{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1012","title":"Aerospace Magnet 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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"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","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Magnet 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/1012"],"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 and may contain some errors.\nOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Review of Aerospace Technology Magnet Grant Proposal 1. LRSD Aerospace Magnet Grant Proposal Statement, Page 20: \"The ten magnet schools currently in Little Rock serve all three districts. The magnet schools are as follows: Booker Fine Arts\nCarver Math-Science\nGibbs International Studies\nRockefeller Early Childhood\nWashington Math-Science\nWilliams Basic Skills\nDunbar Jr. High International Studies/Gifted and Talented\nMann Jr. High Arts and Math-Science\nCentral High International Studies\nParkview High School Arts and Science.\" ODM Comment: To list Rockefeller and Central as magnet schools in the context of this page is inaccurate and highly misleading. Rockefeller is actually an Incentive School which presently has only an early childhood education magnet program for infants through K. Only the early childhood program is racially balanced\nthe upper grades are predominantly (80%) black. Central has a very limited international studies magnet program. The district has been unable to provide ODM with the number of students in the program, the racial balance of program participants, nor the number of M-to-M students who participate in the program. 2. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 21: \"The District submitted revised desegregation plans to the Federal Court in 1989 and in 1990. Both plans included the continuation of the interdistrict magnet schools. The 1990 plan included the design and implementation of a 7-12 Aerospace Technology Program that would be housed in a new school facility.\" ODM Comment: These statements falsely imply that an Aerospace Magnet has been in the hopper for some time, indeed has been before the Court since 1989. The desegregation plans which were submitted to the Court by the LRSD in 1989 were those of January 31, 1989, followed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan of February 15, 1989 (both part of the \"Settlement Plans.\") Settlement plans do not refer to any sort of aerospace or aviation program or school. As a matter of fact, page 5 of the Interdistrict Plan states that \"The Little Rock District shall continue to operate the six present magnet schools\" ( emphasis original.) There is no mention of additional magnets in the LRSD. The only plan submitted to Court in 1990 was the Desegregation Plan crafted by the OMS. This plan Aerospace/Technology and Pre-Engineering Magnet, for to open in 1991-92 in a new facility near the airport. in December 1989 at Mr. Reville's request, the LRSD 1 Tri-District proposed an grades 7-12, Previously, submitted to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor a revised preliminary desegregation plan which proposed an \"Aviation and Transportation/Math-Science Magnet\" for grades 7 and 8 in 1991-92, expanding to include grade 9 in 1992-93. The LRSD proposed that \"if sufficient interest is shown, a specialized high school program will be implemented\" based on a 91-92 survey of students. 3. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 21: \"The December 12 order allows the parties in the case to agree to adjust the Settlement Plan 'to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.' One of the proposed adjustments to the Settlement Plan includes the design and implementation of a 7-12 Aerospace/Technology Magnet Program that will be offered in three schools in the District.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD implies that the Aerospace Magnet \"adjustment\" has been agreed upon by the parties and also proposed to the Court. This section also refers to an aerospace magnet program being offered in three schools, the first mention of this number to our knowledge. 4. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 23: \"Recently, the Magnet Review Committee which has been part of Little Rock Desegregation plans since 1986, assessed the magnet school program. As a result of that assessment, the Committee have made the following recommendations/statements: ... \" A list of six provisions of the Tri-District Plan follows, including one which calls for sibling preference in magnet schools. ODM Comment: These \"recommendation/statements\" are not from the Magnet Review Committee. They came from the parent committees which helped to write the Tri-District Plan. LRSD has been vehemently opposed to granting sibling preference at magnets and vigorously lobbied Mr. Reville not to include it in the TriDistrict Plan. Page 4 of the LRSD January 31, 1989 (Settlement) Plan states: \"Sibling transfers do NOT apply to magnet schools\" (emphasis original.) To our knowledge, the MRC never officially endorsed the magnet provisions of the Tri-District Plan. We are unaware of any record which substantiates the Grant's assertion that the \"recommendations/statements\" on page 23 were made or endorsed by the MRC. Rather, they are extrapolated from the plan which the LRSD strongly opposed. 2 5. LRSD Grant Statement, Pages 24 and 25: \" ... Two junior high schools ... are to be featured in the first year of the operation of the Magnet School Aerospace Program project ... Forest Heights Jr. High [ and] Henderson Junior High. . . The District proposes to establish aerospace magnet programs at these two junior high schools.\" ODM Comment: Forest Heights and Henderson Junior Highs have never been previously mentioned as possible sites for magnet programs (aerospace or otherwise) in any plan submitted to this office or the Court. 6. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 26: \"The District proposes to implement a high school program partially at a temporary site, continue planning in the first year of this grant, and implement fully in the second year of the grant an aerospace high school that will be a new program. This school is currently under construction and will open in the fall of 1992.\" ODM Comment: No school is currently under construction. 7. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 27: \"This new school will be racially balanced at a 60:40 ratio ... \" ODM Comment: The 60:40 ratio for magnets is a provision of the Tri-District Plan, a departure from the February 15, 1989, Interdistrict Plan which, on page 5, provides that magnets \"shall be racially balanced to a point of between 50% and 55% black.\" The Settlement does allow for 60:40 in new \"Interdistrict Schools,\" but not in magnet schools. 3 8. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 29: \"In every case, as noted below, [magnets] were racially balanced the very first year of the magnet program. Rockefeller, 72% black in 1990-91 ... Washington 57% black in 1990-91 ... Central, 60% in 1990-91. ODM Comment: As noted above, both Rockefeller and Central are not magnet schools, but schools with .limited magnet programs. As an incentive school, Rockefeller has attained racial balance only within its early childhood education magnet program which is 59% black\nthe upper grades are 80% black. The LRSD has been unable to provide this office with figures about Central's magnet program, neither the number of students in the program, the racial balance of the program, nor the number of M-to-M students participating in the program. However, from our direct observations in monitoring visits to Central, we are aware of pronounced racial imbalance within the program. Washington Magnet's racial makeup of 57% (black)-43% (white) is an overall figure and does not hold true for the school's first grade classes which are 70% black. 9. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 29: \"Central' s program has succeeded in stabilizing the black percentage by attracting White students from the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD is unable to provide data which substantiates this claim. 10. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 31: \"Student recruitment will be carried on within all three districts by the Magnet Education Team (MET) of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC).\" ODM Comment: The MRC was created by the Circuit Court to oversee the original six magnet schools. The Settlement Plans contains language specific to this limited role of the MRC. While this office has no objection to the MRC working on behalf of new magnets, there nevertheless has been no official clarification of the role of the MRC in relation to new magnets nor has there been Court approval for the MRC to expand its oversight or recruitment role to new magnets. To our knowledge, the matter of an expanded MRC role has not been brought before the court. 4 11. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 39: \"Each of the proposed magnet schools will have an Instructional Specialist.\" ODM Comment: The use of the plural \"magnet schools\" raises a question about the total number of schools which are being proposed as magnets in this grant. Are Forest Heights and Henderson Junior Highs actually to be magnet schools rather than magnet programs? (There are additional referrals to \"Aerospace Magnet schools\" elsewhere in the grant proposal.) 12. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 43: \"The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) ... was established ... to oversee the implementation and operation of the interdistrict magnet schools in Pulaski County.\" ODM Comment: As stated in number 10 above, the relationship or obligation of the MRC to any magnets beyond the six original schools is not clear. 13. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 44: This page is a \"Management Time line\" which enumerates certain tasks. Whether these tasks relate to the proposed aerospace magnet high school and/or to one or both of the two junior highs is not specified. ODM Comment: The numerical sequence of the sixteen tasks listed makes neither chronological nor management sense. For example, the first and second items, \"Recruit Students, April-August, 1991\" and \"Assign Students to Programs, May-August, 1991\" come before such basics as number S, \"Develop magnet curriculum, August-June, 1991- 92,\" number 9, \"Develop and Initiate Public Information, October, 1991\" and before number 11, \"Establish District Advisory Committee, September, 1991.\" 14. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 52: \"The District's planning process is designed to utilize a wealth of community resources to plan the new Aerospace High School. The Airport Commission, the FAA, the Air National Guard, and the airlines and concessionaires who serve the Little Rock Airport have all expressed support for the project. Business and community leaders are currently engaged in a fund raising effort to support the construction of the aviation museum which is being built in conjunction with the proposed magnet school. The community is and will continue to be a part of the planning process. A list of business and community members engaged in this effort is included in the Appendices ... The development of the magnet school plan will be a comprehensive community project.\" 5 ODM Comment: The implication here, as elsewhere in the grant, is that there is widespread planning involvement and unilateral support for an aerospace magnet school . However, Joshua has publicly expressed reservations about the school and has (so far as is presently known) withheld endorsement of any new magnet. Furthermore, conversations between this office and chief administrators in NLRSD and PCSSD in late November 1990, revealed that these two districts not only had not been involved in planning for the Aerospace Magnet (as provided in the Tri-District Plan) but were not even aware that planning was going on. Yet, the February 15, 1989, Interdistrict Desegregation (Settlement) Plan states on Page 19: \"Joint Pursuit of Federal Magnet Grant: The school districts in Pulaski County including the NLRSD are committed to the joint pursuit of federal magnet grants for the operation of the multi-district Magnet and Interdistrict schools.\" However, the Magnet Review Committee was not informed by the LRSD that a magnet school grant was being written until questioned by committee members on December 4, 1990. As a matter of fact, at a November 20, 1990, meeting of the MRC, the LRSD denied that an aerospace magnet grant proposal was being contemplated by the district even though an LRSD report to its Board of Directors stated that a grant writer had been hired. Not until December 4, 1990, was the MRC informed that a grant proposal was being prepared and that a letter of support for the grant was being requested by the LRSD from the MRC. (The MRC did provide such a letter on December 6, 1990.) 15. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 36: \"The Aerospace/Technology Program will require students to have a firm grasp of basic skills. Students with low basic skills would be at a disadvantage in participating in the program and in keeping up in class. In order for the school to foster the success of every student in mastering the subject matter, effort will be made to bring students up to the standard of the school ... For this to be done the district will support and accelerate the learning of the student who is behind and provide new skills and techniques to the teachers. \" Also LRSD Grant Statement, Page 58: \"To improve minority achievement, the District will use a variety of methods that have been proven to improve academic achievement. There will be a summer school program available for all students enrolled in the magnet school program. This will allow students the opportunity to catch up on any work from the school year and to do advanced work. The summer school will also reduce the drop in retention usually experienced by students over the summer. \" 6 ODM Comment: We have serious concerns about how successful the district will be in assuring that black children are adequately prepared for the sophisticated classes proposed for the aerospace magnet. Unfortunately, the district's \"variety of methods\" to improve academic achievement have not proven successful, resulting in a persistant academic achievement disparity between blacks and whites. A curriculum audit of the LRSD (conducted at the request of the LRSD by the National Curriculum Audit Center during 1990 and released to the public in January 1991) states on page 79: \"This disparity in achievement of races is little changed over time, indicating that the Little Rock School District is making little impact on closing the deplorable and unnecessary gap between its student racial groups.\" The disparity history of the LRSD, coupled with the grant's lack of a solid remediation proprarn proposal, leave us unconvinced that black students can expect to fully participate or achieve in an aerospace magnet. 16. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 97: \"Within the District, all curriculum is multicultural in its approach and content. Additionally, no tracking of students occurs in the District as a matter of policy.\" ODM Comment: The ODM has long been aware of and troubled by the uneven teaching of multicultural curriculum and the pervasive tracking of students. The grant's implication that all curriculum is in fact being taught to all students through a multicultural approach is inaccurate. The curriculum audit finds that \"A specific example of inequitable curriculum monitoring is the multicultural curriculum... In many schools, there is no systematic observation of the implementation of this relatively new curriculum. At schools where principals do not monitor implementation of the multicultural curriculum, teachers often did not report a plan to teach the new curriculum. There is also no evidence of a systematic plan to link observed teacher training needs in this new curriculum to current staff development efforts. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any effort to disaggregate and analyze student achievement data for acquisition of multicultural objectives.\" ( Page 54.) Tracking of students in the LRSD may be prohibited as a matter of policy, but it is pervasive as a matter of practice. The same curriculum audit report quoted above finds tracking rampant in the LRSD: \" ... The auditors found a distinct pattern of 'tracking' which was implemented along racial lines for certain course and educational offerings, which had the appearance of 'resegregation' and inequity ... \" (Page 49.) \"According to the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, classes in gifted and talented, as well as in special education, were prohibited from being racially identifiable, but the auditors found this mandate was not being followed. \" ( Page 55, emphasis 7 original.) \"Student placement in classes in various basic skill areas (math, English, social studies, etc.) appear to have deleterious characteristics of tracking by ability which results in resegregation of races. ( Page 59.) \"These discrepancies in English classes amount to 'resegregation' or 'tracking' of races on a homogeneous basis, which shows gross inconsistency and wrongful inequities in education opportunities for minority students... The obvious conclusion is that there is great inconsistency and inequity in the assignment of students to classes on the basis of ability resulting in greater racial disparities.\" (Page 60.) Yet the Settlement Plan states: \"There shall be a presumption that racial disparity in programs and activities need not exist ... Special attention shall be given to any imbalance in placement into special education, honors, talented and gifted, advanced placement classes\nextracurricular activities\nexpulsions and suspensions\nand reward and punishment systems.\" ( Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, February 15, 1989, page 8.) 17. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 101: \"The staff of the Little Rock School District has extensive experience in and knowledge related to desegregation strategies. Since 1985, the District has devoted considerable time to inservice related to desegregation. ODM Comment: A school district with as much experience, knowledge, and staff development as this statement indicates should be able to document considerable progress in desegregation matters. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, as cited in number 15 above. In monitoring activities during the fall of the 1990-91 school year, the OMS found staff development in the LRSD to be grossly inadequate, both in quality and scope, with little or no link between offered training, desegregation goals, and the learning needs of staff. This inadequacy was also noted by the National Curriculum Audit Center in this summary statement on page 66 of their audit report: \"Staff development is inadequate and provided inconsistently to teachers and administrators in the Little Rock Schools.\" 8 18. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 102: \"Traditionally, the Little Rock District has been a state leader in curriculum development and innovative programs. These programs include ... Program for Accelerated Learning ... [and] Model School Program ( at Central) National Governor's Association.\" ODM Comment: There is no evidence to indicate that the Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) has been even moderately successful in its goals of providing effective remediation for reading and math students and narrowing the achievement gap between the races. However, the program has succeeded in costing millions of dollars in desegregation money. The Model School Program at Central has faltered after a shaky two years, despite some significant progress in positive school climate, student discipline, and faculty morale which can be attributed at least in some measure to the program. The demise of the Model School effort can be directly linked to lack of support from the superintendent and other chief administrators. 19. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 111: \"The cost for the program is high because it includes a brand new full magnet school which requires large start-up costs. This of course will be reduced over a number of years after the program has reached its full enrollment ... For example, once the Aerospace Education Center reaches full enrollment the per pupil cost will drop dramatically to $278.00.\" ODM Comment: It is assumed that \"Aerospace Education Center\" is an alternate name for the Aerospace Technology Magnet School. A drop to \"$278.00 per pupil\" will be dramatic indeed. This amount is unquestionably erroneous. 20. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 121: \"The District has adequate facilities to house the proposed Aerospace Program. Space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD has had serious problems with adequate junior high capacity. Last September, in the OMS Preliminary Monitoring Report, we found a decided shortage of seats for junior high students at the beginning of the school year. Eighth graders were particularly affected, many of them remaining out of school for several days because no seats were available. At that time, a LRSD student assignment officer said there were at least 120 more eighth graders than had been expected in 1990-91. (There had been a similar surprise with the number of seventh graders in 1989-90.) 9 At this date, according to LRSD figures, Forest Heights has a capacity of 780. The grant enrollment figures of 754 (69% black) mean the school is at 97% capacity. Henderson has a capacity of 960. Its current 893 students, 75% of whom are black, bring the school to 93% capacity. These figures indicate that there is inadequate capacity for a new magnet program designed to draw white students to the schools. If increased numbers of whites were admitted to the schools, what does the district propose to do with the blacks who must be siphoned off the school roles in order to seat all students? Interestingly, LRSD has recently awarded contracts for a major twostory addition (including 32 classrooms and a library) to Forest Heights Junior High, yet the grant application assures (in the present tense) that there is capacity at the school adequate to house a magnet program. Expansion of capacity at Forest Heights or any other school will require court approval since the Settlement Agreement provides that \"All school construction shall be subject to the court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation\" ( Page 6, Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, February 15, 1989.) Expanding the capacity of schools in white neighborhoods does not promote desegregation but does assure that the burden of bussing remains on black children. 21. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 125: \"Forest Heights Junior High School is being completely renovated. Plans are already underway for this process which is to begin in the 1991-92 school year. To the extent necessary, the renovation project will include capacity modification at the seventh, eighth and ninth grade levels.\" ODM Comment: This indication of capacity modification conflicts with the earlier grant claim (on page 121) that \"Space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" 22. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 125: \"The enrollment at Henderson Junior High School has experienced fluctuations since the 1987-88 school year. The enrollment has declined in some years and remained stable in others. Henderson will have adequate space to accommodate the aerospace technology program.\" ODM Comment: How can the LRSD be confident of adequate capacity, given this history of enrollment fluctuations and current Henderson enrollment at 93% of capacity? 10 23. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 130: \"Currently the District provides $3,370 per student in magnet support beyond the regular school costs associated with curriculum, personnel, support services, etc., on average.\" ODM Comment: This statement is false on three counts. First, magnet school per pupil costs are $3,100, not $3,370. Page 3 of the (financial) Settlement Agreement states: \"Magnet Operational Charge: The current per pupil operational charge for magnet students ($3,100) will remain in force until changed by the Magnet Review Committee, or in the event the Magnet Review Committee is restructured or eliminated, then by agreement of the parties, subject to the review of the district court in any event.\" As the Court is aware, the MRC has proposed an increase to $3,370 per pupil, a change which has not yet gained Court approval to our knowledge. Secondly, the LRSD does not provide $3,370 (or even $3,100) per magnet student. The costs of magnet schools are shared by the three school districts and the State according to the Settlement formula. Thirdly, the per pupil figure is not \"beyond the regular school costs\" but rather represents total costs, not an addition amount above the regular school costs of $2,165 on the average (according to figures quoted in the grant.) 24. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 132: \"The desegregation plan attached to this application is being implemented by the applicant. It was ordered by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 12, 1990. Modifications to include the aerospace theme have been approved by the parties and will be submitted to the District Court for timely approval. The implementation date for the proposed modification to the plan is August, 1991.\" ODM Comment: We are not aware that all parties to this case have been persuaded that an aerospace magnet is an acceptable modification of the Settlement. We are also not aware that an implementation date for any plan modifications has been submitted to nor approved by the Court. The proposed \"Management Timeline\" on page 44 of the grant lists four tasks which are to be undertaken before August 1991. 11 25. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 132: \"The District will present a modified desegregation plan to the Federal Court by January, 1991, for approval prior to the February 4 deadline.\" ODM Comment: The text of the grant does not explain the \"February 4 deadline\" that is referenced here. It is our understanding, however, that February 4, 1991, is a deadline extension given to LRSD by the federal granters to allow for changes in the grant which may be due to Court action . 26. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 136: \"The Little Rock School District needs federal assistance to implement the Aerospace program described in this application. The program is an expensive one to implement and the District has very limited resources. Although the District did realize some financial assistance by virtue of the settlement, those monies were for the most part to defray desegregation costs already incurred under the 1986 ordered plan.\" ODM Comment: We agree that the Aerospace program as presented is indeed expensive. We also agree that it is appropriate and within the bounds of the Settlement to request a financial grant. We do not agree that the District realized \"some\" financial assistance from the Settlement, but rather a great deal of financial assistance. If, in fact, these settlement monies \"were\" for the most part used to defray desegregation costs already incurred, the LRSD may be in violation of the Circuit Court ruling of December 12, 1990, which states on page 50: \" ... a portion of the initial payments from the State may go to retire deficits ... \" (emphasis added.) We sincerely hope that the LRSD remains mindful of the Circuit Court's December 12, 1990, admonition (pages 49 and 50) that \" ... the parties' obligation to abide by these plans is unconditional ... If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action.\" 12 27. