASH I \\ MAOISM J kx\nV-? CRAW RANK JOHN SEB Sm^ LOGAN YELL SCOK POLK L RIVET? MONTG PlM-HEMP f i \" ' IPlWX rand I CLAY \\ ' -----------7GREENE/ ----------awr f jL________________________________ Percentage Difference Decrease of 1.0% or more NElVroN SEARCY STONE ,fe CLEB *5' PERRY GARLND l-flOTSPfK LAWR mo'ni CALH t. ?!5P ?* ipOPE\n*1 tla.F\u0026gt; pdiNSEn^ vY-CRIT Decrease of less than 1.0% No change S Increase of less than 1.0% Increase of 1.0% or more Division of Demographic Research University of Arkansas at Little Rock\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_1009","title":"Aerospace Technology Magnet School, updates","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991-02/1991-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational planning","Aviation Education Programs (U.S.)","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Technology Magnet School, updates"],"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/1009"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n\nj IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. HO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SC!IOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET l\\.L. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS STIPULATION AND CONSENT ORDER REGARDillG LITTLE ROCJC SCHOOL DISTRICT AEROSP~CE TECHNOLOGY MAGNET SCHOOL The undersigned parties stipulate and agree that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) desegregation plan should be amended to include an Aerospace Technology Magnet School as described in Exhibit \"A\" to this stipulation as modified below to address the concerns expressed by the Court and some of the parties. The parties further stipulate and agree that the Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet School can only be constructed and operated if the Little Rock School District receives approval of first-year funding of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant, for which Exhibit \"A\" is its application, in a total amount of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) for 1991-92 and 1992-93: and if the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society contributes at least Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,500,000.00) as its share of the construction costs of the Aerospace Education Center which will house both the Aerospace Technology Magnet School and the Aerospace Museum. ,LCt.i I .j) ... ~.\nJ V  :. : \\ I --- The purpose of this stipulation between the Joshua Intervenors and the Little Rock School District is to insure by specific outcome expectations that black youth will be at least as well served in educational outcomes, process, treatment, retention, promotion, rewards, awards and opportunities as white youth in the proposed Aerospace Magnet School. The underlying premise of Joshua is tl1at students from higher socio-economic backgrounds, based upon past and present treatment by Little Rock School District, are being and will be well served by the district. The outcome expectations shall be measured . by objective, education related criteria. The results will be subject to further analysis by the Districtwide Biracial Committee and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Aerospace Technology Magnet School is being integrated into and engrafted upon the Settlement Desegregation Plans of the parties (\"the Settlement Plans\"). The parties stipulate that the Aerospace Technology Magnet School Plans shall be consistent with the objectives of the Settlement Plans. The school shall be planned, opened and hereafter operate on a fully and thoroughly integrated basis in all aspects of its operations and outreach. The district shall accomplish this racially inclusive educational environment by whatever means necessary within federal law and by appropriate state' law as well so long as state law does not diminish the remedial and desegregation objectives of the Settlement Plan. The district commits that it will maintain this facility on a racially integrated basis into perpetuity. 2 05434 I , : - ' : ' : I The Aerospace Magnet School shall effectively be a joint venture between the school district and th e Arkansas Aviation Historical Society in certain operational a nd financing respects. The school district, however, shall have full a nd final authority for all decisions and conduct of the school including but not limited to its staff, students, programs and activities. The local aerospace community consists of those aerospace technical business enterprises which are located around the Little Rock Regional Airport. it includes the Little Rock Airport Commission, a public enterprise, which operates the Little Rock Regional Airport. The Little Rock Airport Commission and the following private aerospace technical business enterprises hereby make the commitments contained in the statement of support attached to this page and the reasonable inferences which flow therefrom regarding the level and duration of said support. A. Companies 1. Central Flying Service 2. Falcon Jet Corporation 3. Arkansas Modification Center 4. Midcoast Aviation 5. Air Transport International 6. Little Rock Regional Airport 8. General Commitment (see attachment to this page) The court shall be provided affidavits of support from representatives of the local aerospace community, not later than February 19, 1991. These affidavits of support will describe each J 05435 , j: r !,, I I\n:\\: ! ' i I I I i, i I : !, ',, ii I, 'i Statement in Support of tJ1e Aerospace Education Center As executivt:s of Li1tlt! Rock's aviation industries and 1he Li11le Rock Airport Commission, we endorse ,rnd lend our Cllmmitment 10 the planned Aerospace Ed11ca1io11 Center, comhining an Aerospace Magnet lligh School with the Arkansns Museum of Aviation History Ill Adams Field. The Aerospace Magnet High School will provide the educutionul hose in math and science that :mr companit!s are looking for in new employees, making it possible for tl1esc students to pursue :areers hem in Central Arkansas in our companies as well us other high technology ffr1 .. s. Our c.\nompanics arc willing to provide adjunct faculty to both the high school and to the museum~ ~ducationaJ our.reach program, and will provide guest instructors, as 11eeded, to enhunee cuniculurn .1fferings. In addition, we will sponsor and encourage our employees to panic.\nipute in ll mentor\nirogrum, working with stuJents who wish to specinlize in specific areas of expertise. While we amicipate the school's graduntes becoming 11 :\noun\ne of our permanent employees, we 1lso plan to consider, whenever possible, opponunities for purt-time und ~urnmer employment of\ntudents in aviation-related jobs. We wholeheanedly endorse Governor Clinton's ini1ia1ive 10 lkvt!lop ndustry 11ppren1iceship progrnms, and pledge our cooperation to uffect such u program in our industry 1ere in Little Rock where it mny apply. We feel 1hnt apprenticeship prol{Tnrns in aviation-rclatc.\u0026lt;l skills, kveloped throuKh whut will be the excellent facilities of the Aerospace Education Center, could !ventuully become a .~ignificunt source of skilled workers for our companies. LittJe Rock's Aerospace Magnet High St:hool will provide new opportunities for disadvantaged md minority srudents, many of whom would have few other opportunities to gain the requisite skills to :nrcr :iaospace or other technology careers. We pledge to recruit disudvu11tuged und minority jraduates from the Aerospace Magnet High School, in conjunction wi1h our companies' respecrive 1ffirmative nction pluns. The avialion industries of C~ntral Arkansas have enjoyed phenomenul ~wth over the pust\nevernl years, offering economic benefits for not only our employees, but for the entire community. ~or this positive trend ro continue, we muse work together with our schools to provide the skilled ,eople needed for our industry. Therefore, we offer our unqu11lified endorsement of the Aerospuce .:ducation Center and pledge the support of our respective compnnies 10 ensure its success. r. Tuylor Brown Senior Vice Prcliident Falcon Jet Corporation Senior Vice Prc.~i\u0026lt;lcnt and General Manager Midcoast Aviation Little Rock . n n 1 ., ,.. .. . Dennis D. Davi.~ President Arkansas Mo\u0026lt;lifi\u0026lt;.:ution Center ~~~~ President Central Flying Service 05436 i /. i 1 I I I . ' I! ! I, --- company's present commitments and future voluntary efforts in the following areas: ( a) specific employment, hiring and promotion commitments for each of the employers and affect all future employment opportunities\n(b) summer training and employment opportunities for the black pupils who will attend the Aerospace Magnet Technology School\n(c) programs for black pupils year round mentoring and support at the school\n(d) preferential consideration upon graduation for training or apprenticeship programs and employment within these enterprises\n(e) creation of racially inclusive, broad based racial nondiscriminatory work environments\nand (f) and gender representation on appropriate advisory and governing boards of each of the business enterprises. In the event that it is necessary to modify these commitments, notice shall be provided to the parties and efforts will be made to continue the spirit of these commitments. EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES 1. student Education Plans (SEP's) shall be developed for each pupil who elects to attend the Aerospace Technology Magnet School. The plans shall be developed and then implemented in such a way as to insure that all pupils therein shall be \"mainstreamed\" into regular classes. If additional, out of class work is required in order to promote remediation to pupils to meet classroom work, the district shall offer it as needed at district expense either after school or on Saturdays. A principal objective of the SEP's is to allow the progress of each pupil to be measured periodically. It will also assist in determining individual teacher performance 4 05437 --- for evaluation purposes. 2. The school shall employ a sufficient number of teacher assistants to insure that the serious teaching and learning objectives of the Aerospace Magnet School shall be achieved. J. It is expected that all pupils who enroll in this school shall be promoted each year and graduate from high school on time and with appropriate educational credentials for further study and/or entry into college type programs. The only possible exceptions to this expectation are those pupils who, by objective standards, considered after sufficient time has expired for the SEP' s to work, demonstrate that they do not have either the capacity or interest for the required school work. 4. There shall be no \"tracking\" in the Aerospace Magnet School. Those teachers or other staff who either allow or engage in the practice shall be subject to formal discipline. Any discipline of teachers shall be in accordance with the Professional Negotiations Agreement (PNA). 5. The racial balance o f the student body of the Aerospace Magnet School shall bear a reasonable relationship to the racial balance of the other high schools. It initially shall be sixty percent (60%) black and forty percent (40%) white. The racial balance goal of the faculty shall be in reverse ratio due to the acknowledged shortage of black staff members. The district is committed, however, through the Settlement Plans, to increasing black staff by aggressive recruitment and by financial support for teacher aides who commit to obtain college training while on the 5 05438 i' i I, I I I 1:: i i I\njob and a period of employment thereafter for the district. 6. The Aerospace Technology Magnet School shall be operated and supported by the district in those ways which do not diminish the status, faculty or student bodies of the other high schools. 7. All students at the Aerospace Technology Magnet School shall be privileged to participate in all school activities at all times provided their school work is first addressed to the level of their respective capacities and is otherwise acceptable. By agreement and stipulation of the parties, Exhibit \"A\" is modified as follows: P.AGE 1\\.HENDMENTS Page 19 (Substitute first paragraph under caption \"HISTORY OF DESEGREGATION AND MAGNET SCHOOLS\") In 1986, the Federal District Court approved an interdistrict plan of desegregation between the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski county School Districts. interdistrict remedies of magnet schools and majority to minority That plan provided transfers. The percentage of black students in North Little Rock is approximately forty-six (46) and in Pulaski County is approximately thirty (JO). Page 26 During the period of construction of the Aerospace Technology Magnet School, it will be sited at the Metropolitan Vocational School located near Interstate Highway Thirty (Jo) in Southwest 6 05439 ,, 'I i  i I I /1 I. ! I\nLittle Rock. Architectural Plans are being developed and it is hoped that the school will be opened in the fall of 1992 or soon thereafter. (As a footnote, the architects who are working on these plans have committed to make a biracial effort of their further work on this project.) Page 23 SIBLING PREFERENCE There is and shall be no sibling preference for Magnet School assignment. Thus item six (6) on Page 23 is deleted. Page 27 Program Objective II (substituted) The District plan to open the Aerospace Technology Magnet School at Metropolitan High School on September, 1991, provided this grant application is timely approved, with the further expectancy that in September, 1992 or sooner thereafter the new school will be opened. The racial balance of the school shall be a range of black students within fifty-five to sixty-five percent and a range of white students between thirty-five and forty-five percent. Those ~igures are comparable to the other senior high school enrollments. Pago 29 (Last sentence on the page) Central High School has been successful in attracting white students from the Pulaski County and North Little Rock School 7 05440  I' I I ----- - Districts. Page 32 (Supplement) Other standardized tests confirm the above disparities in test results between at least black and white students. The district is committed to fully addressing and remedying these disparities. To this end outcome objectives shall be formulated and implemented for students at all grade levels. In this way, students may be expected to have their remedial and other learning needs met prior to the 9th and 10th grade transition into the Aerospace program. If those are not met, however, the Aerospace Magnet programs will be designed and implemented in a way to accomplish that objective. Page 36 (substitute) The Aerospace Technology Program will require students to have a firm grasp of basic skills. Those skills will be effectively taught to all students so that they will meet the high school standards in the areas of Algebra, Physical Science and Earth Science. The District will provide special support to underachieving pupils in order that those students may be equally successful in their classwork as the more advanced pupils. Page 52 (New paragraph 2) 8 05441 The planning process was not successful in including black citizens to the extent that it included white citizens as set out in paragraph one, supra. Committee in the process. !!or did it include the LRSD Biracial These unintentional omissions will be corrected forthwith and will not be repeated. The Biracial committee and Joshua shall be fully represented in the Magnet School Planning Committee described in the next paragraph and shall otherwise be utilized to insure that this school meets its goals and expectations. Page 58 (a new last sentence on the page) This summer program, which will be at school district expense, shall not be used to defer, delay or withhold ongoing remediation and supplemental assistance to achievement. This is intended to supplement the opportunities students have for maximizing their abilities within the school. Page 59 (supplementary language) A program o-f teacher developed incentives will be put into place to assist with the motivation of students at the Aerospace Magnet. Page 60 (supplementary language to paragraph two) 9 05442 i' I  I .i I ( ( ( .I r I ---- .. Outreach programs will be provided for all parents to inform them of the content of the aerospace program, opportunities for their students, and programmatic expectations for students' achievement. Special outreach efforts shall be made to parents of black and socio-economically deprived students to introduce these patrons to the program. Page 70 (new last paragraph) The foregoing staff is disproportionately white. The district is sensitive to this fact and shall work to insure that it, too, will be fully desegregated and integrated. Page 77 (supplemental language to paragraph two) The theme and focus shall permeate the entire program. Even courses such as physical education and physiology shall include concepts from math and science such as velocity, vector.s, and kinesthetics . Page 91 (new first paragraph) Student Education Plans (SEP's) will be developed for all students. achievement. These SEP's will vary according to past student Appropriate intensive counseling will provide assistance and direction to students to insure that their 10 05443 ! I I\n1. I I, I I I I. I: '' I I , I I\nI I I I, I! : I 1 j i\n' '\nl i ! I I ! I I I potentialities are developed to the fullest possible extent by virtue of their involvement in this program. Special efforts will be made to insure that black and socio-economically deprived students shall have no less opportunity for academic success than other students. Page 106 (last paragraph added) The District will work with the business community in general and specifically with the aerospace/aviation industry to insre summer jobs, part-time employment, mentorships, apprenticeships, and employment after graduation for those students who seek it. Page 108 (addition regarding adjunct teachers) Adjunct staff will include mentors, role models, speakers for students. Seminars will also be held and guest to allow students to interact with minority and female individuals who have careers in science, math, and fields related to the Aerospace Magnet program. Page 111 (addition to end of second paragraph) The figure $278 which is included in the discussion of Magnet program costs refers to the eventual cost of Magnet components only and is to be considered in addition to the per pupil cost which the 11 05444 ! ! I I I j\nI: 'I . I i: 'i I '! I I I I i: I I I l I! I I I I' ' I I i\nI' I district expends, which is $2,165 on average at non-magnet, nonincentive schools. Page 116 (supplement to paragraph one) Success shall further be determined by analysis of statistics related to: number of program graduates employed in Arkansas aviation industry by race and gender number of program graduates entering post-secondary education especially fields related to math, science, and aerospace technology by race and gender decrease in dropout rate as compared to other high schools such that the number of black students in the graduating class will be equivalent to the percentage of black students enrolled in the program Pago 119 (final paragraph) The evaluatOr(s) will work closely with the school staff and be both sensitive and responsive to inquiries raised by the Joshua Intervenors, the district and/or school biracial committee(s) and the Office of Desegregation Monitor(ing). Page 146 (new paragraph three) 12 05445 I' . ,J , I :I . I ,' ''I' I i I j . I I I I: l ,i: I  ' l' '' i ! '  ' :' '  I Ii ' . i ! I i' I , I. '' There shall be a collaborative effort between the school district, Henderson State University and the University-of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Arrangements will be sought with these colleges for college credit to be given for certain work completed at the Aerospace Magnet School and for the ins ti tut ions to assist the magnet graduates with educational career planning. The undersigned parties stipulate and agree that a modification of the Little Rock School District desegregation plan to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School described in Exhibit \"A\" as modified a bove, subject to the contingencies described above, would largely complement their settlement plans and advance the voluntary desegregation efforts contemplated by those plans, al though the parties understand that this program might have a negative impact upon the further desegregation of Fuller Jr. High and Mills High Sc hool. It is therefore ordered that the Little Rock School District's desegregation plan is modified to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School described in Exhibit \"A\", as modified by this Stipulation and Consent Ord e r, sub j ect to the . following contingencies: 1. The Little Rock School District must receive the Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant, for whi ch Exhibit \"A\" is its application, in a total amount of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) for 1991-92 and 1992-93\nand 2. The Arkansas Aviation Historical Society must contribute 13 05446 I I i .: I i I I I I ! '' I ' i I I . I I . I i\nat least Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,500,000.00) as its share o f the const r uction costs of the Aerospace Education Center which will hous e both the Aerospace Technology Magnet School and the Aerospace Museum. If either of these contingencies does n o t happen, the Little Rock School District will ha ve no obligation to build the s c hool or implement the Aerospace Technology program d escribed in Exhibit \"A\". JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 BY,w~ ~ WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 MIT L \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third ::~cr:~--~l Richard Roachell FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. t\\00 West Capitol ::~~ Ch::2fu JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 BYi!i:\nW~ SO ORDrn.ED THIS ~DAY OF FEBRlJARY, 1991. /)  7 .-y, ., )1\n.' /,- /1.:14,,,. /  ,Us:, ! '  !, /,.t: suSAN WEBBER i'1Rfs 1rr x.::: 7 '  :/ b  UNITED STJ\\TES orsrrucr JU[X\nE 05447 !. I ' I . i\nI  ! 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 KNIGHT, ET AL. ' )j PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS IN'I'ERVENO.RS INTERVENO.RS . STIPULATION AND CONSENT ORDER REGARDING LITTLE ROC~ SCHOOL DISTRICT AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY MAGNET SCHOOL The undersigned parties stipulate and agree that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) desegregation plan should be amended to include an Aerospace Technology Magnet School as described in Exhibit \"A\" to this stipulation as modified below to address the concerns expressed by the Court and some of the parties. The parties further stipulate and agree that the Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet School can only be constructed and operated if the Little Rock School District receives approval of first-year funding of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant, for which Exhibit \"A\" is its application, in a total amount of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) for 1991-92 and 1992-93\nand if the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society contributes at least Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,500,000.00) as its share of the construction costs of the Aerospace Education Center which will house both the Aerospace Technology Magnet School and the Aerospace Museum. .. . \\ 05433 14 2 ~ .._ __ - The purpose of this stipulation between the Joshua Intervenors and the Little Rock School District is to insure by specific outcome expectations that black youth will be at least as well served in educational outcomes, process, treatment, retention, promotion, rewards, awards and opportunities as white youth in the proposed Aerospace Magnet School. The underlying premise of Joshua is that students from higher socio-economic backgrounds, based upon past and present treatment by Little Rock School District, are being and will be well served by the district. The outcome expectations shall be measured . by objective, education related criteria. The results will be subject to further analysis by the Districtwide Biracial Committee and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Aerospace Technology Magnet School is being integrated into and engrafted upon the Settlement Desegregation Plans of the parties (\"the Settlement Plans''). The parties stipulate that the Aerospace Technology Magnet School Plans shall be consistent with the objectives of the Settlement Plans. The school shall be planned, opened and hereafter operate on a fully and thoroughly integrated basis in all aspects of its operations and outreach. The district shall accomplish this racially inclusive educational environment by whatever means necessary within federal law and by appropriate state law as well so long as state law does not diminish the remedial and desegregation objectives of the Settlement Plan. The district commits that it will maintain this facility on a racially integrated basis into perpetuity. 2 05434 r I I' I I l The Aerospace Magnet School shall effectively be a joint venture between the school district and the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society in certain operational and financing respects. The school district, however, shall have full and final authority for all decisions and conduct of the school including but not limited to its staff, students, programs and activities. The local aerospace community consists of those aerospace technical business enterprises which are located around the Little Rock Regional Airport. it includes the Little Rock Airport commission, a public enterprise, which operates the Little Rock Regional Airport. The Little Rock Airport Commission and the following private aerospace technical business enterprises hereby make the commitments contained in the statement of support attached to this page and the reasonable inferences which flow therefrom regarding the level and duration of said support. A. Companies 1. Central Flying Service 2. Falcon Jet Corporation 3. Arkansas Modification Center 4. Midcoast Aviation 5. Air Transport International 6. Little Rock Regional Airport B. General Commitment (see attachment to this page) The Court shall be provided affidavits of support from representatives of the local aerospace community, not later than February 19, 1991. These affidavits of support will describe each 3 05435 :1 :I I I ' ' I 11 -- Statement in Support of the Aerospace Education Center As exe\u0026lt;:utives of Little Rock's aviation industries and the Lill le Ro\u0026lt;.:k Airport C.ommission, wc endorse and lend our commitment to the planned Aerospace Edu\u0026lt;.:ation Center, combining an Aerospace Magnet lligh S\u0026lt;.:hool with the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History ttt Adams Field. The Aerospace Magnet High School will provide the edu\u0026lt;.:utionul base in math and science 1hat our t:ompanies are looking for in new employees, making it possible for these studcnt_s to pursue careers here in Central Arkansas in our companies as well as other high technology firius. Our companies are willing to provide adjunct faculty to both the high s\u0026lt;.:hool and to the museum's educational outreach program, and will provide guest instrncton\n, as needed, to enhunre \u0026lt;.:urri\u0026lt;.:ulum offerings. In addition, we will sponsor and encourage our employees to panicipate in a mentor progrum, working with students who wish to specialize in specific areas of expertise. While we an1icipa1e the school's graduates becoming a soun:e of our pennanent employees, we also plan to consider, whenever possible, opportunities for purt-tirne und summer employment of studems in aviation-related jobs. We wholeheanedly endon\ne Governor Clinton's initiative to tfovelop indus1ry Rpprenticeship programs, and pledge our cooperation to affect such a program in our industry here in Liule Rock where it mny apply. We feel that epprenticeship pro1'fums in aviation-related skills, developed through what will be the excellent facilities of the Aerospace Education Center, could eventually become a ~ignificunt source of sldlled workers for our companies. Little Rock's Aerospace Magnet High School will provide new opportunities for disadvantaged imd minority students, many of whom would have few other opportunities to gain the requisite skills to enrer aerospace or other technology careers. We pledge to recruit disadvantaged and minority graduates from the Aerospace Magnet High School, in conjunc1ion wi1h our companies' respective uffinuative nction pluns. The aviation industries of Central Arkansas have enjoyed phenomenal ~wth over the pust several years, offering economic benefits for not only our employees, but for the entire community. for chis positive rrend co continue, we must work together with our schools to provide the skilled people needed for our industry. Therefore, we offer our unqualified endorsement of the Acrospute Education Center and pledge the support of our respective compMies to ensure its success. fc. Taylor Brown Senior Vice President Falcon Jet Corporation Senior Vici! President and General Manager Midcoast Aviation - Little Rock James R. Rodger~ Dennis D. Davis President Ark.anstts Modification Center ~~~~ President Central Flying Service 05436 I , , -- company's present commitments and future voluntary efforts in the following areas: ( a) specific employment, hiring and promotion commitments for each of the employers and affect all future employment opportunities\n(b) summer training and employment opportunities for the black pupils who will attend the Aerospace Magnet Technology School\n(c) year round mentoring and support programs for black pupils at the school\n(d) preferential consideration upon graduation for training or apprenticeship programs and employment within these enterprises\n(e) creation of racially inclusive, nondiscriminatory work environments\nand (f) broad based racial and gender representation on appropriate advisory and governing boards of each of the business enterprises. In the event that it is necessary to modify these commitments, notice shall be provided to the parties and efforts will be made to continue the spirit of these commitments. EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES 1. student Education Plans (SEP's) shall be developed for each pupil who elects to attend the Aerospace Technology Magnet School. The plans shall be developed and then implemented in such a way as to insure that all pupils therein shall be \"mainstreamed\" into regular classes. If additional, out of class work is required in order to promote remediation to pupils to meet classroom work, the district shall offer it as needed at district expense either after school or on Saturdays. A principal objective of the SEP's is to allow the progress of each pupil to be measured periodically. It will also assist in determining individual teacher performance 4 05437 --------- --- for evaluation purposes. 2. The school shall employ a sufficient number of teacher assistants to insure that the serious teaching and learning objectives of the Aerospace Magnet School shall be achieved. 3. It is expected that all pupils who enroll in this school shall be promoted each year and graduate from high school on time and with appropriate educational credentials for further study and/or entry into college type programs. The only possible exceptions to this expectation are those pupils who, by objective standards, considered after sufficient time has expired for the SEP' s to work, demonstrate that they do not have either the capacity or interest for the required school work. 4. There shall be no \"tracking\" in the Aerospace Magnet School. Those teachers or other staff who either allow or engage in the practice shall be subject to formal discipline. Any discipline of teachers shall be in accordance with the Professional Negotiations Agreement (PNA). 5. The racial balance of the student body of the Aerospace Magnet School shall bear a reasonable relationship to the racial balance of the other high schools. It initially shall be sixty percent ( 60\\) b.l\"ack and forty percent ( 4 0%) white. The racial balance goal of the faculty shall be in reverse ratio due to the acknowledged shortage of black staff members. The district is committed, however, through the Settlement Plans, to increasing black staff by aggressive recruitment and by financial support for teacher aides who commit to obtain college training while on the 5 05438 l :\nI I job and a period of employment thereafter for the district. 6. The Aerospace Technology Magnet School shall be operated and supported by the district in those ways which do not diminish the status, faculty or student bodies of the other high schools. 7. All students at the Aerospace Technology Magnet School shall be privileged to participate in all school activities at all times provided their school work is first addressed to the level of their respective capacities and is otherwise acceptable. By agreement and stipulation of the parties, Exhibit \"A\" is modified as follows: PAGE AMENDMENTS Page 19 (Substitute first paragraph under caption \"HISTORY OF DESEGREGATION AND MAGNET SCHOOLS\") In 1986, the Federal District Court approved an interdistrict plan of desegregation between the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts. That plan provided interdistrict remedies of magnet schools and majority to minority transfers. The percentage of black students in North Little Rock is approximately forty-six (46) and in Pulaski County is approximately thirty (30). Page 215 During the period of construction of the Aerospace Technology Magnet School, it will be sited at the Metropolitan Vocational School located near Interstate Highway Thirty (30) in Southwest 6 05439 Little Rock. Architectural Plans are being developed and it is hoped that the school will be opened in the fall of 1992 or soon thereafter. (As a footnote, the architects who are working on these plans have conuni tted to make a biracial effort of their further work on this project.) Paga 23 SIBLING PREFERENCE There is and shall be no sibling preference for Magnet School assignment. Thus item six (6) on Page 23 is deleted. Page 27 Program Objective II (substituted) The District plan to open the Aerospace Technology Magnet School at Metropolitan High School on September, 1991, provided this grant application is timely approved, with the further expectancy that in September, 1992 or sooner thereafter the new school will be opened. The racral balance of the school shall be a range of black students within fifty-five to sixty-five percent and a range of white students between thirty-five and forty-five percent. Those -figures are comparable to the other senior high school enrollments. Page 29 (Last sentence on the page) Central High School has been successful in attracting white students from the Pulaski County and North Little Rock School 7 05440 Districts. -- Page 32 (Supplement) Other standardized tests confirm the above disparities in test results between at least black and white students. The district is committed to fully addressing and remedying these disparities. To this end outcome objectives shall be formulated and implemented for students at all grade levels. In this way, students may be expected to have their remedial and other learning needs met prior to the 9th and 10th grade transition into the Aerospace program. If those are not met, however, the Aerospace Magnet programs will be designed and implemented in a way to accomplish that objective. Page 36 (substitute) The Aerospace Technology Program will require students to have a firm grasp of basic skills. Those skills will be effectively taught to all students so that they will meet the high school standards in the areas of Algebra, Physical Science and Earth Science. The District will provide special support to underachieving pupils in order that those students may be equally successful in their classwork as the more advanced pupils. Page 52 (New paragraph 2) 8 05441 -- The planning process was not successful in including black citizens to the extent that it included white citizens as set out in paragraph one, supra. Nor did it include the LRSD Biracial Committee in the process. These unintentional omissions will be corrected forthwith and will not be repeated. The Biracial Committee and Joshua shall be fully represented in the Magnet School Planning Committee described in the next paragraph and shall otherwise be utilized to insure that this school meets its goals and expectations. Page 58 (a new last sentence on the page) This summer program, which will be at school district expense, shall not be used to defer, delay or withhold ongoing remediation and supplemental assistance to achievement. This is intended to supplement the opportunities students have for maximizing their abilities within the school. Page 59 (supplementary language) A program or teacher developed incentives will be put into place to assist with the motivation of students at the Aerospace Magnet. Page 60 (supplementary language to paragraph two) 9 05442 JJ -- outreach programs will be provided for all parents to inform them of the content of the aerospace program, opportunities for their students, and programmatic expectations for students' achievement. Special outreach efforts shall be made to parents of black and socio-economically deprived students to introduce these patrons to the program. Page 70 (new last paragraph) The foregoing staff is disproportionately white. The district is sensitive to this fact and shall work to insure that it, too, will be fully desegregated and integrated. Page 77 (supplemental language to paragraph two) The theme and focus shall permeate the entire program. Even courses such as physical education and physiology shall include concepts from math and science such as velocity, vector_s, and kinesthetics. Page 91 (new first paragraph) Student Education Plans (SEP' s) will be developed for all students. These SEP's will vary according to past student achievement. Appropriate intensive counseling will provide assistance and direction to students to insure that their 10 05443 I -- potentialities are developed to the fullest possible extent by virtue of their involvement in this program. Special efforts will be made to insure that black and socio-economically deprived students shall have no less opportunity for academic success than other students. Page 106 (last paragraph added) The District will work with the business community in general and specifically with the aerospace/aviation industry to insre summer jobs, part-time employment, mentorships, apprenticeships, and employment after graduation for those students who seek it. Page 108 (addition regarding adjunct teachers) Adjunct staff will include mentors, role models, and guest speakers for students. Seminars will also be held to allow students to interact with minority and female individuals who have careers in science, math, and fields related to the Aerospace Magnet program. Page 111 (addition to end of second paragraph) The figure $278 which is included in the discussion of Magnet program costs refers to the eventual cost of Magnet components only and is to be considered in addition to the per pupil cost which the 11 05444 I 1 I 1 I district expends, which is $2,165 on average at non-magnet, nonincentive schools. Page 116 (supplement to paragraph one) Success shall further be determined by analysis of statistics related to: number of program graduates employed in Arkansas aviation industry by race and gender number of program graduates entering post-secondary education especially fields related to math, science\nand aerospace technology by race and gender decrease in dropout rate as compared to other high schools such that the number of black students in the graduating class will be equivalent to the percentage of black students enrolled in the program Page 119 (final paragraph) The evaluatOr(s) will work closely with the school staff and be both sensitive and responsive to inquiries raised by the Joshua Intervenors, the district and/or school biracial committee(s) and the Office of Desegregation Monitor(ing). Page 146 (new paragraph three) 12 05445 'I I I 1,, : I I I 1 I I I ' I I -- There shall be a collaborative effort between the school district, Henderson State University and the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Arrangements will be sought with these colleges for college credit to be given for certain work completed at the Aerospace Magnet School and for the institutions to assist the magnet graduates with educational career planning. The undersigned parties stipulate and agree that a modification of the Little Rock School District desegregation plan to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School described in Exhibit \"A\" as modified above, subject to the contingencies described above, would largely complement their settlement plans and advance the voluntary desegregation efforts contemplated by those plans, al though the parties understand that this program might have a negative impact upon the further desegregation of Fuller Jr. High and Mills High School. It is therefore ordered that the Little Rock School District's desegregation plan is modified to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School described in Exhibit \"A\", as modified by this Stipulation and Consent Order, subject to the ~ following contingencies: 1. The Little Rock School District must receive the Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant, for which Exhibit \"A\" application, in a total amount of Four Million ($4,000,000.00) for 1991-92 and 1992-93\nand is its Dollars 2. The Arkansas Aviation Historical Society must contribute 13 05446 I I: - at least Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($ 4,500,000.00) as its share of the construction costs of the Aerospace Education Center which will house both the Aerospace Technology Magnet School and the Aerospace Museum. If either of these contingencies does not happen, the Little Rock School District will have no obligation to build the school or implement the Aerospace Technology program described in Exhibit \"A\". JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 BY:w~ VShnWalker WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third ::~cr:~:ctc1 Richard Roachell FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR J~ BY:~~ Chn.stoph~ Helle JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 BY~w~ SO ORDERED THIS ~ DAY OF FEBRUARY, H91. ~  ~v,., )11 1 .'J 11,:J.a.,, . ,-.Jl.-r:, 1   J, T SUSAN WEBBER r Glfl' c::\n7 1  ,\nUNITED srATES DISTRICT JUIX\nE 05447 Minutes Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership Meeting November 21, 1991 OEC 1 0 t99t Ql,.ce cl De egrGgation t o11l:cring The year end meeting of the Campaign Leadership of the Aerospace Education Center was held November 21 at the Statehouse Convention Center. The meeting was scheduled to precede the first National Leadership Institute on Aerospace Magnet Schools, co-hosted by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Little Rock School District. Committee members present were: J. Dan Baker, F. Taylor Brown, Frederick J. Menz, Maj. Gen. James Ryan, Charles M. Taylor, Wayne Bennett, Henry Broach, Marion B. Burton, Edgar K. Riddick and Lucien M. Taillac. Special guests were: Pat Gee - Little Rock School Board Member, Jim Dailey - Vice Mayor of the City of Little Rock, Tom Dalton - Manager of the City of Little Rock, Tony Wood - Deputy Superintendent of the Little Rock School District, Julie Speed - Special Assistant to Congressman Ray Thornton, Phillip Woodruff - Director of Aviation Education for the Federal Aviation Administration and Aerospace Education Center contributors Philip Jonsson, James Hamlen, Warner Gamer, Ruth Remmel and Emma Hall. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Dick Holbert. Mr. Holbert introduced Lucien M. Taillac, who reported on the fundraising progress to date. The cumulative total is $4,160,047.19 of the campaign's $6.5 million goal. This figure included $2.0 million in public funds - $1.5 million State of Arkansas and $500,000 from the City of Little Rock. A total of $2,660,047.19 has been pledged from foundation, corporate and personal gifts. The capital campaign of the Aerospace Education Center began in October 1990, and is scheduled to conclude in October 1992. Mr. Taillac recognized the contributors to the Aerospace ,, Education Center and expressed his deepest appreciation to all that helped the campaign reach 65% of its goal. Mr. Holbert gave special recognition to the City of Little Rock for their recent commitment of $500,000 for site improvements. This gift from the city will assist the Aerospace Education Center leadership in leveraging foundation support outside the state of Arkansas. Julie Speed, Special Assistant to Congressman Ray Thornton, reported on recent legislation passed by Congress that was signed by President Bush on October 28 enabling the FAA to grant funds to four aerospace magnet schools within the United States and 57 workshop programs. This legislation was initiated by Congressman Thornton and Senator Bumpers after former FAA Administrator James Busey delivered the keynote address at the April 12 Aerospace Education Center campaign kick-off luncheon. The FAA has become a national partner in the development of the museum/school facility, and was recently joined by NASA after a November visit to Arkansas by Dr. Eddie Anderson, Director of Elementary and Secondary Education for NASA. Mr. Holbert then introduced Mr. Phillip Woodruff, Director of Aviation Education for the FAA and coordinator of the National Leadership Institute on Aerospace Magnet Schools. He and Tony Wood discussed the itinerary of the Institute and participants, including school representatives from Long Beach, California, Phoenix, Arizona, Louisville, Kentucky, DuVal, Maryland and Atlanta, Georgia. Curriculum consultant Dr. Merv Strickler gave opening remarks at the Institute, followed by a presentation by each of the school districts represented. The keynote address of the Institute was given by Alicia Coro, Director of School Improvement Programs for the U.S. Department of Education. Ms. Coro oversees the $1.5 billion in federal funds that are distributed as grants and various educational assistance programs. Pat Gee, Little Rock School Board Member, gave supportive remarks on behalf of the District to the Aerospace Education Center's leadership, FAA, Department of Education and city and state officials that are working to make the Aerospace Education Center a first for Little Rock and Arkansas. As new business, Cathy Johnson announced that a special luncheon was being planned for February 6, 1992. This luncheon will feature two astronauts, Lt. Col. Donald McMonagle and Dr. Gerald Carr who will give the history and future of the space program. Mr. T. Wendell Butler, National Director of the Young Astronaut Program, and Dr. Eddie Anderson will also be making remarks. Lt. Gov. Jim Guy Tucker will be Master of Ceremonies. Information will be mailed around January 1 for reservations. Mr. Holbert concluded the meeting and invited all to attend the welcoming reception, hosted by the Aerospace Education Center leadership for the National Leadership Institute of Aerospace Magnet Schools. Respectfully submitted Catherine Johnson 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 :_7 2.8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 32 33 34 36 RESOIDTION NO. 8,602 A RESOIDTION EXPRESSING AN INTENT TO USE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO ENHANCE PROPERTY AT THE AIRPORT TO A'ITRACT AND DEVELOP AN AEROSPACE MUSEUM AND EDUCATION CENTER. WHEREAS, the City of Little Rock, (#the City#) has maintained an economic development fund so that the City can encourage and promote the creation and maintenance of jobs\nand WHEREAS, economic development of Little Rock is critical to the continued well-being of its citizens through increased job opportunities, and a growing base of revenues to support City activities\nand WHEREAS, cities and states throughout our nation to use funds for economic development to attract and industries and promote the creation and maintenance and continue maintain of jobs\nWHEREAS, the City through its Economic Development Fund made available approximately $3 million to enhance facilities at the Little Rock Airport which helped facilitate the creation of a new facility for Arkansas Aerospace, thereby leading to the creation of more than 300 jobs, which facility was dedicated recently\nand WHEREAS, the continued promotion of the aerospace industry as a key component to growth of the economic base of Little Rock is important to the future of the City\nand WHEREAS, citizens and businesses have joined together to plan for an aerospace museum and the Little Rock Aerospace Technology Magnet School (collectively \"the aerospace center\") as part of the Little Rock Airport area complex\nand WHEREAS, the commitment and specific participation of the City .to help the formation of this aerospace center is an important factor to urge commitments by other businesses and persons to join in the creation of the aerospace center\nand WHEREAS, the City will benefit and be strengthened by the ability of an aerospace center to enable our citizens to be trained for jobs in the related aerospace industry which is growing in Little Rock. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: ' '  1 ' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 SECTION 1. The City expresses its intent to participate in the effort to create an aerospace center by making available over a period of two years up to $500,000 of its economic development funds to be used for physical improvements to the Little Rock Airport property so as to enhance the operation of the aerospace center. SECTION 2. Examples of possible improvements to the Airport property which would aid the operation of this aerospace center may include street renovations, correction of drainage problems, and the construction of ramp facilities linking the education center to a runway. SECTION J. The Board of Directors notes that the use of these economic development funds will enhance the airport property of the City and will promote economic development by assisting the aerospace center and its effort to create an educated and capable work force for the aerospace industry. SECTION 4. The Board of Directors hopes that this commitment of the City will encourage citizens and businesses to join in the effort toward creation of the aerospace center. The Board of Directors also notes that only by continuing quality economic development can our City thrive and offer the services needed by its citizens, whether police and fire protection or other services. ADOPI'ED: November 5, 1991 ATTEST: APPROVED: s / Robbie Eanoock ROBBIE HANCOCK CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~ /1.{ . ~ THOMAS M. CARPEN!fEk CITY ATTORNEY s / Jim Dailey JIM DAILEY VICE ! lAYOR $2,000,000 $1 ,800,000 $1 ,600,000 $1,400,000 $1 ,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 0 0 0 0 0 en. T\"\" fh Gifts at: $500,000 Projected Ill Actual m Aerospace Education Center Campaign Goal - $6.5 Million December, 1991 (Campaign began on October 1, 1990 - conclusion on October 1, 1992) $250,000 $100,000 $50,000 $25,000 $10,000 Cumulative Total for Campaign Private and Local Funding: $2,685,047.19 State Funds: $1,500,000 Total: $4,185,047.19 Less than $10,000 ---\n- I( .,., 'ld  =1 \"~ \" l JJ ~ \\7 '\"\"\"\"s- ~ r r~,)-..,,1 1 ('7 ,\u0026lt;rff'Wt\n'/) WoJ \\ T'oJOJ.J r(f -.,.. loJ _..,./,..,--.y ~-~rt \"\"'\\ r\\V C, '\"( r,v.,,.._lf - (l S r'\\'\"\"'t7 T\"'t 7 \u0026lt;\"'(=. \"\"\"\") 7 ...._.IJJ.i i ~?  '  ....,,,,,., 70JJ .. ..,('V~r\n\u0026gt;\u0026lt;-C.tf \\ c,l ..... S' \\ ,,..'l,r.J) \\ ,.,,..., .. \\\"tr..,.. r'? -,.......,l ... 'i\u0026lt;\".' ...,,.,.,70..,j t ,., ..... 1 ?~r-... i -~, .,..,..., f s1 ~ \"' 1 J.c1 \"'\" r r7 ..11 \\ o,o ~ ..,,..Jr-1-,f{\" 7f '\"'0 f -f 7: = o I t \"~ 7-., I' 3lfl i \\ ,..,.,.,.,.., [ \"'\"'7.L)\n?\" ?} - r ( \u0026amp;c,,T.., S' ~,,......,':1s .,....a~ \\ ,.....,, ~ \\\\ \\\nf :i \"li 7 CY,' I i 1(,.,.,7 8e t1J t..---?.--.r 7'17 rr---r--r:?tl  ~-~,1 ~\n,77 / -.~ 'h- 000 00..S, JI I-,,.( Ot\n'?j 'cl r \\ O' -7r .--, r c  7ela-:Jz/ r-r\u0026gt;o ... ..,~n 7 s-.,717 : -:,Irr\" '\"'Cl z - \\'\"'\"(7 ? ~JJ 1r,.,, ~, --r-1\"\"\"'\u0026lt;\u0026gt;\n\u0026gt; i , ?(Yr,...\"11 r 1r 'Tl.-\n\u0026gt;  r ~\"r~ ~ .,,.,JT(Y,? .. 1/LJ Zb -c-e 4MM 4W -.1~f,,_ ~i :tyty~ asmrl'ef FROM '92 02/ 05 13:29 P.01 t A T ll E R I N E J O H N 5 0 N A N D A S S O C l A T E S l ltf/C' l\u0026lt;.11,:A. TO: FROM: Catherine Johnson .~--~ _._:)_- _ Pages, including this cover Special Instructions: ---------------- PLEASE CALL 371-0331 IF PROBLEM OCCURS DURING TRANSMISSION. Little Rock School District February 4, 1992 Mrs. Cathy Johnson Cathy Johnson \u0026amp; Associates 425 ii. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Johnson: since early in my tenure as Superintendent of the Little Rock School District, th~re has peen much interest in the establishment of what has come tobe known as the Aerospace Education Center: a joint-use facility consisting of a museum sponsored and operated by the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, and a magnet school, built by the Little Rock School District. The idea for the Center was included in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan and supported by the School Board. The Board committed to building the school following the successful millage election in April, 1990. Realizing that operation of the Aerospace School would be impossible without an additional infusion of money and believing that the concept of the school warranted review by the u. s. Department of Education's Magnet School Assistance Program, the District filed a grant application in December, 1990, for $4 million to operate the school. Subsequently, a court hearing was held, followed by a series of meetings with representatives for the Joshua Intervenors to make certain that their views as a party in the lawsuit were represented in the grant application. In July, 1990, the District learned that its grant application had not been approved. Since then various ideas have been discussed as to how the school could be funded and operated. In my opinion, the time has come to explore other funding possibilities since the posi~ion ot the Little Rock School District remains what it has been all along: that we can build the school but we cannot operate it since dollars which would be used to do so would have to be taken rrom existing schools and programs. I believe such discussions need to be held with individuals who have expressed interest in this project and whose experience and involvement would be helpful in discussing various funding options. I would like to invite you to be a participant in these discussions at a luncheon meeting to be held in my office on February 12, 1992 at 12 noon. If you are unable to be present, I invite you to send 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas n201  (501)~242000 ------------ ------------  - .. -- - . . FROM '92 02/ 05 13:32 P.02 a representative. Please call Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, my Executive Assistant, at 324-2012 to confirm your presence or to let her know who will attend in your place, I look forward to seeing you on February 12. Sincerely, ~ }.h1vk- Ruths. Steele Superintendent of Schools UHJT\u0026amp;D ITATN DIPARTMIJfT OP SDUCATSON WAIKlHOTOft, D,C. IOIOI-- N1, Oail Quinn l)irector A1ro1pace Ttchno1O11 Naant Proaram Lona B11ch Unified lchool Di1trict 701 Locij1t Avenue Lona ltacb, Califcrnia 90813 n,ar M1, QYinn:  J  writln1 to 1ou conc1rnin1 tht M11n1t lchool1/Titl1 IV Conf1r1no1 that la btina held in W\u0026amp;thin1ion from March 11 to 21, Thi theme of tht conf1rtnc1 it \"l11tructurin1 for,a~cationa !quitf and lxc1ll1nc1\", j In 11l1ctin1 wortahop topiot and pr111nt1r1, tht 1xp1ri1n\n1 and 1ccompli1hmtnt or arant111 who have 1chi1v1d 1ucc111 in ar1a1 that can benefit a 1i1nificant audience h\u0026amp;I b11n an important con1id1ration, Th co:porat, partntr1hip1 and involvtm,nt that Lona 111ch ha 11tabli1h1d and 1u1tain1d with th Aero  paot Ttchnolo11 Na1n1t proaram, involvina  1r11t deal of hard work on tb, part or botb tdu\nator, from tht Lona Beach Unified lchool Diatriot and repr111nt1tiv11 of 1ero1pac1 indu1tr1 oorpor1tion1, ttprc,,nt IUCh a IUCCIII, We art pld to learn of your 1nthu1ia1tic intertt ln conductina a work1hop on \"corporat, P1rtn1r1hip1\nluildina the 1ucc111ful ltlationahip\", Such a workahop, pr111ntin1 tht per1pectiv11 of both th achool diatrict and tht b~1in111 oommunitY r1pre11nt\u0026amp;tivt1 who hav, worked to1ether to develop a viable p1rtn1r1hip, will be of major btntfit to 10hool dl1trict1 who have 11riou1 commitment, to the d1vtlopm1nt or onacina  partn1r1hip1 with America' bu1in111 community, A1 you know, the America 2000 1trat111 ,tr tht importano, of involv~nt of the bu1ine11 oommynity and itt rot, in provldtna both people and r110urct1 to htlp catalyze ntedtd chan1 in our 1chool1 and l apprtciatt your tf!orta to htlp u, brin1 thi1 panel to11th1r, Jn clo1in1, I ant to wi1h you continued 1ucce11 with tht Aero1p1c1 Techn0Jo11 Proaram. If you n11d additional information concernina the con!trtnce, pl1111 feel fr to contact Annie Maok at (202) 401-0358, ' linClfl 1 )' ~ Al i~i\u0026amp; Coro Di rector School Improvemont Pro1ram1 1l1m1ntary and Secondary Education ' .:) (' ,1.. t'\\ - . ~ ) !IAONlf ICHOOLS l DIIEORIOATION PROOR.t,c c:.rLHATlONA~ CONflRINCI RIITRUCTURJNO POR IOVCATIONAL IQUifY AND IXCILLINCI 1:00 ,.  t:30 p  ,,,o pa 8:10 ,.  1:00 pa WIDN!IDAT, MARCH 11 Check rn Nixer HAQHIT ICHOOLI 6 DISEOREOATlON PROORANI NATIONAL CONPIAINCI RESTRUCTVRINO 10R IDUOATIOHAL 19U1TY AND IXCILLINCI !HVRIDAY, NAJtCR 11 '7:30   llCi  t.ration 1:10   1130  or,,un,, ,,ao .. -11,41  11:U .... 1: on a111 ~-co -~ I pa - 3146 ,f) 3:60 pa .. 1100 pa l:U pa 7100 ,. Ovtrvltw Rt11ark1 Xtynote Annie Hack Conftrenct Coordinator 11vta Wrilht Chief, Hll\u0026gt;I Janice William1-Madi1on z,.s, reotor, IIID AlJoia Coro Dhotor, HP John MacDonald A11l1tant lecretary ~A,1tructurin1 for ldueational 1Qij1\\J and lxoell,nae\" Wotkthop l111ion1  Pl~iblt Cott,, Br,a\u0026gt;c lch1dult u Lunch On Tour Own ~ork1hop l111ion1  Pltxiblt Cofftt lrtak lohtdule u Croup H11Un11 (Job Alike s,,,1on1) Rec,pUon - NAQNIT ICHOOLI I DIIEORIOATION PROOAAkl NATIONA~ CON11RINCI REITRUCTURINO POR IDUCATIONAL IQUITY AND IXCILLIHOI ?,!:l\u0026gt;AY.L MARCH 10 ,,ao  - t:1s  Introduction Alicia Coro Director, 11, ...... --- \"\"\"' t:U .. - '\u0026lt;- 11 r30 \u0026amp;Ill 11:30 .. -1114\u0026amp; All 11: 41 .. - 1,00 PIii ... 1: 00 J)II  3:30 PID 3130 , ... 4iSO P  le)'note \"Challeni ot ntver itya New Opportuniti11 for l~c1llenc1 and lquit,~ To be deterained Workahop \u0026amp;c11ion1  Flexible Cott11 lrtak1  Pr Tim Luncheon Workahop l111ion1  Flexible Cott,, lr1ak1  Otneral lion: ~u11tion1 l An1w1r1 Alicia CoH ltlvia Writht Kathrrn lllh OCR R1pr1  entative Other1 (lf n1ce11ary) R11ional Meetin11 (Hotted by DAC1\u0026gt; I  Pa\n a G, iBACZ%HGlA11LITX GIOUPtU Wcrk1hop will dilCUII 1,\nal i11ue1, tdUCltiona1 rt111rch and 1chool policy a1ttrnativ11 and option re\nardin9 ability 1rou,in\nand tracking, l'::1co8PQJV,TI fARTNIIIK!fli IUitp!MQ THI IUOClllfUL IIMA!!OBIBI2 ~khop will provide a dttai1td di1eu11ion of th challent to buildin\n viable lon\nter~ rel1tion1hip, Di1cu11ion Will include ~oth 1chool and bu1int11 per1ptctiv11. t. -11xUAL HAIASSHINT MP Pil,BIMIMATIQff %1.JPYCATIQK work1hop will di1ou11 i11u11 of 11xual hara11ment and other torm1 of\n1ndtr-ba11d diterimination in elementary an4 11ccnd1ry educational prooram, and a\nenei11. Wcrk  hop will cover problem, faced by both atu4ent1 and 1t1ff in elementary and 11oond1r1 1choo11. J. THI CRA.NOIMG plMOGRAPHICS or AMIIIQA'I ITVPIITI !ht work1hop will provide di1cu11ion of d1to\nr1pbic ch1n911 already underway, how they afftct you (no matter whtr rou art), and what to exptct in the year, ahead. Workthop will a 10 p:11,nt 14111 about 1tep1 that can bt ta~en to work with incr111in9ly diver popu1atioDI, i. ITU~INT TIITINQ AIP ASSIIIMlff! Work1hop will provide a di1eu11ion of new approach to 111111m1nt, and mtnt implication  ari1in\nfrom incrta1in9 divtr1ity in tht t~d,nt population. L, UBIKTAt %KYQLVIMIXT\nMAIIHA IT WT Work1hop will focu, on 1ptcific 1tr1tt\ni to incr111, parental involvement at tltmtntary, middle and hi\nh 10hool ltYtll, W0rk1hop will include di10~11ion of parental 1nvolv1m1nt cent1r1, 1it1 m1na\n1mtnt, hom,-achool 111i1on 1t1ff, and other 1ppro1cb11, H, MAGNlf ICHOQL MABJITING AlfJ) BIQBYiffllMT Wcrk1hop will provi4t  di1cu11ion of planning and policy con1idtr1tion1, r11our011, and 1tr1t1\ni11 for markttin\nand rtoruitment 1ftort1, inoludin\nactivititl that involv communitf l1ad1r1 and parent,. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND GAIL QUINN Sl 71 Lampt0n Avenue Los Alamitos, California 90720 (213) S98-6773 1985 California State Univenity, Domlneuez Hilla M.A. Education  Administrative Emphaais 1970  1984 Post-iraduatc work at California State Unlver1lty, Irvine: Pcppcrdine Univenity\nCalifomia State Univmity, Lon\u0026amp; Beach 1963  1967 Central Connecticut State CoUe,e, New Britain, Connecticut B.S. Education\nM.S. Cour1ework completed Remedial Reedini and Speech CREDENTIALS Califumiil AdminiJtrative Services Credential. K-12 Lolli Beach Unlfit.d School District, Clinic.al Supervision, 1986 California Standard Teachin\u0026amp; Credential, Valid for Life Connecticut T cach!n\u0026amp; Credential PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE  California Dcpiirtment of Education Committee of Practltlonen for Vocational Education, 1991-1994  Education Task Force on Science and TechnoloiY for Governor Wit.on, 1991 LONG BEACH UN1F1ED SCHOOL DISTRICT Asli$tant Director, Aerospace Teclmolo\u0026amp;Y Ma~et Proeram (1989  Present) Astutant ~tor, Special Grants Office { 1987-1989) and writer of the followin\u0026amp; er\nnt awards:  U.S. Dep1Utmcnt of Education: ~et Schoch Allina.nee Pro,ram, 1989  $3,143,7.30, 1990  $3,118,510  U.S. Department of Education: Drua Free Schoola and Community Educational Penonnel TrainirlJ P~, 1989. $.3.30,000  U.S. Department of Education: School Dropout Demon1tration Prosram, 1988  $19S, 9S8 1989  $2.51, ~  U.S. Department of Education: P~m of Transitional Bilinsual Education, 1988  $328,005  Federal ACTION Aiency: Dru1 Allianct Grant, 1988  $29, 127  Smc Office of Criminal Jultice Plannini: Supprea1ion of Dru1 Abuse in the School Pro,ram, 1988  $145,824  State Office of Criminal Justice Plannini: Gana Violence Suppretsion Prc,ram, 1988  $247,048  California Department of Eduation: Workability 1 lor the Severely Diaah!ed Hiah School Student, 1988  $34,750  Ciilifomia Department of Education: Early Intervention for School Succe11, $15,000  Kni\u0026amp;ht Foundation: Up With Literacy School Dropout Procram, 1987  $.SO, 000\n1989, $60,000  California Educational Initiatives fund: Up With Literacy, 1988  $10, JS0  Califomta Educational lnltiatlves Funds: C.A.S.T. (C.ommunity and School Tutorin1), 1988. $10,818 PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE (continued)1 Prorram Facilitator  Specially Funded Proerama: ECIA Chapt I, School Imero-.,cmcnt. State Blllnaual Education. Reapon,iblc for pro,ram implementation and evaluation and blJditt preparation. 