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 143: \" ... Parent meetings held during the development of the 1990 Interdistrict Plan led to the choice of this theme.\" ODM Comment: These parent meetings were conducted by Mr. Reville during the fall of 1989. Although the possibility of an aerospace theme was discussed briefly at one or more of the meetings, discussion was initiated not by parents but by members of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society who were lobbying for a magnet school as a means to help finance their dream of an Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. In a July 12, 1989, letter to Mr. Reville, Dick Holbert, Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, stated: \"Earlier this year, the Society commissioned a feasibility study, the results of which concluded that private support did exist to provide a significant portion of the cost necessary to build and maintain an aviation museum at Little Rock's Adams Field. In visiting with Skip [Rutherford], it became crystal-clear to me that a public school, built in conjunction with this museum, would be a tremendous asset to our community. \" 28. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 144: \"The staff of the District uses the available resources very efficiently and effectively.\" ODM Comment: Certainly a highly debatable matter of opinion--as well as record. 13 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Review of Aerospace Technology Magnet Grant Proposal 1. LRSD Aerospace Magnet Grant Proposal Statement, Page 20: \"The ten magnet schools currently in Little Rock serve all three districts. The magnet schools are as follows: Booker Fine Arts\nCarver Math-Science\nGibbs International Studies\nRockefeller Early Childhood\nWashington Math-Science\nWilliams Basic Skills\nDunbar Jr. High International Studies/Gifted and Talented\nMann Jr. High Arts and Math-Science\nCentral High International Studies\nParkview High School Arts and Science.\" ODM Comment: To list Rockefeller and Central as magnet schools in the context of this page is inaccurate and highly misleading. Rockefeller is actually an Incentive School which presently has only an early childhood education magnet program for infants through K. Only the early childhood program is racially balanced\nthe upper grades are predominantly (80%) black. Central has a very limited international studies magnet program. The district has been unable to provide ODM with the number of students in the program, the racial balance of program participants, nor the number of M-to-M students who participate in the program. 2. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 21: \"The District submitted revised desegregation plans to the Federal Court in 1989 and in 1990. Both plans .included the continuation of the interdistrict magnet schools. The 1990 plan included the design and implementation of a 7-12 Aerospace Technology Program that would be housed in a new school facility.\" ODM Comment: These statements falsely imply that an Aerospace Magnet has been in the hopper for some time, indeed has been before the Court since 1989. The desegregation plans which were submitted to the Court by the LRSD in 1989 were those of January 31, 1989, followed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan of February 15, 1989 (both part of the \"Settlement Plans.\") Settlement plans do not refer to any sort of aerospace or aviation program or school. As a matter of fact, page 5 of the Interdistrict Plan states that \"The Little Rock District shall continue to operate the six present magnet schools\" ( emphasis original.) There is no mention of additional magnets in the LRSD. The only plan submitted to Court in 1990 was the Desegregation Plan crafted by the OMS. This plan Aerospace/Technology and Pre-Engineering Magnet, for to open in 1991-92 in a new facility near the airport. in December 1989 at Mr. Reville's request, the LRSD 1 Tri-District proposed an grades 7-12, Previously, submitted to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor a revised preliminary desegregation plan which proposed an \"Aviation and Transportation/Math-Science Magnet\" for grades 7 and 8 in 1991-92, expanding to include grade 9 in 1992-93. The LRSD proposed that \"if sufficient interest is shown, a specialized high school program will be implemented\" based on a 91-92 survey of students. 3. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 21: \"The December 12 order allows the parties in the case to agree to adjust the Settlement Plan 'to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.' One of the proposed adjustments to the Settlement Plan includes the design and implementation of a 7-12 Aerospace/Technology Magnet Program that will be offered in three schools in the District.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD implies that the Aerospace Magnet \"adjustment\" has been agreed upon by the parties and also proposed to the Court. This section also refers to an aerospace magnet program being offered in three schools, the first mention of this number to our knowledge. 4. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 23: \"Recently, the Magnet Review Committee which has been part of Little Rock Desegregation plans since 1986, assessed the magnet school program. As a result of that assessment, the Committee have made the following recommendations/statements: ... \" A list of six provisions of the Tri-District Plan follows, including one which calls for sibling preference in magnet schools. ODM Comment: These \"recommendation/statements\" are not from the Magnet Review Committee. They came from the parent committees which helped to write the Tri-District Plan. LRSD has been vehemently opposed to granting sibling preference at magnets and vigorously lobbied Mr. Reville not to include it in the TriDistrict Plan. Page 4 of the LRSD January 31, 1989 (Settlement) Plan states: \"Sibling transfers do NOT apply to magnet schools\" (emphasis original.) To our knowledge, the MRC never officially endorsed the magnet provisions of the Tri-District Plan. We are unaware of any record which substantiates the Grant's assertion that the \"recommendations/statements\" on page 23 were made or endorsed by the MRC. Rather, they are extrapolated from the plan which the LRSD strongly opposed. 2 5. LRSD Grant Statement, Pages 24 and 25: \" ... Two junior high schools ... are to be featured in the first year of the operation of the Magnet School Aerospace Program project ... Forest Heights Jr. High [and) Henderson Junior High. . . The District proposes to establish aerospace magnet programs at these two junior high schools.\" ODM Comment: Forest Heights and Henderson Junior Highs have never been previously mentioned as possible sites for magnet programs (aerospace or otherwise) in any plan submitted to this office or the Court. 6. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 26: \"The District proposes to implement a high school program partially at a temporary site, continue planning in the first year of this grant, and implement fully in the second year of the grant an aerospace high school that will be a new program. This school is currently under construction and will open in the fall of 1992.\" ODM Comment: No school is currently under construction. 7. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 27: \"This new school will be racially balanced at a 60:40 ratio ... \" ODM Comment: The 60:40 ratio for magnets is a provision of the Tri-District Plan, a departure from the February 15, 1989, Interdistrict Plan which, on page 5, provides that magnets \"shall be racially balanced to a point of between 50% and 55% black.\" The Settlement does allow for 60:40 in new \"Interdistrict Schools,\" but not in magnet schools. 3 8. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 29: \"In every case, as noted below, [magnets] were racially balanced the very first year of the magnet program. Rockefeller, 72% black in 1990-91 ... Washington 57% black in 1990-91 ... Central, 60% in 1990-91. ODM Comment: As noted above, both Rockefeller and Central are not magnet schools, but schools with limited magnet programs. As an incentive school, Rockefeller has attained racial balance only within its early childhood education magnet program which is 59% black\nthe upper grades are 80% black. The LRSD has been unable to provide this office with figures about Central's magnet program, neither the number of students in the program, the racial balance of the program, nor the number of M-to-M students participating in the program. However, from our direct observations in monitoring visits to Central, we are aware of pronounced racial imbalance within the program. Washington Magnet's racial makeup of 5 7 % (black)-43% (white) is an overall figure and does not hold true for the school's first grade classes which are 70% black. 9. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 29: \"Central' s program has succeeded in stabilizing the black percentage by attracting White students from the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD is unable to provide data which substantiates this claim. 10. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 31: \"Student recruitment will be carried on within all three districts by the Magnet Education Team (MET) of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC).\" ODM Comment: The MRC was created by the Circuit Court to oversee the original six magnet schools. The Settlement Plans contains language specific to this limited role of the MRC. While this office has no objection to the MRC working on behalf of new magnets, there nevertheless has been no official clarification of the role of the MRC in relation to new magnets nor has there been Court approval for the MRC to expand its oversight or recruitment role to new magnets. To our knowledge, the matter of an expanded MRC role has not been brought before the court. 4 11. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 39: \"Each of the proposed magnet schools will have an Instructional Specialist.\" ODM Comment: The use of the plural \"magnet schools\" raises a question about the total number of schools which are being proposed as magnets in this grant. Are Forest Heights and Henderson Junior Highs actually to be magnet schools rather than magnet programs? ( There are additional referrals to \"Aerospace Magnet schools\" elsewhere in the grant proposal.) 12. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 43: \"The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) ... was established ... to oversee the implementation and operation of the interdistrict magnet schools in Pulaski County.\" ODM Comment: As stated in number 10 above, the relationship or obligation of the MRC to any magnets beyond the six original schools is not clear. 13. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 44: This page is a \"Management Timeline\" which enumerates certain tasks. Whether these tasks relate to the proposed aerospace magnet high school and/or to one or both of the two junior highs is not specified. ODM Comment: The numerical sequence of the sixteen tasks listed makes neither chronological nor management sense. For example, the first and second items, \"Recruit Students, April-August, 1991\" and \"Assign Students to Programs, May-August, 1991\" come before such basics as number 5, \"Develop magnet curriculum, August-June, 1991- 92,\" number 9, \"Develop and Initiate Public Information, October, 1991\" and before number 11, \"Establish District Advisory Committee, September, 1991.\" 14. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 52: \"The District's planning process is designed to utilize a wealth of community resources to plan the new Aerospace High School. The Airport Commission, the FAA, the Air National Guard, and the airlines and concessionaires who serve the Little Rock Airport have all expressed support for the project. Business and community leaders are currently engaged in a fund raising effort to support the construction of the aviation museum which is being built in conjunction with the proposed magnet school. The community is and will continue to be a part of the planning process. A list of business and community members engaged in this effort is included in the Appendices ... The development of the magnet school plan will be a comprehensive community project.\" 5 ODM Comment: The implication here, as elsewhere in the grant, is that there is widespread planning involvement and unilateral support for an aerospace magnet school. However, Joshua has publicly expressed reservations about the school and has (so far as is presently known) withheld endorsement of any new magnet. Furthermore, conversations between this office and chief administrators in NLRSD and PCSSD in late November 1990, revealed that these two districts not only had not been involved in planning for the Aerospace Magnet (as provided in the Tri-District Plan) but were not even aware that planning was going on. Yet, the February 15, 1989, Interdistrict Desegregation (Settlement) Plan states on Page 19: \"Joint Pursuit of Federal Magnet Grant: The school districts in Pulaski County including the NLRSD are committed to the joint pursuit of federal magnet grants for the operation of the multi-district Magnet and Interdistrict schools.\" However, the Magnet Review Committee was not informed by the LRSD that a magnet school grant was being written until questioned by committee members on December 4, 1990. As a matter of fact, at a November 20, 1990, meeting of the MRC, the LRSD denied that an aerospace magnet grant proposal was being contemplated by the district even though an LRSD report to its Board of Directors stated that a grant writer had been hired. Not until December 4, 1990, was the MRC informed that a grant proposal was being prepared and that a letter of support for the grant was being requested by the LRSD from the MRC. (The MRC did provide such a letter on December 6, 1990.) 15. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 36: \"The Aerospace/Technology Program will require students to have a firm grasp of basic skills. Students with low basic skills would be at a disadvantage in participating in the program and in keeping up in class. In order for the school to foster the success of every student in mastering the subject matter, effort will be made to bring students up to the standard of the school ... For this to be done the district will support and accelerate the learning of the student who is behind and provide new skills and techniques to the teachers.\" Also LRSD Grant Statement, Page 58: \"To improve minority achievement, the District will use a variety of methods that have been proven to improve academic achievement. There will be a summer school program available for all students enrolled in the magnet school program. This will allow students the opportunity to catch up on any work from the school year and to do advanced work. The summer school will also reduce the drop in retention usually experienced by students over the summer.\" 6 ODM Comment: We have serious concerns about how successful the district will be in assuring that black children are adequately prepared for the sophisticated classes proposed for the aerospace magnet. Unfortunately, the district's \"variety of methods\" to improve academic achievement have not proven successful, resulting in a persistant academic achievement disparity between blacks and whites. A curriculum audit of the LRSD (conducted at the request of the LRSD by the National Curriculum Audit Center during 1990 and released to the public in January 1991) states on page 79: \"This disparity in achievement of races is little changed over time, indicating that the Little Rock School District is making little impact on closing the deplorable and unnecessary gap between its student racial groups.\" The disparity history of the LRSD, coupled with the grant's lack of a solid remediation propram proposal, leave us unconvinced that black students can expect to fully participate or achieve in an aerospace magnet. 16. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 97: \"Within the District, all curriculum is multicultural in its approach and content. Additionally, no tracking of students occurs in the District as a matter of policy.\" ODM Comment: The ODM has long been aware of and troubled by the uneven teaching of multicultural curriculum and the pervasive tracking of students. The grant's implication that all curriculum is in fact being taught to all students through a multicultural approach is inaccurate. The curriculum audit finds that \"A specific example of inequitable curriculum monitoring is the multicultural curriculum... In many schools, there is no systematic observation of the implementation of this relatively new curriculum. At schools where principals do not monitor implementation of the multicultural curriculum, teachers often did not report a plan to teach the new curriculum. There is also no evidence of a systematic plan to link observed teacher training needs in this new curriculum to current staff development efforts. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any effort to disaggregate and analyze student achievement data for acquisition of multicultural objectives.\" (Page 54.) Tracking of students in the LRSD may be prohibited as a matter of policy, but it is pervasive as a matter of practice. The same curriculum audit report quoted above finds tracking rampant in the LRSD: \" ... The auditors found a distinct pattern of 'tracking' which was implemented along racial lines for certain course and educational offerings, which had the appearance of 'resegregation' and inequity ... \" (Page 49.) \"According to the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, classes in gifted and talented, as well as in special education, were prohibited from being racially identifiable, but the auditors found this mandate was not being followed.\" ( Page 55, emphasis 7 original.) \"Student placement in classes in various basic skill areas (math, English, social studies, etc.) appear to have deleterious characteristics of tracking by ability which results in resegregation of races. (Page 59.) \"These discrepancies in English classes amount to 'resegregation' or 'tracking' of races on a homogeneous basis, which shows gross inconsistency and wrongful inequities in education opportunities for minority students... The obvious conclusion is that there is great inconsistency and inequity in the assignment of students to classes on the basis of ability resulting in greater racial disparities.\" ( Page 60.) Yet the Settlement Plan states: \"There shall be a presumption that racial disparity in programs and activities need not exist ... Special attention shall be given to any imbalance in placement into special education, honors, talented and gifted, advanced placement classes\nextracurricular activities\nexpulsions and suspensions\nand reward and punishment systems.\" ( Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, February 15, 1989, page 8.) 17. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 101: \"The staff of the Little Rock School District has extensive experience in and knowledge related to desegregation strategies. Since 1985, the District has devoted considerable time to inservice related to desegregation. ODM Comment: A school district with as much experience, knowledge, and staff development as this statement indicates should be able to document considerable progress in desegregation matters. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, as cited in number 15 above. In monitoring activities during the fall of the 1990-91 school year, the OMS found staff development in the LRSD to be grossly inadequate, both in quality and scope, with little or no link between offered training, desegregation goals, and the learning needs of staff. This inadequacy was also noted by the National Curriculum Audit Center in this summary statement on page 66 of their audit report: \"Staff development is inadequate and provided inconsistently to teachers and administrators in the Little Rock Schools.\" 8 18. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 102: \"Traditionally, the Little Rock District has been a state leader in curriculum development and innovative programs. These programs include ... Program for Accelerated Learning ... [and) Model School Program ( at Central) National Governor's Association.\" ODM Comment: There is no evidence to indicate that the Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) has been even moderately successful in its goals of providing effective remediation for reading and math students and narrowing the achievement gap between the races. However, the program has succeeded in costing millions of dollars in desegregation money. The Model School Program at Central has faltered after a shaky two years, despite some significant progress in positive school climate, student discipline, and faculty morale which can be attributed at least in some measure to the program. The demise of the Model School effort can be directly linked to lack of support from the superintendent and other chief administrators. 19. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 111: \"The cost for the program is high because it includes a brand new full magnet school which requires large start-up costs. This of course will be reduced over a number of years after the program has reached its full enrollment ... For example, once the Aerospace Education Center reaches full enrollment the per pupil cost will drop dramatically to $278.00.\" ODM Comment: It is assumed that \"Aerospace Education Center\" is an alternate name for the Aerospace Technology Magnet School. A drop to \"$278.00 per pupil\" will be dramatic indeed. This amount is unquestionably erroneous. 20. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 121: \"The District has adequate facilities to house the proposed Aerospace Program. Space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD has had serious problems with adequate junior high capacity. Last September, in the OMS Preliminary Monitoring Report, we found a decided shortage of seats for junior high students at the beginning of the school year. Eighth graders were particularly affected, many of them remaining out of school for several days because no seats were available. At that time, a LRSD student assignment officer said there were at least 120 more eighth graders than had been expected in 1990-91. (There had been a similar surprise with the number of seventh graders in 1989-90.) 9 At this date, according to LRSD figures, Forest Heights has a capacity of 780. The grant enrollment figures of 754 (69% black) mean the school is at 97% capacity. Henderson has a capacity of 960. Its current 893 students, 75% of whom are black, bring the school to 93% capacity. These figures indicate that there is inadequate capacity for a new -magnet program designed to draw white students to the schools. If increased numbers of whites were admitted to the schools, what does the district propose to do with the blacks who must be siphoned off the school roles in order to seat all students? Interestingly, LRSD has recently awarded contracts for a major twostory addition (including 32 classrooms and a library) to Forest Heights Junior High, yet the grant application assures ( in the present tense) that there is capacity at the school adequate to house a magnet program. Expansion of capacity at Forest Heights or any other school will require court approval since the Settlement Agreement provides that \"All school construction shall be subject to the court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation\" ( Page 6, Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, February 15, 1989.) Expanding the capacity of schools in white neighborhoods does not promote desegregation but does assure that the burden of bussing remains on black children. 21. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 125: \"Forest Heights Junior High School is being completely renovated. Plans are already underway for this process which is to begin in the 1991-92 school year. To the extent necessary, the renovation project will include capacity modification at the seventh, eighth and ninth grade levels.\" ODM Comment: This indication of capacity modification conflicts with the earlier grant claim (on page 121) that \"Space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" 22. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 125: \"The enrollment at Henderson Junior High School has experienced fluctuations since the 1987-88 school year. The enrollment has declined in some years and remained stable in others. Henderson will have adequate space to accommodate the aerospace technology program.\" ODM Comment: How can the LRSD be confident of adequate capacity, given this history of enrollment fluctuations and current Henderson enrollment at 93% of capacity? 10 23. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 130: \"Currently the District provides $3,370 per student in magnet support beyond the regular school costs associated with curriculum, personnel, support services, etc. , on average. \" ODM Comment: This statement is false on three counts. First, magnet school per pupil costs are $3,100, not $3,370. Page 3 of the (financial) Settlement Agreement states: \"Magnet Operational Charge: The current per pupil operational charge for magnet students ($3,100) will remain in force until changed by the Magnet Review Committee, or in the event the Magnet Review Committee is restructured or eliminated, then by agreement of the parties, subject to the review of the district court in any event.\" As the Court is aware, the MRC has proposed an increase to $ 3, 3 7 0 per pupil, a change which has not yet gained Court approval to our knowledge. Secondly, the LRSD does not provide $3,370 (or even $3,100) per magnet student. The costs of magnet schools are shared by the three school districts and the State according to the Settlement formula. Thirdly, the per pupil figure is not \"beyond the regular school costs\" but rather represents total costs, not an addition amount above the regular school costs of $2,165 on the average (according to figures quoted in the grant.) 24. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 132: \"The desegregation plan attached to this application is being implemented by the applicant. It was ordered by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 12, 1990. Modifications to include the aerospace theme have been approved by the parties and will be submitted to the District Court for timely approval. The implementation date for the proposed modification to the plan is August, 1991.\" ODM Comment: We are not aware that all parties to this case have been persuaded that an aerospace magnet is an acceptable modification of the Settlement. We are also not aware that an implementation date for any plan modifications has been submitted to nor approved by the Court. The proposed \"Management Timeline\" on page 44 of the grant lists four tasks which are to be undertaken before August 1991. 11 25. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 132: \"The District will present a modified desegregation plan to the Federal Court by January, 1991, for approval prior to the February 4 deadline.\" ODM Comment: The text of the grant does not explain the \"February 4 deadline\" that is referenced here. It is our understanding, however, that February 4, 1991, is a deadline extension given to LRSD by the federal granters to allow for changes in the grant which may be due to Court action. 26. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 136: \"The Little Rock School District needs federal assistance to implement the Aerospace program described in this application. The program is an expensive one to implement and the District has very limited resources. Al though the District did realize some financial assistance by virtue of the settlement, those monies were for the most part to defray desegregation costs already incurred under the 1986 ordered plan.