1979  1986 State Cerdf'ae.d Trainer  Proi?'am Quality Review, 1986  1989  State Certified Team Lead  Proeram Quality Review, conducted aix Pro,ram Quality Revfewa In lnilewood, Puadena, and Alhambra, 1984 -1989 ESEA Tide I Readin\u0026amp;llanauaee SpedalJlt, 1974-79 Muter Teacher, Profeulonal Development Center\nState Funded Demonstration Project, Ee.ential Blementa of Effective Inmuctton.tltrucal Superviaion (Madeline Hunter wcructional Model), 1973-74 DiaPtlJa'nlcnt inT\u0026amp;ra ainnedr Goftv Tiena, cDheirre Actiidonesa .o n the topic, of Reinforcement, Motivation, Active Participation, U.S. Department of Health, Education \u0026amp;. Welfare Roosevelt Roada Naval Station, Pueno Rico Classroom Teacher and ChaifPCt10n c:oordinatlna curriculum for Ba,e Schools 1967-69 Weat Hartford Public School, Classroom Teacher, orpnlie(! non-ifaded dlllr'OOm level,, 1963-67 PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS/CONFERENCE LEADERSHIP,  Institute for Manufacturtna Automation Reacarch, Hushes Aire.raft Company Aerospace Tcchnglggy Mam~. February 1991 and April 1991  National Committee for School ~ation and U.S. Ocparanent of Education. Aurbcmck AMmn,:ru. April 1991  California Vocational Education C.Onfcrcnce, Acrnwasc Iccboo!ozy Memu May 1991  LoJnaan uBaerayc h1 9ln91d,u Matraiarcl hE d19u9c1a tion Council Conference, 'Aeros\nas\ne J)chnology M1gnc\nt', May 1990,  Articulation Conference,  Acroapasc Iecbnplggy Mamet\", Cerritos Communtty Collcec, April 1990  Southern CaI!fomia Acroll)ace Indum-y Education Counctl Articulation Conference at El Camino Colle,e,  AcroSppq\nIecbnglogy MW)~, February 1990  NaWtioa naahlt nSecthoono, lD B.Coa. rd, Alsociation Leilslative Conference, Aerospace Ieclmo!AiY Ma~. l989,  Mac World Conference, Aeromice Iechnolge:y Marner Promm. November 1989  En1l1sh ~cil ofLorti Beach, Chairpenon, 1986 Fall Conference  PwScttadfuf rDese vMelaonpumale nfot,r 1L9:8a6cl-e8a7 of Fromm Qualjcy Review, Aurbac/Sm:am, LBUSD Academy for  LBUSD Board of Education MeetlnJ, 1985, The ProiT'Bm Quality Review Procea  LBUSD Literacy Conference Proaram Chairpenon, 1984 \u0026amp; 1985  LBUSD Literacy Conference, 19B4, 'Teachlni Low Achievers co Write'  LBUSD Bilinaual Procedure, Committee, 1982  LBUSD Compensatory Education, ln-Scrvicc, 1981, ~rlttn, Skilla\"  LBUSD Board of Education Meet in,, 1980, 'The Readina Proar-m   LBUSD Staff'Development, author/1pe11kcr, 1975, ne LBUSD Lanauaac Continuum PROFESSIONAL AFFILIA TIONS1 Executive Board, En,liah Council ofU)nj Beach Delta Kappa Gamma International Honor Society for Women in Educ.ation Treasurer, Secretary PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS (contlnuedh Phi Delta Kappa Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development International Read in, Asaoctation National Council of T cachcn of Enilllh HONORS Who's Who ip tbe we,u. 1982  a.irrent Loni Beach City College Cettiftcate of Appreciation fur Work Experience Education, 1980-81 Scholanhip, Future Teachers of America, 1959-1963 Academic Honors Graduate, Central Connecticut State Collqe, 1963 SUPERVISOR Dr. W!ltiam Marmion, LBUSD Director of Curriculum and ln,tructlonal Reao1Jrces Work Addreas and Phone Number Horne Addres5 and Phone Number 800 Locust Avenue 371 Manila Long Beach, CA 90813 Lone Bt.aeh, CA 90814 (213) 436-9931, Ext. 7193 (213) 597-4030 Sept. - Nov. Dec. 1989 Jan. March May July July Sept. - Oct. J...22Q_ Jan. Feb. Mar. Mar. Apr. May JuneJuly Aug. Sept. Aerospace Education Center Arkansas Museum of Aviation Hi~tory History of Progress February 12, 1992 Feasibility Study conducted for Arkansas Aviation Historical Society. (fo detennine feasibility of raising $4.5 million for Arkansas Museum of Aviation History) 100 samples. Feasibility Study completed- determined that $3.0 in private funds could be raised for the Aviation Museum. Recommended that a $1.5 million challenge grant be sought during the 1989 Legislative session. Legislation sponsored by Senators Max Howell and Jerry Jewell for $1.8 million challenge grant ($1.5 million for AAHS, $300,000 for LRAFB Air Park) Act 716 passed unanimously by Ge,1eral Assembly. Arkansas Museum of Aviation History formed planning committee for museum. Little Rock School District Board Member contacts AAHS museum committee to request meeting concerning possible school with museum. Metropolitan Supervisor, Eugene Reville, meets with AAHS museum committee to discuss school/muse um. Public meetings in zones of Little Rock School District board members held by Eugene Reville. AAHS members invited to attend and make comments on the feasibility of school/museum. Eugene Reville recommends combination Aerospace High School/Aviation Museum to Federal Court. Campaign leadership recruited for aerospace museum. Sharon Priest, Win Rockefeller, Jack Stephens, and Herschel Friday named Honorary Chairmen. William H. Bowen and Richard Holbert named Chairman and Vice Chainnan. Planning meetings begin with Little Rock School District, City Officials, Little Rock Airport Commission, AAHS concerning curriculum and community involvement. Metropolitan Supervisor, Eugene Reville, dies tragically in auto accident. Millage election for Little Rock School District passes - $6 million allocated for construction of the Aerospace High School. Col. Walter J. Boyne, retired Executive Director of the National Air \u0026amp; Space Museum, retained as consultant to Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. AAHS members meet with Little Rock School Board Members to discuss plans for Museum/School. Little Rock School Board unanimously endorses Museum/School, and includes $6 million for construction in budget. Federal Aviation Administration officials visit Little Rock to learn details of Museum/School. Oct. Catherine Johnson visits Washington at invitation of the FAA, which plans itinerary for Mrs. Johnson with: 1. Department of Education - Sylvia Wright 2. NASA - Dr. Robert Brown 3. Young Astronaut Council - Wendell Butler 4. National Science Foundation 5. Goddard Space Center Following visit to Washington with Department of Education officials, Catherine Johnson, Marion Burton, Dr. Ruth Steele and Dr. Herb Oeek meet to discuss the information Catherine Johnson learned about the Magnet School Assistance Grant Program. Nov. AAHS begins $6.5 million campaign for aerospace museum. Dec. Little Rock School District submits $4 million magnet school assistance grant application for Aerospace Technology Magnet High School. l22l Little Rock Airport Commission Resolution dedicates 19.8 acres for the Aerospace Education Center site. Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation approves $500,000 challenge grant for AEC. Feb. 4 Inclusion by Judge Wright of the Aerospace Technology Magnet High School into the settlement plan. Mar. 30 General Assembly unanimously passed Act 168, $1.5 million challenge grant for the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. April 4 FAA Administrator Award in Educational Excellence presented at the National Congress in New Orleans to Dr. Ruth Steele and Mayor Sharon Priest. April 11 Dr. Herb Oeek, Deputy Superintendent, dies suddenly. April 12 Capital Campaign Kick-off Luncheon -Admiral James B. Busey, keynote speaker. June 15 Match requirement for State Challenge Grant fulfilled. June Senator Dale Bumpers hosts luncheon with Congressmen John Paul Hammerschmidt and Ray Thornton, as well as Don Harrell of Senator Pryor's staff concerning Little Rock School District's application for Magnet School Assistance Grant. Aug. 20 Little Rock School District's Magnet School Assistance Grant application declined by U.S. Department of Education .. Sept. 10 FAA authorization to grant funds for 4 secondary schools. Initiated by Congressman Ray Thornton and Senator Dale Bumpers. Sept. 16-17 Dr. Merv Strickler, curriculum consultant recommended by the FAA, visits Little Rock. Nov. 2 Nov. 5 Dr. Eddie Anderson, NASA official visits Little Rock City of Little Rock approves $500,000 grant for site improvement. Nov. 21-22 FAA National Leadership Institute on Aerospace Magnet Schools. NASA, U.S. Dept. of Education and school districts from across the nation participated in a 2 day aviation and space workshop. Mrs. Alicia Coro, Director of School Improvement Programs for the U.S. Dept. of Education, was keynote speaker at the luncheon. Nov. 26 Donation of Huey Helicopter by the Arkansas National Guard. Dec. 31 Funds pledged to date-$2,233,147 (Private) and $2,000,000 (Public) 1992 Feb. Aerospace Education Center hosts first educational luncheon for 1100 students, educators and business leaders with Lt. Col. Don McMonagle, Dr. Gerald Carr, Dr. Eddie Anderson as special guests discussing America's role in space. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Federal Funding Sources Identified for the Aerospace Technology Magnet High School Department or Education Chapter 2, State Block Grants Office of Elementary and Secondary Education School Improvement Program School Effectiveness Division (202)401-1154 Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education School Improvement Programs School Effectiveness Division (202)401-0841 Magnet Schools Assistance Programs Office of Elementary and Secondary Education School Improvement Programs Equity and Educational Excellence Division (202)401-0358 Women's Education Equity Act Program Office Of Elementary and Secondary Education School Improvement Programs Equity and Educational Excellence Division (202)401-0351 Star Schools Program Office of Educational Research and Improvement Educational Networks Division (202)357-6200 Educational Partnerships Program Office of Educational Research and Improvement Educational Networks Division (202)357-6116 FIRST: Schools and Teachers Program Office of Educational Research and Improvement Fund for the Improvement and Refonn of Schools and Teaching (202)357-6496 Ma.!hematics and Science Education National Programs Office of Educational Research and Improvement Fund for the Improvement and Refonn of Schools and Teaching (202)357-6496 Cooperative Demostration Project Education Federal Aviation Administration H.R. 2942: When our research discovered a restriction on direct funding of secondary schools by the FAA, Congressman Ray Thornton and Senator Dale Bumpers worked successfully to amend their funding authority to include up to four aviation secondary schools and up to 57 swnrner workshop programs. NASA Various programs described by Dr. Eddie Anderson during his Nov. 1 visit to Little Rock. National Science Foundatjon Teacher Enhancement and Preparation Grant ~ 7u4R /n- rf ~- ~ Jw P J du._- f/811 fn,~,. .1  ~ M,..,, . .,,.,,.,,., t~ ~~- ~Gl ~ . ~ I WJ II\"-\u0026lt; u,...._.\nt rlJ\n-~p Crus~- 41~1~~ k,,J_ ~ r~vA- tWf - ~ w._,~Cnf 3~! ~~()~~~ ~t~ ~ ~ ~ cL~~ !ir ~j 2-/Z-92- f..._ ~'- l~-v [, rc.-9 J -:z Jc),., d )Lo...J ulJ\n1. J Jo w:tL~t /\"\"\"\" fi)u\"''\"'., oJ ,.\"-ff \"r-i. IJ~)I )1:\n,w de.,J_  c__---= D I S C U S S I O N A G E N D A F O R A E R O S P A C E E D U C A T I O N C E N T E R L U N C H E O N / M E E T I N G WELCOME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Ruth Steele UPDATE ON AEROSPACE LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN ....... Mr. Dick Holbert LRSD'S COMMITMENT AND CONSTRAINTS ............. Dr. Ruth Steele OPEN DISCUSSION: - POSSIBILITY OF FOLDING IN THE GOVERNOR'S MATH/SCIENCE SCHOOL - APPLICATION FOR MAGNET SCHOOL ASSISTANT GRANT, FAA GRANT, AND OTHER POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES - JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ISSUE - POSSIBILITY OF NAMING A PROJECT DIRECTOR, CURRICULUM CONSULTANT, AND ENGAGING A GRANT WRITER - FORMATION OF JOINT COMMITTEE 1988 Sept. - Nov. Dec. 1989 Jan. March May July July Sept. - Oct. l22Q. Jan. Feb. Mar. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Aerospace Education Center Arkansas Museum of Aviation History History of Progress February 12, 1992 Feasibility Study conducted for Arkansas Aviation Historical Society. (To determine feasibility of raising $4.5 million for Arkansas Museum of Aviation History) 100 samples. Feasibility Study completed - determined that $3.0 in private funds could be raised for the Aviation Museum. Recommended that a $1.5 million challenge grant be sought during the 1989 Legislative session. Legislation sponsored by Senators Max Howell and Jerry Jewell for $1.8 million challenge grant ($1.5 million for AAHS, $300,000 for LRAFB Air Park) Act 716 passed unanimously by General Assembly. Arkansas Museum of Aviation History formed planning committee for museum. Little Rock School District Board Member contacts AAHS museum committee to request meeting concerning possible school with museum. Metropolitan Supervisor, Eugene Reville, meets with AAHS museum committee to discuss school/museum. Public meetings in zones of Little Rock School District board members held by Eugene Reville. AAHS members invited to attend and make comments on the feasibility of school/museum. Eugene Reville recommends combination Aerospace High School/Aviation Museum to Federal Court. Campaign leadership recruited for aerospace museum. Sharon Priest, Win Rockefeller, Jack Stephens, and Herschel Friday named Honorary Chairmen. William H. Bowen and Richard Holben named Chairman and Vice Chairman. Planning meetings begin with Linle Rock School District, City Officials, Linle Rock Airport Commission, AAHS concerning curriculum and community involvement. Metropolitan Supervisor, Eugene Reville, dies tragically in auto accident. Millage election for Little Rock School District passes - $6 million allocated for construction of the Aerospace High School. Col. Walter J. Boyne, retired Executive Director of the National Air \u0026amp; Space Museum, retained as consultant to Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. AAHS members meet with Little Rock School Board Members to discuss plans for Museum/School. Little Rock School Board unanimously endorses Museum/School, and includes $6 million for construction in budget. Federal Aviation Administration officials visit Little Rock to learn details of Museum/School. Oct. Catherine Johnson visits Washington at invitation of the FAA, which plans itinerary for Mrs. Johnson with: 1. Department of Education - Sylvia Wright 2. NASA - Dr. Robert Brown 3. Young Astronaut Council- Wendell Butler 4. National Science Foundation 5. Goddard Space Center Following visit to Washington with Department of Education officials, Catherine Johnson, Marion Burton, Dr. Ruth Steele and Dr. Herb Oeek meet to discuss the information Catherine Johnson learned about the Magnet School Assistance Grant Program. Nov. AAHS begins $6.5 million campaign for aerospace museum. Dec. Little Rock School District submits $4 million magnet school assistance grant application for Aerospace Technology Magnet High School. Little Rock Airport Commission Resolution dedicates 19.8 acres for the Aerospace Education Center site. Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation approves $500,000 challenge grant for AEC. Feb. 4 Inclusion by Judge Wright of the Aerospace Technology Magnet High School into the settlement plan. Mar. 30 General Assembly unanimously passed Act 168, $1.5 million challenge grant for the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. April 4 FAA Administrator Award in Educational Excellence presented at the National Congress in New Orleans to Dr. Ruth Steele and Mayor Sharon Priest. April 11 Dr. Herb Oeek, Deputy Superintendent, dies suddenly. April 12 Capital Campaign Kick-off Luncheon-Admiral James B. Busey, keynote speaker. June 15 Match requirement for State Challenge Grant fulfilled. June Senator Dale Bumpers hosts luncheon with Congressmen John Paul Hammerschmidt and Ray Thornton, as well as Don Harrell of Senator Pryor's staff concerning Little Rock School District's application for Magnet School Assistance Grant. Aug. 20 Little Rock School District's Magnet School Assistance Grant application declined by U.S. Department of Education .. Sept. 10 FAA authorization to grant funds for 4 secondary schools. Initiated by Congressman Ray Thornton and Senator Dale Bumpers. Sept. 16-17 Dr. Merv Strickler, curriculum consultant recommended by the FAA, visits Little Rock. Nov. 2 Nov. 5 Dr. Eddie Anderson, NASA official visits Little Rock City of Little Rock approves $500,000 grant for site improvement. Nov. 21-22 FAA National Leadership Institute on Aerospace Magnet Schools. NASA, U.S. Dept. of Education and school districts from across the nation participated in a 2 day aviation and space workshop. Mrs. Alicia Coro, Director of School Improvement Programs for the U.S. Dept. of Education, was keynote speaker at the luncheon. Nov. 26 Donation of Huey Helicopter by the Arkansas National Guard. Dec. 31 Funds pledged to date -$2,233,147 (Private) and $2,000,000 (Public) 1992 Feb. Aerospace Education Center hosts first educational luncheon for 1100 students, educators and business leaders with Lt. Col. Don McMonagle, Dr. Gerald Carr, Dr. Eddie Anderson as special guests discussing America's role in space. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Federal Funding Sources Identified for the Aerospace Technology Magnet High School Department or Education Chapter 2, State Block Grants Office of Elementary and Secondary Education School Improvement Program School Effectiveness Division (202)401-1154 Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education School Improvement Programs School Effectiveness Division (202)401-0841 Magnet Schools Assistance Programs Office of Elementary and Secondary Education School Improvement Programs Equity and Educational Excellence Division (202)401-0358 Women's Education Equity Act Program Office Of Elementary and Secondary Education School Improvement Programs Equity and Educational Excellence Division (202)401-0351 Star Schools Program Office of Educational Research and Improvement Educational Networks Division (202)357-6200 Educational Partnerships Program Office of Educational Research and Improvement Educational Networks Division (202)357-61 I 6 FIRST: Schools and Teachers Program Office of Educational Research and Improvement Fund for the Improvement and Reform of Schools and Teaching (202)357-6496 Mathematics and Science Education National Programs Office of Educational Research and Improvement Fund for the Improvement and Reform of Schools and Teaching (202)357-6496 Cooperative Demostration Project Education Federal Aviation Administration H.R. 2942: When our research discovered a restriction on direct fimding of secondary schools by the FAA, Congressman Ray Thornton and Senator Dale Bumpers worked successfully to amend their funding authority to include up to four aviation secondary schools and up to 57 summer workshop programs. NASA Various programs described by Dr. Eddie Anderson during his Nov. 1 visit to Little Rock. National Science Foundatjon Teacher Enhancement and Preparation Grant AEROS /) 2 -24 -92.. ft,,u~ :\nId /n\u0026lt;- l\nw ~}) J ).,w)J ,JJ jr\n,J? ~ lJ_ fl f_ ._.}J.I\u0026gt;, Or- ,LL L JLJ \"~ ,U,\" t-L Jt2= tL.J. !1. ~w U CP v.:1.. ?l)l - Drs. Charles A. Stevens and Gaylord Northrop TRIP REGARDING AEROSPACE PROGRAMS February 24-26, 1992 Monday. February 24. 1992 11:30 a.m. (includes lunch) (map attached) Mr. Lewis D. Davis, Program Manager Center for Aerospace Education South Mountain High School 5401 South 7th Street Phoenix, AZ 85040 Phone: (602) 271-3439 Tuesday. February 25. 1992 9:00 a.m.-1 :00 p.m. (includes lunch) Ms. Gail Quinn, Aerospace Magnet Program Manager Long Beach Unified School District, Room AB407 701 Locust Avenue Long Beach, CA 90813 Phone: (310) 436-9931, EXT. 1402 Wednesday. February 26. 1992 9:00-10:00 a.m. 10: 15-11 :30 a.m. Dr. Gene Little, Chairman Department of A via ti on San Jose State University 1 Washington Square San Jose, CA 95192-0081 Phone: ( 408) 924-6580 Mr. George E. O'Neel, Project Director, Aerospace Program Burnett Academy Middle School 850 orth 2nd Street San Jose, CA 95112 Phone: ( 408) 998-6267 Some Conclusions from Visits to Aerospace Schools: Phoenix, Arizona .......... 24 Feb. 1992 Long Beach, California .... 25 Feb. 1992 San Jose, California ...... 26 Feb. 1992 Dr. Charles Stevens \u0026amp; Dr. Gaylord Northrop 28 February 1992 M-2019 1. Aerospace magnet schools are feasible (and fun). 2. Initiation, operation, and growth of an aerospace magnet school requires commitment of:  All participating school districts.  The Federal Government: DoEd, FAA, NASA, DoD, etc.  Local Industry. 3. The aerospace magnet school Program Manger is vital to the success of the Program.  The Program Manager should devote full time to program management (i.e., no teaching duties).  The Program Manager need not be a science or math teacher, or a former pilot (or astronaut).  Communications skills, dedication, and a \"can do\" attitude are all-important. 4. There is a wealth of material, equipment, people and assistance available to start an aerospace magnet school program.  Program startup requires money, and a lot of hard work and long hours on the part of the Program Manager and program teachers.  A high degree of cooperation, materials and assistance can be expected from Program Managers and others in existing programs. 5. An aerospace magnet program should begin as early as possible (fourth grade, or earlier).  The potential success for a two-year program beginning with the eleventh grade is judged low by the Program Managers we visited. It II  - - ..U '' ! '! - I,, '! ' I II I! II \" \"I II 'I 'I ..!J. 'I rr~r-rrrr7rr~~~r.rrrr~rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~ National Advisory Hoard Dr. Edel it~ Anderson Col. Walt,r J. lloym Lt . fif'n. Benjamin 0. 1)\n1vi, Gen. Alfred C. H\n:instn Phillip S. Woodruff Honorary Chairmen Hrrsrh,1 H. Friday M rtyor Shr1ron M. PriPst Winthrop I'. Horkl'f\u0026lt;'ll\u0026lt;'r Jackson T. St(plwns Little Rock School I Hstric.:t S11prn11trndt\u0026gt;11t Tony Wood f)pputy S11pen11trndrnt CampaiJ,.!n l.1aclc rship Wil\\ir11111!.Row1n Chairman Hidrnrd N. llnllH\"rt v\n,.,. Cl1nin~1rm Mario11 B. Burton PrPsidrnl J. Dan !laker J. IV, \"Boddy\" lknafi, ld 0. \\V:tynt Bcmwtt William C. Bnu:a, I hnry A. lfro,ich lkp. ln11 :1 111111\\n Hrown F. Taylor Brown David M. Clark fncl K. llarragh,Jr. l\u0026gt;t n ni, I). llavi..\nLee FrnziPr Charles II. Harp, r E. Ray K,mp John l.twrlhn Donna K. Md..,1r1y Sandy S. McMath Fndrrirk J. M,n7. Edward \\1. Penick, Sr. !{11th l~cmnwl Edgar K. lfoldick. Jr. Jamt~ R Hodgtr:,\nLuciC'n M. Taillrle Charlt:,\nM. T\niylor Jim c\nuy Tuckn State Aclvisory Hoard Dr. Ctrald P. C\n1rr Nathan Gurdon Rob,rt /1. Gordon Col. Albert Hart (ll.S.A.F .. Ret.) Or. William R. Pogue Louis I~ Kam~ay Major Ct\"tlt'ral J.irn1..\nA. Hyan M. M. 'Twig\" Satterfield, Jr. Col. Charil-sJ. Wax D\u0026lt;'vl'lopmcnt Coum~cI Catlwri1u J. John~on \"Fortune favors the prepared mind.\" ~- DUCATIONCENTER Dr. Ruth Steele Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Steele: February 27, 1992 I enjoyed our telephone conversation of the 25th. I appreciate your returning my call. We covered a number of issues. For your benefit and mine, and for the benefit of the board members, the following is a summary of our discussion: 1. The School District and the Aviation Historical Society along with UALR, shall not pursue an effort to submit a joint proposal to incorporate the Arkansas School for Mathematics and Science with the Aerospace Education Center. Since applications must be submitted no later than April 3rd, the time is simply not available to structure a winning proposal. 2. The Historical Society will continue to work with the School District to bring the Aerospace Education Center to fruition. The worth of the project to the community demands it and the voters in the last millage election have every right to expect it. The Historical Society will continue to assist the School District in any way that it can to help the District overcome its financial concerns about the project. Specifically, the Historical Society shall: a. Engage Dr. Mervin Strickler to draft a model aerospace curriculum for grades 7 through 12, the costs for which shall be borne by the Society. b. Underwrite at the cost of approximately $21,000, the fee for Ms. Gail Quinn of Long Beach, CA to assist in the preparation of a Magnet School Assistance Grant Proposal, the deadline for which is December 15, 1992. A copy of Ms. Quinn's proposal and the scope of her work is attached. c. Assist Senator Jerry Jewell in an effort to obtain state funds for the operation of the Aerospace Education Center whose outreach shall extend throughout the state. Presumably the program will be patterned after the State Math and Science School except that there shall not be an exclusive \"residential\" focus. Page Two Dr. Ruth Steele d. Investigate funding possibilities through a collaboration with UALR. e. Investigate funding possibilities through private foundation sources. 3. The School District shall continue the planning process with the Historical Society with a view to overcoming any impediments to the implementation of the project. Specifically, the School District shall: a. Identify and quantify any impediments. b. Assign staff necessary to assist Dr. Mervin Strickler with formulation of an aerospace curriculum for grades 7 through 12. c. Assign staff necessary to assist Ms. Gail Quinn with the formulation and drafting of a Magnet School Assistance Grant Proposal for submission not later than December 15, 1992. d. Send staff necessary to Washington, D.C. March 18 through March 21st for a Magnet Schools and Desegregation Programs National Conference. Representatives from the District, Historical Society and Ms. Quinn are especially invited to attend a private conference with Department of Education officials on Saturday, March 21st, following the National Conference. An itinerary and details of the Conference are attached. e. Following receipt of a letter from Congressman Thornton's office outlining the parameters of a new grant program in support of secondary education administered by the Federal Aviation Administration, and after consulting with the Historical Society, submit a grant proposal. f. Draft a proforma expense statement of the cost of operating the Aerospace Education Center considering several scenarios, i.e., startup, Junior High components, Metropolitan Vo Tech participation, to the full blown 900 student high school. The members of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society and the Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership recognize the difficulties, financial and otherwise, that you and the school board members face in administering the school district. Each of you deserves a special \"thank you\" for your service to your community. The Aerospace Education Center is conceived to help you raise the Little Rock School District to this area's number one economic asset. Doing so will significantly minimize your collective burdens and simultaneously catapult Little Rock into a period of growth unprecedented in its history. It is in this spirit and this hope that we work. Sincerely, ARKANSAS AVIATION HISTORICAL SOCIETY Richard N. Holbert Chairman of the Board Aerospace Education Center Planning Meeting Agenda February 28, 1992 Options for the Aerospace Education Center I. Stay the Course with the Little Rock School District A. Prepare for application for $8 million U.S. Department of Education Magnet School Assistance Grant. 1. Retain Dr. Merv Strickler to develop curriculum plan. 2. Retain Ms. Gail Quinn as grant writer. 3. Invitation to meet in Washington on March 21 w/Education department officials to discuss grant application. 4. Gain court approval to submit grant application. B. Funding Options for operational expense of ATMHS. 1. National foundations. 2. State of Arkansas - New legislation to be considered in 1993. 3. Area school concept - transfer of M-to-M money. 4. Little Rock School District millage campaign. II. Feasibility of UALR Aerospace Program A. What would it involved to have the Aerospace Education Center as part of the UALR system? III. State Aerospace Academy A. Discussion of a second, state-supported, specialized high school. B. Emphasis of enhancing Arkansas' aerospace infrastructure. C. Residential options for the students. IV. Other Business A. FAA Grant - Request by Congressman Thornton for LRSD 1. Grant request of $1 million+ to purchase aviation library and equipment. B. Report on Long Beach Visit Dr. Chuck Stevens Dr. Gaylord Northrop C. Status of Lease between Little Rock School District, Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, and the Little Rock Airport Commission. C CEN1i1AL FL YING SERVICE 1501 BOND STREET LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72202 (501) 375-3245 FAX (501) 375-7274 ESTABLISHED 1939 February 27, 1992 Dr. Ruth Steele Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Steele: I enjoyed our telephone conversation of the 25th. I appreciate your returning my call. We covered a number of issues. For your benefit and mine, and for the benefit of the board members, the following is a summary of our discussion: 1. The School District and the Aviation Historical Society along with UALR, shall not pursue an effort to submit a joint proposal to incorporate the Arkansas School for Mathematics and Science with the Aerospace Education Center. Since applications must be submitted no later than April 3rd, the time is simply not available to structure a winning proposal. 2. The Historical Society will continue to work with the School District to bring the Aerospace Education Center to fruition. The worth of the project to the community demands it and the voters in the last millage election have every right to expect it. The Historical Society will continue to assist the School District in any way that it can to help the District overcome its financial concerns about the project. Specifically, the Historical Society shall: a. Engage Dr. Mervin Strickler to draft a model aerospace curriculum for grades 7 through 12, the costs for which shall be borne by the Society. b. Underwrite at the cost of approximately $21,000, the fee for Ms. Gail Quinn of Long Beach, CA to assist in the preparation of a Magnet School Assistance Grant Proposal, the deadline for which is December 15, 1992. A copy of Ms. Quinn's proposal and the scope of her work is attached. c. Assist Senator Jerry Jewell in an effort to obtain state funds for the operation of the Aerospace Education Center whose outreach shall extend throughout the state. Presumably the program will be patterned after the State Math and Science School except that there shall not be an exclusive \"residential\" focus. Page Two Dr. Ruth Steele d. Investigate funding possibilities through a collaboration with UALR. e. Investigate funding possibilities through private foundation sources. 