\" ODM Comment: We agree that the Aerospace program as presented is indeed expensive. We also agree that it is appropriate and within the bounds of the Settlement to request a financial grant. We do not agree that the District realized \"some\" financial assistance from the Settlement, but rather a great deal of financial assistance. If, in fact, these settlement monies \"were\" for the most part used to defray desegregation costs already incurred, the LRSD may be in violation of the Circuit Court ruling of December 12, 1990, which states on page 50: \" ... a portion of the initial payments from the State may go to retire deficits ... \" (emphasis added.) We sincerely hope that the LRSD remains mindful of the Circuit Court's December 12, 1990, admonition (pages 49 and 50) that \" ... the parties' obligation to abide by these plans is unconditional ... If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action.\" 12 27. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 143: \" ... Parent meetings held during the development of the 1990 Interdistrict Plan led to the choice of this theme.\" ODM Comment: These parent meetings were conducted by Mr. Reville during the fall of 1989. Although the possibility of an aerospace theme was discussed briefly at one or more of the meetings, discussion was initiated not by parents but by members of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society who were lobbying for a magnet school as a means to help finance their dream of an Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. In a July 12, 1989, letter to Mr. Reville, Dick Holbert, Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, stated: \"Earlier this year, the Society commissioned a feasibility study, the results of which concluded that private support did exist to provide a significant portion of the cost necessary to build and maintain an aviation museum at Little Rock's Adams Field. In visiting with Skip [Rutherford], it became crystal-clear to me that a public school, built in conjunction with this museum, would be a tremendous asset to our community.\" 28. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 144: \"The staff of the District uses the available resources very efficiently and effectively.\" ODM Comment: Certainly a highly debatable matter of opinion--as well as record. 13\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_1010","title":"Aerospace Technology Magnet School, court documents","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Aviation Education Programs (U.S.)","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Technology Magnet School, court documents"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1010"],"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 and may contain some errors.\nArkansas Museum of Aviation History OUR DREAMS TAKE FLIGHT. Arkansas Museum of Aviation History OUR DREAMS TAKE FLIGHT. ITS A STORY ABOUT ARKANSAS FIRST. Her people. Her times and the events that made Arkansas what it is today. That's the story of Arkansas aviation. But it is a tale rarely told and seldom heard, yet one filled with vitality, excitement and power in its ability to inspire and educate. This is the need which will be fulfi lled by The Arkansas Museum of '--~!,\"f~C::~ Aviation Histo,y. For this ..... \"\"'~\"\"'_\n, is histo1y in the making. The project has progressed quietly for over almost a decade since the state newspapers heralded the arrival of the first exhibit planes in the early 1980's. But much was to be done in order to achieve the quality facility desired by the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society. And today the Arkansas Museum of Aviation Histo,y is ready to become a reality-a gift to all Arkansans and Arkansas vis itors. The Arkansas Museum of Aviation Histo1y w ill give Arkansas an attraction wonhy of national attention. Unique to this part of America, its exhibits w ill rank with many of those at the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum and the Experimental Aircraft Museum in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Even more impo!tant is the impact it will have on aviation-lovers of all ages. One sight of the aircraft and the senses will be gripped. And one immersion in the stories of the men and women who made aviation history in Arkansas and the spirits will soar. It has been shaped and will continue to be shaped by the aviation enthusiasts of Arkansas to become and remain a unique po1trayal of the history of the men and women of aviation. Its guiding lights have included such leaders as Charles Taylor, Nathan Gordon, Leighton Collins, Cass Hough and Ray Ellis. The story of aviation is the story of what went on at the human level-those who designed, built and flew the craft. At the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History, visitors will experience aviation from this unique perspective. As a result, not only Arkansas but also the times and events of the different eras can be taken in a context that will become a source of pride and inspiration for Arkansans young and old, for those to whom aviation is a second nature and for those who have only dreamed of flying. l J Inside, the museum follows the stream of time from the Wright Brothers though the shuttle age. Displays are Times of pride, power and prowess. arranged as a series of pods, grouped by time, with areas dedicated to a person associated with a paiticular aircraft, plus memorabilia and a1tifacts associated with that personality. Automobiles, antiques, uniforms, actual film footage, whatever is needed to best tell the story of the specific personality will be incorporated into the story. Eve,y aspect of aviation is to be included--design, engineering, testing, military tactics, bamsto1111ing, racing, THE LEGENDS. Here is just a sampling of the pennanent exhibits to be included in the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History: Field Kindley-Arkansas participation in world \\Var I will be represented by this ace and an authentic Sopwith Camel. Pierce McKennon- Visitors will join Arkansas' Ace of Aces in a P-51 strafing run. John Howell-Delta Air Line's first pilot brings commercial aviation to the ma~s in Arkansas. Louise TI1aden-The Arkansab aviatrix flew rings around Amelia Earhan and won the Bendix Trophy. Included in Lhis exhibit would be a Beech Staggerwing and the Travel Aire 4000 which she took to record heights. Earl T. Ricks \u0026amp; Wimpy WilsonArkansas sent two commanders to the U.S. Air National Guard as this exhibit explains the importance of the home force commercial flight and Lranspottation. The unique emphasis of the Arkansas Museum of Aviation I Iisto,y is instantly visible. The craft are there, of course, but the story as ponrayed in the audio/visual programs, a,tifacts and photographs shifts the emphasis back Lo the people who made aviation possible-back to the heros of Arkansas flight. Exhibits have been designed by Maritz Communications of Chicago, whose work has included the Experimental Aircraft Museum in Oshkosh and interpretive displays for the famous Spruce Goose built by I Toward Hughes. in events such as the devastating flood of 1927. James McDonnell-the story of the founder of McDonnell-Douglas Corporation will center around a Phantom jct. Robert Snowden and Albert Vollmecke-----TI1e creation of an aircraft from design through production will be told in thh saga of the Command-Aire manufactured in Little Rock during the 1930's. A special .section of the Museum will be set aside to honor the members of the Arkansas I !all of Fame A colorful portrait gallery wil l enable us to salute those who continue to make aviation history in Arkan .., ,,_,~. A theater is alM\u0026gt; plann\u0026lt;.:.'CI for the sho\\-ving of an orientation film to visitors and which can aho he w,\u0026lt;:d to prc.',(.'nt other noteworthy mimion film.\\. The interior will allo,, \u0026lt;.:hanging exhibit.:,, ~uch a~ tho~c avai lable for loan through the Lnitcd State Air Force: Mu.\\eum and the Smilhsonian. l3ecau!-iC of the time-line organization, tomorrow's cmft can find a space 10 be dramatically displayed. AN ENCOMPASSING FACILITY. The Museum will rest on land et aside by the Little Rock Airport Commis ion on the east side of the Little Rock Airport complex. The main building will house featured exhibits and will also include the Arkansa Aviation Hall of Fame, a restoration work-area, plus an outdoor di play site. The main exhibit will be visible through the glass front of the building. From inside, the glas wall will offer a clear view of the runways and taxiways of the adjacent airport. Designed by athaniel Curtis-Riddick-Heiple Architects, the main building upon it completion will be include more usable area than buildings of imilar size, due to its unique multi-level di play space. Upwards of 80,000 quare feet of display space will enable as many a 40 aircraft and personality displays to function at any one time. CAMPAIGN GOALS. The total amount needed to build the initial phase of the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History is 4.5 million. Many of the craft to be included in the museum now sit in hang r within taxi distance of the project site. All exhibit designs are complete and ready to begin acquisition and construction. m Parking A MESSAGE FROM THE CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN Dear fellow aviation enthusiast: The contributions of Arkansas people to American aviation should be a source of pride for us all. We have given our country great pilots, inventors, aviation _ ~ authors, aces and leaders of the largest - ~'== aeronautical enterprises. As a result, flying has progressed from an incredible fantasy to a factor of  - - every-day life. The Arkansas Museum of Aviation History finally provides a way to chronicle and display the legacy of those Arkansans who have achieved so much by their fascinating endeavors. As we accomplish our goals with your help, I believe you will see that the we are giving Arkansas more than just a museum. The Arkansas Museum of Aviation History will become a channel of constant esteem and respect, a place to enthusiastically share with visitors from out-of-state and a permanent presentation of the unique Arkansas spirit. Our vision is to become a positive force for aviation in Arkansas by preserving the best of its past. I encourage you to join with me and make our dreams take flight. Together, we can make aviation history happen today. Sincerely, Richard N. Holbert Campaign Chairman 111 - - - Arkansas Museum of Aviation History PO. BOX 3511 UTil.E RCX.K, ARKA. \"SAS 72203 (501\u0026gt; 3753245 MCASCHCL ,-, ,:-11f10AY, PA 8 . S . CL,a.RK R 08CRT V. LIGHT, PA. WILLIAM M. SUTTON, PA, GCOROE  . Pl KC. J R ., PA. ..J4MCS W . MOOR:C BYRON M , EISEMAN, .JR., P 4 .JOE: 0 . BELL, PA. M ICH AC L 0 . THOMPSON , p A .J0'\"'N C. ECHOLS, P 4 JAM CS A . BUTTR:Y, 119 A. FRCOCAICK S . URSERY, p A . H . T LARZCLCRC, PA. OSCAR: . 04VIS, .JR . JAM CS C . CLARK, JR .,\n, 4. THOMAS P LCGGETT, PA. .JOP\"IN OCWCY W4TSON, PA LEWIS M4T .... IS, PA. PAUL 9 . 1!1NHAM 111, PA. LARPYW. 9URK5. P.A. A , WYCKL1,:-,:- NISBET, .JFL, PA. JAMES COWARO MARRIS, PA. .J, P._.ILL, ._, MALCO\"\"' PA. .JAMCS M , St,..FSON. PA MCREOITH P CATLETT, PA .JAM 5 M. SAXTON, ,\u0026gt; A . .J, SMCPHERO RUSSEL~ Ill OONA LO H , BACON, P ,.l,. , WILLI A,.,. THOMAS 8AX.TCR. P ,.l,. WALT CR A. PAULSON II, PA HAND DELIVERED FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF\" INOIVIOUALS ANO PROF'ESSIONALASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT I.AW 2000 F'lRST COMMERCIAL BUILOING 400 WEST CAPITOL I.ITTI.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 722013493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 January 16, 1991 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Dear Judge Wright: !IARlltY . CO?LIN, PA. RICMARO 0. TAYLOR. PA JOSCP,_. 8 . MURST\", Jl=l . . PA CLIZABCTM J. ROBl!!IC N, P ,.i. CHJ:IISTOPMCR \"\"CLLCR PA LAURA r1CNSLEY SM I - .,., P,.. ROBCR: T S. SHAFE:R, ~ A WILLIAM M , GRl,,-,,-IN Ill, PA THOMAS N. R:OSC , PA. M ICH AELS. MOORE CIA.NC S. MAC KC\"' WALTCR: M . 1[9!.. Ill, P  t(CVIN A. CRASS WILLIAM A. WA00L_, ..,R. ~ ~ CLYOC  TAB\" TURN? CALVIN J. HALL SCOTTJ. l.ANCASTE~ J Ci:tR Y L. ,_.ALONE M . GAYLE CORLV POIIC\"'T 1!1 . l!IICACM , .JR S . RANOO LP'\"' LOON C Y .J . LC 9ROWN .JAMES C. 8At(R , .JI'!' H C'\"'A RLC:S GSCl-1WEN0 , J=! MARRY A. LIQH - SCOTT 1-1 TUCKER MARYL. WISC .... AN GUY ALTON WAOI[ PlltlCl. C 0Allt0NIC\"'TH0MAS ,:- MEEKS J. ,.uci....AEL PtCKc.-...s COUNSl:1,. WILLIAM J. S,.,.ITM WILLI A,_...._ , LORE00 JP.\n, ~ WIL.LIAM L. TE\n:H:tY WILLIAM L. PAfTON. ~ R PA TELCOP1ER t50H 376-2tJ.7 TCLECOPICR 15011 3?8 -8369 370-1506 The Little Rock School District has filed with the U. s. Department of Education a grant application for funds to establish an Aerospace Technology Magnet Program within the Little Rock School District. A copy of Volume I of the grant application is enclosed. Volume II of the grant application is the LRSD Desegregation Plan which you already have. An Aerospace Technology Magnet located in the Little Rock School District is a component of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan found at page 13 of the section on Interdistrict Magnet Schools and Programs. LRSD believes that the Aerospace Technology Magnet, although not required by the Settlement Plans, would compliment those plans and advance the voluntary desegregation efforts contemplated by those plans. We hope to present to the court within the next week a stipulation of the parties in support of the Aerospace Technology Magnet. I thought it best to provide you a copy of the grant application now, however, because the application will remain viable only if the Aerospace Technology Magnet becomes a court approved component of the LRSD Desegregation Plan before February 4, 1991. Yours very truly ~~ Christopher eller CJH/k cc: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Enc. Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, ~..R 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Sharon Streett Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72205 Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Arma Hart Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR72201 -- - . 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. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS STIPULATION AND CONSENT ORDER REGARDING LITTLE ROCK 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: 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. -- 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 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 Co~rt 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 ---  - Statement in Support of the Aerospace Education CenLer As executives of Little Rock's aviation industries and the-Little Rock Airport C'.ornmission, we endorse and lend our c:ommitment to the planned Aerospace Education Center, combining an Aerospace Magnet lligh School with the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History at Adams Field. The Aerospace Magnet High School will provide the educutionul base in math and science that our companies 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 finus. Our companies are willing to provide adjunct faculty to both the high school and to the museum's educational outreach program, and will provide guest ins1rnc1ors, as needed, to enhun~:e curriculum offerings. In addition, we will sponsor and encourage our employees to participate in a mentor progrum, working with students who wish to specialize in specific areas of expertise. While we anticipate the school's graduates becoming a source of our pennanent employees, we also plan to consider, whenever possible, opponunities for purt-time and summer employment of students in aviation-related jobs. We wholeheanedly endorse Governor Clinton's initiative to tlevelop industry apprenticeship progrnms, and pledge our cooperation to affect such a program in our industry here in Little Rock where it mny apply. We feel that apprenticeship programs in aviation-related skills, developed through what will be the excellent facilities of the Aerospace Education Center, could eventually become a significant source of skilled workers for our companies. Little Rock's Aerospace Magnet High School wilt provide new opportunities for disadvantaged 1md minority students, many of whom would have few other opportunities to gain the requisite skills to enrer aerospace or other technology careers. We pledge co recruit disadvantaged and minority graduates from the Aerospace Magnet High School, in conjunction with our companies' respective uffinnative nction pluns. The aviation industries of Central Arkansas have enjoyed phenomenal growth over the pust several years, offering economic benefits for not only our employees, but for the entire community. for this positive trend to 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 Aerospul'e Education Center and pledge the support of our respective companies to ensure its success. fc. Taylor Brown Senior Vice President Falcon Jet Corporation Dennis D. Davis President Arkansas Modification Center O'.V~J1  - A/I~ ~~-~ ~ ~ary DAggers n Richard N. Holbc Senior Vice President and General Manager President Midcoast Aviation - Little Rock Central Flying Service James R. Rodgers M.a nager ~ - President ---- 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, 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 -- 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%) bl:\"ack 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 --- 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 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 (30) in Southwest 6 --- 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 cornmi tted 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 '\"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 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 ---  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. Paga 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. Paga 59 (supplementary language) A program of teacher developed incentives will be put into place to assist with the motivation of students at the Aerospace Magnet. Paga 60 (supplementary language to paragraph two) 9 ---  - 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, vectors, 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 --- 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 --- 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 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 -- 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, although 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\" 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 --- 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:Qu.~ ~ 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::_~1 Richard Roachell FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ BY:~ Christophe? H~ JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 BY~tJ~ -{A__ SO ORDERED THIS ~ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1~91. n . ~ '/ )1/ '4 / // \u0026amp;h,. , /~, ii~ , ~ 1, r= SUSAN WEBBER T GHI' = / I , ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUCGE F R I DAY, ELDRE DGE \u0026amp; CL ARK HERSCHEL H . FRIDA Y, P. A . 9 . S . CLARK ROBERT V. LIGHT, P. A . WILLIAM H . SUTTON, P. A. GEORGE E . Fl'IKE , .JR . , P. A . .JAM ES W. MOO RC A PARTN ERSHIP OF INDIVI DUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS A T TORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL  YRON M . E ISEMAN, .JR ., P. A . .JOE 0 .  ELL , P. A . MICHAEL G . THOMPSON, Fl'. A . .JOHN C. ECHOLS, P. A . .JAMES A . BUTTRY, Fl'. A . FREDERICKS. URSERY, P. A . H T LARZELERE, Fl'.A . L I T T LE ROCK, AR KANSAS 7 220 1-3493 TLPHONE 501-376- 2011 OSCAR E . DAVIS , .JR . .JAMES C . CLARK, .JR., P. A . THOMAS Fl'. LEGGETT, l='. A . .JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P. A LEWIS MATHIS1 P.A . PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P. A . LARRY W. BURK5 1 P . A . February 19, 1991 A. WYCKLIFF NIS8ET, JR., Ft. A . .JAMES EOWARO HARRI S , P. A . .J PH IL L I FI' MALCOM, Fl' A . JAMES M . S I MFl'SON, Ft A . MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P. A . .JAMES M . SAXTON, P. A . .J. SHE PH ERO RUSSELL Ill OONALO H . BACON, P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P. A . WALTER A . PAULSON II, P. A . Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg . 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Affidavit of Dick Holbert Dear Counsel: BARRY E . COPL.IN, P. A . RIC HARO O. TAYl.OR, P. A .JOSEPM 9 . HURST, JR., PA. El.lZABETH .J . RO B BEN, PA. CHRISTOPHER MELL.ER, P. A l.AURA HENSL.EY SMITH, PA ROl!SERT S . SHAFER, P. A . Wll.l.lAM M . GRll'\"FIN Ill, P. A THOMAS N . ROSE, P. A . MICHAEL. S . MOORE DIANE S . MACKEY WALTER M . EBEL 111, P. A KEVIN A. CRASS Wll.LIAM A . WA00El.l., .JR., PA CLYDE \"TAB\" TURNER CALVIN .J . HALL SCOTT.J.LANCASTER .JERRY L. MALONE M . GAYLE CORLEY ROBERT B . BEACH, JR. S RANDOL.PH LOONEY .J. LE BROWN .JAM CS C. BAKER, JR. H . CHARL.ES GSCHWEND, .JR HARRY A . LIGHT SCOTT H . TUCKER JOHN Cl.AYTON RANDOLPH MARY L. WISE MAN GUY ALTON WADE PRICE. C. GARONER THOMAS F' MEEKS J M ICHA EL. PICKENS CCUNSl:t.. WILLIAM J. SM ITH WILLIAM A . El.ORE OGE , JR., Fl' A WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. Fl'.A, TELECOPIER (501\u0026gt; 37621'7 TEL.ECO PIER ( 501 ) 3788369 Willl lTt:illl'S ouu:cr NO. 370-1506 Please find enclosed a copy of an Affidavit filed today in this case by Dick Holbert. Very truly yo ~~ ristoph r CJH/k Enc. cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILED US. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR.I' FASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB 191991 LITI'LE RCX:K SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CXXJNl'Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSffiJA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL WFSTERN DIVISION LR'-C-82-866 AFFIDAVIT CARL R. 8Rl::NTS, CLERK By: ___ ~---- PIAINI'0i1. CLERK DEFENDANT'S INTERVENORS INI'ERVEOORS I, Richard N. Holbert, after being duly sworn, state under oath: I am the President of Central Flying Service, Inc. Central Flying Service, Inc. is an equal opportunity employer. Central FJ,.ying Service, Inc. does presently offer sunrrer training and arployrrent opportunity on a very limited basis. Central Flying Service, Inc.'s surrmer training and employment opportunities will be made available to black and white pupils who attend the Aerospace Technology Magnet School on an equitable basis. An unrestricted number of employees of the canpany will be available to provide mentoring and support programs on a periodic and voluntary basis for black and white pupils of the Aerospace Technology Magnet School perhaps through programs inaugurated by the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society. Because of the course of study to be offered at the Aerospace Technology Magnet School, and the familiarity with the school's students and teachers that the canpany expects to have, graduates of the Aerospace Technology magnet School should receive preferential consideration upon graduation for training or apprenticeship programs and errployment with the canpany if such programs or jobs are available at the ti.Ire. The ~rk envirornnent at the ccrnpany is and will remain non-discriminatory and the canpany has not and will not establish a racially exclusive ~rk envirornnent. The canpany does not have a governing board or advisory ooard. I, Richard N. Holbert, the undersigned herein, state that the foregoing Affidavit is true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge \u0026amp; belief. Dated this 19th day of February, 1991. ~fj~ Richard N. Holbert SUBSCRIBED AND smRN to before me a Notary Public in and for the Coun~y of Pulaski, State of Arkansas on this Jqtb day of February, 1991. My Ccmnission Expires: cmce JMJ 4 19Jj of OE.segregation Mo::i:orir.g UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTER~ DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL .. MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., 0 R D E R CARL\n.:?_\n:. ,.!::.~ ~-:\n. CLERK By: '/,\n\\-,1 :71:'.'-:k~ -~ ueP. CL I( PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS I INTERVENORS I INTERVENORS . Following telephone notice to counsel, a hearing is hereby scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Monday, January 25, 1993. One issue to be addressed at the hearing is the Little Rock School District's aerospace magnet school grant application. This Court's Order of May 1, 1992 rejected an earlier proposal to modify the settlement plan to eliminate language concerning the possible construction of a new junior high in the district. The Court, in that order, directed that the \"parties conduct a careful review of junior high capacity and its immediate and long term impact on programmatic needs and/or intradistrict and M-to-M needs.\" Because of its interrelatedness to the aerospace magnet application, the second issue to be addressed at the hearing is the results of the study conducted pursuant to that Order. The parties are directed to provide the Court and the Federal Monitor 1-:i th copies of the proposed grant application and the results o f the jun i or high school study, together with copies of ~$.-~~~?'~ \n.. other proposed exhibits for the hearing and any briefs they feel are necessary, on or before 12:00 noon on Friday, January 15, 1993. It is so ordered this ',x/b. day of December, 1992. United States Dist ict Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET iN ':OMPUANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR ?~a) ~CP ON t] / 3{\nI 012z: BY _ _._._: ____ r,\u0026gt;1 t l Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 V JAN 2 2 W~5 Olfic, of Desegei:i:'.icn Monitoring Donna Grady Creer Executive Director RESOLUTION Regarding Proposed Aerospace Magnet School (501) 758-0156 WHEREAS, the Magnet Review Committee, a body established by the 8th Circuit of Appeals at St. Louis to oversee the operation of the six interdistrict magnet schools and to make findings concerning the number, location, staffing, racial ratios and themes of magnet schools and to have the furtherance of effective desegregation as its primary objective\nand WHEREAS, the interdistrict magnet schools' host district, the Little Rock School District, has notified the Magnet Review Committee of a projected deficit budget amount of $5,500,000 for the next fiscal year\nand WHEREAS, this projected deficit budget amount will cause the Little Rock School District to be forced to make drastic cuts which may adversely impact existing programs designed to reduce racial academic disparity and promote desegregation\nand WHEREAS, the Magnet Review Committee believes that the total community (parents, students, business, industry, higher education, etc.) should have documented input in the selection and implementation of the theme for a proposed magnet school\nBE IT RESOLVED that the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote (5 FOR\n1 AGAINST - Little Rock School District cast the dissenting vote) opposes the implementation of an aerospace magnet school at this time. SUBMITTED this 22nd day of January, in the year 1993. ~ Bobby tom, Ed.D., Chairperson Magnet Review Committee gnet Revi F~LED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS 'JAN - 7 1993 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CARL K EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: WESTERN DIVISION --\n.. ...... ~u...,~~J.'.,0-- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL,, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL,, 0 R D E R PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS , INTERVENORS , INTERVENORS . A hearing was previously scheduled in this case for Monday, January 25, 1993. Pursuant to the telephone request of the Little Rock School District for additional time to prepare for the hearing, the hearing is hereby rescheduled for Monday, February 1, 1993. Counsel for the Joshua Intervenor has indicated that this change is satisfactory to him. Counsel should be present no later than 9:00 a.m. The Court's Order of December 30, 1992 remains in full force and is modified only to the extent that the documents to be provided to the Court and to the Monitor shall be delivered on or before noon on Friday, January 22, 1992. It is so ordered this t:,-1!-:- day of January, 1993. Q\n~~tJudge THIS DOCUll.11::~1T i::.~'.TERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN GOMPUANCE fir: l RUL::: Ea AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 8N 1- 1- 1:3 sv Ir rJAN 2 2 \\993 .... , , t2! Dcsege~~~on ,ori',ffl1gTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS v--' ,..J WESTERN DIVISION --- ,_, .... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OBSERVATIONS. QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS OF THE PCSSD REGARDING THE PROPOSED LRSD AEROSPACE MAGNET SCHOOL Preliminary Statement The PCSSD has sought to independently evaluate and analyze the continued wisdom and vitality of constructing and operating an aerospace magnet program in LRSD, including in particular the construction of a new high school. The PCSSD has identified at least four areas of major question and concern which it will discuss in this submission. The present areas of concern, inquiry and question of the PCSSD are: I. Whether or not the seemingly accelerating decline in the aerospace industry as a whole, and in particular regarding job opportunities for technicians, vitiates the vitality of this project. II. Whether or not the student transfer projections proposed by the grant document are too ambitious and are not likely to be attained. III. Whether or not LRSD needs additional high school space. IV. Whether or not the LRSD can reasonably fund the maintenance and operation of an aerospace high school, particularly beyond the grant period. The PCSSD will, to the extent feasible, address these issues seriatim. I. Whether or not the seemingly accelerating decline in the aerospace industry as a whole, and in particular regarding job opportunities for technicians, vitiates the vitality of this project. Spurred by local anecdotal and media reports of a \"decline\" in aerospace sales, employment and production, including facilities located in central Arkansas, the PCSSD sought to independently assess, as best it can, the current status of this industry. With research assistance from congressional offices, the PCSSD has obtained certain published information which fortifies its concern in this regard. Attached as Exhibit A is a publication of the Aerospace Industries' Association which contains both the 1992 Year End Review and Forecast as well as the \"Outlook for 1993 11  1 Portions of the summary indicate that during 1992: 1. Aerospace industry sales fell four percent\n2. Department of Defense (DoD) purchases of aerospace products and services fell seven percent\nlExhibit A appears to be a precursor to an about-to-be published book from this organization which, in its last publication, was entitled Aerospace, Fact \u0026amp; Figures 91-92. (Counsel for PCSSD possesses this volume and is informed that the 92-93 edition will be available \"in a couple of weeks\".) 2 3. Sales of military aircraft and parts fell nine percent\n4. Aerospace profits are at their lowest level since 1982\n5. New aerospace orders were down 23 percent\n6. The backlog of unfilled orders for all aerospace products and services should fall 11 percent\n7. Employment during 1992 fell an additional 10 percent\n8. Company forecasts indicate that the aerospace work force will shrink an additional four percent during 1993. The outlook for 1993 includes a projection for another year of industry sales declines of approximately six percent. An additional decline in aerospace employment of four percent is forecast with the employment of technicians and production workers forecast to fall more than five percent. 2 The Aerospace Technology Program (the draft grant application) states at page 11, paragaraph 5: \"The aerospace employment need for a skilled work force is well known in Arkansas.\" The PCSSD was unable to locate any documentation 2rn Aerospace Facts and Figures 91-92, supra, note 1, the Association reported that new orders declined for the first time since 1986 (page 6), that DoD aerospace sales will drop by 1995 to a level 25 percent below the 1990 level, that overall sales will decline seriously but not catastrophically during the next decade (page 7), that industry employment fell by 19,000 in 1990 marking the first reduction since 1983, (page 11), that aerospace industry company-funded research and development in 1991 was expected to drop by more than $117,000,000, (page 102). 3 for this bald statement anywhere in the draft grant application. The accuracy of this statement must at least be questioned given the employment declines described in Exhibit A. The PCSSD is concerned that in light of the Exhibit A projections, the establishment of this school, while it might very well produce an accomplished core of graduates, might yet be targeting an employment market that is shrinking and which cannot absorb those so educated. The only direct projection the PCSSD found in the draft grant application is an expression of intent at page 27 regarding the creation of more than 300 jobs at Arkansas Aerospace. While recognizing that central Arkansas would not likely be the only employment opportunity for such graduates, the statistical fact remains that the one time creation of 300 jobs will do little to satisfy the employment needs of more than 300 graduates per year. PCSSD believes that LRSD has not adequately documented the job market and job opportunities for the school graduates. II. Whether or not the student transfer projections proposed by the draft grant document are too ambitious and are not likely to be attained. As nearly as the PCSSD can determine, the draft grant application contemplates the interdistrict transfer of 325 junior high white students from outside of LRSD and ultimately some 270 white senior high students from without the LRSD. Given the present and projected racial composition of the NLRSD, it seems reasonable to conclude, absent significant 4 transfers from outside the three Pulaski County districts, that the PCSSD is projected to supply almost all of these transferring students. Several historical indicators give the PCSSD pause in endorsing these projections. First, the establishment of specialized programs at Dunbar Junior High and Central High School have proved relatively unattractive to prospective transferring PCSSD students. Conversely, PCSSD has been able to attract relatively and absolutely more black LRSD students to Robinson and Sylvan Hills junior high schools, even absent the presence of a specialty program. The same is true at Robinson High School and Sylvan Hills High School. Additionally, the PCSSD recently completed a survey of all students at Crystal Hill Elementary School, emphasizing in particular the outcomes at grades 5 and 6, and learned that the overwhelming majority of those students expressed both the desire and intent to transfer to a Crystal Hill junior high school if one could be built in the future. Accordingly, based upon the historical information to date, it appears that racial overrepresentation and isolation in the secondary schools in LRSD would m~st likely be ameliorated and reduced by the establishment of additional programs in PCSSD for transferring 5 black LRSD students than efforts to induce large scale transfers of white PCSSD secondary students to programs in LRSD. 3 Further, while program conflict is likely inevitable as additional specialty schools are considered, PCSSD would reiterate its concern, first expressed approximately two years ago in open court, that establishment of the Aerospace Magnet School would likely negatively impact its own efforts to recruit PCSSD white students to Fuller Junior High and Mills High School for the specialty programs presently operated and projected for those schools. III. Whether or not LRSD needs additional high school space. LRSD has consistently reported the need for additional junior high space over the past several years. However, the PCSSD recalls no assertion that it was in need of additional high school space for space's sake. The PCSSD found no analysis of the need for additional senior high space within the four corners of the draft grant application, nor did it 3This should not be interpreted to mean that PCSSD would not work resolutely and diligently to help in attracting students to an aerospace high school. However, PCSSD does not believe it would serve the overall goals and requirements of the desegregation plans to ignore history and projections in this regard. 6 find any analysis of the impact this school would have on the residual enrollments of other present LRSD high schools. Further, PCSSD recalls that for this school year, LRSD experienced an actual enrollment decline, a factor which should be evaluated before this school is finally authorized. IV. Whether or not the LRSD can reasonably fund the maintenance and operation of an aerospace high school, particularly beyond the grant period. At page 2 the draft grant application does identify a source of funds for a portion of the costs to construct the aerospace magnet high school. However, the PCSSD did not locate any source of funding to equip such a highly technical and specialized school nor a source of funds with which to operate the school into the future. It seems reasonable to require that LRSD identify fund sources for the continuous operation of this school into the future and such should be done before it is approved. This Court has recently addressed budget cuts in the LRSD budget and has reluctantly and temporarily approved most or all of them. Upon information and belief, the LRSD will submit additional new budget cuts to this Court during this year for the Court's consideration and approval. If in fact the LRSD does not need additional high school space, it seems anomalous to propose the construction of an expensive new high school when, at the same time, the LRSD has not identified a funding 7 source for the continuous operation of this school and has recently and will likely again ask this Court to approve additional budget cuts. Finally, this high school was not a part of the desegregation settlement plans both approved and then mandated by the Court of Appeals. As such, its establishment should remain squarely within the rubric of analysis laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, which case has previously been briefed to this Court. 4 See, PCSSD brief filed February 6, 1992. The PCSSD would submit that if indeed the concerns it has expressed in this submission are legitimate and if the answers to the various inquiries set forth herein militate against construction of this school, that this Court should not approve it, at least under present circumstances. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501} 371-0808 ~- 0 (,, I J'ru-,,.,~- _..,.._ _ M. Samu J nes III #76060 Atto~ eys fr Pulaski\nCounty Sp~_ed .. al School Dis1tr,i'.ct I / 4This assumes the school remains a requirement even though conditions specified by the previous stipulation were not realized or fulfilled. 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On January :\nl..:J. 1993, the foregoing was served by mailing a copy thereof, first class postage prepaid, to: 54041 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 Capitol Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED JAN 2 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (LRSD} hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached grant application for an Aerospace Technology Magnet Program. The attached grant application is the most recent document prepared by a grant writer engaged by the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society to work as a consultant to the Little Rock School District. LRSD has begun the process of preparing a revised and corrected grant application which will be hand delivered to the Court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring no later than Monday, January 25, 1993. Also attached are: ( l} A Resolution in Support of the Aerospace Technology Magnet Program which was adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors on November 24, 1992\n( 2) Proposed exhibits which summarize projected Little Rock School District revenues and budgets both with and without an Aerospace Technology Magnet Program\nand (3) Proposed exhibits which present budgets for an Aerospace Education Center using various assumptions regarding the number of majority to minority transfer students. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 B~~--- Christoph Bar No. 8108 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 22nd day of January, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 -2- l \\ Mr. Richard Roachell 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 BY0~z ~ ' Christopher Rel.Yer / -3- RECEIVED JAN 2 2 19'15 Office of Desegrngation Moilitoring R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors has considered the proposal to build a senior high aerospace magnet school and to offer aerospace technology courses in one or more junior high schools\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is very excited about the potential for unparalleled educational opportunities that such a school and museum partnership could provide the students of the Little Rock School District as well as surrounding school districts\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors commends the business community for its vision and progressive spirit\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is committed to issue second lien bonds in an amount not to exceed $10 million to construct a high school aerospace magnet school on a pre-selected site near the Little Rock Regional Airport adjacent to the proposed Aerospace Museum and to use existing debt service mills to retire the bonds\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is committed to use existing central office administrators and support staff to plan and implement the school subject to the following conditions: 1. that the District receives from the Magnet School Assistance Fund grant a minimum of $8 million covering a two-year term\n2. that seventy percent ( 70%) of the aerospace school's capacity will be initially reserved for Little Rock School District students while the remaining seats may be filled by majority to minority transfer students from outside the Little Rock School District, and that funds to defray the cost of operating the school will be obtained from public and/or private sources\nthat these funds for the school's operation are available for a period of five (5) years beginning with the date the school opens\nthat construction will begin when the five (5) year commitment of operating funds are identified\nand 3. that the District can demonstrate to the U.S. District Court that the school will complement its desegregation plan and receives approval from the Court to modify its plan to include the construction and implementation of the aerospace school. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Little Rock School District enthusiastically approves the Aerospace Technology School in concept subject to the conditions listed above. ADOPTED this 24th day of November, 1992. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 0. G. JACOVELLI, PRESIDENT PAT GEE, SECRETARY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAN 2 2 1995 1993-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY (WITH AEROSPACE SCHOOL REVENUE/EXPENSE) Office of Desegregation Monitoring 01-22-93 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 39,088,120 40,793,227 39,416,117 40,786,512 42,206,276 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,250,186 4,600,000 4,700,000 4,800,000 4,900,000 40% PULLBACK 21,694,578 21,633,744 22,396,645 23,166,307 23,918,335 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 140,000 141,400 142,814 144,242 145,685 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 368,650 372,337 376,060 379,820 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 227,250 229,183 231,818 234,136 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 461,000 484,050 508,253 533,665 560,348 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 300,000 309,000 318,270 327,818 337,653 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 100,857 100,000 100,000 100,000 92,007 TOTAL 66,559,408 68,657,321 68,183,619 70,466,422 72,774,260 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 27,042,713 27,503,386 28,394,849 30,102,462 30,862,449 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,500,000 APPORTIONMENT 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 VOCATIONAL 1,341,887 1,400,000 1,450,000 1,500,000 1,550,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 821,449 850,000 875,000 900,000 950,000 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 EARLY CHILDHOOD 229,403 229,403 229,403 229,403 229,403 TRANSPORTATION 2,692,563 3,300,000 3,615,840 3,805,107 4,017,516 INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 2,490,900 3,248,910 4,206,664 5,046,346 5,843,040 ADULT EDUCATION 697,589 697,589 697,589 697,589 697,589 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 548,034 565,000 575,000 585,000 595,000 TOTAL 46,367,563 45,965,319 46,163,855 46,772,768 45,505,041 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 TRANSFER FROM FED. GRANTS 262,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 600,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 TOTAL 902,000 700,000 595,000 490,000 385,000 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 113,913,390 115,407,059 115,026,893 117,813,609 118,748,720 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY (WITH AEROSPACE SCHOOL REVENUE/EXPENSE) 01-22-93 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-FEDERALGRANTS CHAPTER I 4,446,152 4,563,774 4,655,049 CHAPTER II 215,020 219,320 223,707 TITLEVI B 569,986 581,386 593,014 OTHER 1,770,603 1,806,015 1,842,135 TOTAL 7,001,761 7,170,495 7,313,905 REVENUE - MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 14,447,947 14,736,906 TOTAL REVENUE 135,193,947 137,025,501 137,077,704 EXPENSES- OPERATING SALARIES 65,063,011 68,365,037 69,169,638 BENEFITS 9,162,732 9,202,509 9,120,588 DESEGREGATION 17,013,029 19,148,407 22,515,161 PUA SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP 14,636,674 14,672,774 14,696,830 DEBT SERVICE 9,597,115 9,797,473 9,552,598 CONTINGENCY 500,000 600,000 700,000 TOTAL- OPERATING 115,972,561 121,786,200 125,754,815 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 7,001,761 7,170,495 7,313,905 EXPENSES - MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 14,447,947 14,736,906 EXPENSES - AEROSPACE 1,452,615 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,253,118 143,404,642 149,258,241 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES  (2,059,171) (6,379,141) (12,180,537)  - Budget reductions to comply with State law are not reflected. 1995-96 1996-97 4,748,150 4,843,113 228,181 232,745 604,874 616,971 1,878,978 1,916,557 7,460,183 7,609,386 15,031,644 15,332,277 140,305,436 141,690,383 70,892,807 73,443,940 9,166,861 9,213,366 23,246,037 23,732,324 14,725,036 14,755,937 9,120,671 8,901,668 800,000 900,000 127,951,412 130,947,235 7,460,183 7,609,386 15,031,644 15,332,277 2,949,249 4,401,864 153,392,488 158,290,762 (13,087,052) (16,600,379) ~ RE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAN c -J JY9.5 1993-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY (WITHOUT AEROSPACE SCHOOL) Office of Deseg,1 - 1on fllont  01-22-93 \"\u0026lt;-'\"'' , 1 onng 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 39,088,120 40,793,227 39,416,117 40,786,512 42,206,276 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,250,186 4,600,000 4,700,000 4,800,000 4,900,000 40% PULLBACK 21,694,578 21,633,744 22,396,645 23,166,307 23,918,335 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 140,000 141,400 142,814 144,242 145,685 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 368,650 372,337 376,060 379,820 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 227,250 229,183 231,818 234,136 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 461,000 484,050 508,253 533,665 560,348 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 300,000 309,000 318,270 327,818 337,653 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 100,857 100,000 100,000 100,000 92,007 TOTAL 66,559,408 68,657,321 68,183,619 70,466,422 72,TT4,260 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 27,042,713 27,503,386 28,394,849 30,102,462 30,862,449 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,500,000 APPORTIONMENT 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 VOCATIONAL 1,341,887 1,400,000 1,450,000 1,500,000 1,550,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 821,449 850,000 875,000 900,000 950,000 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 EARLY CHILDHOOD 229,403 229,403 229,403 229,403 229,403 TRANSPORTATION 2,692,563 3,300,000 3,615,840 3,805,107 4,017,516 INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 2,490,900 3,248,910 3,760,540 4,140,580 4,491,150 ADULT EDUCATION 697,589 697,589 697,589 697,589 697,589 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 548,034 565,000 575,000 585,000 595,000 TOTAL 46,367,563 45,965,319 45,717,731 45,867,002 44,153,151 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 TRANSFER FROM FED. GRANTS 262,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 600,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 TOTAL 902,000 700,000 595,000 490,000 385,000 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 113,913,390 115,407,059 114,580,769 116,907,843 117,396,830 LITTI.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY (WffilOUT AEROSPACE SCHOOL) 01-22-93 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-FEDERALGRANTS CHAPTER I 4,446,152 4,563,774 4,655,049 CHAPTER II 215,020 219,320 223,707 mLEVIB 569,986 581,386 593,014 OTHER 1,770,603 1,806,015 1,842,135 TOTAL 7,001,761 7,170,495 7,313,905 REVENUE - MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 14,447,947 14,736,906 TOTAL REVENUE 135,193,947 137,025,501 136,631,580 EXPENSES - OPERATING SALARIES 65,063,011 68,365,037 69,169,638 BENEFITS 9,162,732 9,202,509 9,120,588 DESEGREGATION 17,013,029 19,148,407 22,515,161 PUA SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP 14,636,674 14,672,774 14,696,830 DEBT SERVICE 9,597,115 9,090,123 8,845,248 CONTINGENCY 500,000 600,000 700,000 TOTAL - OPERATING 115,972,561 121,078,850 125,047,465 EXPENSES - FEDERAL GRANTS 7,001,761 7,170,495 7,313,905 EXPENSES - MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 14,447,947 14,736,906 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,253,118 142,697,292 147,098,276 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES * (2,059,171) (5,671,791) (10,466,696)  - Budget reductions to comply with State law are not reflected. 1995-96 1996-97 4,748,150 4,843,113 228,181 232,745 604,874 616,971 1,878,978 1,916,557 7,460,183 7,609,386 15,031,644 15,332,277 139,399,670 140,338,493 70,892,807 73,443,940 9,166,861 9,213,366 23,246,037 23,732,324 14,725,036 14,755,937 8,258,921 8,041,468 800,000 900,000 127,089,662 130,087,035 7,460,183 7,609,386 15,031,644 15,332,277 149,581,489 153,028,698 (10,181,819) (12,690,205) :lsl~T1:\n\\1o1,!!:ts:p\n.i:'@X:-cw.\n.:\n@J-:.:.gL\nFillfilji\u0026amp;ill]fill CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $53 232 1.0 $62,274 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $116 160 3.0 $135 891 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO) OTHER (60) Project Director 1.0 $39 460 1.0 $46163 Curriculum Specialists 5.0 $202 820 5.0 $237 271 Counselors 3.0 $95,622 3.0 $111,864 Media 1.0 $30,334 1.0 $35,486 Aerospace Tech Teachers 15.0 $443,475 15.0 $518,803 Foreiqn Lanquaqe Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186 043 Enqlish Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Math Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Science Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Social Studies Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186 043 Fine Arts Teachers 2.0 $53 010 2.0 $62 014 Vocal Music Teacher 1.0 $26 505 1.0 $31 007 Orchestra/Instrumental Teacher 1.0 $26 505 1.0 $31 007 Phvsical Education/Life Sports 3.0 $79 515 3.0 $93 021 Special Education Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 lanquaqe Arts Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Mathematics Remediation Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Substitutes $0 $0 Fringe Benefrts(20)  .......... , ,. $318,000 .,,,'.-:s-:s-:-:.  $412,000 TOTAL CERT SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 87.0 $2,836,393 87.0 $3,358,164 Reaistrar 1.0 $15943 1.0 $18651 Princioal's Secretarv 1.0 $14 803 1.0 $17 317 General Office Secretarv 1.0 $14 234 1.0 $16 652 Bookkeeoer 1.0 $12 040 1.0 $14 085 Attendance Secretarv 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14 085 Counselor Secretary 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14,085 Media Clerks 2.0 $21 946 2.0 . $25 674 Nurse 1.0 $22 607 1.0 $26 447 Buildinq Enqineer 1.0 $23 000 1.0 $26 907 Custodians 7.0 $83 300 7.0 $97 449 Camous Securitv Officers 2.0 $23 878 2.0 $27 934 Resource Officer 1.0 $18 591 1.0 $21 749 Project Director's Secretarv 1.0 $12 040 1.0 $14 085 Instructional Aides 10.0 $97 130 10.0 $113 628 Frinqe Benefits(20) ,.,.,,_.,.,.,.,,:-,-,,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., $72,000 ,,,.,.,-:,,,.--,-:-,,, . ,,..w.,, $90,100 TOTAL N/C SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 31 .0 $455,592 31.0 $538,848 TOTAL (10 20) N.''H' :. $3 291 985\n~ $3 897 012 Utilities Travel Maintenance Aqreements Other TOTAL (30) Princioal's Office Reaular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other flight lessons TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30 60) TOT AL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PAGE GRAND TOTAL $210 000 .,,, ... ,,,.,,,.,.,.'' $245 670 $0 ' $0 $0 ., $0 $48 700 ......, ..., .. ..... ,,. . -:.,:,....... $56 972 $258 700 .... , '. ' ,. $302 642 $0 :, $0 $1 00 850  -:-:-- ,,:.:,:-:-:-:::-:-:,:-:-:-. $117 980 $17 000 . .,ww.: $19 888 $0 $0 $117 850 $137 868 $0. $0 $0  $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $0 $0 :, $0 $50 000 $58 493 $50 000  $58 493 $426 550 $499 003 118.0 $3 718 535 118.0 $4 396 015 $5 000 :,rn,: .,.,.,.... ........ $5 849 $3 723 535 -.. ...  ',/' $4 401 864 RECEIVE JAN 2 2 199j Office of Desegregation Monitoring- :::,,,,hi?t:rnw::t'Ii.:tWWM+rrn::::::::,une11emoa,11f.,rr:i::.,.=:::::,:.