3. The School District shall continue the planning process with the Historical Society with a view to overcoming any impediments to the implementation of the project. Specifically, the School District shall: a. Identify and quantify any impediments. b. Assign staff necessary to assist Dr. Mervin Strickler with formulation of an aerospace curriculum for grades 7 through 12. c. Assign staff necessary to assist Ms. Gail Quinn with the formulation and drafting of a Magnet School Assistance Grant Proposal for submission not later than December 15, 1992. d. Send staff necessary to Washington, D.C. March 18 through March 21st for a Magnet Schools and Desegregation Programs National Conference. Representatives from the District, Historical Society and Ms. Quinn are especially invited to attend a private conference with Department of Education officials on Saturday, March 21st, following the National Conference. An itinerary and details of the Conference are attached. e. Following receipt of a letter from Congressman Thornton's office outlining the parameters of a new grant program in support of secondary education administered by the Federal Aviation Administration, and after consulting with the Historical Society, submit a grant proposal. f. Draft a proforma expense statement of the cost of operating the Aerospace Education Center considering several scenarios, i.e., startup, Junior High components, Metropolitan Vo Tech participation, to the full blown 900 student high school. The members of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society and the Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership recognize the difficulties, financial and otherwise, that you and the school board members face in administering the school district. Each of you deserves a special \"thank you\" for your service to your community. The Aerospace Education Center is conceived to help you raise the Little Rock School District to this area's number one economic asset. Doing so will significantly minimize your collective burdens and simultaneously catapult Little Rock into a period of growth unprecedented in its history. It is in this spirit and this hope that we work. Sincerely, ARKANSAS AVIATION HISTORICAL SOCIETY Richard N. Holbert Chairman of the Board Objectives for 1992 Little Rock School District Arkansas Aviation.Historical Society 1. Conclude Capital Campaign for the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History $2.3 million remaining to be raised 2. Curriculum Consultant 3. Curriculum Plan for the Aerospace Technology Magnet High School 4. Project Director - Grant Writer - Aerospace Technology Magnet High School S. Proposal for the U.S. Dept. of Education's Magnet School Assistance Grant for the Aerospace Technology Magnet High School Little Rock has been invited to Washington, D.C for the National Magnet School Conference on March 18-21 to discuss grant application with the U.S. Dept. of Education. Possible 8 million over 2 years. (Deadline December 15, 1992) 6. FAA Grant for Aerospace Technology Magnet High School 7. Congressman Thornton will assist with request of funds for books and equipment at $ 1.0 million plus. Formation of Joint Committee Little Rock School District Museum Leadership Little Rock Board of Directors Little Rock Airport Commission 8. Lease Agreement Little Rock Airport Commission Little Rock School District Arkansas Aviation Historical Society 9. Development of Educational Partnership with the Aerospace Education Center University of Arkansas at Little Rock Henderson State Metropolitan Vo-Tech 10. Architectural Plans 11. Confirmation of Groudbreaking - Opening Date 12. Staff-Faculty Selection for Museum-School 13. Continue Acquisitions for the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History Collection 14. Continued research of Federal Assistance National Science Foundation FAA Dept of Education NASA Upcoming Events Astronaut-Space Luncheon - February 6 National Officials Participating: T. Wendell Butler Dr. Eddie Anderson Lt. Col. Don McMonagle Dr. Gerald Carr National Congress - Oklahoma City - March 26-28 3 day conference with NASA, FAA, CAP Officials MEMORANDUM February 24, 1992 To: From: RE: Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leadership Cathy Johnson Options to Move the Aerospace Education Center Forward At this point, it has become evident that the Aerospace Education Center is not a priority of the current Little Rock School District administration. While the long term prognosis for community support is excellent, especially in light of this week's actions by the legislature, there are problems in the near term which could further delay, if not permanently dismantle the project. This week's legislative session will result in the State of Arkansas effectively adopting an industrial policy which places aerospace as its top priority. It is ironic that while this action, which enjoys almost universal support due to its promise of improved economic opportunity for people throughout the state, comes at a time when the Aerospace Education Center is suffering from a lack of commitment from the educational partner, which should be its most enthusiastic partner. Without digressing into personality issues, the simple fact is that the AEC leadership cannot count on the LRSD to provide conclusive assistance toward the creation of the Center. Realistically, we must find the answers to all the problems which must be solved, including the operational funding problem. In short, the District will finally accept the Center when it is either handed to them on a silver platter, or they are convinced to move forward by a broad consensus of the Little Rock community. Acknowledging this fact, we must then ask ourselves if we wish to take on this burden. Do we feel strongly enough about the benefits this project will bring to our state, our community, and our children? Are we willing to step forward to provide the bold, yet uncomfortable leadership steps necessary to move the project out of a limbo which would condemn it to certain failure? At this juncture it is necessary to decide that we must, to paraphrase, ~Either lead, follow, or get out of the way.\" There are three possible options to pursue, excepting for the time being the final option, which is simply to throw in the towel, quit, and let the LRSD say that it was all our fault. OPTION #1 - STAY THE COURSE The first option is to work a compromise or deal with the Little Rock School District, to pursue a collaborative effort to provide the first two ears of operational funding for the Aerospace Technology Magnet, as envisioned in our planning for the Aerospace Education Center to date. Several ways exist to provide all or a part of this money. However, all are predicated on the commitment by the school district of the $6 million in construction funds provided for in the millage approved by the voters in 1990. The District acknowledges that the public voted for the aerospace school. Operation funding options include: 1. A guarantee of operational funds for the first two years by private sources, either in lieu of federal or state funding, or to alleviate any shortfall if these sources provide only partial funding to the school. 2. Successful application for a U. S. Department of Education Magnet School Assistance Grant of up to $8 Million. a. The Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation has already allocated funds to hire Dr. Merv Strickler, identified by the FAA as the foremost expert in the nation on aerospace curriculum, as a consultant to prepare the specialized aerospace curriculum for the magnet school. b. In addition, the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation has received a proposal to hire Ms. Gail Quinn, coordinator of the Long Beach Unified School District's aerospace program, as a consultant to prepare the grant application for the Little Rock School District. 3. Seeking of direct state funding for the school during the 1993 General Assembly. Senator Jerry Jewell has offered to pursue operational funds, to enhance the development of aerospace industries. 4. Internal funding, primarily consisting of passage of a millage increase for the Little Rock School District in the Spring of 1993, with a specific line-item of operational funds for the Aerospace Technology Magnet High School. This line-item would be a quid pro quo for our support for the millage. This would also include commitment of Majority-to-Minority incentive funds ($2,000 per student, per year) from the state for students from outside the LRSD. 2 To pursue any of these courses, a willingness by the LRSD to cooperate is necessary. This cooperation would include working with the Campaign Leadership, the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, Dr. Strickler, Ms. Quinn, and UALR officials on issues including, but not limited to: 1. The Magnet School Assistance Grant Application 2. Development of the Aerospace Curriculum Plan 3. Identification of equipment needs 4. Coordination of participating schools, including UALR, Henderson State University, Metropolitan Area Career Center, and the \"feeder\" junior high schools. 5. Development of a pro-forma operational budget. 6. Estimation of costs and timetables for groundbreaking, construction, and opening. OPTION #2 - THE LONG BEACH PLAN The second option involves the essential ~bandonment of the unique character envisioned for the Aerospace Education Center, i.e., a combined aviation museum and school in one entity. Described as the \"2+2+2 Plan,\" the Long Beach Unified School District utilized a specialized aerospace curriculum at two magnet schools each at the elementary, junior high, and high school level, as well as postsecondary programs at two institutions of higher education. This option would dramatically change the direction of the project, and would move toward implementation of the aerospace curriculum in existing LRSD schools by the fall of 1993, in coordination with the Magnet School Assistance Grant. If this option is pursued, specialized aerospace programs would be coordinated at the postsecondary level by Henderson State University and UALR. This plan could be implemented with a minimum of expense by the LRSD, as existing classrooms, teachers, and facilities would be utilized. OPTION #3 - UALR AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL This option would not substantially modify the thrust of the Aerospace Education Center as originally envisioned. The Center would still be constructed at the airport as a combination aviation museum and magnet high school. It would still be a contributing part of the Pulaski County desegregation plan, but the high school would be administered by UALR as an area school, or as an aerospace academy. 3 If this option were to be pursued, the federal grant could possibly work within Federal guidelines. The avenue of state funding, with UALR to administer the school in coordination with AIDC, the Arkansas Industry Training Program, and other industrial development efforts, would become more viable. The option to include UALR or Henderson State University as a meaningful partner in the Aerospace Education Center is not predicated on the Little Rock School District not participating. Rather, serious consideration should be given to expanding the partnership to include institutions of higher educat' n, whicn wou compliment the existing mix of public schools, aviation industries, and the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society. OPTION #4 - GOVERNOR'S MATH \u0026amp; SCIENCE SCHOOL This is not a realistic option, as the grant deadline is April 3, 1992. CONCLUSION It is evident that a decision must be made soon by the Aerospace Education Center Campaign and its leaders on how to proceed to complete this endeavor. We could decide to put our final decision \"on hold\" until the LRSD completes its change of administration. Obviously, if Option 1 is to be considered as an ultimate possibility, it is in our best interest to take an active role in the selection process for the new superintendent. A strong political push is necessary to sway the Little Rock School Board and Administration to get fully behind the project. A concerted effort must be mounted to unite the following groups, individuals, and entities behind the project: A. Little Rock's Black Community B. The City of Little Rock C. AIDC - Dave Harrington D. Governor Clinton's Aerospace Task Force E. Arkansas' 46 Aerospace Industries F. Higher Education Institutions, including UALR, Henderson State, UAPB, UAMS, UCA, etc. G. Federal agencies, including FAA and NASA H. Arkansas' Congressional Delegation I. State Officials, including Lt. Governor Tucker J. Federal District Court, through Ann Brown. K. Little Rock Airport Commission L. Little Rock Air Force Base M. Aviation Groups, e.g., Arkansas Pilots Association, 99's, etc. 4  While it may be that no final action should actually be taken in the near term, the groundwork for that action must be done D..Qli. We are moving toward the final phase of defining the project. Most all plans we have made to date can be reversed or modified. We are now coming to the time that plans must give way to decisions. There is tremendous support for what is acknowledged to be one of the most innovative educational institutions in the world. It is our duty to not let the shortsightedness and parochialism of a few persons condemn it to failure. The group in attendance at Ruth and Rollie Remmel's dinner has scheduled its second meeting, to be held this Friday at 12 noon at Mrs. Remmel's home, 8 Broadview Terrace. Though no conclusive decisions were reached, the ideas in this memorandum were brought forth by those in attendance. This week's agenda will be to pursue the most feasible option so that the Aerospace Education Center may move forward, at to set objectives to achieve that goal. Please let me know if you can attend, and your thoughts on the information contained within. 5 National Advisory Board Dr. Eddie Anderson Col. Walter J. Boyne Lt. Gen. Benjamin 0. Davis Gen. Alfred G. Hansen Phillip S. Woodruff Honorary Chairmen Herschel H. Friday Mayor Sharon M. Priest Winthrop P. Rockefeller Jackson T. Stephens Little Rock School District Dr. Ruth S. Steele Superintendent Tony Wood Deputy Superintendent Campaign Leadership William H. Bowen Chairman Richard N. Holbert Vice Chairman Marion B. Burton President J. Dan Baker J. W. \"Buddy\" Benafield 0. Wayne Bennett William C. Bracas Henry A. Broach Rep. Irma Hunter Brown F. Taylor Brown David M. Clark Fred K Darragh, Jr. Dennis D. Davis Lee Frazier Charles H. Harper E. Ray Kemp John Lewellen Donna K Mclarty Sandy . McMath Frederick J. Menz Edward M. Penick, Sr. Ruth Remmel Edgar K Riddick, Jr. James R. Rodgers Lucien M. Taillac Charles M. Taylor Jim Guy Tucker State Advisory Board Dr. Gerald P. Carr athan Gordon Robert A. Gordon Col. Albert Hart (U.SAF., Ret.) Dr. William R. Pogue Louis L Ramsay Major General James A. Ryan M. M. \"Twig\" Satterfield, Jr. Col. Charles]. Wax Development Counsel Catherine J. Johnson \"Fortune favors the prepared mind.\" DUCATIONCENTER P.O. Box 7332  Little Rock. Arkansas 72217  501. 371. 0331 Aerospace Education Center Briefing Luncheon Friday, March 13, 1992 8 Broadview Terrace I. Update on Progress of the Aerospace Education Center 1. Retaining Gail Quinn of the Long Beach Unified School District as Grant Writer 2. Retaining Dr. Merv Strickler as Curriculum Consultant 3. Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation has approved grants to fund both 4. Continue exploration of operational funding options for Aerospace Technology Magnet High School 5. Operational Budget for Aerospace Technology Magnet High School to be prepared - impediments identified II. Department of Education Conference - March 18-22* Attending - Marion Burton - AEC Cathy Johnson - AEC Dennis Glasgow - Supervisor of Science, LRSD Gail Quinn - Long Beach Unified School District Dr. Merv Strickler - Curriculum Consultant ill. Little Rock Visit of Gail Quinn on March 26-27* * Itineraries Provided Itinerary in Little Rock for Gail Quinn Industry \u0026amp; Postsecondary Liaison Long Beach Unified School District Thursday, March 26 Anive Little Rock@ 2:18 p.m. on Delta 3:30 - Aerospace Education Center Leadership Meeting - Little Rock Club Aerospace Education Center Campaign Members 6:30- Friday, March 27 Little Rock Airport Commissioners Little Rock City Directors Little Rock School Board Members Topic: Overview of Grant Application Remarks to Little Rock School Board 8:00 - Breakfast - Little Rock Hilton Dr. Jim Miller - Metropolitan Area Career Center Representative of Arkansas Department of Higher Education Dr. James Young - Chancellor, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Representative of Henderson State University (Arkadelphia) Ann Brown - Office of Desegregation Monitor Dr. Ruth Steele - Superintendent, Little Rock School District Donna Creer (758-0156) - Magnet Review Committee Topic: State Standards and Higher Education 10:00 - Industry Forum - Host: Richard Holbert, Central Flying Service Bob Gordon - Rohr Industries Dennis Davis - Arkansas Aerospace Bill Bracas - Falcon Jet Gary Driggers - Midcoast Ron Reagan - Chem-Fab Bert Quinlan - LTV Curtis Maddock - General Dynamics Cecil Tennant - Delta Airlines Bob Taylor - Southwest Airlines James Rodgers - Manager, Little Rock Regional Airport Topic: Training \u0026amp; Skill Requirements for Aviation Industries 11:30 - Working Lunch/Afternoon Planning Session w/Little Rock School District Dr. Ruth Steele Tony Wood Dr. Angela Sewell Dennis Glasgow James Jennings Estelle Mathis Marion Burton Richard Holbert Bill Bowen Topic: Requirements for Magnet School Assistance Grant  MAGNET SCHOOLS \u0026amp; DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS NATIONAL CONFERENCE RESTRUCTURING FOR EDUCATIONAL EQUITY AND EXCELLENCE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18 3:00pm- 5:30 pm - 7:30 pm 5:30 pm - 8:00 pm 7:30 am- 8:30 am - 9:30 am 9:30 am - 11:45 am 11:45am- 1:00pm 1 :00 pm - 3:45 pm 3:50 pm- 5:00 pm 5:15 pm- 7:00 pm 7:30 pm- Check In \u0026amp; Display Set-up Pre-Registration Mixer THURSDAY.MARCH19 Registration Greetings Overview Remarks Keynote Workshop Sessions Annie Mack Conference Coordinator Sylvia Wright Chief,MSDB Janice Williams-Madison Director, EEED Alicia Coro Director, SIP John MacDonald Assistant Secretary \"Restructuring for Educational Equity and Excellence\" ** Flexible Coffee Break Schedule ** Lunch - Elizabeth Goss - Education Liaison - Sen. Bumpers (To Be Confirmed) Workshop Sessions ** Flexible Coffee Break Schedule ** Group Meetings (Job Alike Sessions) Reception Dinner - Sylvia Wright, Alicia Coro, Dennis Glasgow, Gail Quinn, Marion Burton, Cathy Johnson MAGNET SCHOOLS \u0026amp; DESEGREGATION PROGRAMS NATIONAL CONFERENCE RESTRUCTURING FOR EDUCATIONAL EQUITY AND EXCELLENCE 8:30 am - 9:15 am 9:15 am- 11:30 am 11:30 am - 1:00 pm 1 :00 pm - 3:30 pm 3:30 pm - 4:30 pm 4:30 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm- FRIDAY, MARCH 20 Introduction Keynote Workshop Sessions Alicia Coro Director, SIP \"Challenges of Diversity: New Opportunities for Excellence and Equity\" To be detennined ** Flexible Coffee Break Schedule ** Luncheon - Bolling Air Force Base Phil Woodruff, Valerie Collins - FAA Dr. Merv Strickler, Gail Quinn, Dennis Glasgow, Marion Burton, Cathy Johnson Workshop Sessions  Flexible Coffee Break Schedule  General Session: Questions \u0026amp; Answers Alicia Coro Sylvia Wright Kathryn Ellis OCR Representative Others (if necessary) Regional Meetings (Hosted by DACs) Dinner with Col. Walter Boyne Dennis Glasgow, Marion Burton, Cathy Johnson \\ Little Rock School District March 26, 1992 Mr. Barry Lambert Harris Acting Administrator Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, s.w. Washington, D.C. 20591 Dear Mr. Harris: on behalf of all of us involved in the Aerospace Education center project here in Little Rock, let me congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Administrator of the FAA. We enjoyed a cordial and mutually productive relationship with your predecessor, Admiral James Busey, and look forward to continuing this progressive relationship under your leadership. When Admiral Busey delivered the keynote address to the Aerospace Education Center's campaign kickoff in Little Rock last April, he recognized the vision we have for this absolutely unique ins ti tut ion. The Center, which combines an aerospace magnet public high school with an aviation museum, will operate as a synergistic unit that both teaches and inspires young people of all races and economic backgrounds to attain careers in aerospace and other technology fields. In his remarks, the Admiral pledged his full support for any endeavor in which the FAA could assist in bringing our ambitious plans to fruition, calling the Center \"a model for the nation.\" Afterwards, the Admiral flew back to Washington, accompanied by two Arkansas Congressmen, John Paul Hammerschmidt and Ray Thornton. During their flight, these three leaders discussed ways that FAA authority could be broadened to allow direct assistance to the Aerospace Education Center, and how the Center could become an integral part of the FAA's strategy to meet anticipated demands for aerospace workers, keeping America the world leader in this vital field. This discussion and pledges of mutual support led our Congressional Delegation to initiate the successful effort last fall to amend the FAA appropriation bill to allow direct funding of a limited number of aviation secondary schools. Our plans have moved forward to make this not only a model for aviation education, but also a model of public/private cooperation in education. Arkansas' aerospace industries have pledged their full support for the Center, recognizing the ultimate benefit to 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501).324-2000 Mr. Barry Lambert Harris March 26, 1992 Page 2 their companies of a cooperative efforts, curriculum, preparing 21st Century. highly trained workforce. Through these we intend to achieve a model aerospace these students for the skill needs of the While Admiral Busey recognized our concept as a \"model for the nation,\" we realize that it is incumbent upon us to live up to his commendation. With your help, we intend to create a program that can be emulated with positive results all across the nation. At this time, the Little Rock School District has pledged $6 million to construct the Aerospace Technology Magnet High School, the publicly funded portion of the Center. Our partners, the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, have informed us that they have already raised over $4.5 million of their campaign goal of $6.5 million for the museum component of the Center. The Arkansas Legislature has provided a $1.5 million challenge grant for the museum, and the State Energy Office recently approved a $363,000 grant to the Center for our planned state-of-the art energy management system. In addition, the City of Little Rock has provided $500,000 for site improvements, and our Airport Commission has agreed to lease us the Center's 19.8 acre site for 99 years at $1 per year. As you can see, the Aerospace Education Center is truly a partnership, in every way. We have found that the challenges of creating a world class project here in Little Rock have been continually met by our friends and supporters of aviation education, both in Arkansas and across the country. Several resources have been made available to us, including the opportunity to obtain a ready-made aviation library, which is one of the finest in the world. Our advisors indicate that this library, owned by Mr. Jay Miller of Dallas, Texas, would be impossible to duplicate at more than twice the price of attaining it. The Aerospace Education Center can obtain this collection for a total cost of $800,000. This would greatly augment our plans, offered by Admiral Busey, to designate the Aerospace Education Center as an FAA Resource Center. w~ respectfully request that you provide this designation at the appropriate time. To extend our educational opportunities in aerospace beyond the normal high school curriculum, we intend to develop for the Aerospace Education Center, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Area Career Center, an airframe and powerplant training program. This would provide the equivalent of the first year of the standard \"A \u0026amp; P\" license program for students. Mr. Barry Lambert Harris March 26, 1992 Page Three We estimate the costs of initiating the airframe and powerplant training program to be $250,000, including staff, tools and equipment. This program, combined with the available resources in the Miller library materials, will ensure that the Aerospace Education Center offers one of the finest and cost-effective programs in avaition education in the nation. The cost of these two programs would total $1,050,000. On behalf of the Little Rock School District and our partners in the Aerospace Education Center project, we respectfully request a grant in that amount to fund the items, which we deem to be vital components of this unprecedented cooperative venture. This grant would be made under the new authority to fund aviation secondary schools granted by Congress last year. If my staff, others involved in the Aerospace Education Center project, or I may answer questions or otherwise assist on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. RSS:nr cc: Admiral James B. Busey Deputy Secretary Department of Transportation Sincerely, ~~-fti1. Ruths. Steele Superintendent of Schools Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt Congressman Ray Thornton Itinerary in Little Rock for Gail Quinn Industry \u0026amp; Postsecondary Liaison Long Beach Unified School District Thursday, March 26 Arrive Little Rock @ 2: 18 p.m. on Delta 3:30 - Aerospace Education Center Leadership Meeting - Little Rock Club Aerospace Education Center Campaign Leaders 6:00 - Friday, March 27 Little Rock Airport Commissioners Little Rock City Directors Little Rock School Board Members Dr. Ruth Steele - Little Rock School Superintendent Arkansas Legislators Topic: Overview of Grant Application Remarks to Little Rock School Board 8:00 - Breakfast - Marion Burton's Office - 2230 Cottondale Lane Dr. Ruth Steele - Superintendent, Little Rock School District Jean McEntire - Asst. Director of Institutional Programs - Vo Tech Division Dr. Jim Miller - Metropolitan Area Career Center Dr. Doyle Dillahunty - Metropolitan Area Career Center Dr. Gaylord Northrop - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Dr. Chuck Stevens - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Donna Creer - Magnet Review Committee Emily Barrier - Governor's Office - Special Assistant for Education Bob Taylor - Southwest Airlines Marion Burton - Aerospace Education Center Campaign Dick Holbert - Aerospace Education Center Campaign Cathy Johnson - Aerospace Education Center Campaign Topic: State Standards and Higher Education 10:00 - Industry Forum - Host: Richard Holbert, Central Flying Service Bill Orr - Falcon Jet Byron Melious - FAA - Little Rock Gary Driggers - Midcoast Ron Shertzer - State of Arkansas - VoTech Education Division Steve Stollenberg - Arkansas Aerospace Marion B. Burton - Aerospace Education Center Richard N. Holbert - Central Flying Service \u0026amp; Aerospace Education Center Catherine Johnson - Aerospace Education Center Topic: Training \u0026amp; Skill Requirements for Aviation Industries 12:00 - Working Lunch/Afternoon Planning Session w/Little Rock School District Tony Wood - Deputy Superintendent, Little Rock School District 1:30- Dr. Angela Sewell - Assistant Superintendent, Secondary Schools - LRSD Estelle Mathis - Curriculum Supervisor - LRSD Chris Heller - Attorney- Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Marion B. Burton - Aerospace Education Center Richard N. Holbert - Central Flying Service Catherine Johnson - Aerospace Education Center Topic: Magnet School Assistance Grant Dr. Angela Sewell - Assistant Superintendent, Secondary Schools - LRSD 3:00 - Curriculum Planning - Aerospace Technology Magnet High School Estelle Mathis - Curriculum Supervisor - LRSD Leon Adams - Federal Programs, LRSD Dr. Mary Prentice - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Dr. Jim Miller - Metropolitan Area Career Center Dr. Doyle Dillahunty - Metropolitan Area Career Center Dianne Wood - Math Supervisor, LRSD Lucy Lyon - Technology Library Media, LRSD Dr. Gaylord Northrop - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Dr. Chuck Stevens - University of Arkansas at Little Rock Saturday, March 28 - 11:30 - Lunch - Cafe St. Moritz Donna Creer - Magnet Review Committee Pat Gee - Little Rock School Board Member Dick Holbert - Aerospace Education Center Lucien Taillac - Aerospace Education Center Tim Heiple - Nathaniel Curtis-Riddick-Heiple - Project Architect Catherine Johnson - Aerospace Education Center Summary - LRSD Grant Preparedness April 8, 1992 To: Dick Holb\u0026amp;~ From: Gail Quinn Subjt!ct: Immediate Decisions 1) The identification of the elc::n1entary and junior high schools. 2) The configuration of the new high school 1) Pat Gee provided 1992 racial and enrollment data for the Little Rock schools (64% black) which has enabled me to racially identify the area and incentive schools for the Aerospace Magnet. Please discuss the following schools with Susan Wright and Dr. Steele in terms of confirming (a) all or some of the below-listed elementary schools as th~ AE:!rospace Magnet Schools (b) grade 4 as the starting point for magnet enrollment. Would be better to save the primary levels for the next magnet grant. The academic and career/ technical areas for that grant are extensive and require much preparation to implement. (c) the 7-9 sequence. (d) high school readiness for the second year. (e) the 9-12 ??? for the new high school\nor no confirmation\nidentify other schools. (f) projected 1993-94 enrollment for grades 4-9 in the indentified (use 1991-92 grade 2-7 enrollment figures) schools and capacity. Area - Elementary % Black School Sequence %Black 1. Bale 81.87 Southwest 74.96 2. Fairpark 80.00 Forest Heights 70.55 Incentive 3. Garland 94.00 Southwest 74.00 4. Stephens 96.00 Forest Heights 70.00 5. Franklin 85.00 Southwest and 74.00 Forest Heights According to the LRSD Board Member Zones map, Bale and Soutl,v.,e:st are located in John Moore's area, the three Incentive schools are with Bill Hamilton's area and possibly part of Dorsey Jackson's area\nand Forest Heights and Fairpark appear to be in Dorsey Jackson's area. We would bring white students into these schools to reduce minority isolation. Black students already at the junior highs would apply to the magnet based on academic and conduct criteria. 