= 1992-93 1996-97 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services $5,000 $5,849 Reading Science English Special Education i,::--\n.:,rmar.un1Jtims\\'w:\\i\" :\u0026gt;~~/t\"::--rw::sasdoo STUDENT ENROLLMENT 900.0 900.0 Total Costs $0 $4,401,864 fflPu1:m:eost::\\faf!tt:rn::nrnt::mmW mm:,,:='=ttJlYJ@NM:=:t:MJO, ,ftttM%1iM@1,\n.eg1: LESS: M TOM PERCENTAGE 0% 0.00 M TO M REIMBURSEMENT $0 NET OPERATING COST $3 723 535 SALARIES: SELECTED THE MIDPOINT FOR EACH SALARY RANGE. INCREMENTED SALARIES BY 4% PER YEAR FOR 4 YEARS. BENEFITS: 0.00 $0 $4 401 864 CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES AND ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. PURCHASED SERVICES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. CAPITAL OUTLAY: ASSUMED THAT THESE COSTS WOULD BE PART OF GRANT AND/OR STARTUP COSTS. OTHER: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL. M TOM ASSUMPTIONS: CALCULATED AT 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% !lllllfd ~rntti?k@H CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $53,232 1.0 $62,274 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $116160 3.0 $135,891 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Proiect Director 1.0 $39 460 1.0 $46 163 Curriculum Specialists 5.0 $202 820 5.0 $237,271 Counselors 3.0 $95,622 3.0 $111,864 Media 1.0 $30,334 1.0 $35,486 Aerospace Tech Teachers 15.0 $443,475 15.0 $518,803 Foreian Lanauaae Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 Enalish Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Math Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279,064 Science Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Social Studies Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 Fine Arts Teachers 2.0 $53,010 2.0 $62,014 Vocal Music Teacher 1.0 $26 505 1.0 $31,007 Orchestra/Instrumental Teacher 1.0 $26,505 1.0 $31,007 Physical Education/Life Sports 3.0 $79 515 3.0 $93 021 Special Education Teachers 4.0 $106,020 4.0 $124,028 Lanauaae Arts Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Mathematics Remediation Teachers 4.0 $106,020 4.0 $124 028 Substitutes $0 $0 Frinae Benefits(20)  ' $318,000 ,  , .... ..... $412,000 TOTAL CERT SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 87.0 $2,836,393 87.0 $3,358,164 Reaistrar 1.0 $15 943 1.0 $18,651 Principal'sSecretary 1.0 $14,803 1.0 $17317 General Office Secretary 1.0 $14 234 1.0 $16 652 Bookkeeoer 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14,085 Attendance Secretary 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14 085 Counselor Secretary 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14,085 Media Clerks 2.0 $21,946 2.0 $25,674 Nurse 1.0 $22,607 1.0 $26,447 Building Engineer 1.0 $23 000 1.0 $26 907 Custodians 7.0 $83 300 7.0 $97 449 Campus Securitv Officers 2.0 $23 878 2.0 $27,934 Resource Officer 1.0 $18 591 1.0 $21 749 Proiect Director's Secretarv 1.0 $12 040 1.0 $14 085 Instructional Aides 10.0 $97,130 10.0 $113 628 Fringe Benefrts(20) .,.,.,,.,., .. , . ,.,,,.,,.,........ $72,000 :::::''',':'''',':''',':'''',: $90,100 TOTAL N/C SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 31.0 $455,592 31.0 $538,848 TOTAL (10 20) .......... ,   $3,291,985 :~ $3,897,012 UlilltO,s $210,000 $245,670 ~\n~~~nance Ai:ireements :' ... $ 48 ,Jg ..... ,  $ 56,J~ TOTAL (30) $258,700 '\u0026gt; . .  $302 642 ~~~~i~~1i1a~:~~:m ''' ,,, $100,8:~IIII, $117 9:~ Media .,,., $17,000 ,,,  .......  $19,888 Other $0 ..   $0 Eauipment Buildina Repair etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other fliaht lessons TOTAL (60) TOTAL/30 60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PAGE GRAND TOTAL - w w ---- w w .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., .,.,,,,,,,,:,:,:,:,. $50 000 $58 493 ................ ,:x,,,,,y $50 000 $58 493 $426 550 ..  $499 003 118.0 $3 718 535 118.0 $4,396,015 $5 000 :!::::::::-:-:-:.:::::-:::::: $5,849 $3 723 535 -:-:-:-:-:,:,:,\n,:,:-:,:.,::::::,-: $4,401,864 :r\"'s \u0026lt;t .. LinetmC.ftt\u0026gt; Le\u0026lt;:\n\u0026gt; 1992-93 1996-97 Stipends Other Obiects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Proqrams Plant Services $5,000 $5,849 Readinq Science Enqlish Special Education ]tef Pub.ii:OtiL . c::.:.x  L+\u0026lt; .,}.c.., 1992-93 1996-91 STUDENT ENROLLMENT 900.0 900.0 Total Costs $3,723,535 $4 401,864 :eei\n}~(ipij\n.ob.M=ikfi:fobitdi\\ki@kA ifaifoiiJ$4dl1l .~=a.a* LESS: M TOM PERCENTAGE 10% 0.10 0.10 M TO M REIMBURSEMENT $385 200 $450 630 NET OPERATING COST $3 338 335 $3,951 234 SALARIES: SELECTED THE MIDPOINT FOR EACH SALARY RANGE. INCREMENTED SALARIES BY 4% PER YEAR FOR 4 YEARS. BENEFITS: CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES AND ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. PURCHASED SERVICES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. CAPITAL OUTLAY: ASSUMED THAT THESE COSTS WOULD BE PART OF GRANT AND/OR STARTUP COSTS. OTHER: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL. M TOM ASSUMPTIONS: CALCULATED AT 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% :ts~11=:~11=~dij~irM,1lm:11]\n~:\n:i\n:\n:~]\n~:\n:\n~::1::~\n:::::i:~\n:m~\n:\n:1~:: :\n'\n:::\n:\n:\n::\n::~\n:- ,,, CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $53,232 1.0 $62,274 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $116 160 3.0 $135,891 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) Proiect Director 1.0 $39 460 1.0 $46,163 Curriculum Specialists 5.0 $202 820 5.0 $237,271 Counselors 3.0 $95,622 3.0 $111,864 Media 1.0 $30,334 1.0 $35,486 Aerospace Tech Teachers 15.0 $443,475 15.0 $518,803 Foreian Lanauaae Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 Enalish Teachers 9.0 $238,545 9.0 $279 064 Math Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279,064 Science Teachers 9.0 $238,545 9.0 $279,064 Social Studies Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 Fine Arts Teachers 2.0 $53,010 2.0 $62,014 Vocal Music Teacher 1.0 $26,505 1.0 $31 007 Orchestra/Instrumental Teacher 1.0 $26 505 1.0 $31 007 Phvsical Education/life Sports 3.0 $79 515 3.0 $93,021 Special Education Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Lanauaae Arts Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Mathematics Remediation Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Substitutes $0 $0 Frinae Benefits(20) ,.,.,.,,,,,~'. $318,000 .,,.,,,,  ,,.,.,.,. , ,- - $412,000 TOTAL CERT SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 87.0 $2,836,393 87.0 $3,358,164 Reaistrar 1.0 $15 943 1.0 $18,651 Principal'sSecretarv 1.0 $14,803 1.0 $17317 General Office Secretary 1.0 $14 234 1.0 $16 652 Bookkeeoer 1.0 $12040 1.0 $14,085 AttendanceSecretarv 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14085 Counselor Secretarv 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14 085 Media Clerks 2.0 $21,946 2.0 $25 674 Nurse 1.0 $22 607 1.0 $26 447 Buildina Enaineer 1.0 $23 000 1.0 $26,907 Custodians 7.0 $83,300 7.0 $97 449 Campus Security Officers 2.0 $23,878 2.0 $27 934 Resource Officer 1.0 $18,591 1.0 $21 749 Proiect Director's Secretarv 1.0 $12 040 1.0 $14,085 Instructional Aides 10.0 $97 130 10.0 $113,628 Frinae Benefits/20) $72,000 . $90,100 TOTAL N/C SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 31 .0 $455,592 31.0 $538,848 TOTAL/10 20) ...... , $3,291,985 :~ :: $3,897,012 Utilities Travel Maintenance Aareements Other TOTAL /30) Principal's Office Reaular Classroom Media Other TOTAL /40) $48 700 '''.' '' '\": '\"' :\"' '\"'  $56 972 $258 700 . .  $302,642 $0 $0 $100,850 '  $117,980 $17,000 ,,,,,,:,:,,,:,:,,,:,:,,:-,-,,,.,.,.,.,,,. $19,888 TOTAL /30 60) ,.,., $426 550 $499,003 TOTAL/10-60) 118.0 $3,718,535 118.0 $4396,015 TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PAGE GRAND TOTAL $5,000 $5 849 $3,723,535  $4 401 864 . ......: : .. ....: ..... ...:\n.: ... . )WiUne]tem:costs\n::tJlJM.tt:.f/.(.::,::\"': SALARIES: Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education t.:: :}:\\.LLTbtaUJne..lt~mis ...  STUDENT ENROLLMENT Total Costs f.m.reui1tc.b.$txL\\\u0026gt;}\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;t\u0026lt;/t LESS: M TOM PERCENTAGE 20% M TO M REIMBURSEMENT NET OPERATING COST 1992-93 1996-97 $5,000 $5,849 1992-93 1996-97 900.0 900.0 $3 723 535 $4 401 864 ~r,:tnf 2G:C/'.GUfU]:: 0.20 0.20 $770 400 $901 260 $2 953135 $3 500 604 SELECTED THE MIDPOINT FOR EACH SALARY RANGE. INCREMENTED SALARIES BY 4% PER YEAR FOR 4 YEARS. BENEFITS: CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES AND ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. PURCHASED SERVICES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. CAPITAL OUTLAY: ASSUMED THAT THESE COSTS WOULD BE PART OF GRANT AND/OR STARTUP COSTS. OTHER: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL. M TO M ASSUMPTIONS: CALCULATED AT 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO} OTHER (60) Princioal 1.0 Asst. Prin. 3.0 Proiect Director 1.0 Curriculum Soecialists 5.0 Counselors 3.0 Media 1.0 Aerospace Tech Teachers 15.0 Foreign Lanauaae Teachers 6.0 EnQlish Teachers 9.0 Math Teachers 9.0 Science Teachers 9.0 Social Studies Teachers 6.0 Fine Arts Teachers 2.0 Vocal Music Teacher 1.0 Orchestra/Instrumental Teacher 1.0 Phvsical Education/life Soorts 3.0 Soecial Education Teachers 4.0 LanauaQe Arts Teachers 4.0 Mathematics Remediation Teachers 4.0 Substitutes TOTAL CERT SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 87.0 ReQistrar 1.0 Principal's Secretary 1.0 General Office Secretary 1.0 Bookkeeoer 1.0 Attendance Secretary 1.0 Counselor Secretary 1.0 Media Clerks 2.0 Nurse 1.0 Buildina Enaineer 1.0 Custodians 7.0 Camous Security Officers 2.0 Resource Officer 1.0 Proiect Director's Secretary 1.0 Instructional Aides 10.0 TOTAL N/C SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 31.0 TOTAL (10 20) ....... , Utilities Travel Maintenance Aareements Other TOTAL (30) Princioal's Office ReQular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) $53 232 1.0 $62,274 $116160 3.0 $135 891 $39 460 1.0 $46 163 $202 820 5.0 $237,271 $95,622 3.0 $111,864 $30,334 1.0 $35,486 $443,475 15.0 $518,803 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 $238,545 9.0 $279 064 $238 545 9.0 $279,064 $238,545 9.0 $279,064 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 $53 010 2.0 $62,014 $26 505 1.0 $31 007 $26 505 1.0 $31,007 $79 515 3.0 $93 021 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 $106,020 4.0 $124,028 $106020 4.0 $124028 $0 $0 $318,000 $412,000 $2,836,393 87.0 $3,358,164 $15,943 1.0 $18,651 $14,803 1.0 $17,317 $14234 1.0 $16652 $12040 1.0 $14085 $12,040 1.0 $14,085 $12,040 1.0 $14 085 $21,946 2.0 $25,674 $22,607 1.0 $26 447 $23 000 1.0 $26,907 $83,300 7.0 $97 449 $23,878 2.0 $27,934 $18,591 1.0 $21 749 $12 040 1.0 $14,085 $97,130 10.0 $113,628 $72,000. $90,100 $455,592 31.0 $538,848 $3 291,98s :~mt $3 897 012 $258 700 . :: ' $302 642 $0 $0 $100,850  :: $117,980 $17 000 $19,888 $0 _-  $0 $117 850 :  w $137 868 Eauipment $0 - $0 BuildinQ Repair, etc. ffiffim:  $0 $0 \u0026gt;-0-th_e_r~~-~------~3-  f-----7$0~- --- - -----~$0_, TOT AL (SO} $0 :=== .,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.-  $0 Dues and Fees -- $0  $0 1-:0:-:-t:---he_r_ __ f'=\"=li-ah:--:t-,-le_s_s_on_s_ ____- f?i_~.    -- $50,000  $58 493 TOTAL (60) $50,000 ' $58 493 TOTALC30 60) $426,550 . -  $499 003 TOTALC10-60) 118.0 $3,718 535 118.0 $4,396,015 TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PAGE $5,000 $5,849 GRAND TOTAL \"'1  $3 723 535 ' $4 401 864 -\u0026gt; ..., ,. ..m .. \u0026gt; \u0026lt;tM\u0026lt;t@ ... :.:.wt ..1 :w:mrcr:-..-cun,ntafu costs Jr\\:(\": :  ,:: r ,.'f:\"::\". r  1992-93 1996-97 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Proarams Plant Services $5,000 $5,849 Readina Science Enalish Soecial Education \u0026lt;. ................ ....Ttital .. LlneJtems ........, ... ...........................t ,. .................. ..... .. ,-.......... /$6.ID.OO ..............: .. .............. . .. ..  ... .. )$5..M9 .. STUDENT ENROLLMENT 900.0 Total Costs $3,723 535 Nt.P,\ni#II.Co.iUO\\ ... L .. :.J.:J/V.. J .::: .::. . / ... M.i-\\..Ut .. J$4.43.1. LESS: M TOM PERCENTAGE 30% 30% M TO M REIMBURSEMENT $1 155 600 NET OPERATING COST $2 567,935 1996-97 900.0 $4 401,864 :~'Ht 30% $1 351 890 $3,049,974 .... :: ..'. . . _::::u..1. .. ,.::..::: ..... :. \u0026gt;. . ::: ... '.'':.:., ' :\n.::: ::wssuMet10.N1r=.). ,.. .. ).-........: .. .. '.'''u -''''._,_: ... ,.._,. '' SALARIES: SELECTED THE MIDPOINT FOR EACH SALARY RANGE. INCREMENTED SALARIES BY 4% PER YEAR FOR 4 YEARS. BENEFITS: CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES AND ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. PURCHASED SERVICES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW H.S. AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES: BASED ON CUSRRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW H.S. AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. CAPITAL OUTLAY: ASSUMED THAT THESE COSTS WOULD BE PART OF GRANT AND/OR STARTUP COSTS. OTHER: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW H.S. M TO M ASSUMPTIONS: CALCULATED AT 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% Little Rock School District January 22, 1993 Ms. Sylvia Wright Chief, Magnet Schools and Desegregation Branch U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Room 2059 Washington, DC 20202-6246 Dear Ms. Wright: RECEIVED JAN 2 2 1993 Office of Dasegregation Monitoring On behalf of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, I request your consideration of the enclosed Aerospace Grant Application. The Grant was developed by a writer employed through the funding of a consortium of Arkansas businessmen and has the strong support of the Aerospace Industry in Arkansas. This support has resulted in a close and cooperative relationship with a vitally important segment of the business community. They have pledged their determination to provide financial and in-kind support which will be vital in the continued operation of the school. With this backing from the business community, the Board of Education looks forward to the potential which this magnet program offers to our students and the community. After visiting an existing Aerospace Magnet School in Long Beach, California, I am excited about the opportunity to acquaint our students with the Aerospace curriculum. Through the use of computer simulations, they will learn the Aerospace curriculum, practice what they have learned, and use those concepts in situations that approach real life. The application of knowledge to real-world situations is something that has been sorely missing in public education. I believe that this void has contributed greatly to failure in school, lack of student motivation, and a high dropout rate among poor and minority children. One of the most important goals of this exciting project is to change these unacceptable conditions. Please give this grant your most careful consideration, because it portents a bright future for our school district and for public education in this country. Sincerely, C - \"'\"::::?:- t,K_AA._0~ C.M. Bernd Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501).324-2000 ' ,..,.\\,0'0 ~e~.,. \u0026lt;:\n)'\u0026lt;,cf:~\\ a,,,e,e o\\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .,c:\n-,t-~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS \\C\"1 ' WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. 0 RD ER FILED U.S. DISTRleTCOUFH\" -:Asri:c'-.1 l\"\\1c::rn1r.T AAKANSAS JAN 2 5 1993 CA~~BRE,SaRK By. '1/\"'a DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFEN.uANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has received a request from Mr. Richard N. Holbert, vice chairman of the Aerospace Education Center, to be present and present to the Court the Center's position on and involvement in the proposed establishment of an aerospace magnet school in conjunction with the Aerospace Education Center. attached.) (Letter Because the Court anticipates that such testimony might be informative, it is inclined to grant Mr. Holbert's request. The Court, however, desires th~ benefit of t~e pa~ties ' responses to the request. The parties, therefore, are directed to respond to the request no later than noon on Thursday, January 28, 1993. If necessary, the parties may file this response only by facsimile. ,. :{k. DATED this\n1-5~day of January, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRCT JUDGE National Advisory Board Dr. Eddie Anderson Col Walter J. Boyne LL 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. Cloyde McKinley Bernd Superintendent Campaign Leadership William H. Bowen Chairman Richard N. Holbert Vic, Chairman Marion B. Burton President J. Dan Baker J. W. \"Buddy\" Benafield 0. Wayne Bennett William C. Bracas Henry A Broach Rep. Inna Hunter Brown F. Taylor Brown David M. Clark Fred K. Darragh, Jr. Dennis D. D.-is Lee Frazier Charles H. Harper Sen. Jerry Jewell E. Ray Kemp John Lewellen Donna K. Mel.arty Sandy S. 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 Na than Gordon Robert A Gordon Col. Albert Hart Dr. William R Pogue Louis L Ramsay Major General James A Ryan M. M. \"Twig\" Satterlield, Jr. Col. Charles J. Wax Development Counsel 375-7:i,v .5 7 ~- 0 9 '\\ 0 uFortune favors the prepared mind. n UCATION(ENTER January 22, 1993 P 0. Box 7332  Unle Rock. Arlwisas 72217  501. 371. 0331 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: As you know, the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society was approached in 1989 by the late Eugene Reville to consider adding a magnet school to our plan for an Arkansas Museum of Aviation History, to be located at the Little Rock Regional Airport. Mr. Reville sowed many seeds as he sought to rebuild community support for education. Some other partnership school ideas were floated, but the suitable partners failed to develop. However, despite an initial skepticism, and even bewilderment, we became the fertile ground upon which his idea germinated. Later, as we put plans for our museum on hold to allow for the creation of this new institution, we became its greatest proponents, and often the keeper of the flame. As we have spoken with people throughout our community, state, and even the entire nation, we have become convinced that this project represents even more than an exceptional school for the Little Rock School District, our community, and Arkansas. The Aerospace Education Center, as we have come to call the synthesis of the Magnet School and Museum, represents the best opportunity our community has to solve three distinct, yet interrelated, problems: * * * Providing better educational opportunities for our students, especially black and disadvantaged students who have had few opportunities to enter technology fields in past\nProviding a source of skilled workers in technology disciplines, and thus allowing the expansion of our existing aerospace or other technology companies here in Arkansas, and helping to attract new ones to provide future jobs. We call the educational plans which will meet these first two needs \"Relevant Education\n\" and finally Restoring the faith and trust (and therefore, support) of the entire community of central Arkansas in our system of public education. Honorable Susan Webber Wright January 22, 1993 Page Two While the diverse group of concerned citizens who have given of their time, money, and prestige to make this dream a reality are not parties to the case before your -Court, we feel that their voices should be represented when the hearing is held on February 1, 1993, seeking your approval for the District to submit an application to the U. S. Department of Education for an $8 million Federal Magnet School Grant, which would fund the operations of Little Rock's aerospace magnet program for the first two years. Therefore, we ask for an opportunity to be present at the hearing, to briefly present to the Court our position on these issues, and to be available to clarify our involvement in this project which, we feel, is crucial to bringing about excellent and equitable educational opportunities for all of our children. Thank you for the opportunity to present you with this request. RNH/mj Respectfully yours, Richard N. Holbert Vice Chairman Aerospace Education Center FACSIMILE gVER SHEET DATE: /-~ 53 TDIE: '-f: IS em TO:\nc..h,vJ. ec,c.ke..\\\\ -3\"1S- bl8b S ,,.,  - 3, I, ~q lf.4 1- \u0026lt;\n.te..pka.\"' ~ne.: - 3-,s\n-10\n.7 1--a~ .. 1/o.u ist - 317b2.ir.2-- FAX NUMBER FROM: CLERK, UNITED STATES DISTRI U.S. POST OFFICE AND COUR 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 402 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 324-5351 \\ - ~1,'I_:. \\ \\- r \\ \\ _1-'--__ PAGE(S)\nILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTF~N n1~ro11'T ACl\u0026lt;ANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAN 2 6 1993 WESTERN DIVISION CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By:---.........,._.,_..._,,,,,.,.. PLA:ifflt\u0026gt;+f.!fERr v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1 1 ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO ORDER OF JANUARY 25, 1993 The Court directed the parties to respond to the request of Mr. Dick Holbert to give testimony in the hearing regarding the Aerospace Education Center by January 28, 1993. The Joshua Intervenors submit as their response the position that Mr. Holbert' s pa rticipation in the project has been substantial and that he is a pertinent witness in the hearing. Joshua, therefore, favors his participation. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 ~Ohh w. Walker, Bar #64046 ',/ REC VEO JAN 2 7 1993 Office of Desegregation Mon::0, ,ng CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of January, 1993. Larry Vault, Esq. Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 c:lrsd.mot Monitoring EDWARD L . WRIGHT ( 1903-1977) ROBERT S LINDSEY 11913-1991) RONALD A MAY ISAAC A SCOTT. JR. JAM ES M MOODY JOHN G . LILE GORDON S RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR JOHN R TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 BRUCE R LINDSEY LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L. GRIFFEN N M NORTON, JR. EDGAR J . TYLER CHARLES C . PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JIMMY W MITCHELL JAMES J GLOVER WRIGHT, LINDSEY 8: JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2200 WORTHEN BANK BUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX 1!501 J 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS GEORGE E. LUSK. JR EDWIN L LOWTHER. JR BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER January 27, 1993 Re: LRSD v. USDC No. The Honorable U.S. District U.S. District Little Rock, PCSSD 82-866 Susan Webber Wright Court Judge Courthouse Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: CHARLES L . SCHLUMBERGER SAMMY L. TAYLOR WALTER E. MAY ANNA HIRAI GIBSON GREGORY T JONES H KEITH MORRISON THOMAS C COURTWAY BETTINA E BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSPADDEN ROGER D ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY NATE COULTER JOHN D DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER MARK L PRYOR RAY F COX. JR HARRY S HURST JR TROY A PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS LEWALLEN JAMES M MOODY. JR KATHRYN A PRYOR J_ MARK DAVIS TAMMERA RANKIN HARRELSON KEVIN W. KENNEDY KAREN J GARNETT M TODD WOOD R. GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON JAN 2 8 \\993 omce of Desegregation tv101\\1VJ\u0026lt;1ng This letter addresses Mr. Holbert's request to be heard at the aerospace magnet hearing and the Court's order respecting same. The Pulaski County Special School District has no objection to an appearance by Mr. Holbert pursuant to whatever guidelines or restrictions, if any, the Court believes to be reasonable and appropriate. MSJ:drl cc: Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Stephen Jones 54161 Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Office of Desegregation Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS ~e:::rr Monitoring JACK, LYO \u0026amp; JONES, JP.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3472 (501)375-1122 TELECOPIER(501l 375-1027 January 26, 1993 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Aerospace Magnet Dear Judge Wright: Nashville Office #11 Music Circle Sou!h Nash\\11lle, Tennessee 37203 (615) 259-4664 Telecoper (615) 2594668 In response to your Order of January 25, the North Little Rock School District does not object to Mr. Richard N. Holbert making a presentation to the Court regarding the proposed Aerospace Education Center. While the District is opposing the construction of this school absent clear evidence of the LRSD's ability to afford it without compromising its desegregation obligations, we also think that community involvement in this process is important. Therefore, we would encourage the Court to grant Mr. Holbert's request. SWJ/tr cc: All Ms. Mr. Counsel Of Recora\"\" Ann Brown, ODM  James Smith, NLRSD Very truly yours, ~ti~~~ JAN 2 7 1993 Office of Desegregation Mor111oring ' ROACHELL and STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 Telefax: (501) 375-6186 January 26, 1992 Honorable Susa eber Wright VIA FAX #324-6096 District Judge HARD COPY TO FOLLOW Eastern D' trict of Arkansas 302 u .. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 pitol Avenue P Office Box 3316 72203 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al.\nUnited States District Court No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright: This letter will acknoweldge receipt of your facsimile transmission dated January 25, 1993. The Knight, et al. Intervenors have no objection to Mr. Holbert of the Aerospace Education Center being present and presenting the center's position on and involvment in the proposed establishment of an aerospace magnet school in conjuction with the Aerospace Education Center at the hearing currently set for February 1, 1993. By: RWR: jxb Sincerely yours, ROACHELL LAW FIRM Richard W. Roachell cc: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Samuel Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Holbert Attorney at Law 1501 Bond Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Larry D. Vaught Attorney at Law 201 South Broadway, Room #400 Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker, Esq. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Ann Brown/ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones Attorney at Law 425 West Capitol,.Ste 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 JAN-25-93 MON 17: 13 SUSt1N W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL, MRS, LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL, KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL, 0 RD ER P. 02 JAN 2 5 1993 CA~~BRE!~sa~K Sy. '1/::'a / DEP, CLEAT\u0026lt; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The court has received a request from Mr. Richard N. Holbert, vice chairman of the Aerospace Education Center, to be present and present to the Court the Center's position on and involvement in the proposed establishment of an aerospace magnet school in conjunction with the Aerospace Education Center. (Letter attached,) Because the Court anticipates that such testimony might be informative, it is inclined to grant Mr. Holbert's request. The Court, however, desires the benefit of the parties' responses to the request. The parties, therefore, are directed to respond to the request no later than noon on Thursday, January 28, 1993, If necessary, the parties may file this response only by facsimile . . - -c\n.-{h. DATED this -\n...__\nday of January, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTR CT JUDGE JAN-25-93 MON J~:~- SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NL. :: \\3246576 P. 02 -~livnal A(hisory 8oard Vr. t dtlie Amlerwu Col. Walter J. Boyne LI. Gt:n. B~r:j:imiu O. navi~ Gen .. .\\Jn-..d r,. Han,en Ph,l\\\np 5 Weodnuf Honorary Choirmen Her.\u0026lt;chd H. Friday ~foyur 3harou M. Pri~sl V..,11rhm11 P. Rnckiilr Jac'.Gon T. Stephens IJttle Rock School Disttict Dr. Clorde MdGnley Berne! Sup.:riHt.:Jt.dr:N.I (\\nupr,i).!,l T .eader~hitl William H. lluwen Chcin.a Rich,,....J ~. lfollJerl ~'ka Chafrma\" ~f\n,ril'm R. RurtOJ\\ Pmidt11I J. Dan Baker J. W. \"Duddy\" Benalidd 0. \",V:.yne Benr,c=-tt Willi.1m C. Braca: llenr\nA. Broach Rep. !rm Hunter !Jrown I'. T:1ylor Bruwu David '.',1. Clark Fre\u0026lt;l K. [).\n,ragh, Jr. Denni: D, D:ivis lee Frazier Churbs H. l:fal'Der Sen. Jerry Jewell E. R.i K\u0026lt;tr,p John Lewt'llen D c)\\11'1 :t K. ~kLa.rty Suudy $. ,k,folh Frederick J. Menz Euwsinl M. Peuirk, Sr. R1.U1 Rsmtnel Ed\n:,ir K. Ri\u0026lt;hli,:k, Jr. James R Rodger:a J_.1u':i r':1l M. T\niilLic Ch\nirles M. Tilylor Jim Guy Tucker Stitc i\\dvisory Board Dr. Gerald P. C.irr Nath.a.n Gordon Rul:o r! :\\ .. Gonion Col. Albo1 Ha11 Dr. v.r,!\n::im R Pogue Liub L. Rau:s~y :vlljor General J.a.n,cs A l\u0026lt;yJn \\,!. \\f. '!'wig' Sorterudd.Jr. c,,1. Cl,.\nrl~d. W:i.x ~Fortune favors the prepared muid.  ~-- UCATION(ENTER January 22, 1993 Ho::orable Susan Webber Wright Uni-ed States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: As you know, the Arkansas Aviaticn Historical Society was app~oached in 1989 by chelate Eugene Keville to consider adding a ~agnet school to our plan for an Arkansas Museum of Aviation H:story, to be located at the Little Rock Regional Airport. Mr. Reville sowed many seeds as he sought to rebuild co~munity support for education. Some other partnership school ideas were floated, but the suitable partners failed to develop. However, despite an in~tial skepticism, and even bewilderment, we became the fertile ground upon which his idea germinated. Later, as we put plans for our museum on hold to allow for the creation o: ~his new institution, we became its greatest proponents, and of~en the keeper of the flame. As we have spoken with people throughout our community, state, and even the entire nation, we ~ave become convinced that th:s project represents even more than an exceptional school for the Little Rock Schoo_ District, our ccmmunity, and Arkansas. Tte Aerospace Education Center, as we have come to call the sy~thesis of the Magnet School and Museum, represents the best opportunity our community has to solve three distinct, yet ir.terrelated, problems: * Providing betcer educational 09portunities for our students, especially black a~j disadvantaged students who have had few opportunities to enter technology fields in past\nProviding a source of skilled workers in technology disciplines, and thus allowir.g the expansion of our existing aerospace or other technology companies here in Arkansas, and helping to attract new ones to provide future jobs. We call the educational plans which will meet these f:rst two needs \"Relevant Education\n\" and fi~ally Restoring the faith and trus~ (and therefore, support) of the entire cc~~unicy of central Arkansas in our system of pu~lic education. JAN-25-93 MON J~:~- SUSAN W WRIGHT Honorable s~san Webber Wright January 22, 1993 Page Two FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 While the diverse group of concerned citizens who have given of their time, ~oney, and prestige to make this dream a reality are not parties to t~e case before your Court, we feel that their voices should be represented when the hearing is held on February 1, 1993, seeking yo~r approval for the District to submit an application to the u. s. Department of Education for an $8 million Federal Magnet School Grant, which would fund the operations of Little Rock's aerospace magnet program for the first two years. Th~reft=e, we ask for an opportuni~y  to be present at the hearing, to briefly present to the Court our position on these issues, and to be available to clarify our involvement in this project wh~ci, we feel, is crucial to bringing about excellent and equitable educational opportunities for all of our children. Thank you for the opportunity to present you with this request. fu'JH / mj Respectfully yours, Richard N. Holbert Vice Chairman J1_erospace Education Center R CEIV D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAN 2 5 W~J J/.D -.:65 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of a revised and corrected volume titled Aerospace Technology Magnet Program together with a comparison document which shows the differences between the document filed today and the document filed Friday, January 22, 1993. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 / / _/ BY:~:::\n:::\n~~~~~~~~~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by HAND DELIVERY on this 25th day of January, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 -2- EDWARD L WRIGHT ( 1903-1977) ROBERT S LINDSEY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS ATTORNEY S AT LAW CHARLES L SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L TAYLOR WALTER E MAY (1 913-19911 RONALD A MAY IS.A.AC A SCOTT. JR JAMES M MOODY JOHN G LILE 2200 WORTHEN BANK BUILDING 2 0 0 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 ANNA HIRAI GIBSON GREGORY T JONES H KEITH MORRISON THOMAS C COURTWAY BETTINA E BROWNSTEIN GORDON S RATHER. JR. TERRY L MATHEWS DAVID M POWELL ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD. J R. PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS JR JOHN R TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 BRUCE R LINDSEY LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON. JR EDGAR J. TYLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T COLEMAN JIMMY W MITCHELL JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER, JR BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER Clerk of Court United States District Court Federal Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 Capitol Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501l 371-0808 FAX (5011 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS GEORGE E LUSK. JR R JAN 2 o 1993 ALTER MCSPADDEN OGER D ROWE ANCY BELLHOUSE MAY NATE COULTER JOHN C DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIM BERLY WOOD TUCKER MARK L PRYOR RAY F COX JR HARRY S HURST. JR TROY A PRICE Office of Desegregation January 25, 1993 PATRICIA SIEVERS LEWALLEN . J.AMES M MOODY JR MonitOf~iilRvN A PRvoR J 'M1RK DAVIS Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway TAMMERA RANKIN HARRELSON KEVIN W KENNEDY KAREN J GARNETT M TODD WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. Richard Roache II Roachell Law Firm #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 210 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD No. 1, et al, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al and Katherine Knight, et al\nU.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866 Ladies and Gentlemen: Please find enclosed Exhibit A to the Observations, Questions and Concerns of the PCSSD Regarding the Proposed LRSD Aerospace Magnet School filed on January 22, 1993, which was advertantly left off by my office on that date. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. Sincerely, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Enclosure Aerospace Industries Association Contact: David H. Napier (202) 371-8563 1992 YEAR-END REVIEW AND FORECAST - AN ANALYSIS - SUMMARY In 1992, aerospace industry sales fell 4 percent to $134 billion, from last year's record of $139 billion, according to Aerospace Industries Association (AJA) estimates. Purchases of aerospace products and services by the Department of Defense fell $4 billion (or 7 percent) to $52 billion causing much of the decline. Sales of military aircraft and parts were down 9 percent (or $3.6 billion) to $35 billion. On a more positive note, the industry's sales to NASA and other federal agencies increased slightly-from $11.7 billion to $12 billion. Several areas of industry activity are projected to increase in current dollar terms only. Sales of civil aircraft and parts reached $37.9 billion-down after inflation. Sales of space-related products and services rose to $29 billion from $28. 7 billion, another decline in constant dollars. Both of these sectors experienced strong growth over the last decade or so. Their growth, at least for the near-term, has slowed. Aerospace industry net profits are expected to rise marginally-up $69 million to $2.6 billion in 1992. Nevertheless, profits in the last two years have been lower than at any time since 1982. Profits as a percentage of sales, assets, and equity improved for the aerospace industry as they did for all manufacturing industries combined. However, the industry's profitability as measured by these ratios indicates that aerospace companies continue to under perform the overall manufacturing averages. Aerospace industry investment in new plant and equipment should grow 10 percent to $4.8 billion by yearend 1992. In contrast, new plant and equipment expenditures are expected to fall 2.5 percent for durable goods manufacturers and 2.9 percent for all manufacturing industries combined. New aerospace orders were down 23 percent or $30 billion to $97 billion. The backlog of commercial jet transport aircraft fell $8 billion to $101 billion in the first nine months of 1992. A fall-off in orders from domestic customers accounted for $5 billion of the decline. For the year, the backlog of unfilled orders for all aerospace products and services is expected to fall $25 billion (or 11 percent) to $210 billion. The industry's net trade surplus is projected to grow slightly to $31 billion. Exports topped $44 billion. Both are up in current dollarterms only. Imports grew in real terms to exceed $13 billion. Employment fell by 117,000 in 1992 to 1,063,000-a 10 percent decline. None of the industry sectors added jobs in 1992. Employment had the largest percentage drop ( down 12 percent or 31 ,000) in the missiles and space sector. In terms of the actual number of jobs, civil aircraft-related employment declined the mostdown 38,000. An additional 26,000 workers lost jobs in 1992 in the military aircraft sector following a year in which 45,000 positions had been cut. Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1250 Eye Street. NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 371-8400 (continued next page) SUMMARY continued Outlook for 1993 AIA projects sales will decline further, to $126 billion, in 1993. Aircraft and parts sales are expected to account for 90 percent of 1993 's sales decline\nmilitary sales should fall $3 billion and civil sales, $3.6 billion. Although failing to keep pace with inflation, space-related sales should increase to $29 billion in 1993. The number of civil aircraft produced is expected to rise due to higher projected helicopter shipments, but the value of shipments will fall nearly $3 billion (9 percent from 1992 's record) to $27 billion. Production of commercial jet transports is projected to decline by 103 aircraft with sales declining 10 percent to $25 billion. Current company forecasts indicate the aerospace work force will shrink an additional 4 percent or 47,000 to 1,016,000 next year. As in 1992, employment in each industry sector, and in all occupational classifications, is expected to decline. GOVERNMENT PURCHASES AIA forecasts show that sales of aerospace products and services to the U.S. government fell significantly in 1992. Government purchases fell due to a 7 percent or $4 billion decline in sales to the Department of Defense (DoD). Accounting for the majority of DoD's decline in purchases to $51.8 billion, military aircraft sales fell 9 percent in 1992 or $3.6 billion to $34.9 billion. Missile sales also fell in 1992, but only by 1 percent to $10.8 billion after plummeting 23 percent in 1991. Aerospace sales to NASA and other civil agencies rose slightly (up 3 percent) in 1992 to a record $12 billion. Total sales of space-related products and services rose $0.3 billion to $29 billion. Although DoD space purchases (which include RDT\u0026amp;E expenditures) declined in magnitude, space-related products and services represented a larger share of DoD outlays. CIVIL AIRCRAFT SALES Civil aircraft worth $29.7 billion were shipped in 1992-up from $29 billion. Commercial jet transports accounted for $28 billion, or 94 percent of total shipments value. Transport sales rose $1 billion to $27 .8 billion despite 31 fewer deliveries than in 1991. The general aviation and civil helicopter sectors did not perform as well. General aviation billings fell nearly $0.2 billion (or 10 percent) to $1.8 billion. In 1991, general aviation production fell to a post-World War II low of 1,021 aircraft. In 1992, production dropped again-to 880-as the industry continues to be affected by poor economic conditions, high taxes, and the high cost of product liability insurance. Sales of U.S. -manufactured civil helicopters fell to $146 million, the lowest level since 1973. Production dropped by 234 to 337 in 1992. While the weak economy hurt shipments in all three civil aircraft sectors, it manifested itself most significantly in lower net new orders. SHIPMENTS, ORDERS, AND BACKLOG Industry shipments are expected to fall $8.2 billion (or 6 percent) to $121.5 billion in 1992. New orders for aerospace products and services also declined-down 23 percent or $29.5 billion to $96.7 billion. The backlog of work for manufacturers fell nearly $25 billion to $210 billion. Air carriers continued to struggle with financial losses this year and, consequently, they have delayed orders for new aircraft and cancelled some existing firm orders. Figures through the third quarter of 1992 show the backlog of unfilled transport orders fell $7.9 billion to $101 billion. The backlog of unfilled orders placed by U.S. customers fell 14 percent during this period. Transports on back order for eventual delivery to foreign customers also fell during 1992, but at a slower rate. The foreign component of the total commercial transport backlog rose in terms of number of aircraft (60 percent) and value (69 percent). Foreign orders worth $70 billion accounted for 922 (of the total 1,535) aircraft on order. 2 FOREIGN TRADE Exports continue to be a bright spot for the industry but growth slowed in 1992. Aerospace exports outpaced imports in 1992 by $31 billion\nyet total exports rose only $0.7 billion to $44.5 billiort The net surplus was also up just $0.7 billien. Imports grew in real terms, up $0.6 billion to $13.6 billion. Civil aerospace exports increased $0.5 billion to $36 billion, with complete aircraft exports rising 5 percent and accounting for more than $23 billion of the total. Aircraft and engine parts exports, however, fell 4 percent to $10.5 billion. Military aerospace exports rose slightly (2 percent) to $8.4 billion. Overseas shipments in the largest military export sector, aircraft and engine parts, fell $0.5 billion\nbut gains in complete aircraft, missiles, and engine exports pushed total military exports higher. In l 9'J2, imports of civil aircraft grew $0.3 billion to $3.8 billion-both commercial transport and general aviation imports topped $1.5 billion. Imports of aircraft engines (military and civil combined) grew to $2.6 billion from $2.4 billion. Parts imports increased from $7.1 billion to $7.2 billion. EMPLOYMENT Aerospace employment fell by 117,000 to 1,063,000 in 1992 after declining 90,000 the previous year. From 1989 when industry employment peaked, to year-end 1992, employment declined by 268,000 jobs, or 20 percent In l 9'J2, no sector of the industry was spared from employment cuts. 11le civil aircraft sector experienced the largest reduction, cutting its work force by 38,000 (or 11 percent) to 296,000\nthe previous year manufacturers added 13,000 workers. Employment in the military aircraft sector fell 26,000 to 299,000 in 1992 following a 45,000 cut in the work force in 1991. Missiles and space employment was down 31,000 to 220,000 in 1992\nemployment in \"other related\" products declined 22,000 to 248,000. Employment fell 11 percent for both production and \"other\" workers (administrative personnel). There were 344,000 (or 42,000 fewer) production workers by year-end 1992-the most sizable decline of any occupational category. Administrative employment fell 24,000 to 204,000. Since total aerospace employment peaked in 1989, employment of production workers has fallen 22 percent and administrative employment has declined 29 percent. The number of scientists and engineers employed in the industry fell by 16,000 in 1992\nbut employment has fallen least for these highly skilled workers on a percentage basis-8 percent in 1992 and 5 percent since 1989. (Employment of !icientists and engineers increased in 1990). Jobs for technicians (down 19 percent since 1989) declined by 5,000 to 55,000 in 1992. PROFITS Net profit for aerospa,ce companies grew $69 million to $2.6 billion or 2 percent of sales in 1992. However, net profit in both 1991 and 19'J2 were significantly reduced compared to prior years because of extraordinarily large non-operating expenses. The two primary causes are restructuring charges related to defense downsizing, and initial implementation of a Financial Accounting Standards Board requirement to account for costs of employee post-retirement benefits other than pensions. All U.S. corporations are potentially affected by FAS 106, which has manifested itself as a balance sheet adjustment by increasing liabilities and reducing equity\nit has affected income statements by lowering net profits. Aerospace industry profits as a percent of sales (2 percent) are low relative to the average for all U.S. manufacturing industries (4 percent). Return on assets for all manufacturing industries grew to 4.2 percent compared to 2.1 percent for aerospace. Return on equity for all U.S. manufacturing was also higher at 10.3 percent compared to 6.4 percent for aerospace. 3 PLANT AND EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES Invesnnent in new plant and equipment by aerospace corporations is forecast to grow by $0.7 billion to $4.8 billion in 1992, according to the Bureau of the Census. This figure may be misleading, however, since it measures new invesunenh- but fails to include disinvesnnent such as plant closings and divestitures. The aerospace industry is continuing invesnnent, but it is-focused on efficient operations in a period of declining sales. For comparison, expenditures on new plant and equipment by durable goods manufacturers fell $1.9 billion to $76 billion in 1992 and all manufacturing industries combined expect to reduce new plant and equipment expenditures from $183 billion to $177.4 billion. OUTLOOK FOR 1993 AIA projects industry sales will decline in 1993 for the second year in a row. Sales will fall $7.5 billion or 6 percent to $126.5 billion. As in 1992, NASA and other civil government agencies are expected to be the industry's steadiest customers\ntheir purchases from aerospace companies will increase $0.4 billion to $12.4 billion. Sales to the DoD are expected to decline 10 percent or $5 billion to $46 billion in 1993. Missile sales (which include apportioned RDT\u0026amp;E) will fall $0.7 billion to $10.1 billion. The greater share (90 percent) of the overall sales decline will result from a fall-off in aircraft and parts sales-off 9 percent to $66 billion. Military aircraft and parts sales are projected to fall $3 billion to $32 billion while civil aircraft and parts sales will decline $4 billion to $34 billion next year. Commercial transport manufacturers expect to deliver 103 fewer aircraft in 1993. Transport shipments are projected at 455 aircraft worth $25 billion-a 10 percent decline in value from 1992. Helicopter manufacturers report plans to produce 501 U.S.-made helicopters (up 164 from 1992) worth $164 million. Aerospace companies currently project employment will fall 4 percent in 1993 to 1,016,000--\u0026lt;lown 47,000. Although no industry sector nor employment classification will grow, the civil aircraft sector will experience the fewest and the smallest share of job cuts (2 percent or 5,000 employees) to 291,000. \"Related\" employment (which also includes non-aerospace workers) is currently projected to fall 7 percent (or 18,000) to 230,000. The military aircraft sector is expected to lose an additional 14,000 jobs in 1993. Employment of technicians and production workers is forecast to fall more than 5 percent to 52,000 (down 3,000) and 325,000 (down 19,000), respectively. Employment of scientists and engineers should decline at a slower rate (3 percent), but still 6,000 positions will be cut. Employment of other workers (administrative personnel) will decline to 197,000 (down 3 percent) by year-end 1993. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FJilL2,-) EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS u.s.o1\n,rn,crcL~,l WESTERN DIVISION EASTERNO,SIBIC,A~~, .. ~a- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ' ' ' I ,-, -, vn,\\,..\n...., 1 .......... ..J DEFENDANTS JAN 2 6 199.s Office Of Do- ~.,e9ri:gation ,\\fa , ~ . POSITION STATEMENT OF THE NLRSD REGARDING n,t,.,ri,,9 =-c==.=a.===-=\"'-'=-====c.=...-=c......=~==~-==~=~= PROPOSED LRSD AEROSPACE MAGNET SCHOOL To avoid redundancy, the North Little Rock School District has reviewed the Observations, Questions and Concerns of the PCSSD Regarding the Proposed LRSD Aerospace Magnet School and wishes to state that it shares those same concerns. A special concern to the NLRSD is the question of whether the LRSD can reasonably fund the maintenance and operations of an aerospace magnet school, particularly beyond any grant that might be awarded. The NLRSD remains committed to the desegregation plans negotiated among the parties and adopted by the Court. The District firmly believes, as does the Court, that these plans are a blueprint for the achievement of unitary status by the NLRSD and the other districts. It is the long-established position of the NLRSD that it will take all steps necessary to comply with its obligations under the plans. By the same token, it will oppose any actions which would potentially undermine full compliance with those plans. In the present case, the Court approved desegregation plans do not call for an aerospace magnet school in the LRSD nor do they call for an additional high school magnet. Thus, while the plans do not prohibit such a magnet school, its creation does not further compliance with those plans. On the other hand, the fiscal integrity of the LRSD is essential to the implementation of its obligations under the desegregation plans. If the LRSD lacks adequate funding, then its ability to implement the numerous obligations it has assumed will be compromised. For instance, the LRSD has accepted a responsibility to \"double fund\" the incentive schools even after the cessation of payments from the State under the settlement. And this is only one of many commitments the LRSD has made which will require substantial resources to satisfy. With respect to the proposed aerospace magnet, it has been repeatedly observed that the LRSD lacks the funds necessary to build, operate and maintain such a school over time. If it were nonetheless to assume this responsibility in addition to those which it has under the desegregation plans, it would raise a serious question regarding the LRSD's capacity to honor its obligations under the plans, such as \"double funding\" of incentive schools. Frankly, for the LRSD to put itself in such a position would border on the reckless and might be viewed in hindsight as an intentional act undermining its desegregation 2 obligations. In light of the uncertainty regarding the LRSD's ability to fund an aerospace magnet school, the NLRSD must oppose the creation of such a school until it can be clearly and convincingly established that the LRSD has, first, the funds necessary to satisfy all its obligations under the desegregation plans and, second, the additional funds necessary to build, operate and maintain an aerospace magnet without undermining its desegregation obligations under the plans. January 25, 1993 Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 By: ~~u.~ st'epnw. Jones 8083 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that I have this 25th day of January, 1993, sent one copy of the foregoing, via United States mail, postage pre-paid, to the following: Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring JENNINGS Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esq. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 P:\\DOC\\SWJ\\NLRSD\\DESEGREG\\P-0001-2.229 M. Samuel Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; 2000 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL LAW FIRM First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas FILED -A U.S. DISTRICT COURT - STEr:\n~J DISTRICT A\"ll\u0026lt;.4NS.o\\~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ,,\\:Jn ~ .on\n\\otl ij JAN 2 9 1993 CARL)j . b~(\nU=RK Sy:fi~\u0026amp;./'~ DEP. Clf:AK I oeso\n(e()\"- Q\\\\ice 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. 0 RD ER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Even though the Little Rock School District Board of Directors voted not to seek approval of a federal grant for the establishment of an aerospace magnet school, the Court intends to hold the hearing scheduled for Monday, February 1, in order to address other issues of concern to the Court. The Court will discuss the LRSD's \"Special Study, Junior High Capacities and Projections, January, 1993\" which the district filed on January 22, 1993 in response to the Court's Orders of May 1, 1992, and December 30, 1992. The Court also expects the parties to be present to respond to questions about the LRSD's progress in changing its budgeting process according to commitments made in its 1992-93 Operating Budget, dated July 23, 1992, and the \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97,\" dated July 30, 1992. The Court woul\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_821","title":"\"Alternative School Policies, Procedures, and Referral Process,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Dropouts","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["\"Alternative School Policies, Procedures, and Referral Process,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/821"],"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.\nNOV 1 9 1991 Office of DesegregatioMn orii!cnng ALTERNATIVSEC HOOLP OLICIES, PROCEDURESA, NDR EFERRALPR OCESS SEE ATTACHMEN2T  1' I ' .. ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM P.atic:12le An ~niccefti~ly his~ ~~~ber cf students choose not to complete their educ~t1on. Nationally, as well as in Arkansas, approximately 25-39 perce~t of the students entering the ninth grade will not graduate from high school. Rssearch on drcpouts his revealed thit behaviors which are corducive to dro~?ing cut are evident as early as the t~ird gri~e. A re~1ew ~f the drcpc~t research has not revealed an\nsingle solct1on to tte ~rJblem. Hov~~er, t~e Frogr\n~s thEt have te2n sc~e~h2t s~ccessf~l sh~re tte characteristics of being positi~e, child-centE~ej, 2ccc~cd~t1~g, s1:ccess-orjented, and different, in that they Evo1d repect1~3 the sta\n1darj ccadEmic rigors by offtri~g a n~~:cr of ~~csrE~~1~3 cptio~s iJ 2 v2r1ety cf ettings. To a~~ress the ~rc~~~t pr0~l2~ Jn the i\n~rth L1ttls Rock Sct0ol District, an ~lte1:Eti~e ed~c\nt::rEl p\nogra~ ~2s E~cpt~d. .: ..  r . . 1 - \\.. - . . - ~ .. - tJ ~~~cti:~ f:s1t:~a:) ~!~~1~ ~~a tr~j\ntic~~l sc~~cl fEt~:~\n. ... :\n.: .. J I.~ ~~~E ~~\n~~l~E/~-~~c:~hy se:f ~s~~~~ ~=-~:~ ck c::~-~te~cy =~ ttE : ~ ... .:.. ~ : I. : - -. : C f t l ~ :-: 1 : :: : - S l :. :-: - :.: E ~: :. :.\nC :. j ~-: ( ::-1 C :7. - S :: : \\: .: :~ = , ~\n-\n: : -~\n! : :-: ~  - ~  t~::.:: : : :\n:: : ~ r s : : - ~ : :-.~ E :: s C : ~ 1. . . : ::\n, \"\"(, s ,: f :-1. C, -.  ~ r G ~\n::\nC ,-. : :--:.: :~ - : :..- :. :- ~ : rj :-.: t : ::. :-: . . .i. : ~ l :-: t :-.E :\nC\n: : t : (, :-.C : l :..2 ~ :-. ~ t : ~ E h. . T ~ ~ 3 : i: =r ?i 2 -.: : .-~ i. : ..:C =:- .. : : ~-~ ! l. :~e Alttr~it1e LEi[Cl~g Ctnttr (grad Es 7-12) 2. i~e A!ternit1vc Clissrcorn (grades K-6) . i~E SFE ~2\nireatrent Classrocms (grides ~-12) 4. ~~e h:Jlt Ecs1c ~c~~ct1cJ Ce~t(r :, . ':\"~e. Ff e j f Er Co' r..? ( 9 rad cs ~~ - 6) E. T~E Ketrc\no!:t~n Vocit1ocal/Tech~1cal Sc~0ol . , . ..... ... } ! r .. l t E .j 7. T~e t~de~t Ass1gi~e~t CJasEroo~s hC (gr~dfs S-12) !. T~e Elc~e~ ir/ Susfe~s1~n Cla~srccm (grades K-E) 9. T~2 ~econj~1y S~SFEns1c~ Cl2ssr0Gm (gi~~Es 7-l~) 10. 7~e J~ven1le Cc~rt AlterJat1~E Schcol .2 il. The North Little Rock Public Schools 12. Cc~binations of the above Referrals are solicited frcm a Yariety of sources, inc]Jj1ng students who may be experiencing one or more of the problems that follow: 1. ExFeriencing sc~ool failure, pocr grades 2. ?epeated failure, rete~t1on, or over-ased 3. Fre\nnar:t or single p.rent 4. ~xper1er.c1n3 envirc~~E~tal factcrs, to~eless, a~used er :-icgJected 5. Eng2s1r.g 1n ir:2ppro]=riate tE,anors le:\n:lir.g .-o failure, r~rnoval free the c~ins~re~n, or truancy 6. ~eeding a structJrEd er transit1c~3J settin3 7. HaY1ng already dr~p~ed out of school Ttc :r~tc:.\n:e TE:o::i !~t\n-\n:-ti\n,-\n. ~~:::-, c\n-prcva1 fer t:ie\n:-::.\n?rc!:1, 2:1 1r1tc:i.e 3E~ESE~e~t ~ill ~e sc~~~ul~ti ~1th t~G st~de~t ~~~ t~2 ~arE~t. At ttiiS time t~3 1ntervie~er will seek to 3a1J additic~al iJfor~at1on r\nE~cj ~a li.e'\n1 J C t\n\\\ne J C r i ~-g 2 :i ? r :~S C r l\nl : ~0 p } 3 n f C, :- t\n, i? S t L:j E :1 f 2 !: d t Cl 3 : t vol::Jtar~ 2~rn1ss10J to the ?rc\nr~~- T~e AJt~\n~Et1~2 ~ear~1~3 CEJ!er js located at J~th and Xa1n. T~e sctcJl will be open fr~~ 7:30 a.D. until 5:C0 p.~. T~ese hcurs ~111 per~it a flexible sc~e~ule th2t en6~les t~e sttde~t to stteJ~ a :crL.al school day and still have t1~e for e~pl~r=eJt or ~~cat:onal trainicg. The ~ta!! js cr\n.\n11~d of a F?c~ram a~~1~istr2tor, five cert1f1ed teachers, G~e ~a:!prof0ss1cn2l, one counselor/social worker, two part-t1~e pS)'C~~:c31sts, 0nG secrft21}, ,l~d 0~e c~stodi~n. Instruct10~ in t~e are~s of English, re2th, Gcial st~d1es, sciE~c0, and prEvocat1onal/~ocation2l t1a1J1Jg (JTPA) will be pravidrd .ased on the FersGJr.21 from the District's s ,. C CIT) cl\ni r }' pr Cs: 2 r.:\n,, j J l be d: ~ .1 s 1 ( l t ti l { Cr 11 i\nl EC ti\\' e C () \\l rs es s il C ~ as music, art, dra~J, and physical cd~cJtir~. Also, it 13 conceivable that a student could spend Fart of his/her sctool day at tte alternJtlYa schcol ar.d the re~J1nder ~ta raiddle or high school campus to partiripate in the academic program and/or extra-curricular acti vi ti es. . .' ., :OORIBL IITLE ROCKA LTERNATIVEP R\u0026lt;X\nRAMS REFERFRORAML DATE OF REFERRAL--: ----- Student Name- ------------ Race: Sex: Grade- --- Date of Birth: ------------ Referring School: ------------- Address: Home Phone: -------- Street Zip Code Parent/Legal Guardian: ------------- Work Phone: -------- Place of Employment: __________________________ _ Reason for Referral: __________________________ _ Circle all .Appropriate Characteristics: 1. School failure/poor grades 2. Repeated failure/retention/over-age 3. Pregnancy/single parent 4. Environmental factors Student Strengths: 1. 2. 3. ..: List Current Class Schedule and Grades: 1. 2. 3. 4. ____________ / ______ _ ____________ / ______ _ ____________ / ______ _ ____________ / ______ _ Please attach a copy of each of the following: 5. Inappropriate behaviors leading to failure/removal from mainstream 6. Chronic truancy/dropped out 7. Need for transitional setting Student Weaknesses: 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. ------------ I ---- ------------ / ---- ------------ / ---- ____ Emotional and Behavior Problem Scale Rating Form Last Report Card ----Current MPr and Achievement Scores Attendance Record ------, ----. Disciplinary Record ____ Psychological Evaluation Report, if evaluated for Special F.ducation Additional Cooments: ------------------------------ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT In-take Form Date ----------- Student ~ame: ________________ _ Race: Sex: Grade: Date of Birth: --------- Referring School: ______________ _ Address: ____________________ Medicaid#: _________ _ Phone ti: ________ _ SS//: ------------ ID II: ---------- II. Family History: l,ith \\,7,om Student Lives: ___________________________ _ Parent's Marital Status: ___________ Legal Custody: ________ _ other's Same: ------------------ Phone#: ---------- Place of E~ploy~ent: Phone#: --------------- ---------- Father's '.\\2:::\n:e ________________ _ Phone ti: _________ _ Pl.\nce of fa1ployment : _____________ _ Phone ti: ---------- ~ames 2nd Ages of Others Living in the Household: Relationship Age Any Significant Others: Present Family Concerns: Financial __ Siblings Marital Death Health Friends __ Legal Explanations/Cor.unents: ----------------------------- In-take Form III. Medical History: Current Health Problems: ____________________________ _ Currently Taking Medication: __ yes no Prescribed by Doctor: ______ _ Name of Medications: ___________________ _ Dosage: ______ _ Reason for Taking Medication: __________________________ _ Names of Medications Taken in the Past: --------------------- Past Illnesses (convulsions, seizures, periods of high fever): --------- Accidents, Injuries, or Emotional Traumas: ___________________ _ Ever 3een Hos?italized: __ yes no Reason: ________________ _ Previous Psychological Testing: __ yes Currently Receiving Counseling: __ yes no By ~horn: __________ _ no Counselor: ----------- Previous-\"Counseling: __ yes no Counselor: ________________ _ IV. ?resenting ?roblen: Student/Parental Perception of Reason for Referral: --------------- Do You Believe You Have a Problem: ------------------------ If Yes, what: ----------------------------------- Does Your Family Believe You Have a Problem: __________________ _ If Yes, \"'hat: ----------------------------------- Who in the Family Would be \\,illing to l,ork \"'ith the Alternative School and to Attend ~eetings and Programs: --------------------------- 1',h en h'ould the Family ~:ember be hvailable: -------------------- 2 In-take Form Has Your Problem Had an Effect on: School/Work: __ yes no What: Family: yes no What: -- Friends: __ yes no What: Sleep: __ yes no What: Appetite: __ yes no What: Leisure Activities: __ yes no What: V. Behavioral Information: Self-destructive (risk-taking, accident prone): _______________ _ Property Destructive (fire setting, in anger, etc.): _____________ _ Unusually Aggressive (when, temper tantrums, etc.): _____________ _ Activity Level: ________________________________ _ Runaway: ____________________________________ _ Peer Interactions: _______________________________ _ Adult Interactions: ------------------------------- Disruptive in Home/Classroom: _________________________ _ 3 In-take Form Gets Along with Family Members: _________________________ _ Response to Discipline/Authority/Confrontation: ________________ _ Willingness to Accept Responsibility: _____________________ _ Depression (withdrawal, crying, fears): ____________________ _ Strengths, Special Interests, Abilities: ____________________ _ Any Criminal Charges: ___________________________ ~--- Alcohol/Drug Use: --------------------------------- Family History re: Drug/Alcohol, Emotional or Legal Problems): --------- 4 ,. 1' 2 c e : ____________________ D ct e cf Er, r o l I\ni\ne r, t : _________ _ agree to ~~1 ~~~er5t~~d tta !ol!c~i~\nccntract ~1th tte !~L~ Alternit1ve Sc~ool: l. 2 . - i:, Le J e I Zero , .f I 2m placed 3:CO, enter tt2 ~~!!~1~g S~!Etly ~trc~\nh tt\u0026amp; ~2Ck ~ccr, follc~ :he rulfS ~! tt2 Level Z2ro r~cm, ~~r~:c1p2te 1n tt\n:2\nc~tJc\nr:~~\n, ~~j ~o ~\nk2-t? t1ae ES re:u1red. - .. ,. - ~ : -  ... ~\nl -. '\"'... I. l, ~ t J 1 - - - - - - - ... - - - ::-  C '- - ..,   cf 7. ~s~ee to ?Ert1c1p~te 1~ !1Eld cxperi~~ces ~~d cct.~~~1ty service 9. 2cti,1t1Es ~s ~\nreed ~\nc-~ ~1th the Altern2tive ~c~~=l st2!f. t ~-E ..... t. Ci for t::c ct~.Er ed, 1t :ouJ:l effEc: .. ,\n::ir,E o t t e : 2 : e  -~ p . l O . t: :-, C c r ~ t c r. j t t1 ~ t : :. r. c : t :, ~ J ~1 ,_. o l v c j J :-, i, : 1 y \" c' i ....~ ..1 ..1 d r 'J s s dur1~: ~chcol to~rs ~~j t~~t ~ ~ot tc te o~ s,~c~! pr~~erty ' ~hile under the influence of 2ny drugs. 11. I underst2nd th2t the Altern~tive School, ~y p~rents, acd I ~ill ~erk tosether in teter~lning ~hen I eight return to the regular school, or if I stay with the Alternative School or gJ to a nether 12. l ~a~t to ~e enrolled in the Altrnative School fer the _______ schcol )\"ear. ...:- ' .. '' Name: _______________ ,Date o! Enroll~ent: ________ _ PARENT'S CONTR~CT WITH THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL I agree and understand the following contract with the North Little P.ock Alternative School: 1. I am the parent or legal guardian. I understand that my child aust live in ay hcae while attending the Alternative School. Should other 2rr2ngeaents be considered, I agree to work with the Alternative School before taking action. 2. ...: I utce~sar.d that the Alternative School has a level system to help st~cents deal with behavior problems. All students enter the Fre5ram en Level Cne. Level !we students are those who are work1~g en, ~Jt have not resolved, tteir own eaoticnal/tehav1oral ?ro~!Ecs, c~~ ttey tcve tte resuler\nriv1lesEs o! t~e Alter~ct1~e Sc~cc!. :e~el !tree ttte~ts a:e t~~se ~~o t~ve re~clved =est c! t f. E : : C - :: ': ~ :. C \\. ! : :- C l / t: r: ( t 1 C:: e l :\n: c :J l EI: s , e :-e C o ! :: g .,.:  ! 1 : :: t :. E : :- c ! e ~ 5 ~:: ~, ~=~ c:e ~111::~ to cct ~s ~cs1t:,e !e~~ers !:: t~E\nc~~ :! :~~ ~=~c~l :~\ne:e~cl. :c~el Ze:o st~de:~s c:2 ~~:Ee~~: ___ ,... ____ , __ _\n. , r  - ::   G '- C l S. I\n:ve\neralss1cn for cy child to receive ?rescr1bed cedicat1c~s from tte Altercative ~chGol staff. \u0026amp;. I i5ree to ~rov1de tbe Alternative School with rry curreit tele\n:hoce ncc:ter and 2cdress, acd to ccntact the Alterc2tive School 1c1Led1itely ~hen a chin5e occurs. 7. l igree with and uncerst2nd my child's scheol schedule this year. l agree to seed ay child to school every day unless te/she is ser\nc\nsJy 111, or tl:ere is a cecth 1n the 1c:rrediate !ill'Jly. l 2cce\nt t~e reEfcns1b1l1ty cf see1:g ttat ILY chi Id ccces to schcol at t~.e a\n:\n:c1~,ted t11Le. :t ~t\n:\ncrt cy chi!d te1cg trcact. re~ce is re~u1red after truiccy and that my child must make up the time. If my child is not able to attend school for one of the reasons stated cbove, I agree to call the school (374-6942) at least one hour before my child is scheduled for class. 9. I underst.nd that my child is not tote involved in any way with drugs during school hours and that he/she cannot be on school property while under the influence of drugs. 10. If the Alternative School experiences problems with rry child, I 2gree to assist the staff in solving these problerrs in .ny wcy possible. 11. I cgree to foster the ~eveloprrent of rry child c:d our EJtu2l relationship with the hlternctive ~chool ~y 2ttend1cg the farent-~ teacher rreetl\u0026amp;gs and prograrrs wb1cj are ~es1~:ed to stre~gtheJ ccc~~n1c~t1on skills. ...: ~er re:trJ to :e5~:~:\nc~cc: ,a ::~~:~~E~ tte Et~y ~:~~ ~~e hlte::~:1~~ ~c~c~!, :: a :e~~=-~E: :: E~C~~~r\n:c\n:~=- -C':. e- - - -.... ~... -=- , r ,. ... I ~ -   ..,: I Secondary Alternative Program Name ______________ _ ~ ..c: Ci) CJ .j.J '\"d '\"d (!) 3 ..c: ..c: .c: .c: C/l C 1-1 1-1 .j.J .j.J .j.J .j.J .-I N ('\u0026lt;\") ~ -::t lJ\"'\\ ' r--- Level One - 90% to earn break Date -------- ~ Ci) Q.) 1-1 ~ lpt - Avoiding Profanity lpt - Following directions of staff lpt - Showing respect for property lpt Showing courtesy and respect for others lpt - Arriving to class on time lpt Arriving to class in orderly manner lpt - Bringing necessary materials to class lpt - Beginning a task in a reasonable time lpt - Remaining in classroom and participating lpt- - Staying on task or completing task Total Bonus Level Two - 95% to earn automatic break/off point sheet Elementary Alternative Classroom and SPE Elementary Day Treatment Class LEVEL SYSTEM ELEMENTARY . The BA class is organized on a level system that utilizes earned points. This system defines the responsibilities and the privileges earned by each child every day and gives an indication of the child's progress. The goal of the level system is to provide a vehicle by which to measure improvement and to allow for students to move back into the regular classroom. The system is designed to give the child responsibility for recognizing his/her personal growth, and to allow him to track personal progress. Each day the student receives a point sheet to be used to record points earned for that school day. LEVEL ONE Elementary (2 options) Option 1 The school day can be divided into 30-minute periods with the earned points placed on the student's point sheet et the end of each 30-minute period. (See Sample A). Option 2 The school day can be divided into subject area periods with the earned points placed on the student's point sheet within 30 minute intervals. Total points should be consistent from day to day. (See Sample B). Remember: 1. Points must be given consistently on either of the two schedules listed above. If the teacher fails to be ~ consistent, he/she has broken the contract with the child. 2. Points ca.~ never be taken away from a student. This is not a fine system--the student has earned the points elreedy received. Points will be given to reward posi~ive, desired behavior. Point System 2 pts. - beginning assignment within appropriate time frame 3 pts. - remaining on task or completing it 5 pts. - positive behavior (personal affecting only self) behavior (optional) 5 pts. - positive social behavior (behavior toward others) Page 2 bonus pts. - going a bove and beyond i.e. , staying on task and ignoring an acting-out person Privileges Points are used to determine the privileges the student earns and as a barometer of readiness for mainstreaming. 90% of total points = 5 minutes free time 95% of total points = 10 minutes free time 98% of total points = 15 minutes free time The child with the highest number of points gets to choose activities first. Teacher Reports At the end of each day, the teacher sends home a note to the parents stating the number of points earned that day. This is useful in setting up a school-home report system where privileges at home are for points earned at school. The total points should also be retained in the teacher's journal to be used in monthly staffings. LEVEL T\\'10 MOB Sauad (My Own Boss) After en consecutive days of perfect points, a student ca.n enter the MOB Squad. On this system, the student earns one point every 30 minutes to an hour and receives a reward when he gets 100 points. Example: Student gets a coke and is allowed to drink it in class as soon as he earns the 100th point. (See example C). Examples of privileges that might accompany being on the MOB Squad are: - freedom to leave the classroom on teacher errand - freedom to spend free time outside - access to special activities e.g., games, etc., reserved for MOB Squad The student may receive special recognition the first time he/she is placed on the MOB Squad. This might mean a class party with a cake, etc. At this point, mainstreaming should begin or be increased. Time Out Room (Elementary) Time-out is the removal of the opportunity to engage in reinforced behavior. Page 3 1. Time-out seclusion should be used only for behaviors that are so out of control or disruptive, or dangerous, the teacher cannot conduct class. General non-compliance, selfstimulation, academic refusal, etc., can be responded to with less stringent and restrictive techniques. Time-out is never to be used for routine disciplinary problems. 2. The time-out room should be used only as a last resort, if and when less restrictive means of controlling behavior have proven ineffective. The teacher should have documentation that milder forms of time-out or other reduction techniques 'have proven ineffective in suppressing the inappropriate behavior. 3. Only those students who are placed in the Behavior Adjustment Program can receive time-out. The use of time-out must be in the student's IEP, and written parent permission must have been secured. 4. Time-out must be paired with a plan to provide positive reinforcement for appropriate behaviors. This must also be included in the child's IEP. A cardinal rule in the use of time-out is that a corresponding effort should be made by the teachers to increase their level of positive interaction with the child when he/she is behaving appropriately. 5. Avoid lengthy verbal explanations as to why the student 1s being placed in the time-out room. Behavior? resulting in time-orjt should be clearly explained prior to implementing the time-out procedure. If an explanation is provided during use of time-out, it should be brief but adequately describe the misbehavior involved. A standard explanation format, such as \"Because you you go to time-out for minutes, \" is recommended. Other interaction should be avoided. 6. 7. Time out is never to be used as a threat. No warnings should be given\nthe point system is the warning. The child needs to monitor his/her own behavior as soon as the teacher knows he/she understands the rule. If the teacher says time out will be used, it must be used. To maximize opportunities to exercise self-control, students should be given the opportunity to take their own time-out after receiving the instruction from the teacher. If the students refuse to take their time-out or if they fail to respond to teacher's instructions within 5-10 seconds, the teacher should physically remove them to the time-out room. For high intensity behaviors like kicking and screaming, the student should be escorted to the time-out room. P~e4 8. When time-out is used, this sequence shall be followed: 1. Maximum 10 minutes - the door must be opened and the child offered the opportunity to join the class. 2. Ten more minutes if child is still out of control. 3. Call psychologist--if child is still out of control-because maximum time for time-out is 30 minutes. 9. Records must be kept of each occasion when time-out is used. The records should include: 1. student's name 2. behavior for which time-out is used (specified on IEP) 3. the time of day the student was placed in and removed from time-out These records will be continuously monitored and will be addressed formally in monthly staffings. DISCIPLINE Elementary Discipline should be handled within the classrocrn, unless the child becomes a danger to himself and/or others. There should be documentation of the incident, and the psychol~gist should be contac~ed. f-JOJN I i \\ \\ I \\  0 1--1 Cl) Cl) ..(1.j. , u Q) :\u0026gt; M . (I) 6 Q) . ~ ~ (1j . I ~ J\\SSIGNMfo:NTS DATE Di\\TE -1--------------- --- ------- - --- - -t--------------1--11------ - - - --- ,-- --\\--------------- I MJ\\111 I MJ\\1'11 ~IJ\\111 Li\\NGUJ\\GE Li\\NGUAGE ~- ------------11___...,,,,,_----/--/-,--- _________ _ '=--r--_/.\n:\nTT/J AAA / \\ 1\u0026amp;~ ' ~ING,..., ' I LJ\\NGUJ\\CE ~DING 1----------------1-------------- -1-------------- -- Sl'fo:LLING ~---------------1.----l-- _____________ , __ , ______________ , _ \n:_-L--~::::-==- _11-11-----'a~-1\" { ~/~--=--'- ,-1-- _Wa\u0026amp;M L. J. I , /.. -' , L -' , /  \\ i_ ASSIGNMmrs Icy?-\u0026lt;/, .,,. , 1 A:\n:\nJ\u0026lt;:NtllNT:, /~pc/ \" r ASSIGNMmrs /0/c?c/ :\n_\\ - DATE D1\\TE DATE ,--------------1--~--------------------1-------------- SPELLING Sl'ELLlNG -1~1--1-\\-1-1--1- ------- -- ____________________ -l--------------1--,: M/\\111 'M/\\111 LJ\\NGUJ\\GE LANGUAGE cUm_\nllEi\\lJING 1-----------------1-------------1-I---------------- SPELLING Sample c Elementary Alternative Classroom t. 0@ (j)@ (iJ) ?f ,.. SJ S @\u0026lt;?:) ~~@ \u0026amp;) C!I 3 6)@ @)@ ! poirAs = poit\\ts =i frtt 'yero\"~, poir-.-\\s- =~ -ha periods Elementary SPE day treatment classroom NAME: _______ DATE ______ DAYS LEFT: __ .. 8:30- 9:00 9:00- 9:30 9:30-10:00 10:00-10:30 I I I I I 10: 30-11: 00 11: 00-11: 30 I I 11:30-12:00 I I I I I I 12:00-12:30 I I I I I I I I I 12:30- 1:00 I I I ~ I I I I I 1:00- l:15 I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I Rl'TC:: I _. I I I I I I I L, I I I' _we:: I Bonus I  Sa.I:.ple 3 . ~ \\ t [ ci ! ~ Elementary SPE Day Treatment. j j I -(_ t f ~ t3  ! .. i (r, ~ \\~/ ' : r_-,-,__ I - ---. i l I I CrS: I ' I I I ~ l I I i\n! I I [f' I I rr---\u0026lt; I I ~ I \\ - I - ' .., ! ( ,.., #' I I ') . /\ni.:._ ' ' -\n! I I ' I I I ' i I , I I i l I I i\n' \\ I i I I . t :i~ (1 l I  \\ \\ ?- : :_l._,_E7 i.. ,\n_\n?  tct I . j I i I I ! I I f I I j '\nI i' (\ni I I I l I j ' I Sample C @ (j)@ 7P. poirAs = po,\\ '\\t 5 --~8 fret 'j\u0026gt;er0l~ poil'.b =-~ -ha periods sECONDARspYe dAY tREATMENT Page 5 LEVEL SYSTEM SECONDARY The secondary Behavior Adjustment program is based on a fourlevel evaluative system. Each student enters on Level I and must progress through Level IV in order to exit the program. Each student earns points (maximum of 100) and privileges during the school day for appropriate academic and social behavior. A daily point sheet and a weekly work card will be received weekly by every student and will be used to record tQe points earned by the student during each school day (see example 4). These points are to be recorded in a teacher journal to ensure availability during staffings. Points are earned during ten 30-minute intervals or for each 'separate unit of activity or each subject area taught (see samples D, E) with the total number being 100 points. Appropriate student behavior during these activities will determine how many points are earned: 2 points for beginning work within an appropriate time frame 3 staying on task/completing a task 5 behavior (personal and social) The point~ are used to determine the studen~'s level. The level, in turn, -will determine what kind of activities will be included in the school day. Ascending the Levels Level I: Each student enters the program on Level I. points are earned and recorded on a daily point sheet weekly work card. Points needed to stay on Level I: 86 (See Level 0) ,Every day and the Privileges earned: 10 minutes of free time daily 5 extra minutes of free time on Friday physical education in classroom lunch in the cafeteria with teacher Level 0: This level is used only when the student is not making it on Level I for five consecutive days. There are no pr i vi leg es: escorted to restroom, lunch in classroom, no assemblies or activities outside the classroom. The student needs 78 points for ten (10) consecutive days to move to Level I. Level II: In order to move to Level II, a student must earn at least 86 points for 10 consecutive days. Page 6 Points needed to stay on Level II: 92 Privileges earned: 15 minutes of free time daily 10 extra minutes of free time on Friday physical education 1n the classroom and outside eat lunch when teacher eats, but at different table (corning and going with teacher) aide watches student walk to restroom one special activity every ten (10) days, usually during free time. For example: use of school gym, special interest project, specified Level II equipment and materials, use of bandroom. If a student fails to obtain the minimum number of points for five (5) consecutive days, he returns to Level I. Level III: To points for ten move (10) to Level III, a student must earn at least 92 consecu~ive days. Points needed to stay on Level III: 96 Privileges earned: Go to lunch at regular lunch periods 20 rninites of free time daily 15 extra rnir.utes oi free time.on Friday go to school assemblies 2 library visits weekly special activities outside classroom go to restroom unsupervised some special activity every 5 days, usually during free time If the student fails to obtain the minimum number of points for five (5) consecutive days, he returns to Level II. When the student reaches Level III, mainstreaming begins and the student is taken off the point system. Discipline (Secondary) On the secondary level, the discipline should be handled in the classroom. If a student becomes dangerous to others, remove the remainder of the class and call the district psychologist. Because of the uniqueness of the student placed in a BA classroom, confrontation should not take place in the hallway. Whenever possible, get the student back into the classroom before dealing with the behavior. STUDENT /\\SSIGNMENT SHEET FOR TIIE WEEK OF . MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDl\\Y Tl!URSDl\\Y FRIDAY I PERIOD I I I, (/) (D () 0 8:05 - 9:05 ::i p. 11\u0026gt; 1-1 SCIENCE '\u0026lt;: en \"'O (D p. 11\u0026gt; '\u0026lt;: H 1-1 (D 11\u0026gt; JERIOD II rt a (D ::i 9:05 - 10:05 rt ENGLISH/READING  - PERDD III 10:20 - 11: 15  MATH ' -- -- -- - PEJIOD IV 12 :00 - 12 :55 WORLD PROBLEMS --- Secondary SPE Day Treatment . - NAME_~----------------- DATE ____________ _ SPE SECONDARY RATING SCALE MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY COMING IN (5) BREAK.FAST (5) MATERIALS (5) PERIOD I (10) PERIOND II (10) BREAK EARNED --------- TOTAL POINTS ______ _ lONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY PERIOD III (10) LUNCH (5) SOCI.l\\.LJATION (5) PERIOD IV (10) - ...: BR EAK EARNED --------- TOTAL POINTS ____ _ EXTRA POINTS MAY BE USED ON YOUR WEEKLY TOTAL MORNING BUS CONDUCT M T W TH F AFTERNOON BUS CONDUCT -- -- -- -- -- M T W TH F DAIIY CLEANUP OF ROOM AND AREA M T W TH F -- -- -- -- -- TOTAL EXTRA POINTS M T W TH F -- -- -- 0-P.RT FOR POINTS TO EARN BREAKS: MORNING: AFTERNOON: 32 - 35 15MINUTE BREAK 30 - 28 15 MINUTE BREAK 31 -28 10 MINUTE BREAK 27 - 25 10 MINUTE BREAK 2 7 - 24 5 MINUTE BREAK 24 - 22 5 MINUTE BREAK 2 3 - UNDER NO BREAK 22 - UNDER NO BREAK MON TOTAL TUES TOTAL WED TOTAL THUR TOTAL FRIDAY WEEKLY TOTAL FOR SPECIAL PRICILEGES ------ TOTAL Page 7 ELEMENTARAYN D SECONDARY WASTEDT IME When a student use inappropriate social behaviors directed toward others, i.e, profanity, aggressive acts, etc., interferes with the class, the student will be on wasted time until he/she writes an apology to all involved. He/She must also write an apology to his/her parents. The student will remain on wasted time until the parent's apology is returned to the teacher. When a student is on wasted time, he/she is unable to earn any points. INAPPROPRIATEP ERSONALB EHAVIOR When a student is engaging in minor inappropriate behaviors that do not affect others in the classroom (i.e., knocking books on floor, refusal to work, etc.), the behaviors should be ignored, but the student will not receive points until the behavior stops and is replaced by appropriate behavior. \"DO'i'iNT IME\" To eliminate \"down time\" while the teacher tends to the class rol 1, lunch r.ioney, etc. , each student needs to have some \"order task\" such as sharing time, copying a 1=,oer.1 from the board, working a word find, working review frcm previous day's wcrk, etc., as soon as he/she enters the classrco:n. This will allow the structured day and the point system to begin immediat.ely. FREE TIME Teachers must be prepared to end instruction for those students who have earned free time. Planning must also include additional activities that. can be given to students who have not earned free time. A.gain, consistency is the key, and for the point system to be successful, the teacher must live up to his/her end of t.he contract. VERBALI NTERVENTIONT IPS It is preferable to allow a child to vent verbally when his/her behavior is not harming e.nycnE\u0026lt; elEe. It allows him/her to let off steam, and the behavior will generally deescalate. When a child is engaged in verbal venting, he/she does not process information well at high point intervals of behavior. When a child breaks for air, etc., he/she will process better, so this is the time to set the limits. Listen. You can gather important information while a child is verbally venting. Page 8 Remove of the face.\" onlookers when possible. This will decrease the problem child's refusal to back down due to a fear of \"losing Remain calm. The teacher's behavior can either calm the situation or add fuel to it. Be particularly aware of body language. The teacher needs to be attentive not only of the student's but also his/her own body language. Non-threatening body language would avoid encrouchment of personal space and utilize non-challenging, non-threatening body movements. Be aware of how you communicate. Tone, volume, and cadence of speech can work to defuse or to escalate behavior. Be prepared to enforce the limits you set. The teacher may wish to use some \"we\" statements because they are less threatening i.e. , \"We need to complete tr.e work before recess. SETTING LIMITS Setting limits is a very effective tool in dealing with problem behaviors. The way the teacher states a directive is extremely important, so that negative behaviors are not encouraged. To maximize the effectiveness of the limits set, 1. state them positively, when pcssible, 2. ~ provide a choice, 3. give a time frame. \"You can calm down, or you wi 11 be on wasted time. \" \"You may turn down the volume now, or use the earphones.\" \"You need to finish your work before recess, or you will complete it during recess. Guidelines for effective limit setting 1. Be c 1 ear and understood. 2. Be simple and concise. 3. Be reasonable, fair, and enforceable. TENSION REDUCTION After a student loses control and acts out, verbally or physically, the teacher needs to re-establish rapport after the student calms down. This can be accomplished by communicating with the student. Everyone, student and teacher, needs an opportunity to \"debrief\" after an incident, and it presents an excellent learning opportunity. Behavior Adjustment Aides Because of the uniqueness of the Behavior Adjustment class and the population that is served by it, it is essential for the aide to be viewed as an extension of the teacher--providing instruction, as directed by the teacher, and exercising authority as an adult in the classroom. This is due in part to the necessity of having no \"down time\" in the class, structured learning taking place at all times. Another aspect involves the potential explosiveness of individ~al students within the classroom setting. The following list contains duties that might be assigned to the BA aide and is not to be considered all inclusive: Reading and telling stories Directing an \"order task\" to being instruction each day Providing small group and individual instruction, as directed by the teacher Assisting students in performing activities initiated by the teacher Assisting students in reviews, guided and independent practices Correc.