2) Because we cannot dismantle labs equipped in the designated junior high schools nor deprive grade 79 magnet students in these schools from a new high school environment, the grade-level configuration of the new high school should be grades 9-12. You would move the second year of the grant period (1994-95) into the new high school. (a) All grade 8 and 9 ma,~net students out of Southwest and Forest Heights thereby alleviating space problems. (b) Accept new grade 9 black enrollment from designated junior highs by lottery to racially balance the new high school as needed and reduce racial isolation in those junior highs. The aerospace magnet junior high schools the second year would only t\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_808","title":"Court filings: District Court, stipulation and consent order regarding Little Rock School District (LRSD) Aerospace Technology Magnet School; District Court, five orders; District Court, memorandum opinion","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":["1991-02"],"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":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Magnet schools","School facilities","School integration","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, stipulation and consent order regarding Little Rock School District (LRSD) Aerospace Technology Magnet School; District Court, five orders; District Court, memorandum opinion"],"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/808"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_782","title":"Report: ''Little Rock School District First Educational Equity Monitoring 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department","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":["1991-02"],"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 discipline","School management and organization","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Little Rock School District First Educational Equity Monitoring 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report,'' Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department"],"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/782"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FIRST EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING REPORT 1990-91 SEMI-ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas February 1991 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS received MW 1  OHice of Desegregation Separation of Races in School Programs Curriculum School/District Initiated Awards/Honors Committees Extracurricular Activities Student Achievement/Assessment Special Education Gifted and Talented Education Staff Development Parental Involvement Student Discipline Building Leadership/Management APPENDICES Monitoring PAGE 2 8 17 23 25 27 30 39 46 51 56 65 Attachment A: Area Schools - Elementary A-1 Attachment B: Area Schools - Junior High B-60 Attachment C: Area Schools - Senior High C-82 Attachment D: Incentive Schools D-86 Attachment E: Magnet Schools - Elementary E-95 Attachment F: Magnet Schools - Junior High F-102 Attachment G: Magnet Schools - Senior High G-115FIRST EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING REPORT 1990-91 SEMI-ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORT The Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan requires monitoring for educational equity in all schools in the District. The monitoring is conducted by the Planning, Research, and Evaluation staff with assistance from local school biracial committees consisting of parents and teachers. Each committee conducts one school visit each semester using a monitoring instrument developed by the three school districts in Pulaski County, the Arkansas Department of Education, and the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. The monitoring instrument and Standard Operating Procedures for Monitoring are provided to principals prior to the visit with instructions for these instruments to be shared with their school staffs. the date. January 10, 1991. The visits are scheduled and principals are notified of Visits were conducted between November 27, 1990 and The committees report semi-annually to the superintendent the progress or lack of progress in the following areas: Separation of Races in School Programs Curriculum School/District Initiated Awards/Honors Committees Extracurricular Activities Student Achievement/Assessment Special Education Gifted and Talented Education Staff Development Parental Involvement Student Discipline Building Leadership/Management Each team, using race and gender as the unit of analysis, reviews a school profile which contains basic information related to current conditions in the monitored areas. The school profile information is verified through the school visit and interviewsFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 3 TABLE 1 Area Elementary Schools Which Were Not Within The 5, Acceptable Range for Teaching Staff (25 50% Black.) SCHOOL CERTIFIED NON-CERTIFIED Brady 6/22% 21/78 'O 27 15/79 O, 'O 4/21% 19 Chicot 8/20 32/80% 40 12/52% 11/48% 23 Pulaski Hts. El. 6 23 10/91 1/9% 11 Terry 6/19 25/81% 31 Q, *0 17 Watson 7/23 23/77% 30 6/46 7/54% 13 B W T B W T o 5. 5, 9, 5, The acceptable range for elementary school enrollment is 51 to 76.5 percent black. All area elementary schools visited were within the range except Franklin, Bale, Fair Park, and Romine Schools. Some one-race classes were observed in eight of the area elementary schools. These eight schools were Franklin, Geyer Springs, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, Romine, Wakefield, and Wilson. All but nine of the area elementary schools had participation in the extended educational programs which generally reflected the racial/ethnic composition of the school. The school teams did not identify programs at Bale, Brady, Chicot, Geyer Springs, Mabelvale, Otter Creek, Wakefield, Western Hills, or Woodruff. Responses from Principal(s): The Cloverdale Elementary principal reported that ten students from Cloverdale would attend an after-school enrichment program at Washington Magnet beginning December 12, 1990. The participants were selected by teachers, and they were balanced by race/gender. The Franklin principal stated that the reason for all five white students being assigned to one teacher in second First Educational Eguity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 4 grade was that only two white second graders reported at the beginning of the school year. Each of the other three white students entered later, and could not be assigned to a one- race class without being racially isolated. The Geyer Springs principal responded that the student assignment officers were aware of the all black class which occurred when some white students did not return or report to Geyer Springs as assigned. Area Schools/Junior High All area junior high schools were within the acceptable staffing range except Pulaski Heights Junior High School, which had a 21 percent black teaching staff. Student enrollment at all of the area junior high schools was within the acceptable range. The compliance range for junior high schools was 52.50 to 78.75 percent black. At Cloverdale, Southwest, and Mabelvale Junior High Schools most class/course enrollments generally reflected the racial/ethnic composition of the schools. The Pulaski Heights Junior High School team identified four all black classes (one pre-algebra, two English and one computer literacy). There were several other classes that either had all white or one black student. In addition, the G/T classes observed were not reflective of the school enrollment. At Mabelvale Junior High School the team observed two reading classes of all black students. Restructured junior high schools divide student enrollment into instructional teams. Two of the teams from Forest Heights Junior High School were identified as not reflecting the school population. At Henderson the team observed three one-race reading classes. Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale, and Pulaski Heights Junior High School students participated in extended educational programs which generally reflected the racial/ethnic composition of the school. The teams did not provide evidence regarding extended educational programs at Forest Heights and Southwest Junior High Schools. Responses from Principal(s): The Forest Heights Junior High principal said that the racial balance of teams had never before been an issue, said that to reflect the racial and ethnic composition of the school each team must have the same course offerings. He For example, one team should not have an Algebra I class andFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 5 the other team Pre-algebra. To have racial balance on the teams, each team would need to have Algebra I, II, and Prealgebra . The LRSD professional negotiations (PN) agreement prohibits teachers from having three preparation periods unless students cannot be scheduled. Area Schools/Senior High All of the area senior high schools were within the acceptable range for staffing and student enrollment. One- race classes were observed at all four area high schools monitored. Fair and Hall High Schools had class/course enrollments and student participation in extended educational programs which generally reflected the racial composition of the school . At McClellan, the team identified one-race classes in Special Education American Government and reading. Responses from Principal(s): The Fair High School principal said that at one time all the classes were balanced. caused by schedule changes, and 19 two-section classes. Any present imbalance was Fair had 33 one-section classes problems. This created many scheduling He said that the Fair School staff does what it can to avoid classes which do not reflect the racial/ethnic composition of the school. Regarding one-race classes, the Fair principal said that beginning band and journalism II were both electives. He said that active recruiting was taking place to have black students enroll in journalism I, a prerequisite for journalism II. some had never had band before. Beginning band was for those students who interested in band took it in junior high. Most white students who were The Fair staff was trying to improve its entire band program and recruit students of both races. The McClellan High School principal said that students' needs were being met through instructional programs. He also said that all alternative methods to provide for those students and eliminate the all black classes were investigated and there was nothing else to do. Incentive Schools All of the incentive schools were within the acceptable staffing range. Due to the enrollment, many of the incentive school classes will be populated by black students only. Rockefeller is the only incentive school within theFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 6 acceptable range for student enrollment. However, some progress has been made in recruiting white students to incentive schools (See Table 2). some TABLE 2 Incentive School Student Enrollment by Race SCHOOL 0 Garland 211/88 18/ 7% 11/5% 240 Ish 142/97% 4/ 3 0/0 146 Mitchell 183/88% 24/12% 0/0% 207 Rightsell 191/98 6 1/ 1% 1/1% 193 Rockefeller 195/72% 71/26 5/2% 271 Stephens 190/94 o, o y.2/ 0/0% 212 B # / % o, o w # / % b *6 o # / T Responses from Principal(s): None. Magnet Schools/Elementarv All elementary magnet schools were within the LRSD goal of from 25 to 50 percent black teaching staff except Carver where the teaching staff was 23 percent black. All elementary magnet schools visited were within the acceptable range for student enrollment and had class/course enrollments that generally reflected the racial/ethnic composition of the school. Booker, Gibbs, and Williams did not have extended educational programs. The Carver staff mentioned Summer Science Institute and Math Olympiad, and these were balanced. No one-race classes were found at the elementary magnet schools.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 7 Responses from Principal(s)\nThe Washington principal informed the monitors that an after school local writing program for beginning computer programming had been implemented. On Tuesday, December 11, 1990, an after school science program was to begin. ' program was to be sponsored by AP\u0026amp;L and would include This students from Washington, as well as students from other attendance zones. Magnet Schools/Junior High Both of the junior high magnet schools were within the acceptable range for teaching staff and student enrollment. These schools also had classes/courses that were generally balanced by race. The team found one extended educational program (Odyssey of the Mind) at Dunbar. The team found that the participation in extended educational opportunities at Mann generally reflected the racial/ethnic composition of the school. One-race classes were observed at both Dunbar and Mann Magnet Schools. A reading computer class was observed with all black students at Dunbar, and a German II class had all black students at Mann. Strategies were evident at Mann to prevent or eliminate one-race classes, but they were not evident at Dunbar. Responses from Principal(s)\nNone. Magnet Schools/Senior High Parkview was within the acceptable range for teaching staff and student enrollment. Class/course enrollments generally reflected the racial/ethnic composition of the school. Participation in extended educational programs generally reflected the school population, one-race classes observed at Parkview. There were no Responses from Principal(s): None.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 8 2.0 CURRICULUM At each school the monitors expected to see: A culturally diverse curriculum that mirrors the student population A scoped, sequenced, multicultural, interdisciplinary and bias-free curriculum An adequacy of materials and equipment to support the curriculum Varied teaching strategies that match the learning styles of the students * Current and accurate documentation of student progress Teachers demonstrating an understanding of a multiculturally infused curriculum Displays, bulletin boards, materials, and publications that reflect the cultural diversity of the student population Findings: Area Schools/Elementarv Most of the school reports indicated that visited teachers had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. However, all but eight of the school reports contained statements of additional needs. The most common needs were materials for hands-on science activities, Arkansas history, maps, multicultural supplements, primary level social studies, art, higher/lower levels of difficulty and audio-visual equipment. The Franklin team noted that some consumable items were purchased by teachers or donated by parents. Several teachers at Meadowcliff reported that they spent their money for supplies. materials were on order. At Wakefield, teachers mentioned that Three of the area schools were reported as not having adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. The Bale report noted that several teachers indicated that materials and equipment were not adequate and listed needs such as audio-visual equipment, record players, overhead projectors, tape recorders, and textbooks. At Fair Park, all the teachers visited reported that basic textbooks * * * * * *First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 9 (health, social studies and English) and multicultural social studies materials were needed. The McDermott team quoted visited teachers as saying that the multicultural curriculum guides were useful but more supplementary materials were needed. This report also contained the following additional needs: a VCR, movie projector, overhead projector, more paper, sufficient number of textbooks on hand for new students, better bookstore hours and items required by teachers stocked in the school bookstore. In a majority of the schools (18) most of the student records in the classrooms visited were found to be current and complete for monitoring student progress. However, over half of these school reports contained comments indicating some inadequacy in the record keeping process. Those with inadequacies were Brady, Baseline, Fulbright, Geyer Springs, Mabelvale, Romine, Terry, Wakefield, Wilson, and Woodruff. The monitoring teams from Cloverdale, Chicot, Dodd, Fair Park, Meadowcliff, Pulaski Heights, and Western Hills reported that in a majority of the classrooms visited at these schools, student records were not considered current and complete. In many schools, although reading and mathematics records were current and complete. Academic Skills Development Plans (ASDPs) were either not available in the appropriate classroom, were difficult to locate, or were found to have no documentation of remediation of skill deficits. An ASDP is required for each student (third and sixth grade) who failed any subject area of the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (MPT). Schools identified as having incomplete ASDP's were Baseline, Brady, Chicot, Cloverdale, Dodd, Fair Park, Franklin, Geyer Springs, McDermott, Wakefield, Western Hills and Woodruff. In all school reports, the monitoring teams indicated that in the classrooms visited, the students were actively involved in instruction. Some examples of activities in which students were engaged were: cooperative learning. individual projects, small group, whole group and individualized instruction, discussion and responding to questions, working on computers, and hands-on activities, watching films, and food tasting. Classroom seating patterns in almost all classrooms visited were found to promote interaction among students of varying racial/ethnic backgrounds in all of the area elementary schools.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 10 A wide variety of student work was observed on display in halls, media centers, and classrooms monitored in all schools. These displays, bulletin boards, publications and productions reflected an awareness of the racial/ethnic differences and the utilization of various teaching strategies. All school reports indicated that a majority of the teachers visited had and used the multicultural curriculum guides. The reports included a variety of comments. Some teachers were following scope and sequence, course content guides, and objectives from the multicultural curriculum guides. Some teachers color coded the use of these guides in lesson plan books. Responses from Principal(s)\nThe principal at Romine reported that textbooks had been ordered. The Meadowcliff principal indicated that good teachers were willing to spend their own money for the students' benefit. He stated that it was not necessary to have a social studies textbook for every child because we have multicultural curriculum guides. He further stated that if teachers needed materials, it was basically because they had not requested them. The principal at Western Hills said that the ASDP not found in the appropriate classroom, was completed last fall and had been used in a staff meeting discussion. She said the record would be located and returned to its proper place. Area Schools/Junior High Teachers reported having adequate materials and equipment at Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale, and Pulaski Heights Junior High Schools for curricula delivery. The monitoring team at Forest Heights reported that half of the teachers visited needed additional materials like maps, microscopes, slant trays, beakers, classroom sets of encyclopedias, and special education materials. Some teachers visited at Southwest expressed a need for a larger classroom, more computers and television sets for classrooms. At Henderson, some teachers expressed a need for more updated materials. The Mabelvale report cited a general need for computers, science laboratory equipment and the replacement or upgrading of other laboratory equipment.i\nFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 11 Each school report indicated that student records, in the classrooms visited, were current and complete except that ASDP's were not available in the applicable classrooms monitored at Henderson. An ASDP is required for each seventh grade student who failed any subject area of the sixth grade MPT and for each eighth grade student who failed the eighth grade MPT. In all schools, the monitors observed students actively involved in classroom instruction. Some examples were peer tutoring, team sports, group discussions, individual and group projects, working with computers, viewing films, taking notes, responding to questions and taking tests. All schools were reported to have classroom seating patterns that generally fostered interaction among students of varying racial/ethnic backgrounds. Exceptions would be at the schools where one-race or nearly one-race classes have been previously noted in this report. All teams reported that bulletin boards, publications, and productions throughout the schools reflected racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body, with one exception. ............ * - - . - evidence of this. The Mabelvale team found little Other teams noted examples in media centers, cafeterias, gyms, counselors' offices, lounges, hallways, school newspapers, and yearbooks. Four of the teams found that the bulletin boards, publications and productions in the classrooms reflected racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body. These teams visited Cloverdale, Forest Heights, Henderson and Mabelvale. The Pulaski Heights report noted that with a few notable exceptions, little awareness of racial/ethnic or gender differences of the student body were apparent in the classroom bulletin boards, publications and displays. At Southwest, the monitors visited several classrooms that did not meet this goal. All school teams found evidence of student achievement which indicated that various teaching strategies had been used. Some examples were displays of computer work, student writing, various posters, science time lines, journals, maps and notebooks. Sone individual classrooms visited did not have evidence of student achievement displayed. Monitoring teams reported that multicultural curriculum guides were in use (in the subject areas where available) in most of the classrooms visited at Cloverdale, Forest Heights, Henderson, Mabelvale, Pulaski Heights and Southwest.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 12 Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Forest Heights said that requests for additional materials noted in the team's report had not been made this year because most materials requested had been ordered. He said that additional maps were to have been provided by the district social studies supervisor, but social studies materials never came to the school. The principal at Mabelvale indicated that the need for science equipment and computers should be addressed at the district level. He further reported that on the day of the monitoring visit (11-29-90), the school would receive ten microscopes\nhowever, more microscopes and other equipment were still needed. Area Schools/Senior High The Central, Fair, and McClellan reports indicated that visited teachers had adequate materials and equipment for curricula delivery. The Fair and McClellan reports noted that several teachers expressed a need for more materials, i.e. dictionaries at Fair, and maps, computers and hands-on materials at McClellan. The team that visited Hall reported that nine of the twenty-three teachers visited expressed the following needs: water in science rooms, novels, chalk boards, a tennis court rather than a planned parking lot, electrical and automotive equipment, more computers and printers, and hands-on materials in geography classes for students with low reading ability. Student records in classrooms visited were current and complete, according to all four school reports. All teams reported that classroom seating arrangements observed, generally promoted interaction among students of varying racial/ethnic backgrounds and that students were actively involved in classroom instruction. All teams found that bulletin boards, publications, and productions throughout each school reflected the racial/ethnic and gender differences of that school's student body. Monitors observed in classrooms visited evidence of student achievements which reflected a variety of teaching strategies. At Fair, Hall, and McClellan, teachers were using the multicultural curriculum guides in those areas where they were available. The Central report stated thatFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 13 t most teachers visited did not have multicultural curriculum guides, and many said they were not available in their subject area, e.g., social studies, business, physical education, and speech. Responses from Principal(s): I The principal at Fair reported that no department had requested the purchase of dictionaries. He said that money was available in the textbook fund for the purchase of dictionaries. Magnet Schools/Elementary All teachers visited reported having adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. However, the Booker report noted that two visited teachers could use more \"hands-on\" materials and the Washington report contained a statement that some teachers needed supplementary mathematics materials, paper, and workbooks for advanced kindergarten students. Student records in classrooms visited were found to be current. However, some ASDP's, required for students who had failed any subject area of the MPT, bore no evidence of mastery dates at Booker, Carver, Gibbs and Williams. All reports indicated that in a majority of the classrooms visited, most students were observed actively involved in a variety of learning activities. All teams indicated that in the classrooms visited, the student seating patterns were found to encourage interaction among students of varying racial/ethnic backgrounds. In all five magnet elementary schools, the monitoring teams reported that the bulletin boards, publications and productions throughout the school reflected the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body. Booker, Carver, and Washington reports indicated that the monitoring teams observed bulletin boards, publications and productions in the classrooms reflective of the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body. However, in several classrooms at Williams, visual aids displayed did not show racial and gender differences. Gibbs team reported good displays of student work and The motivational strategies, but the main emphasis was on the international theme and some did not address race or gender of the student population.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 14 All monitoring teams reported that displays of student work indicated teachers were using various teaching strategies in the classrooms visited at each school. In all magnet schools, the visited teachers had and were using the multicultural curriculum guides. At Booker and Gibbs, teachers were documenting in their plan books activities that were taken from these guides. Teachers at Gibbs were incorporating activities from these guides into the international studies curriculum. Teachers at Washington were using the multicultural guides to plan and meet the varying student needs. Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Washington stated that advanced kindergarten students were going to first grade classrooms for instruction in reading. they are placed on the appropriate level. As teachers refer students. Regarding materials, all teachers were given a carton of paper at the beginning of the year. is issued on an individual basis. When teachers run out of paper, more Supplementary materials to enhance mathematics and science instruction were stored in the laboratories. Also, the computer specialist had games and software available for teacher use. Magnet Schools/Junior High In most of the classrooms visited at Mann, the teachers had adequate materials and equipment for curricula delivery. Over half of the teachers visited at Dunbar expressed needs for additional materials and equipment. Maps needed to be hung, and paper, textbooks, and lower level materials were needed to fulfill requirements of Individual Educational Plans (lEPs) of special education students who are mainstreamed into regular classes. Both teams reported that teachers visited had current and complete student records except for ASDP's at Dunbar. The ASDP's checked by the monitors did not indicate activity for this school year. Most students in classrooms visited were actively involved in classroom instruction. The Mann team reported that in most of the classrooms visited, the student seating pattern promoted interaction among students of varying racial/ethnic backgrounds\nthe Dunbar team observed that in almost half of the classrooms visited there were problems with the seating patterns due to the racial imbalance of the class.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 15 I Both monitoring teams observed bulletin boards, publications and productions displayed throughout the buildings that reflected the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the school's student body. The Mann report indicated that bulletin boards, publications, and productions displayed in the classrooms visited reflected the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body. However, the Dunbar team reported that in many of the classrooms visited the displays did not reflect these differences. The teams found that in one-half of the total classrooms visited at the two schools, there were no displays of student achievement that reflected use of various teaching strategies. The Dunbar team found this to be true in approximately one-third of the visited classrooms, while the Mann team observed the absence of such displays in more than one-half of the classrooms visited. However, the Mann team noted that the monitoring visit was conducted on the first school day after the Christmas holidays. Therefore, many teachers had removed displays prior to the holidays. Most teachers visited at both schools had and used the multicultural curriculum guides. However, several teachers at Mann did not have these guides and some teachers at Dunbar could not find their copy of the guide for the monitors. Responses from Principal(s): The Dunbar principal stated that a work order to hang the maps had been submitted, but they were lacking the necessary hardware. Magnet Schools/Senior High The majority of teachers visited at Parkview reported that they had adequate materials and equipment. However, some teachers expressed the need for textbooks, paper, and hands-on materials. Monitors found that student records were in good order in the classrooms visited. Also, students were actively involved in various types of classroom instruction such as films, lectures, tests, question/answer performance, individual work, discussion, and lecture/demonstration. Group seating and traditional seating patterns provided opportunities for interaction among students of varying racial/ethnic backgrounds.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 16 The team reported that the bulletin boards, publications and productions throughout the school and in classrooms visited did not reflect the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body. II ...very little evidence seen. It is not anti- The report stated, multicultural\nthere is just very little to observe. II The team cited trophies, posters, student projects, and achievements listed in the newspaper as evidence that varying teaching strategies had been used. The monitored teachers were using multicultural curriculum guides, where available. Responses from principal(s)\nNone. Incentive Schools\nIn a majority of the classrooms visited, teachers had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. The reports listed the following needs: at Garland, some teachers needed additional materials for social studies\nat Mitchell, additional science materials\nand at Rightsell, health textbooks. Monitoring teams at Garland, Ish, Mitchell and Rightsell found current and complete student records in all visited classrooms. The Rockefeller and Stephens reports noted that a majority of the teachers visited maintained current and complete student records. However, the Stephens report indicated that some ASDP's were not available for students who failed subject area(s) of the MPT. Students were actively involved in classroom instruction in all visited classrooms at Mitchell, Rightsell and Rockefeller, according to those reports. However, the Garland, Ish and Stephens reports indicated that students were actively involved in classroom instructio-n in a majority of the classrooms visited. Classroom seating patterns provided an opportunity for interaction among students of varying racial and ethnic backgrounds, at all schools where the school enrollment permitted. Since there were few white students at these schools, the monitoring teams also assessed the degree to which the seating patterns provided for interaction between boys and girls. Five of the school teams reported that the bulletin boards and publications throughout the school. in theFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 17 cafeteria and hallways reflected racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body. The Garland team found that while some bulletin boards and pictures reflected the school population, many bulletin boards had seasonal decorations. The visits to the six incentive schools were conducted on December 4-13, 1990. In all classrooms visited at Garland, Ish, Rightsell and Rockefeller, the monitoring teams found the bulletin boards, publications and productions were representative of the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body. The Mitchell team found this to be true in a majority of the classrooms. The Stephens report stated that, \"although seasonal bulletin boards were evident in classrooms, many of the visited classrooms did not have student work or publications reflecting the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body. II All six school reports contained evidence of student achievement, which indicated that a variety of teaching strategies had been used. However, the Stephens report contained a qualifier by stating this was evident in \"some\" classrooms visited. The Ish report stated that II some classes didn't have evidence of student achievement displayed.\" Monitoring reports for all six schools indicated that in the classrooms visited the teachers had and used multicultural curriculum guides. Responses from Principal(s): None. 3.0 SCHOOL/DISTRICT INITIATED HONORS AND AWARDS At each school the monitors expected to see: * A variety of awards and honors * Written procedures and requirements governing honors and awards * Methods for communicating requirements to all students * A process to evaluate the honors and awards program * Plans to eliminate any racial/gender inequities First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 18 * Visible evidence that non-athletic awards and honors are valued as much as athletic awards and honors (secondary schools) Findings: Area Schools/Elementary All area schools reported a variety of awards and honors were provided: Principal's Honor Roll (A and A, B), citizenship, school service, choir, music, attendance, clubs and organizations, student of the week and individual teacher awards. It was reported at Otter Creek that although most awards were reflective of the school population, the majority of awards for the honor roll and good behavior went to white students - 75% and 64% respectively. Reports revealed that students were informed of various opportunities to participate in educational programs and of requirements governing honors and awards. The majority (18) of schools reported that all information received regarding programs such as Arkansas Arts Center classes, summer programs at UALR, Philander Smith College and the It y II were made available to all students. Cloverdale Elementary reported an after school tutoring program. Students who attended were selected by faculty members who understood the procedures for involvement in this activity. The majority of schools reported that a committee evaluated the honors and awards frequently for equity and determined if new awards were necessary, updated lists of all honors and awards. Teachers kept and The majority of schools reported that focus was placed on academics rather than athletics. However, Bale and Wakefield reported that awards and ribbons would be given to all students during field day activities. Dodd and Pulaski Heights reported that each had a sixth grade basketball team and that students were required to maintain average grades or show academic improvement to participate. Games were held after school hours. It was reported that at Western Hills an extracurricular sports team existed, but awards had not been given, were well balanced. The awards given at Meadowcliff Student handbooks were issued at the beginning of the school year, counselor and teacher reinforcement, andFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 19 various announcements were used to inform students of honors and awards. Responses from Principal(s)\nNone. Area Schools/Junior High All six junior high schools offered a wide variety of honors and awards in areas such as academics, music, perfect attendance, citizenship, art, various clubs, and department awards. Henderson reported that honor roll bumper stickers were given to parents and Mabelvale provided students instant awards through a token system which rewarded good conduct and achievement. Each student who raised grades in a nine week period was recognized. Mabelvale and Southwest reported that an awards assembly was held at the end of the school year. Mabelvale, Cloverdale, Henderson and Pulaski Heights reported that procedures were evident to assure that students were apprised of the requirements governing honors and awards through announcements, posters, bulletins, individual contact, teacher reinforcement,, grade level assemblies and school newspapers. Information regarding various opportunities in educational programs was evident at four of the six junior high schoolsCloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale and Pulaski Heights. Forest Heights team reported that the Duke test for participation in the math summer program was offered to II select\" students. The majority of schools reported that offerings and procedures regarding honors and awards were evaluated regularly for equity and to determine if new awards were necessary to meet student needs. The responses of these schools noted that honors and awards not generated at the district level were regularly evaluated by the principals, counselors, department representatives, and team representatives. Henderson faculty members were invited to submit questions and suggestions regarding such equity. Five schools (Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale and Pulaski Heights) gave a positive response to the attention, visibility, and publicity given athletic and non-athletic honors awards. All reported that this area was comparablei First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 20 iil because the same modes and frequency were used. Mixed hl responses from teachers at Forest Heights were reported. Area Schools/Senior High All four area senior high schools reported that awards were given in the areas of academic achievement. well as citizenship. Also, it was reported that all as four high schools provided awards through the various departments represented in the schools such as athletic letters, band, choral and instrumental music, attendance certificates and various clubs. Fair High school reported that Auto-Zone presented book bags, savings bonds, and other awards to vocational education students. At Hall High school the following awards were available: Ray Kroc, Hallmark award. Southwestern Bell, Spirit award and the Most Improved Student award. Fair and McClellan reported that procedures were evident to ensure that students were apprised of requirements governing honors and awards. Bulletin boards in the guidance wing and applicable department wings, as well as bulletins and daily announcements were observed. Teachers at McClellan also reinforced these procedures and individual notices were sent to all eligible students. Each of the five high schools reported that bulletins and daily announcements were provided to assure that students were apprised of information regarding various opportunities in educational programs. Fair High reported that applications were available to all students, whereas McClellan High provided individual notices to those students who were eligible, of teacher reinforcements. There also was continued use Some students at Central High school stated that not enough information was given regarding programs. They felt it was very selective with only high level students receiving awards. f All four area senior high schools informed monitors that the offerings and procedures regarding honors and awards were evaluated regularly for equity and to determine if new awards were necessary to meet student needs. McClellan High reported that counselors and department staffs constantly evaluated and attempted to make sure that new awards were added as necessary. Fair High reported that procedures were updated yearly and that each organization was responsible for giving awards. Evaluation took placeFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 21 periodically and all criteria were given at the beginning of the year. Three of four high schools. Fair, Hall, and McClellan indicated that the attention, visibility and publicity given athletic and non-athletic honors and awards was comparable. Central High's report revealed that athletic awards were more visible and that focus was placed on pep assemblies for athletics rather than academics. Responses from Principal(s): None. Magnet Schools/Elementary It was reported that all schools provided a variety of awards and honors, such as academic honor roll and citizenship. The report indicated that the \"A\" Honor Roll at Booker had an over-representation of white students. At Booker, individual teachers presented awards for over-all improvement (best effort award). Gibbs reported that photographs were made and displayed beside the classroom doors for students who had good citizenship. Students at Carver received the bronze \"Exploring Medal/Planet Earth\" award. At all schools, reports indicated that procedures were evident to assure that students were apprised of requirements governing honors, awards, and various opportunities in educational programs\nsuch as teacher explanations, special assemblies, classroom instruction, and posters displayed throughout the school. The majority of schools revealed that the offerings and procedures regarding honors and awards were evaluated regularly for equity during faculty and grade level meetings. Washington Magnet reported that if inequities should arise, the school biracial committee would address the issue. There was no evidence to support the evaluation of awards at Booker. Magnet Schools/Junior High Dunbar and Mann provided a variety of awards and honors in academics, citizenship, attendance, sports, clubs, music and department awards, points and pencils. Dunbar also awarded students witht I First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 22 i' II, It was reported that students at both schools knew the requirements governing honors and awards and information regarding various opportunities in educational programs through bulletin board announcements, student handbooks and other published announcements concerning academics and honor roll requirements. It was reported that this information was given to students at the beginning of the school year. All visited teachers at each school gave positive responses to the offerings and procedures regarding honors l\u0026lt; and awards being evaluated regularly for equity, were added according to needs. New awards Mann Magnet reported that attention, visibility, and publicity given athletic and non-athletic honors and awards were comparable, more visible. Athletics at Dunbar were reported to be Magnet Schools/Senior High To ensure that no student at Parkview was denied access to being selected for honors and awards, there were a variety of awards and honors provided in academics, sports clubs, music (band, instrumental, choral), citizenship and other departments represented in the school. Students were apprised of the requirements governing honors and awards by a monthly \"Scoop Sheet\" for each grade level. Announcements, bulletins, and posters were displayed on bulletin boards in the guidance office. Counselors visited applicable English classes and made announcements and explanations of various opportunities in educational programs. Information was published in the school newspaper and bulletins. According to the report, honors and awards were not evaluated regularly for equity to determine if new awards were necessary to meet students needs. It was reported that all awards were ones generated either by a local business or at the district level. It was revealed that winners from the speech tournaments, music and drama competitions, business department, etc. received equal attention, visibility and publicity in comparison to athletics and non-athletics.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 23 Incentive Schools All schools provided a variety of honors and awards such as honor roll, citizenship, choir-music, clubs, attendance and student of the week/month. Ish, Rightsell, Mitchell, and Rockefeller reported that students were aware of requirements governing honors and awards through classroom discussions, letters to parents. announcements on the intercom, and assemblies. There was no evidence that students at Garland and Stephens were apprised of requirements governing honors and awards. The majority of students were apprised of information relative to various opportunities in educational programs. In addition, pamphlets and brochures regarding various programs were sent to parents. Information relative to the Extended Day and Saturday Enrichment Program was provided to students. All monitored teachers reported that offerings and procedures regarding honors and awards were evaluated regularly by teachers, principals and special committees. Garland teachers rotated honors for student of the month to ensure equity. Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Garland commented that teachers were to notify students of the requirements governing honors and awards. 4.0 COMMITTEES At each school the monitors expected to see: * Racial/gender composition of committees generally reflects the school community Findings: Area Schools/Elementary Most of the monitoring teams for area elementary schools reported that appointments to committees resulted in committees balanced by race and gender except the teams at Forest Park, Jefferson, Mabelvale, Fulbright, and Watson. The Forest Park team reported that appointments to all school based committees were not in place. It was reported that the PTA Board at Jefferson had all white First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 24 members. The monitoring team for Mabelvale reported an under-representation of black parents on existing committees. At Fulbright the monitors reported that the PTA Board was not balanced by gender\nthe officers were six white females. school profile was incomplete. The Watson team reported that data in the The four committees listed for Watson had a total of nine parents and teachers involved. Responses from Principal(s): It was reported by the principal at Fulbright that the staff committees were representative of the staff population. Area Schools/Junior High For area junior high schools, the monitoring teams reported that school based committees generally reflect the school community, except at Southwest. Area Schools/Senior High All monitoring teams for area high schools reported balanced school based committees. Incentive Schools In all of the incentive schools, except Stephens, monitors reported that all school based committees generally reflected a varied student population including the Biracial Committee, School Improvement Committee, the PTA Board, and the Discipline Management Committee. The Stephens team reported that information on school based committees was not available in the school profile. Magnet Schools/Elementary The monitoring teams for all elementary magnet schools reported that school based committees generally reflect the school community. The Carver PTA Board had two male officers. The PTA Board at Williams did not generally reflect the school population, consisting of two white males, twenty-three white females, and one black female. Magnet Schools/Junior High Both the Dunbar and Mann monitoring teams reported that all school based committees reflected the school community.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 25 Magnet Schools/Senior High It was reported by the Parkview team that they were unable to document if appointments to all school based committees reflected the school community. 5.0 EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES At each school the monitors expected to see: * Extracurricular activities generally balanced by race and gender * Leadership positions generally balanced by race and gender when appropriate * Recruitment practices to promote participation of all races in extracurricular activities Findings: Area Schools/Elementarv The majority of area schools reported that participation in extracurricular activities such as clubs, library monitors, fire marshals, choir, peer tutors and student council representatives generally reflected the school population. However, the student council at Chicot had a higher percentage of white students represented. Cloverdale's student council reported all black officers and sponsors\nclassroom representatives had not been elected. Pulaski Heights reported that the majority of extracurricular activities were sponsored by white staff members. Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Cloverdale reported that Student Council officers were elected. Area Schools/Junior High Four schools (Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Forest Heights and Henderson) reported that participation in extracurricular activities generally reflected the school population. However, Henderson, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest reports reflected a greater representation of blacks in athletics and whites in academic related activities. The sponsor at Mabelvale was actively recruiting students to balance the First Educational Eguity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 26 ! I two exceptions at that school. The Future Business Leaders of America and Career Orientation. 4 Responses from Principal(s): An assistant principal at Southwest stated that the black/white ratios of the girls' basketball and volleyball teams were better than the boys' teams. Area Schools/Senior High Participation in extracurricular activities at Central did not generally reflect the school population. Participants in academic extracurricular activities were mainly white and in athletic activities, mainly black. Fair and McClellan reported that overall participation in extracurricular activities generally reflected the school population. However, some extracurricular activities reflected predominance of one race/gender. Football, basketball, and boys and girls track participants were mostly black\nthe baseball team. National Honor Society and cheerleaders were mostly white. Academic extracurricular activities at Hall had mostly white students and athletics had mostly black students participating. It was also reported that the school profile did not indicate the number of students who participated in extracurricular activities. High fees and lack of transportation kept many students from participating, according to most of the visited teachers. Responses from Principal(s)\nThe principal at McClellan reported that strategies were being developed which would hopefully recruit students into areas of extracurricular activity where there was participation disparity in order to reflect the school's actual population. I An assistant principal at Hall stated that the staff was given an opportunity to change the club meetings to the regular school day and that meetings were now held before school. Many students could not participate due to transportation problems. A decision to make a change for the better would probably occur soon, according to this administrator.First Educational Eguity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 27 Magnet Schools/Elementary According to the report of all schools, participation in extracurricular activities generally reflected the school population. Magnet Schools/Junior High Dunbar and Mann Magnet reported that participation in extracurricular activities generally reflected the school population. Magnet Schools/Senior High Parkview reported that the overall school population was reflected in the participation in most extracurricular activities. However, participants in academic extracurricular activities were mostly white and athletic activities were mostly black. Incentive Schools In most school reports, participation in extracurricular activities generally reflected the school population in clubs such as \"Just Say No, II Art, Science, Cooking, Sewing, Young Musicians and Student Council. Extracurricular activities participation was not evidenced at Mitchell through the school report. 6.0 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT/ASSESSMENT At each school the monitors expected to see: * All students' strengths and weaknesses assessed and their educational programs planned accordingly * Evidence that graduation/promotion/retention rates are monitored and analyzed to reduce disparities in achievement. * Strategies to close the disparity in test scores among identifiable groups Findings: Area Schools/Elementary The monitoring teams for nearly half of the schools reported that no comparison could be made until the 1991 spring test results were made available. All elementaryFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 28 teams reported that goals and strategies were developed and being implemented to decrease achievement differences, was reported by most of the teams that differences in It retention rates were evident between identifiable groups of students. Most of the monitoring teams reported that retention rates were racially disproportionate for elementary schools. Area Schools/Junior High Most of the monitoring teams for junior high schools reported that the comparison of student achievement could not be made until the 1991 spring test results were available. The Forest Heights team reported that with the exception of reading and mathematics, black females improved from 1989 to 1990 on the MPT, and in general, the scores of black males were lower. It was reported by the Southwest monitoring team that Sth grade MPT reading results declined from 1989 to 1990. Monitoring teams reported that goals and strategies were developed and implemented to decrease achievement differences at Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale, and Pulaski Heights. Henderson, Mabelvale, and Pulaski Heights had a disproportionate number of black students retained, compared to the school enrollment. Area Schools/Senior High Monitoring teams for Fair and McClellan reported that no comparison of student achievement could be made until the 1991 spring test results were available. The monitoring team for Central reported that there was a 42 percentile variance between black and white student scores for the 10th grade and a 43 percentile variance for the 11th grade on the Complete Battery of Metropolitan Achievement Test, Sixth Edition (MAT-6). test scores reflected improvement. According to the team at Hall, current All monitoring teams reported that goals and strategies were developed and implemented to decrease the achievement differences. The teams monitoring Fair, Hall, and McClellan reported that retention rates reflected the school population. The Central team reported that a disproportionate number of black students were retained compared to the school enrollment. Incentive Schools According to most of the monitoring teams for the incentive schools, achievement on standardized tests improved overall with the exception of Garland and Stephens. The Garland team reported that black student achievement decreased on the 3rd grade MPT, and the majority ofFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 29 students scored below the 50th percentile on the MAT-6 for all grade levels. The monitoring team at Stephens stated that black student achievement decreased overall on the MPT. All monitoring teams reported that goals and strategies were developed and implemented to decrease achievement disparity. In all of the incentive schools, except Rockefeller and Stephens, monitors reported that retention rates were low and they generally reflected the school population. At Stephens, 14 students were retained13 black males and one black female. There were 18 students retained at Rockefeller, including three white males, one white female, six black males, and eight black females. Responses from Principal(s): According to the principal at Garland, the student population contained a very small number of non-black students\ntherefore, a statistical comparison would not be valid. Magnet Schools/Elementarv All monitoring teams for elementary magnet schools reported that a comparison of student achievement could not be made until the 1991 spring test results were available. All schools had developed goals and strategies, which were being implemented to decrease achievement disparity. according to the monitoring teams. The monitors reported that retention rates reflected the student enrollment for all magnet schools except Gibbs, Washington, and Williams. The Gibbs team reported that retention rates by race were unequal based on the school enrollment. The monitoring team for Washington stated that although a large number of students were retained, the statistics available did not give an adequate representation for identifiable groups of students for the 1989-90 school year. A majority of the retainees at Washington had been retained in their tridistrict area schools prior to enrolling at Washington. At Williams, the monitoring team reported that differences were evident in the number of black and white students retained compared to the school enrollment. Magnet Schools/Junior High The Dunbar team reported that according to available MPT reading and mathematics scores, the achievement of all The monitoring students declined over a three-year period. team for Mann reported improved student achievement on the MPT with the exception of black females, whose failure rate increased by two percentage points. Goals and strategies were developed and implemented to decrease achievementFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 30 I i I I disparity at Mann, according to the monitors. Both monitoring teams reported that differences were evident in the groups of black and white students retained, compared to their school enrollments. All students retained at Dunbar, and 72 percent of the students retained at Mann, were black. Responses from Principal(s)\nIt was reported by the principal at Dunbar that there was a significantly different student body this year compared with the last school year. In addressing differences in the past year's test scores, the principal responded. \"We are not accurately evaluating programs\nthis can be more accurate if we use test data from spring 1991. It Magnet Schools/Senior High 7.0 The Parkview monitoring team reported that a comparison of student achievement could not be made until the 1991 spring test results were available. Goals and strategies were developed and implemented to decrease achievement differences, according to the Parkview team. The monitors reported that there were no differences evident between identifiable groups of retained students. SPECIAL EDUCATION I.  At each school the monitors expected to see: * Clear, well-defined referral, assessment and placement procedures * Special Education facilities that are comparable to other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment * Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available for all students to participate in classroom learning experiences * Strategies to decrease any overrepresentation of minorities Findings: Area Schools/Elementary In over half (14) of the area elementary schools, monitoring teams found in place strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education. Eight of the schools that were reported as not havingif J ir ' First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 31 I- J I. I' !1 strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education did not have a disproportionality in the current student assignment. These schools were Chicot, Cloverdale, Franklin, Fulbright, Geyer Springs, Pulaski Heights, Terry and Woodruff. The teams that visited Fair Park, Otter Creek, and Wakefield indicated that these strategies were not evident at the time of the monitoring visits. '1 I A majority of the special education classrooms visited  in most (17) of the area schools had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. Some special education teachers needed equipment and materials to meet the special needs of the students who were being served. These classrooms were at Bale, Franklin, Geyer Springs, Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Wakefield, and Watson. I Most monitoring reports asserted that special education facilities were comparable to those of the campus in general. However, the teams that visited Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, Meadowcliff, McDermott, and Western Hills reported that the special education facilities were not comparable to other classrooms of the campus. The Cloverdale team noted that the special education facilitie^'s were small,  ' . \"  . At Geyer Springs, one specialist had dark, and inadequate. limited space in a portion of a portable building, while the other specialist had adequate space. Three special education teachers were housed in one room at Meadowcliff. The McDermott team noted inadequate space for two special education teachers who share a room. A similar situation was reported at Western Hills where the special education classroom was housed in a portion of a portable building. This portable was shared with the speech therapist and the i\ncounselor. The Geyer Springs report noted that the special I, I education facilities were located in a portable building, but so were several other regular classrooms and the gifted and talented (GT) classroom. 1 I i In a majority of the area elementary schools, monitoring teams obseirved, and teachers interviewed, indicated that the special education facilities were designed to meet the needs of the students served. ' The special education facilities at nine schools needed some modifications in order to meet the special needs of the I students to be served. These schools were Bale, Brady, Chicot, Cloverdale, Jefferson, Meadowcliff, McDermott, Terry, and Western Hills. The Bale report stated that entrance and exit ramps were needed and that cafeteria tables did not accommodate the physically handicapped student. A kitchen, bathroom andFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 32 area for changing students clothing were needs listed in the Brady report. The Chicot team found that modifications to the facilities necessary to meet the special needs of the students were sometimes not provided or were slow to arrive. The Cloverdale report stated that the facilities at that school were not specifically designed for special education. There was no bathroom or shower available for personal hygiene in the special education classroom at Jefferson\nalso, no provision for wheelchairs. The Meadowcliff report stated that the facilities were too small. facilities at McDermott. Space was also a major need for adequate That committee's report noted that two full time teachers were needed, instead of the one and one-half time teachers, with appropriate space and materials to meet the needs of all the students at McDermott that had already been identified for special education services. At Terry, the facility was originally a bookroom and few adjustments had been made to accommodate the needs of special education students. a name plate designating the room as The special education room had II Resource. II The Western Hills' report noted that even though a small number of students were served in the special education facilities, the location and size inhibited a positive learning environment. Responses from Principal(s): According to the principal at Chicot, II numerous requests to the Special Education Department for handrails for the bathroom had been made. Once these arrived at the school, they were promptly installed. It The principal at Geyer Springs said that the special education teacher that had limited materials was scheduled to two schools and shared materials. These materials are not normally included in the regular school budget. The principal at Meadowcliff acknowledged that the percentage of black students enrolled in special education was a little high, but he felt it was the best program for meeting these students' needs. He further stated that the special education teacher who needed some equipment should let him know, and he would try to get it.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 33 The Romine principal reminded the monitoring team that the resource class and speech classrooms were housed in portable buildings. At Terry, the principal reported that the room served as a storage room and a special education classroom, and that construction of additional classrooms had been requested. She agreed with the committee that the sign outside the door labeling the room as \"Resource\" should be removed, and stated that it would be taken down the next day. The principal of Watson declared that a large number of students came to them assigned to resource, classes, indirect services were being provided. In some The Western Hills principal indicated that the portable buildings would be eliminated next year with the addition of ten new classrooms and a media center, scheduled to begin in January 1991. This construction is Area Schools/Junior High None of the area junior high schools had strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education except Pulaski Heights. However, there was an over-representation of black students in special education at that school. The Pulaski Heights team noted that students were selected and placed in special education according to the guidelines of the district. At Cloverdale, Henderson, and Mabelvale strategies were not needed because there was no disproportionality among students assigned to special education. The special education classrooms visited at Henderson, Forest Heights, Mabelvale, and Pulaski Heights had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. However, the Pulaski Heights team reported that the computers in the special education laboratory did not work. The Mabelvale report expressed a need for some learning centers, more books, and up-to-date materials. The Southwest and Cloverdale reports indicated that materials and equipment were not adequate. At Southwest there was a need for more computers and proper wiring in the building. A need for more audio-visual equipment and materials, modified textbooks, hands-on materials, computer software and tape recorders was cited in the Cloverdale report.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 34 All schools had special education facilities that were comparable to those of the campus in general. The Southwest team noted that one special education room was too small. I The teams reported that special education classrooms were integrated into the total school environment. At I Cloverdale and Mabelvale one special education classroom was located in a portable, but so were other classes. All of the teams found the special education facilities were designed to meet the needs of the students served except for Cloverdale where more space was needed. Responses from Principal(s)\nThe principal at Cloverdale stated that she had spoken with a teacher who wanted a tape recorder for the use of a special education student and had already requested assistance from the Special Education Department through I their department chairperson. No other request for materials and equipment had been made. According to this principal, space problems will be taken care of during renovation. The Forest Heights principal commented that principals did not have control over the district selection process for special education students. He further stated that they had two full-time special education teachers on staff and two part-time special education teachers who come from other schools. A formula, based on the number of students to be served, is used to determine allocation of special education teachers. The principal said that one more full time special education teacher was needed at Forest Heights. According to an administrator at Pulaski Heights, most of their special education students had access to computers through classes in which they are mainstreamed. A Southwest assistant principal said that some two million dollars in improvements are expected during the summer of 1991. 1 11 ' -'cFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 35 Area Schools/Senior High I SPECIAL EDUCATION ENROLLMENT I I Schools Black N Q, White N Other N *6 Total N Central Fair Hall McClellan 115 90% 13 10% 128 12 46 52 60% 66% 70% 24 22 40% 34% 30% 20 70 74 Numbers in the above chart were taken from each school report. As may be noted, Central was the only school that had a disproportionate number of students from one race assigned to special education. The McClellan report indicated that very few students were identified and placed in the special education program at the secondary level. Students who were in the program were referred and placed at the junior high level or earlier, for the most part. All assignments to special education follow district/state/federal guidelines, with approval of the district's Division of Exceptional Children. The monitoring teams found that Central, Fair, and Hall had strategies in place to help prevent an imbalance in student assignment to special education classes. Since there was no disproportionality in student assignment to special education at McClellan, strategies were not considered necessary. At Fair, the team noted that the learning strategies program had enabled some students to exit special education or be mainstreamed. Teachers visited at Central, Hall, and McClellan asserted that they had adequate materials and equipment for curricula delivery, according to those team reports. Fair report noted that materials and equipment were The inadequate in the special education classrooms visited and indicated a need for hands-on-material. All school reports affirmed that the special education facilities were comparable to those of the campuses in 8 5, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 36 I I I The Hall team declared the special education general. facilities to be \"better quality\" than others. At each of the area high schools the special education classrooms were integrated into the total school environment. None were isolated, but were interspersed with other classrooms. I All teams found that the facilities for special education in the area high schools were designed to meet the needs of the students being served. I I Responses from Principal(s)\nThe principal at Fair reported that all materials requested had been ordered and that the Special Education Department budget had not been fully spent in two years. Magnet Schools/Elementary Each school had strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education, according I I to the school reports. Pupil services teams were used in all of the schools to ensure that proper procedures for student placement were followed. All reports, except Gibbs, indicated that visited special education teachers had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. The Gibbs team reported that the resource room lacked textbooks, and that students brought books with them. A computer was available but had not been installed, although a work order had been forwarded to appropriate personnel, observed in the classroom. No other equipment was The special education facilities were reported to be comparable to the other classrooms at Booker, Carver, Washington and Williams. However, the Gibbs team deemed that the one-half of a portable building which was used for resource room and speech was not comparable to other classrooms on that campus. It was reported that the other half of this portable was used for GT classes. Special education classrooms were integrated into the total school environment and were designed to meet the needs of the students served at all magnet schools except Gibbs. The Gibbs team reported that there were no hands-on materials observed, no bulletin boards available, and boxes of out-dated materials were stacked in the room. The portable building which housed this classroom was some distance from the main building, with no covered walkway. First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 37 I 1 Team reports indicated the special education facilities at most schools met the needs of the students' being served. I Responses from Principal(s): None. Magnet Schools/Junior High Strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education were evident to the Mann team. However, student assignment to special education at Mann was not disproportionate. The Dunbar team reported no strategies regarding disproportionality. The special education teacher visited at Mann had adequate materials and equipment for curricula delivery. However, the teachers visited at Dunbar said that materials and equipment were not adequate and that some textbooks and hands-on materials were needed. The special education facilities at Mann were reported to be comparable to those of the campus in general, while this was not so at Dunbar. One special education classroom located near the bandroom at Dunbar was deemed too small and A special education teacher at Dunbar had to too noisy. travel from room to room, conducting class in four different I I locations. Both teams indicated that the special education facilities at these schools were integrated into the total school environment and were designed to meet the special needs of the students assigned to these classrooms. Responses from Principal(s): The Dunbar principal stated that the special education teacher would move to a different room the next week. She explained, \"the school is over student capacity because the classrooms are smaller than the average size. The district administration figured capacity at thirty students per classroom, even though the square footage of the classrooms is too small to accommodate that many students. II Magnet Schools/Senior High The Parkview team reported no evidence of strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education. However, a small percentage of students were enrolled in special education and no significant disproportionality existed.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 38 I i In the special education classroom observed, the teacher had adequate materials available to deliver the curriculum. The special education classroom, located in part of the main building, was found to be comparable to other classrooms in the school. However, the team reported that the classroom was not conducive to the special learning needs of the students in the three classes. Since the room was used by other groups of students, no special modifications had been made. Responses from Principal(s): The principal reported that he did not have enough space to designate one room solely to special education\nthere were only three special education classes and the teacher was only there one-half day. Incentive Schools The monitoring reports indicated that there were no strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to the special education programs at any of the six incentive schools. I ' I According to the Garland report, the special education teacher was absent on the day of the monitoring visit and no I one visited that classroom. Therefore, no responses were recorded for the remainder of this area for Garland. The reports for the other incentive schools indicated that in the special education classrooms visited. the teachers had adequate materials for the delivery of the curriculum. The Rightsell report included the statement \"the computer in that classroom was connected to the school computer laboratory\ntherefore, providing individual that. The Rockefeller report programs for the students. indicated a need for more manipulatives in the special II education classroom. The special education facilities at Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens were deemed comparable to those of the campuses in general by the monitoring teams. An additional comment on the Mitchell report described the room as II environment.\" large, spacious and conducive to the learning According to five of the monitoring reports. the special education classrooms were integrated into the total school environment.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 39 I i Facilities for special education met the needs of the students served according to the Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens reports. Responses from Principal(s): At all incentive schools special education students, except self-contained, received indirect inservices in the regular classrooms. 8.0 GIFTED AND TALENTED EDUCATION At each school the monitors expected to see: * Students identified through referral, standardized test results, academic performance, and other criteria deemed appropriate by the school staff * A planned and organized strategy to address any problem of underrepresentation of minorities in gifted and talented programs I * Sufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment available to deliver the curriculum to all students in the class I * Gifted and talented (GT) facilities that are comparable to other educational programs on the campus and integrated into the total school environment I I Findings: Area Schools/Elementary Most teams reported that strategies that would eliminate disproportionality of assignments were evident. except at Geyer Springs and Meadowcliff. In most of the classrooms teachers, had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. Monitors indicated that teachers did not have adequate materials and/or equipment in the following cases and cited such inadequacies as: Brady, consumable items\nCloverdale, equipment, e.g., a television, VCR, computers, and a chalkboard. The team at Woodruff did not respond to this item on the monitoring instrument because the GT teacher was out of the building on the day of the monitoring visit. GT facilities were reported as comparable to those of the campus in general at all area elementary schools except Brady, Cloverdale, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Terry, and Wilson. In these schools, the following inadequacies were First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 40 I i i noted: At Brady the tables and chairs were not comparable. There was no covered walkway or awning over the doorway to the portable building which houses the GT facility. Cloverdale had no facility dedicated solely for use of GT classes. There was no sink or carpet for the GT classes at McDermott, as was available in other classrooms, but a new room for GT was under construction. At Meadowcliff a room was shared with the mathematics laboratory. The GT classroom at Terry was smaller than regular classrooms and shared by two teachers. The GT program at Wilson was housed in a renovated restroom/bookstore, and was not comparable in size to the regular classrooms. GT facilities were housed in portable buildings at Badgett, Bale, Brady, Chicot, Geyer Springs, Watson, and Western Hills. Classrooms for GT students at most area elementary schools were integrated into the total school environment, as indicated by the Biracial Teams. However, at Cloverdale there was no specific room assigned for GT classes\ntherefore, the teacher held classes in various areas of the building. The monitoring team from Cloverdale reported that because of the superb cooperation of the rest of the faculty, the GT teacher was able to have an effective program. 1 Responses from Principal(s): I The principal at Bale reported that she had consulted with the GT specialist to determine what process could be taken to increase the enrollment of students in the GT program. At Brady, in reference to the comment concerning inadequate materials, the principal stated that all available materials were at the disposal of the students. The principal at Franklin indicated that student placement in the GT program was ultimately determined at the district level, not by the school staff. At Geyer Springs, the principal informed the monitors that although the GT classroom was located in a portable building, the GT teacher interacted with the staff and students on the days she was assigned to the school. In referring to strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to GT, the principal at Meadowcliff said that there was an identification procedure established by the District which must be followed. Concerning the inadequacy of materials and equipment for the IFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 41 I i GT program, the principal reported that recently the central office released budgeted funds to the GT teacher. Area Schools/Junior High The teams at Henderson, Mabelvale, Pulaski Heights, and Cloverdale reported that strategies that would eliminate any disproportionality of assignments were evident, and cited the following examples: active recruiting by teachers, counselors, and administrators\nasking teachers for recommendations, and following the LRSD nomination I guidelines for identifying GT students. Nominations for GT placement may be made by teachers, counselors, administrators, the student himself/herself, parents, peers, or patrons. The team at Forest Heights indicated that strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to GT classes were not in evidence. At Southwest and Cloverdale, student assignments to the GT program were not disproportionate\ntherefore, no strategies were required. In all of the area junior high school GT classrooms observed, except at Forest Heights and Mabelvale, teachers had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum, according to the team reports. Monitors from Mabelvale reported that much of the material was outdated and not appropriate for students' needs. They also noted a shortage of adequate science materials, including laboratory equipment, and cited the need for additional computers in all GT classrooms. The Forest Heights team indicated the need for maps and microscopes in the social studies and science classes respectively. I I The Biracial Teams at all area junior high schools indicated that facilities for GT students were both comparable to those of the campus in general and integrated into the total school environment. Facilities for GT classes were reported as designed to meet the needs of the students served at Forest Heights, Pulaski Heights, Cloverdale, Southwest, and Henderson, team at Mabelvale reported no separate facilities for GT The classes, that the same classrooms are used for both regular and GT classes, and that no special facilities were needed. At Mabelvale Junior High School, the monitors noted that sometimes the area of a student's giftedness was not academic\ntherefore, he/she was not placed in a GT academic class. The school attempted to provide for these students through placement in the area of giftedness, i.e., music.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 42 I I art, or vocational education. The student was scheduled into a class which would accommodate his giftedness, and the teacher and counselors worked together to provide for the student's needs. Responses from Principal(s): I The principal at Mabelvale Jr. High expressed the opinion that equipment for the GT program should be provided by the District, including some provision by the GT Department. At Forest Heights, the principal explained that there was not a GT mathematics teacher on one of the 9th grade teams\nhowever, 9th grade students designated for GT mathematics were assigned to the team which does include instruction in an Algebra II GT class. He said that all GT students on the 9th grade level were receiving GT services. Area Schools/Senior High Biracial Teams at all area high schools, except Central, reported no disproportionality of assignment by race or gender to GT classes. I 11 The Biracial Teams at all four area high schools indicated that facilities for GT students were comparable to those of the campus in general, integrated into the total school environment, and designed to meet the needs of the students served. I In the GT classrooms observed at Central, Hall, and McClellan, teachers had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum, according to the team reports. Although the monitors at Fair indicated that additional funds were needed to secure adequate materials for GT classes, no specific items were noted. Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Central reported that he checked grades, called homes, and visited parents in an effort to increase minority student enrollment in upper level courses, including GT classes. The principal at Fair stated that tt If a student is in an AP class, district policy allows students to withdraw from class during any time period. Some students. therefore, tend to transfer from an AP class to a regular class the first time they experience much difficulty.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 43 I i Teachers would like for them to stay in the class so that they could work with the student and let the student find out that he/she can do the work.\" In response to the reported need for additional funds in order to provide adequate materials for GT classes at Fair, the principal stated that he had received no requests from GT teachers for such funds. Magnet Schools/Elementary All elementary magnet schools had evident strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to GT classes, according to reports submitted by their respective monitoring teams. Monitors reported that in all GT classrooms observed at the elementary magnet schools, teachers had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. The Biracial Teams at Carver and Washington indicated that GT facilities were comparable to those of the campus in general, integrated into the total school environment, and designed to meet the needs of the students served. At Gibbs, Booker, and Williams, the reports stated that GT facilities were not comparable to those of the campus in I general, nor were students served. I they designed to meet the needs of the The team at Booker noted that the GT classroom was located near the gymnasium, had concrete floors, and a strong odor from old cork walls which had deteriorated. At Williams, the two classrooms for GT students were housed in a portable building with a partition between the two classrooms that did not go all the way to At Gibbs, the GT classroom was located in a the ceiling. , portable building that was away from the main building, with no covered walkway. The Gibbs' report included the additional information that space was limited and too small for some groups. Monitors at Gibbs further reported that the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) had waived the requirement which stipulated that a maximum of 75 students can be assigned to a GT teacher. This same waiver also applies to Booker and Carver and is based on the following provision of the LRSD Gifted Program which was approved by the ADE: \"Because the existing regular curriculum offers enrichment to all students, the gifted specialist will work with identified gifted students in the regular classrooms with only 30 minute pull-out per week. The pull-out time will be designed to meet the social and emotional needs of the First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 44 gifted students. This waiver enables the GT teacher to serve more students. At Gibbs, the time scheduled for GT is 30 minutes per week for Grades K-4 and one hour a week for the 5th and 6th grades. Monitors reported that as a result of the short periods scheduled for GT, the teacher offered mini-courses during the lunch period. H The GT classroom was integrated into the total school environment at Booker, but not at Gibbs or Williams, according to the reports submitted by the respective teams of those three schools. Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Booker said that he considered the condition of the GT classroom deplorable. Magnet Schools/Junior High Assignment to GT was not disproportionate at Mann\ntherefore, no strategies were necessary. However at Dunbar, where a disproportionality does exist, no strategies were evident, according to the monitoring report. Monitors indicated that at both magnet junior high schools, the GT classrooms were comparable to those of the campus in general, integrated into the total school environment, and designed to meet the needs of the students served. I\nI I i In GT classrooms observed at Mann and Dunbar, monitors reported that teachers had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. However at Dunbar, a comment noted that one GT teacher purchased his/her own materials and equipment and that microscopes were needed. Magnet Schools/Senior High Monitors at Parkview reported that strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to GT classes were evident. The building GT coordinator was assessing the assignments to the GT program to determine what strategies could be implemented. However, the current GT assignments did not reflect any disproportionality. The report indicated that in the GT classrooms observed, the teachers had adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum, that GT facilities were comparable to those of the campus in general, and that the GT classrooms were integrated into the total school environment. Comments noted in the report indicated that GTFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 45 ! i classrooms were used for both GT classes and regular classes. Incentive Schools Each of the Biracial Teams at the six incentive schools reported that there was no evidence of strategies that would eliminate any disproportionality of assignments by race or gender to GT classes. Monitors at Stephens and Rockefeller indicated that assignments were not disproportionate\ntherefore, no such strategies were necessary. However, disproportionate assignments did exist at the other incentive schools according to the team reports. At the incentive schools, review of gender placement reveals some disproportionality. The teams from Garland and Mitchell did not respond to the remainder of the items about GT Education on the monitoring instrument\ntherefore, no further comments will be made relative to the GT program at these schools. Rightsell was the only incentive school which did not Teams. have adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum, according to reports submitted by the Biracial Monitors at Rightsell reported that they did not i observe adequate visuals for the GT program. I I GT classrooms were integrated into the total school environment and were designed to meet the needs of the students served, according to the teams at all of the reporting incentive schools. The monitors at Rockefeller and Rightsell indicated that GT facilities were comparable to those of the campus The team at Stephens reported that some of the in general. furniture in the GT classroom was not safe for students. The GT classroom at Ish was shared with the music teacher, according to the team report. Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Ish stated that the classroom was shared by GT, music, and physical education. adequate because the GT teacher went to the regular The space was classrooms for indirect teaching during the day, focusing on higher order thinking skills. during the regular day for GT. There were no pull-outs Pull-outs occurred only during the extended day program, when the GT teacher had the classroom to himself for direct instruction of the GT students.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 46 9.0 STAFF DEVELOPMENT I I I At each school the monitors expected to see: * Staff development programs designed to enable staff members to fulfill the school mission and purpose * Staff development provided at a variety of places and times I * Appropriate inservice provided to enable each staff member to understand his/her role and responsibility in the implementation of the districtwide desegregation plan * Documentation of staff development participation Findings\nArea Schools/Elementary The staff development plans for most of the area elementary schools had provided for inservice related to educational equity, and the majority of the staff members at those schools had received the training. Teachers were inserviced Principals of Effective Teaching (PET), Teacher Expectations of Student Achievement (TESA), cooperative I I learning, learning styles, behavior management, stereoTraining was I typing, and cross cultural communication. offered to staff members during desegregation days, pre- school workshops, and at faculty meetings. This training was available to certified and noncertified staff members. The team report from Brady and Watson revealed that the data was incomplete. Staff development related to equitable staffing practices had been provided in sixteen of the area schools. Chicot, Franklin, Fulbright, McDermott, Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Terry, Wakefield and Watson had not made this training accessible to their staff members. Training in teaching strategies for multicultural curriculum delivery was provided in all the area schools except Chicot. However, all area schools used the curriculum guides to plan lessons, units of study, bulletin Some of the teachers boards, and special activities. monitored expressed that the social studies guides were inadequate and were concerned about the format and quality. It was also expressed that the availability of materials needed for the activities often posed a problem. At Watson, kindergarten teachers were of the opinion that some of the activities in the guide were too difficult for theFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 47 I developmental stage of the students, and some Jefferson teachers felt somewhat restricted by the curriculum guides. Documentation in the area school profiles indicated that all schools except Chicot had provided staff development activities related to effective strategies to increase the achievement of a diverse student population. Staff development evidenced in the various school profiles were PET, TESA, GT, cooperative learning, reading, whole language, high scope, learning styles, teacher parent conferences, discipline management, cross cultural communication, Base 10, and math manipulatives. Several teachers had completed more than one cycle of PET. Some staff members at Fair Park felt that more inservice training was needed in strategies to increase the achievement of a diverse student population, as stated in the team report. Responses from Principal(s): The principal of Chicot said that at the first inservice, multi-cultural guides were discussed and the staff was instructed how to use and apply the strategies. This had also been done at grade level meetings. I I I I Several inservices were provided by the district and he felt that it was the teachers' responsibility to attend the I meetings. The principal of Badgett shared that more staff development activities would be forthcoming with the approval of the school's Academic Grant. The principal of Fair Park stated that during the 1989-90 school year, staff development related to educational equity was provided and was an ongoing program She also stated that the district had this school year. provided inservice related to equitable staffing practices for principals. Area Schools/Junior High All monitored junior high school staff members agreed that the staff development plan had provided activities related to educational equity. At Pulaski Heights, Cloverdale, Henderson, and Mabelvale Junior High, all staff members had participated in training at the district level or school site. The team report from Southwest and Forest Heights indicated that this inservice had been made available, but did not give specific numbers regarding how many teachers had been inserviced. The data from the Forest Heights team report suggested that staff development related First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 48 1 I to equity was directed toward the core curriculum, not athletics and related arts. Staff members at all the area junior high schools had been prepared to appropriately apply teaching strategies related to multicultural curriculum delivery through staff development, as stated in the team reports. Most of the junior high school staff had received training related to effective strategies to reduce the achievement disparity of a diverse student population. Many of the staff had participated in several cycles of PET, assertive discipline, classroom management, TESA, cooperative learning and cross cultural communication. The staff development activities had been provided by the counselors, during monthly faculty meetings, and by the district. Responses from Principal{s): An assistant principal at Pulaski Heights stated that the administrators had participated in staff development related to staffing equity. The principal of Henderson reported that in January a two-day workshop on classroom management would be held at Henderson for all staff members. Area Schools/Senior High The monitoring team report from Fair and McClellan indicated that the staff had participated in a number of inservices that afforded educational equity training. The report indicated that various kinds of staff development had been offered during the pre-school desegregation days and monthly faculty meetings. The report from Central revealed that the district had provided inservice to the Central staff, but this training had not been offered at the building level. Staff development related to equitable staffing practices had not been provided at McClellan, Hall, or Central. At Fair, the report disclosed that this inservice had been made available and was offered at alternating school sites. Strategies for multicultural curriculum delivery were being applied at all senior high schools. The reports from Fair and McClellan indicated that multicultural strategies and their use were discussed during departmental meetings, pre-school inservice, faculty meetings, and through the atlas Program information. The composite report from Hall disclosed that in the departments where curriculum guides ( I I IFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 49 I I I ! were available, staff development had been provided. According to the Central report, most visited teachers did not have multicultural curriculum guides. Staff development related to effective strategies to enhance the achievement of a diverse student population was strongly encouraged by the principal at Fair. The team reports also indicated that all teachers at McClellan and most teachers at Hall had received this inservice. The Central report indicated that teachers interviewed reported that the staff had not received recent staff development in this area. Responses from Principal(s): The principal of Central stated that educational equity training had been provided at the site. All teachers were given communication regarding dates and times. He further stated that he had suggested to several teachers that TESA, PET, and classroom management be a part of their individual improvement plan. Magnet Schools/Elementary Team reports from Carver, Gibbs, Booker, Washington and Williams showed that a majority of the staff had received educational equity training that included cooperative learning, classroom management, PET, and TESA. The reports from Booker and Gibbs reflected that there was no documentation indicating that staff development activity related to equitable staffing practices had been provided I for those staff members. I The responses of teachers interviewed were mixed at Williams regarding participation in equitable staffing practices training, and teachers at Washington had received this training but indicated more was needed. All reports revealed that a significant number of staff members had participated in staff development that would enhance multicultural curriculum delivery. ' According to the team reports, a majority of the certified staff at the inagnet schools had been given training related to effective strategies to increase the achievement of a diverse student population. This training included effective teaching, GT, reading, whole language, math, assertive discipline, TESA, and computer use. Several teachers at Washington shared that the inservice related to classroom management and high expectations were extremely helpful.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 50 I i I I Magnet Schools/Junior High There was evidence at Dunbar and Mann that inservice related to educational equity had been provided during the LRSD desegregation inservice days. The composite reports indicated that staff development regarding equitable staffing practices had not been made available to the staff. Both team reports recounted that training had been provided to aid in the delivery of the multicultural curriculum and strategies to enhance the achievement of a diverse student population. Magnet Schools/Senior High Staff development relative to educational equity had been made available to the staff during the desegregation inservice days provided by the district. In addition, all teachers assigned to this school were required to take TESA and PET. The Magnet Review Committee provided staff development related to equitable staffing practices for the principal and he, in turn, informed the faculty. I The team report indicated that there had been no inservice activities in teaching strategies for multicultural curriculum delivery, but staff development related to effective strategies to heighten achievement of the student population was provided. I I I Incentive Schools Educational equity staff development at the incentive schools had been provided through faculty meetings, preschool inservice and the district's desegregation inservice days. Inservice included PET, TESA, cooperative learning groups, student learning styles, higher order thinking skills, whole group, and prejudice reduction training. Inservice related to equitable staffing practices had been afforded the staffs at the incentive schools. District personnel and resource persons from outside the district provided this training. Training in multicultural curriculum delivery was given to all incentive school certified personnel at the school site and by the district. Inservice was held during the summer, at regularly scheduled faculty meetings and at Hall High School. Areas addressed through staff development included building an effective multicultural climate, using multicultural literature in the classroom.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 51 I I I and strategies and activities in the multicultural curriculum guides. Effective strategies to heighten the achievement of a diverse student body included inservice for TESA, the whole language approach, at-risk students, role-modeling, stereotyping, and cross cultural communication. Responses from Principal(s) : None. 10.0 PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT At each school the monitors expected to see: * Evidence that the school reaches out to all segments of the total parent population * The school provides a continuous flow of information to parents regarding all aspects of their child's school performance. * School functions scheduled to accommodate all parent groups I I * Opportunities to develop leadership skills among all parent groups * Transportation provided for parents who need the service when financially possible * Documented evidence showing how all identifiable groups of parents have been actively solicited * School functions scheduled in community facilities near identifiable groups of parents Findings: Area Schools/Elementary The majority of the area school team reports disclosed that equitable opportunities for active parental involvement was available for all identifiable groups. The Mabelvale report indicated that parents were very responsive in attending PTA meetings and parent conferences when transportation was provided. However, parent involvement on a daily basis was representative of a select group of non-black parents with an under-representation of blackFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 52 I 1 1 I I parents. The reports from Terry and Fulbright revealed that participation from more black males was needed. To encourage parental involvement in school and home supported educational activities, a variety of methods was utilized by all the area schools. At many of the schools copies of letters to and from parents were on file. Other methods used were phone calls, principal memos, newspapers, primary level parent meetings, occasional home visits, available transportation, parent handbooks, parenting classes, and PTA programs. The Jefferson report indicated that parental involvement was encouraged in most classrooms visited, but some teachers emphasized there was a need for improvement. The area school reports recounted that contact was made regularly with the home to communicate positive as well as negative information related to student behavior and achievement. Numerous methods were used to articulate information to parents including conferences, phone calls, home visits, interim reports, daily progress reports, happy grams, homework folders, weekly assessments and parent up-date forms. In school desegregation matters, most of the team reports stated that parents were given the opportunity to I assist with the formulation of the school plans. The I reports indicated that parental input and participation was actively solicited and encouraged. Team reports from four of the area schools, Mabelvale, Chicot, Western Hills and Wakefield revealed that parents were not afforded the opportunity to actively participate in writing the school plans. As reported by the teams, school improvement plans for those schools were written by the staff and building administrators respectively. Responses from Principal(s) The principal of Fair Park said that parent groups worked together exceptionally well for the benefit of the school. Regularly planned parent meetings were held on a continuing basis, and there were numerous activities going on all the time. The principal of Meadowcliff stated that only a few parents were actively involved. Those were mostly non-black parents from the neighborhood school community. Fulbright's principal said that he would like to see more black males involved.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 53 The principal of Wilson shared that conference sheets were used to inform parents. The principal of Chicot said that parents did assist with the development of the school plan. The principal of Western Hills stated that parents were scheduled to be involved in writing the school plan but for various legitimate reasons could not participate. Wakefield's principal said that the Incentive Grant and the School Improvement Plan were meshed together. He said that parents were involved in developing the Incentive Grant plan. He further stated that most Wakefield parents work and can't be pulled from the job for more involvement without the threat of jeopardizing their employment. Area Schools/Junior High Team reports from Southwest and Pulaski Heights reported inconsistent parental involvement and stated that more participation was needed from all parent groups. The team reports from Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Forest Heights and Henderson stated that all identifiable groups were given the opportunity to participate and in most instances, representation could be observed from all parent groups. I I I The data from all team reports revealed that each school utilized a variety of methods to encourage parental support, e.g., team meetings involving parents and teachers, phone calls, PTA newsletters, school newspapers, bulletins, happy grams and home visits by the school nurses. counselors, and special education teachers. Contact with the home was made frequently to share positive as well as negative information related to behavior and achievement at all schools. Interim reports and parent letters were sent on a regular basis, and at some of the schools, seventh and eighth grade students were required to maintain an assignment plan book. communicated through this process. Teachers, students, and parents the exception All team reports, with of Southwest, indicated that school patrons/parents were given the opportunity to assist with the development of the school improvement plan. Area Schools/Senior High Team reports from McClellan and Fair indicated that all groups of parents participated in school functions including PTSA membership, booster clubs, VIPS, and attendance at athletic events, and dramatic and music presentations.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 54 I i ! I Many methods were used at Fair and McClellan to communicate information related to behavior and achievement. Congratulatory notes, phone calls, and interim reports were used regularly. At Fair, there was a procedure in place for teachers to give positive as well as negative comments, according to the team report. The reports from Fair and McClellan also stated that parents/patrons were involved in matters of school desegregation by actively participating in the development of the local school plans. The Central report stated that the principal wrote the improvement plan, and at Hall, information was not available. Responses from Principal(s): The principal of McClellan stated that attempts were being made to initiate a more complete system to communicate with parents, both positively and negatively, regarding student behavior and achievement. Magnet Schools/Elementary All identifiable groups of parents from Carver, Washington, Booker, and Williams were involved in school functions through PTA, VIPS, as homeroom sponsors, tutors, room parents, and fund raisers. The team report from Gibbs suggested that all groups were involved in school functions, but there were slightly fewer blacks than non-blacks. The reports indicated that all of the elementary magnet schools utilized various methods to encourage parental involvement in school and home supported educational activities, including weekly progress reports, phone calls, conferences, newsletters, newspapers, letters, memos. and bulletins. Frequent contact was made with the home to disclose positive as well as negative information related to student behavior and/or achievement. At Washington, it was standard procedure for every parent to be contacted during the first nine weeks of school. The team reports showed that parents were contacted through good news notes, interim reports, phone calls, conferences and quarterly progress reports. Four of the reports (Carver, Washington, Booker and Gibbs) revealed that in matters of school desegregation, the school profiles showed a listing of parents that partici- pated in the development of the school plan. The school profile at Williams did not indicate parents were involved in writing the school plan. However, staff members on the biracial monitoring team shared that parents were involved. 1 i I i I IFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 55 1 I I I During the exit conference, the principal agreed with the teacher's statements. Magnet Schools/Junior High The magnet junior high reports showed that all identifiable groups of parents were not actively involved in school functions. The team report from Mann stated that black parent involvement was minimal and the Dunbar team report reflected that the majority of the visited staff expressed that many parents were not involved. Interviewed staff members at Mann and Dunbar agreed that a variety of methods were used to encourage parental involvement. Documentation was observed by team members. Most of the visited teachers at both schools stated that contact was made with the home on a regular basis to communicate positive as well as negative behavior and progress or lack of progress in achievement, through happy grams and quarterly reports. This was done Several visited classroom teachers at Dunbar said that no contact was made with the home to convey information to parents regarding student achievement. At Mann, documentation was observed that indicated that the PTA council participated in the development of the school plan, while the report from Dunbar provided no such evidence of this. I I I Responses from Principal(s) The principal of Dunbar shared that the PTA board was balanced by race. Magnet Schools/Senior High The Parkview report indicated that all groups of parents were actively involved in school functions, and the school used a variety of methods to encourage parents in home and school related educational activities. The report revealed that the staff communicated frequently with the parents to share positive and negative information regarding student behavior and achievement. Monitored teachers stated that calls were made, letters were sent, and all teachers made at least one contact with the home each year. The report also disclosed that the School Improvement Committee assisted with the formulation of the School Improvement Plan, and the PTSA was involved in the school action plan.First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 56 I i i I Incentive Schools The team report from Ish disclosed that all parent groups were not actively involved in school functions, and at Stephens this information was not available, other incentive schools,(Rightsell, Rockefeller, The Garland, and Mitchell) documented in their school profiles that parents were involved in different school functions including PTA, biracial teams, VIPS, guidance committees. School Improvement Teams, PAC, Junior League, and discipline management teams. All of the incentive schools utilized numerous methods to encourage parental involvement and articulate positive as well as negative information regarding behavior and achievement. Frequent contact was made through home visits, telephone calls, behavior documents, letters, newspapers, conferences, interim reports, assignment notebooks, and quarterly progress reports. The team reports from all the incentive schools stated that parents/patrons actively participated in matters of desegregation by involving themselves in the development of the annual School Improvement Plans, participation on the biracial teams. School Improvement Teams, Parent Advisory Committees, the Parent Recruitment Committees, and at Rockefeller, in the development of Student Education Plans (SEPs). I I Responses from Principal(s) The principal of Rockefeller said that behavior charts were sent home weekly. communication with parents. 11.0 STUDENT DISCIPLINE This procedure enhanced At each school the monitors expected to see: * No disproportionality among identifiable groups of students when discipline sanctions are analyzed * Teachers receiving staff development and training to become more effective in discipline management and classroom management * The discipline program monitored, evaluated and updated to decrease any disproportionality among identifiable groups of students by race and gender IFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 57 I I Findings: Area Schools/Elementary According to monitoring reports, all area elementary schools distributed handbooks to parents and students regarding student disciplinary policies and procedures. It was further indicated that the information in the handbook was taught to all students. Other examples related to imparting such knowledge were cited by the committees as follows: posting of classroom rules, filing signature forms denoting receipt of handbooks, and sending bulletins to parents. Additionally, Biracial Teams indicated that classroom instruction proceeded in an orderly manner in most classrooms visited at area elementary schools. Students were reported as being orderly, attentive, and on task. Monitoring committees at all area elementary schools except Dodd, Mabelvale, McDermott, Watson, and Wilson indicated that either no suspensions or expulsions had occurred thus far this year or that such sanctions were minimal, resulting in suspension and expulsion rates that were generally representative of the student population. At Dodd, McDermott, Watson, and Wilson, an overrepresentation of black students, particularly males, received suspensions. I i I I Strategies to eliminate disproportionate discipline sanctions among identifiable groups were evident at all area elementary schools except Pulaski Heights and Forest Park, according to reports submitted by the monitoring teams. I However, no strategies were necessary at either of these schools because neither displayed disproportionate discipline sanctions among identifiable student groups, according to monitoring reports. Schools reported a variety of strategies including: parent conferences, peer counseling, positive role models talking to classes, counselors working with students, individual classroom management plans, police support groups, and incentive and award programs. Biracial Teams indicated that principals were very active and visible in directing and controlling students in all area elementary schools with the exception of Badgett, Bale, Forest Park, Pulaski Heights, and Romine\nwhere they were reported as being somewhat active and visible in this endeavor. According to reports submitted, teachers were very active and visible in directing/controlling students in all area elementary schools except Chicot and Fair Park, where reports indicated they were somewhat active and visible in this regard. Teams noted that teachers andFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 58 principals were observed maintaining a disciplined atmosphere in the hallways, cafeterias, and on the ramps. The monitors at Wilson commented that custodial and other staff members were also visible in this regard. Responses from Principal(s): The principal at Pulaski Heights informed the committee that four students (two black females, one black male, and one white male) are attending Camp Pfeifer for behavior modification. Their behavior was interfering with their successfully accomplishing their school work. Area Schools/Junior High 1 According to monitoring reports, the six area junior high schools distributed handbooks regarding student disciplinary policies and procedures to all students and parents. It was further indicated that the information in the handbook was taught to all students. The teams at Pulaski Heights, Mabelvale, Henderson, and Cloverdale also reported that signed documentation denoting receipt of the handbooks by parents and students was on file. These same four schools cited other means of imparting disciplinary policies and procedures, i.e., posting classroom rules, grade level assemblies, and bulletins to parents. Additionally, Henderson and Cloverdale each distributed a school handbook. I I I I The committees at Henderson, Cloverdale, Southwest, Forest Heights, and Cloverdale verified that suspension and expulsion rates were generally representative of the student population with regard to race. However, monitors indicated that this was not the case at Pulaski Heights and Mabelvale. Classroom instruction proceeded in an orderly manner in most classrooms visited at each area junior high school, according to the reports submitted by the committees. Comments included information that the students were on task and attentive in most monitored classes. The Biracial Teams at all area junior high schools reported that strategies to eliminate disproportionate disciplinary sanctions among identifiable student groups were evident. Monitors cited various examples which included the following: At Mabelvale, phone calls were made to parents of students who had repetitive discipline problems, there were in-school suspensions, and personal meetings between theFirst Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 59 I students and assistant principals were held in order to prevent problems before they occurred. The Violence Prevention Program had been implemented, and teacher workshops were held on biracial equity, classroom management, and crisis intervention. At Pulaski Heights, implementation of the Teacher Advisor Program (TAP), New Futures After School Program, peer tutoring, and the teaming concept were examples given. Parent/student/teacher conferences were held. Cloverdale had implemented an in-school suspension program, as well as the Gentlemen's Club, and the teaming concept. Incentives were provided to encourage proper behavior, and staff members worked individually with students. Henderson reported having class work equal the ability of the students, counseling individually with students, increasing campus security, and posting and teaching classroom rules as means of decreasing discipline problems. Southwest had implemented the Assertive Discipline Program and at Forest Heights and in-school suspension program was operative. I Reports from all area junior high schools indicated that the principals were very active and visible in I directing/controlling students. The team from Pulaski Heights noted that the principal was ill on the day of the monitoring visit and was only at school part of the day. and one of assistant principals was attending an inservice. They further reported that the assistant principal and acting assistant principal on duty were very active and visible in maintaining a disciplined atmosphere at the school. The teams from Cloverdale, Henderson, and Mabelvale cited various examples which supported the visibility of principals in directing/controlling students, i.e., good control of ramps, cafeteria, and bus areas at Mabelvale, and notations that the principals at Henderson and Cloverdale were very active. The monitors at all area junior high schools, except Henderson, indicated that teachers were very active and visible in directing/controlling students. At Henderson, the teachers were reported as being somewhat active and visible, with the comment that teachers were observed standing at their classroom doors during class changes. First Educational Equity Monitoring Report 1990-91 Semi-Annual Summary Report Page 60 I I 1 Responses from Principal(s): The assistant principal at Pulaski Heights, with whom the exit conference was held, stated that because Pulaski Heights was a restructured school, new rules, roles, and relationships had been formed to assist in maintaining good discipline, and that strategies had been developed to eliminate disproportionate discipline sanctions. J I Area Schools/Senior High According to monitoring reports. Central, Hall, McClellan, and Fair distributed information in the form of handbooks regarding student disciplinary policies and procedures to all students and parents. It was further indicated that the information in the handbook was taught to the students. The teams at Fair and McClellan also reported that signed documentation denoting receipt of the handbooks by parents and students was on file, and that classroom rules were posted in each room. The committees at Hall and Fair verified that suspension and expulsion rates were generally representative i of the student population with regard to race. However, monitors indicated that this was not the case at McClellan. The Central High School Biracial Committee reported that information regarding suspensions and expulsions was not available at the time of the monitoring visit. I I Classroom instruction proceeded in an orderly manner in all classrooms visited at each area high school, according to the reports submitted. Comments included information that the students were on task and attentive in monitored classes. Monitors at all area high schools, except Central, reported that strategies to eliminate disproportionate disciplinary sanctions among identifiable student groups were evident. The team at Central indicated that evidence regarding such strategies was not available. Examples cited by the team at McClellan included peer counseling, counselors and teachers working with students, and teaching the violence prevention curriculum to each student. The Biracial Committee at Fair reported that the counseling department had initiated a program to have mentors come to school each week to talk\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_1354","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing on Attorney's Fees''","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":["1991-01-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School board members","Meetings","Court records","Education--Economic aspects"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing on Attorney's Fees''"],"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/1354"],"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":["258 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1364","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing on Grant Proposal''","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":["1991-01-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance","Magnet schools","Educational innovations","School improvement programs","School board members","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing on Grant Proposal''"],"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/1364"],"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":["296 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_876","title":"Court filings: District Court, 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":null,"dc_date":["1991-01-17"],"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":["Court records","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School integration","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, 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/876"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_822","title":"Court filings: Supreme Court of the United States, decision, Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools, Independent School District No. 89, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma v. Robert L. Dowell et al.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Oklahoma, 35.49209, -97.50328"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991-01-15"],"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","Educational law and legislation","Court records","United States. Supreme Court","School integration","Segregation in education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Supreme Court of the United States, decision, Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools, Independent School District No. 89, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma v. Robert L. Dowell et al."],"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/822"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":125,"next_page":126,"prev_page":124,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1488,"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}}]}}