-ting homework and workbook assignments Correcting and recording test scores, etc. Prepari~g instructional materials such as flash cards, charts, transparencies, etc. Assisting in checking student's seatwork Writing student's earned points on the point sheet at specified time intervals Accompanying students to individual classrooms when mainstreaming begins Monitoring classroom in teacher's absence Attending conferences and staffings for individual students Assisting substitute teachers Monitoring students in time-out Performing other duties, as assigned by the teacher. DAT_E_ F.as_t and West Campus Student Assignment Classrooms TIIB RULES FOR Tu SUiDD\"\"TA SSIG'.0IT2\\\"\"Cl'L ASS (S.!,C) ARE AS rOLlD\\,S: 1) TiiE Sil:\"\"DE.'.'\\1.\n:J U, EE ISOUI.ED FRO'.!T I-:::ER EST OF IBE sn\"D2'\"\"1' 30DY. 3) Sil\"\"DD\"\"I'S~ rCST CO~PLITE _t..SS:::G'.'('E\\\"H\"TFSO RED:TI .\\RE RELE..'....SiF::RDO \u0026gt;lS A.C. 4) STl\"DESIS _!,__~TEO RI-?CRT TO S.!,C .c_8T: 15 _\n. !l. STCDD1S !\\\\.:SI _E_!:_\\\"I l70\n'( DI S~H ssn., AT 3: 00 P. \u0026gt;L 6) STt\"J2\\.I.S \u0026gt;R:ST :U:P(,:,:u -:-os .\nc 1:I'3 _!.j_L '.GCESS_t_~y5 00~ _.'..2\\J): ,'._.'.._T:3..1 '. J.. . S. ( STC2CTS 1-:IU. \\CI :SE _.'..l:..01:-~Wo 1-un: $_.'.._-C~- I DT.-:::SIG\n\\.~_101 ::::-~.s).. 7) STL?2G.S '.ll.\"ST: :Ol.LO\\, ::::..Dr:I ?2CIIC\\S C? ~ S.!..C1 .,S.1.~LCL.:~. f_!._J:..,~?-i: -=o )C) so 1,IU. ?.I.SU.I E c-=-B ::::ISCI?l.-D.. ' .._-:..!_:y.C I:::m.s. :-:_.:.~:: ==\\~ 5.-'-.C~~~-- -:,c:-::::::~.: _:..~::=(: ' c_.:.~~2,~:: =~:..=y~_:::: __ ::-.::=--c_,- '-...5.5:G:,::\n:c 5_:.._,:. ...... ..--. - - ... - --\\. - ... -. ' ------..-- - . ,.,..._,.. .:.\\. .:.._\\ - ::-: __ -_\\_.:_::: - . --.--.-- -----,-- ~ .----- :.-: .. :._\\_:, .::,_.,__,,.:__\\_~ __.. ..: :-_ :-:- .-.- ,---~-\\,.-:.,: :, FA.IlL\"RET O .ADHERET O 'j}-:\n:f.SRE ULES J.-..' \\Y R.ESl.1..TI N FURTI-:ERD. ISCIPl.Kh.RY ACTIO~S. ,r - ' rn,, ------ ~:v-:-. Di-.::::.SC ? _t:.SSIG~,E'G: ):-::..:-._J) 1ST ?~:.--:=:\n:I 1.\\~ _.'.__-~::, :'. .-.. - - . \\...\n--- - - - . - - --- ___ -_::: ....... - -- --- STI.iDE\\1 ASSIG~1.E!G CLASS RECORD OF EEi{!.\\\"IO:l. --------------------- 2:\\\"D ~:ZD .!.\nI r1 I 5 ili I f:1': 1 \\ ::.=..J -------\n_- ____ ,.\n----------- - ' - - -- -- - . -- -- - _._ --- ::.:c I-_: . ~'..,  I ::... :.._-_ =: ~: i \\ I ,. .::.:....::..=:\n=.:....__==:-\n-=---5'-- -____.!..._..--1..._)___ ___ _______:.I I .- , --,r I '_. ...-.. - .... ,..,\nI 1 -- - - .. - ! .' - - ! .- ::- 2\\-::l 3:u I 1- ..J -: \\ 51\"1 (..,-.: I., ' I I'~ I I ID,1_ ___ _ ____ _______________ __\nAt:~~CeC_ ________________________ _ ____ .:.. ._c2.:c=.-c _ .:.:-: . - - = - -. _.\\. _~_J ..: 1 ..:_ - I ____________________________ -.e, 5 S .\n,CC t ~ ~ 'f ...:: : : C : :':\"\n:-_ C: C ~\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_800","title":"Biracial Committee, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School integration","Meetings","Education--Finance","School facilities","School discipline","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Biracial Committee, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/800"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BIRACIAL COMMITTEE BYLAWS The Biracial Committee was appointed by the North Little Rock Board of Education for the purpose of assisting in the desegregation of the North Little Rock Schools, to promote quality desegregated education, and to review and analyze information/data provided by the Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation. ARTICLE I Membership The membership is appointed by the Board of Education and consists of twenty-four (24) members. The membership shall consist of eight (8) educators chosen by their professional peers and are evenly balanced by race, fourteen (14) parent/patron members represented by two (2) individuals (one (1) white and one (1) black) from each of the seven (7) school zones (one must be a parent of a currently enrolled student at the time of appointment.), and two (2) minority members selected at large and shall be Native American, Asian American, or Hispanic American. ARTICLE II Terms of Membership Each member shall be appointed for a term of three (3) years and shall be eligible for reappointment. The term of membership shall begin on October 1 and end on September 30. Each member shall serve no more than two (2) consecutive terms. The initial terms of office shall be decided by lot (drawing) to determine tenure on the committee. One third (1/3) of the committee will serve a one (1) year terms, one third (1/3) a two (2) year term, and one third (1/3) a three (3) year term. These terms shall be retroactive to October 1, 1990. The District will publicize Committee vacancies and solicit members. Applications for vacancies will be accepted during July of each year. The Board of Education will be asked to approve nominations in September of each year. ARTICLE III Resignation Whenever a member is unable to complete his/her term of membership, the member shall submit a letter of resignation which shall be binding. If a verbal resignation is given, then a majority vote of the membership is needed to confirm the resignation and the member shall be notified by a letter from the Secretary and Chairperson of the committee's action. ARTICLE IV Removal from Membership A member who misses three (3) scheduled meetings will be subject to termination from membership, unless the membership is given reasons for the absence and the majority of the membership votes to retain the member. ARTICLE V Meetings The committee shall meet at least once per month. The time, date and place to be the consensus of the membership. Special meetings can be called by the Board of Education, the Superintendent of the North Little Rock Schools or his/her designee, and the Chairperson of the Committee. ARTICLE VI Quorum A quorum shall be ten (10) members. However, for the purpose of changes in the bylaws, revocation of membership and election of officers, the quorum shall be a simple majority of the current committee membership. A majority shall be fifty-one (51) percent of the quorum as defined above. ARTICLE VII Election of Officers The officers shall consist of a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and Secretary/Recorder. Election of officers shall be held at the September meeting. These officers will begin their duties at the October meeting. Their term of office shall be for one (1) year. A simple majority as defined in Article VI is sufficient for election. In the event an officer resigns or leaves the committee, the office shall be filled at the following meeting. ARTICLE VIII Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised The procedures set forth in Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised will govern all business of the Biracial Committee unless otherwise indicated in these Bylaws. ADOPTED: March 19, 1991 North Little Rock Bi-racial Committee Report Timelines and Monitoring Procedures: The North Little Rock Bi-racial Committees monitor the schools once each semester. The second monitoring report was received in ODM in June after the school year was ended and most principals were off contract. The schools were monitored in NLRSD in December and January. These dates were either near the end of the first semester or the beginning of the second semester. Elementa\ni\n:y Schools Dates Amboy December 11, 1990 Argenta December 11, 1990 Belwood December 4, 1990 Boone Park November 28, 1990 Crestwood December 17, 1990 Glenview January 3, 1990 Indian Hills January 10, 1991 Lakewood January 29, 1991 Lynch Drive December 11, 1990 Meadow Park December 12\n1990 North Heights January 8, 1991 Park Hill December 14, 1990 Pike View December 12, 1990 Pine November 29, 1990 Redwood December 13, 1990 Rose City December 11, 1990 Seventh Street January 9, 1991 Middle Schools Dates Lakewood December 3, 1990 Ridgeroad December 17, 1990 Rose City January 10, 1991 High Schools Dates North Little Rock January 11, 1991 These reports were given to members of the desegregation team, biracial committee, and members of the district's board of education on March 15, 1991 by the Superintendent for Desegregation, Mable Bynum. Each principal was then asked to provide written responses to Mrs. Bynum regarding concerns cited in the first semester biracial committee monitoring reports. These responses are included in NLRSD's Monitoring Report, Attachment VI-B. The written responses were provided to Mrs. Bynum between March 8 and March 15, 1991. A time lag of approximately three months existed between the monitoring visits and the responses sent. The twelve areas monitored by the bi-racial committees were: 1.0 Separation of Race/Gender 2.0 Curriculum 3.0 School/District Initiated Honors and Awards 4.0 Committees 5.0 Extracurricular Activities 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment 7.0 Special Education 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education 9.0 Staff Development 10.0 Parental Involvement ll.O Student Discipline 12.0 Bu~lding Leadership/Management Problem Areas Some of the general problem areas pervasive throughout the district were being addressed at the district level according to Mrs. Bynum. The general areas identified in most of the schools in the district were: 1.0 Separation of Race/Gender The percentages of black and male staff members in most schools are not comparable to those of the student population. 6.0 Student Achievement/Assessment Academic achievement data is not provided in a format designed for easy interpretation by monitors. 9.0 Staff Development Staff development programs have not addressed the matter of equitable staffing. Although the district is aware of and expresses a commitment to correct the problems in the schools, there are no specific timelines, strategies or activities to indicate when these problems and will be corrected. The information gathered by the bi-racial committees is used by principals to ascertain their strengths and weaknesses as evidenced by their efforts to correct problems in the schools. In reviewing the reports, principals addressed each of the problems identified in their schools except separation of race/gender, student acheivement/assessment and some areas in staff development programs. Assistance would be provided by the district administrators in these areas according to Mrs. Bynum. The three month time lag contributes to the monitoring process becoming bogged down.This process can be streamlined by giving the principals copies of the report in three to four weeks and asking them to respond within 2 weeks or less unless there are extenuating circumstances. 22 .,,. \"'C('C xrr r-. ,J- l,.... v .u. .i. U/.u~ r 11,n: 1..1 _ i '(. f !- n.lo- 0 f''\nJ ~ r .i. .. t :--dEnt :f.01. e 1: Jl t..,, .L\ni.L s a wac- '1able o a ) f 'Nort. te ry 19 89-S on.tr f l 'ii I'Ci t r: 19. 1 u es c.,f J t \"'1 nd ( for t p - 0.::: NOV 1 9 1991 Office ol Desegrsga11Mono nitoiing MONITORINSGC HEDULEOS F ALL DISTRICTM ONITORINGGR OUPS INCLUDINGB I-RACIAL COMMITTEES See Attachment 13 Attachment 13 THIB NOJRTH 1LITT1LJIBR OCKP lIB1LliCO CH001L December ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MONITORING SCHEDULE FIRST SEMESTER 1991-1992 (Dates are subject to change to accommodate monitors) 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 Crestwood Elem. - Lakewood Elem. - Seventh Street Elem. North Heights Elem. - Pike View Elem. Meadow Park - Park Hill Elem. - Boone Park Elem. Alternative Education Center - NLRHS-West Campus Rose City Elem. Ridgeroad Middle School - Glenview Elem. Central Elem. - NLRHS-East Campus Baring Cross Amboy Elem. - Belwood Elem. - Redwood Elem. Indian Hills Elem. - Lakewood Middle School Lynch Drive Elem. - Rose City Middle School P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 EDUCATORS Cynthia Hampton Tom Hudson Attachment 13 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FIRST SEMESTER 1991-1992 MONITORING TEAMS NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL-WEST CAMPUS STUDENTS B Josh Clary W W Jenny Watson B PARENTS/ADDRESSES Kathryne Jordan-4604 E. Puckett 72117 B Bill Lowe-6605 Allwood 72118 W Connie Sisson-5613 Stella Dr. 72118 W Phyllis Stokes-5704 Sorenson,iC 72118 B NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL-EAST CAMPUS Anita Bell B Stacy Roberts B Clancy McDowell W J.T. Zakrzewksi W Jimmy Albright-3323 N.Cypress 72116 W Martine Bonds-2917 Justin Mathews72116W Wendal Furquan-49 Lakeside, LR 72204 B Christine Hickman-5013 N.Woodland72117B LAKEWOODM IDDLE SCHOOL Esther Beavers B Travis Lambright B Debbie Hardison W Jeremy Neel w Thomas Baskins-402 w. 22 72114 B Lee \u0026amp; Becky Davidson-IO Oak Tree Circle Stephanie RatliffW Erica Ross B Varnastine Hymes-1322 N.Poplar Mary Ruth Morgan-4830 Oaklawn Carol Warren-219 East 12th RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL 72116 W 72114 B 72116 W 72114 B Debra Butler Joe King B Candice Kastel W Burnis J. Tate W Mary Branden-521 West \"A\" 72114 W B Jacquelyn Johnson-60 Cliffwood Cr72118B Hilton Taylor,Sr.-2502 s. Berkley72118B Frank Welch-509 Melanie 72118 W Gayle Calver Curtis Scott w B Laura Ralston W Marcia Scott B Eva Allen n ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL Chanda Anderson Eric Waldorf B Les Allen-5213 Lynch Drive W Pat Brewer-5207 s. Woodland Patsy Caldwell-302 Kay Street David Gober-222 Rhodes AMBOY ELEMENTARY Lorraine Harvey-#2 Elrod, LR David Holmes-1017 Nicole Lucy Horton-2208 Sasser Ct. Brenda Matthews-1403 W 9th BELWOOD ELEMENTARY 72117 72117 72117 72117 72209 72118 72118 72114. w B w B B w w B George Bryant-3901 Susan Circle 72118 B Terri Whittington W Autreana Battles B Deborah Whitehurst W Louene Lipsmeyer W Euleta Ware B Maria Bryant Karen Chappell B w Barbara Edmondson W Jackie Hampton B Edith McGough Valencia Power w B Rebecca Heathcock W Annie Morgan B Tina Jackson Norma Nelson w B Attachment 13 Jacquelyn Jones-605 W.Scenic,L23 Linda Little-412 W. 23rd Lavonda Squires-31 Theresa Dr. James Triplett-3516 Nixon Rd. BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY 72118 B 72114 B 72118 W 72118 W Robin Dudley-1505 Nannette 72114 W Michael Johnson-1104 Vestal 72114 B Vanessa Stewart-15 Lenora Lane,LR72207 B Lou Thomas-1810 W.Short 17th 72115 W CENTRAL ELEMENTARY Teresa Burns-1700 Olive 72114 B Letitia Martin-7907 Pinto Trail 72116 w Gerald Parker-5600 Browning Rd.LR72209 B James Parker-260 Plainview Larry Rich-2022 Romine Rd., LR Ebbie Rozzell-3907 Lakeview Rd. CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY Jane Bell-4917 Hampton Regina Dobynes-16 Lakewood Drive Mike Hemphill-1610 Northwood Michael Walker-1300 Poplar GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY Angela Crain-5003 N. Woodland Sandra Davis-4201 Rodgers Carol Morris-143 Plainview Cr. Virginia Wortham-324 Belmont INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY 72116 w 72204 B 72116 w 72116 W 72116 B 72116 W 72115 B 72117 B 72117 B 7:\n:116 W 72116 W Lyn Fortner-7505 Geronimo 72116 W Charles Germany-1709 Okmulgee Ct.72116 B Laverne Price-N.Beech,#78,Bldg.7 72114 B James Rhoades-1909 Osage 72116 W LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY Kenneth Griffin-2408 Fairway Alice Hammonds-1113 Bannock, LR Betty Jacobs-3104 Martineau Danita Mays-4505 Randolph LYNCH DRIVE ELE~IBNTARY Myrtle Borders-6505 Farmstead Dan Floyd-405 Healy Carolyn Hunter-724 Graham 7 2116 W 72202 B 72116 W 72116 B 1211 7 \\v 72117 W 72117 B Erma Jerrod Brenda Martin Deedra Bynum Liz Jorgenson Kim Grissom Shirley Kelly Janie Mcclinton Esther Watson Nancy Montgomery Arthur Robinson Doris Callahan nosie Coleman Ruth Chandler Jane Ploszay B w R w w B w B w B w B B w Attachment 13 Mary Jenkins-1116 Healy 72117 B MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY Kathy Arman-412 Meadow Park 72117 w Joyce Brewer-319 Emily 72117 B Donald Hale-6505 Delhaven 72117 B Diane Lawrence-110 Marvin 72117 B Cindy Mathews-516 Pollock 72117 w Vickie Musgrove-4803 Lynch Dr. 72117 w NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY Sharon Dumas-4925 Longview 72118 B Raymond Jerrod-200 Wisteria Cr. 72118 B Charles Kumpe-5425 Chauvin Dr. 72118 w Jill Massa-490=7 Sycamore 72118 w Dorothy Taylor-609 Paula Dr. 72114 w Arthary Terry-1 Somerset 72116 B PARK HILL ELEMENTARY Nancy Martin-3420 Fiesta 72116 w Juuy McNeese-3407 Fiesta 72116 w Deborah Rhodes-408 W. 23rd 72114 B Arlene Stephenson-2736 John Ashley72114B PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY Lilian Cooper-5804 Lamirado 72118 B Edna Keener-5800 Lamirado 72118 B Terri Nevins-5716 Locust 72116 w Pam Satterfield-5801 Locust 72116 w REDWOOD ELEMENTARY Sheila Arnold-2201 E. Washington Qui~zella Stacey-400 N.Palm,#101 Kim Dozier-#56 Hemlock Ct. Karen Kelley-3019 East 4th St. ROSE CITY ELEMENTARY Vickie Carroll-321 Cheryl Kathy Harris-709 Blossom Jo Evelyn Marshall-4617 Haywood Smith-3205 Gribble 72114 B 72114 B 72114 W 72114 W 72114 w 72117 w 72117 B Jonas 72114 D Rosemary Turner-3015 Arkansas Ave.72114B SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY Nathaniel Brown-8912 Landers Rd. 72117B Joe Jordan-814 Cedar 72114B Debra Rogers-16 Dove Creek Cr. 72116W I  Nat Askew B John Kellar W Jo Ellen McPherson W Jeanne Dimond Schula Holley w B Attachment 13 Debra Rogers-16 Dove Creek Cr. 72116W Helen Stegall-600 Silverwood Trail72116W BARING CROSS SCHOOL Michelle Poole-1617 Chandler 72114W Dorothy Williams-2616 Lansbrook Ln72117B ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION CENTER Corey Nelson B Nick Taylor-#5 Spear Rd Chris Taylor W Verna Turner-246 Melrose Circle LeaAnn Upchurch-1301 W. 10th Shirley Wood-2501 Willshire 72117W 72114B 72114W 72118B NOV 1 9 1991 Ot:,ceo t Desegregiao n tAoniioring DISTRICTB I-RACIAL COMMITTEMEE ETINGS CHEDULE AND DISTRICTB I-RACIAL COMMITTEMEE MBERSHLIPI ST, INCLUDINGR ACEA NDA DDRESS SEE ATTACHME5N Ta nd 6 Attachment 5 and 6 COMMITTEEM EETINGS: 5:30 p.m. First Tu\u0026lt;\u0026gt;sday of c..?ch month September-June NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE Patrons: ZONE 1 Ms. Lori Pledger Ms. Belinda White ZONE 2 Ms. Artha Minton Mr. Dan Floyd ZONE Mr. Thomas Daskins Mrs. Michelle Poole ZONE Mr. Robert Johnson Rev. Arnette Dotson ZONE Mr. Charles Hunter Mr. Felix Thibault ZONE Mrs. Gayle Wing Race TERM EXPIRES W 94 B 94 B w D w w B B w w 94 92 94 92 93 93 92 92 Mrs. Sheryll Lipscomb B 93 94 ZONE 7 Rev. Rochester Rodgers D Mr. Pat Hunter w Teachers Opal Goldsby, Central D 94 94 93 Address 712 Annelle, 72117 1406 Pine, 72114 2611 E. 2nd, 72114 405 Healy, 72117 Telephone Uome-945-9617 Work-376-3629 Home-376-8144 Home-945-4312 Home-945-2912 Work-376-3629 402 W. 22nd, 72114 Work-374-6661 Home-753-4184 1619 Chandler, 72114 Home-376-4354 1912 Arrowhead, 72118 Work-224-6067 Home-758-7624 5908 Nicole Dr.,72118 Home 758-8967 1601 Osage, 72116 Work-370-2400 llome-834-2220 400 Latona Ln.,72118 Work-945-8612 Home-758-8317 2000 Black River 72116 Home-835-3616 5913 Elk River,72116 Work-374-3484 Home-835-0787 444 McCain Blvd,72116Work-758-9227 Home-758-1593 349 Goshen,72116 Work-753-1311 Home-753-8656 412 w. 21st, 72114 Work-374-6943 Ilomc-753-3261 Valencia Power, B 93 6408 Greenbank, 7 2118 Work-835-5622 Indian Hills Horne-758-5834 Susan Shaunfield w 92 1605 Wewoka, 72116 Work-771-8185 Amboy Horne-835-54 77 .Amanda Ware w 94 1 22 Whitewood, 72120 Work-835-5622 Indian Hills Horne-834-1216 Sue Bennett w 93 4512 Valley Drook work-771-8200 East Campus 72116 Horne-758-0328 Anita Cameron w 92 134 Sheridan, 72116 Work-771-8114 West Campus Horne-753-5466 Arlean Robertson B 93 803 w. 13th, 72114 Work-771-8200 East Campus Horne-375-2698 Ivory Young B 92 9509 Susanne Dr. Work-771-8200 East Campus 72209 Horne-562-8993 PATRONS: ZONE 1 Mr. Dan Floyd Ms. Belinda White ZONE2 Ms. Artha Minton Vacant ZONE3 Mr. Thomas Baskins Mrs. Michelle Poole ZONE4 Mr. Robert Johnson Rev. Arnette Dotson ZONE 5 Mr. Charles Hunter Mr. Felix Thibault ZONE6 RACE w B B B w B ll w Mrs. Gayle Wing W Mrs. Sheryll Lipscomb B ZONE 7 Rev. Rochester Rodgers B Mr. Pat Hunter AT LARGE Minority 1 Minority 2 TEACHERS Mrs. Opal Goldsby Mrs. Valencia Power w B B NORTHL ITTLER OCKS CHOODL ISTRICT DISTRICTWIDBEI RACIALC OMMITTEE TERME XPIRES 9/30/92 9/30/91 9/30/91 9/30/91 9/30/91 9/30/92 9/30/93 9/30/93 9/30/92 9/30/92 9/30/93 9/30/91 9/30/91 9/30/91 9/30/92 9/30/93 9/30/93 9/30/93 ADDRESS 405 Healy - 72117 1406 Pine - 72114 2611 E. 2nd - 72114 402 W. 22nd - 72114 1619 Chandler - 72114 1912 Arrowhead - 72118 5908 Nicole Dr. - 72118 1601 Osage - 72116 400 Latona Lane - 72118 2000 Black River - 72116 5913 Elk River - 72116 444 McCain Blvd. - 72116 349 Goshen - 72116 412 W. 21st - 72114 6408 Greenbank - 72118 TELEPHONE Home-945-2912 Work-376-3629 Home 376-8144 Home-945-4312 Work-374-6661 Home-753-4184 Home-376-4354 Work-224-6067 Home-758-7624 Home-758-8967 Work-370-2400 Home-834-2220 Work-945-8612 Home-758-8317 Home-835-3616 Work-374-3484 Home-835-0787 Work-758-9227 Home-758-1593 Work-7 53-1311 Home-853-8656 Work-374-6943 Home-753-3261 Work-835-5622 Home-758-5834 j AGE2 DISTRICTWIDBEIR ACIALC OMMITT(ETEE ACHER-S CONTINUED) rs. Susan Shaunfield w 9/30/92 1595 Wewoka-72116 Work-771-8185 Home-835-5477 rs. Amanda Ware w 9/30/91 122 Whitewood - 72120 Work-835-5622 Home-834-1216 rs. Sue Bennett w 9/30/93 4512 Valley Brook - 72116 Work-771-8200 Home-758-0328 s. Anita Cameron w 9/30/92 134 Sheridan - 72116 Work-771-8114 Home-753-5466 rs. Arlean Robertson B 9/30/93 803 W. 13th - 72114 Work-771-8200 Home-375-2698 r. Ivory Young B 9/30/92 9509 Susanne Dr. -72209 Work-771-8200 Home-562-8993 N (D)I ffiT. JBII LIITTILIE Iffi.@CmC\n:I P1IJIBILCIIC  CCJ B(I0 )(0)I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET December 7, 1992 DEC 8 \\9'12 O!tice of Oescgr1::gatiMo.v1r ntcring MEMO TO: Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor FROM: Mable W. Bynum, Assistant Superintendent-Desegregation Enclosed is a revised list of the North Little Rock School District Districtwide Biracial Committee. Please feel free to call if our office can be of further assistance. Happy Holidays! MWB:aw AN EQUAL OPPORT\"C'. ITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771 8000 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE Patrons: ZONE 1 Ms. Lori Pledger Ms. Belinda White ZONE 2 Ms. Artha Minton Mr. Dan Floyd ZONE 3 Mr. Thomas Baskins Mrs. Michelle Poole ZONE 4 Mr. Robert Johnson Mrs. Caryn Duckery ZONE 5 Mr. Charles Ilunter Mr. Felix Thibault ZONE 6 Race TERM EXPIRES W 94 B 94 B w B w w B B w 94 95 94 95 93 95 95 Mrs. Gayle Wing W 93 Mrs. Sheryll Lipscomb B 94 ZONE 7 Rev. Rochester Rodgers B Mr. Pat Hunter w AT LARGE Mr. Antonio Franco H Minority 2 Mr. Michael Jeu 0 Teachers 94 94 95 95 Address 712 Annelle, 72117 1406 Pine, 72114 2611 E. 2nd, 72114 405 Healy, 72117 Telephone Home-945-9617 Work-376-3629 Home-376-8144 Home-945-43]2 Home-945-2912 Work-376-3629 402 W. 22nd, 72114 Work-374-6661 Home-753-4184 1619 Chandler, 72114 Home-376-4354 1912 Arrowhead, 72118 Work-224-6067 Home-758-7624 1700 Arrowhead Rd. Home-758-6875 Apt. A, 72118 1601 Osage, 72116 Work-370-2400 Home-834-2220 400 Latona Ln.,72118 Work-945-8612 Home-758-8317 2000 Black River Home-835-3616 72116 5913 Elk River,72116 Work-374-3484 Home-835-0787- 444 McCain Blvd,72116Work-758-9227 Home-758-1593 349 Goshen,72116 Work-753-1311 Home-753-8656 4919 Parker, 72118 Home-771-0405 #5 55th Terrace, 72118 Home-753-0590 Work-375-6759 Tammy Collier, w 95 2505 Ozark, 72116 Work-835-5622 Indian Hills Home-835-5510 Opal Goldsby, Central B 93 412 w. 21st, 72114 Work-374-6943 Home-753-3261 Valencia Walker, B 93 801 So. Rodney ParharnWork-835-5622 Indian Hills Rd. L.R. 72205 Home-228-0017 Amanda Ware w 94 122 Whitewood, 72120 Work-835-5622 Indian Hills Home-834-1216 Sue Bennett w 93 4512 Valley Brook Work-771-8200 East Campus 72116 Home-758-0328 Anita Cameron w 95 134 Sheridan, 72116 Work-771-8114 West Campus Home-753-5466 Arlean Robertson B 93 803 w. 13th, 72114 Work-771-8200 East Campus Home-375-2698 Ivory Young B 95 9509 Susanne Dr.  Work-771-8200 East Campus 72209 Home-562-8993 Vacancy NOV 9 t9n Patrons: ZONE 1 Ms. Lori Pledger Ms. Belinda White ZONE 2 Ms. Artha Minton Mr. Dan Floyd ZONE 3 Mr. Thomas Baskins Mrs. Michelle Poole ZONE 4 Mr. Robert Johnson Mrs. Caryn Duckery ZONE 5 Mr. Charles Hunter Mr. Felix Thibault ZONE 6 Mrs. Gayle Wing NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE Race TERM EXPIRES W 94 B 94 B w B w w B B w w 94 95 94 95 93 95 95 95 Address 712 Annelle, 72117 1406 Pine, 72114 2611 E. 2nd, 72114 405 Healy, 72117 Telephone Home-945-9617 Work-376-3629 Home-376-8144 Home-945-4312 Home-945-2912 Work-376-3629 402 W. 22nd, 72114 Work-374-6661 Home-753-4184 1619 Chandler, 72114 Home-376-4354 1912 Arrowhead, 72118 Work-224-6067 Home-758-7624 1700 Arrowhead Rd. Home-758-6875 Apt. A, 72118 1601 Osage, 72116 Work-370-2400 Home-834-2220 400 Latona Ln.,72118 Work-945-8612 Home-758-8317 2000 Black River 72116 Home-835-3616 Mrs. Sheryll Lipscomb B 93 94 5913 Elk River,72116 Work-374-3484 Home-835-0787 ZONE 7 Rev. Rochester Rodgers B Mr. Pat Hunter AT LARGE Mr. Antonio Franco Minority 2 Teachers Tammy Collier, Indian Hills w H w 94 94 95 95 - 444 McCain Blvd,72116Work-758-9227 Horne-758-1593 349 Goshen,72116 Work-753-1311 Home-753-8656 4919 Parker, 72118 Home-771-0405 2505 Ozark, 72116 Work-835-5622 Horne-835-5510 Opal Goldsby, Central B 93 412 w. 21st, 72114 Work-374-6943 Home-753-3261 Valencia Walker, B 93 801 So. Rodney ParhamWork-835-5622 Indian Hills Rd. L.R. 72205 Home-228-0017 Amanda Ware w 94 122 Whitewood, 72120 Work-835-5622 Indian Hills Home-834-1216 Sue Bennett w 93 4512 Valley Brook Work-771-8200 East Campus 72116 Home-758-0328 Anita Cameron w 95 134 Sheridan, 72116 Work-771-8114 West Campus Home-753-5466 Arlean Robertson B 93 803 w. 13th, 72114 Work-771-8200 East Campus Home-375-2698 Ivory Young B 95 9509 Susanne Dr. Work-771-8200 East Campus 72209 Home-562-8993 Vacancy Meeting dates of the Pulaski County Special School District's Biracial Planning and Steering Committee for 1991-92. September 19, 1991 Administrative Offices October 17, 1991 Administrative Offices November 14, 1991 Administrative Offices December 19, 1991 Administrative Offices January 16, 1991 Administrative Offices February 20, 1991 Administrative Offices March 19, 1991 Administrative Offices April 16, 1991 Administrative Offices May 21, 1991 Administrative Offices OCT 1 5 1993 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Officeo f Desocregantl Momlcilng DISTRICTWIDE BIRACIAL COMMITTEE Patrons: ZONE 1 Mrs. Pat Brewer Mrs. Jackie Gregg ZONE 2 Ms. Artha Minton Mr. Dan Floyd ZONE 3 Mr. Thomas Baskins Mrs. Nichelle Poole ZONE 4 Mr. Robert Johnson Mrs. Caryn Duckery ZONE 5 Mr. Charles Hunter Mr. Felix Thibault ZONE 6 Race B w B w B w w B B w Mrs. Gayle Wing W Mrs. Sheryll Lipscomb B ZONE 7 Rev. Rochester Rodgers B Mr. Pat Hunter w AT LARGE Mr. Antonio Franco H Mr. Michael Jeu 0 Teachers 'l'ERM EXPIRES 96 96 94 95 94 95 96 95 95 95 96 94 94 94 95 95 1993-94 Address 5207 S. Woodland 72117 108 Park Pl.,72117 2611 E. 2nd, 72114 405 Healy, 72117 4 0 2 W. 22nd , 7 21 J 4 1511 Gum, 72114 October, 1993 Telephone llome-945-9617 Work-682-1948 Home-945-0961 Home-945-4312 Home-945-2912 Work-376-3629 Work-374-6661 Home-753-4184 Home-376-4354 1912 Arrowhead, 72118 Work-224-6067 Home-758-7624 1700 Arrowhead Rd. Home-758-6875 Apt. A, 7 2118 1601 Osage, 72116 Work-370-2400 Home-8 34-22 20 400 Latona Ln.,72118 Work-945-8612 Home-758-8317 2000 Black River Home-835-3616 72116 5913 Elk River,72116 Work-374-3484 IIome-835-0787 444 McCain Blvd,72116Work-758-9227 Home-758-1593 349 Goshen,72116 Work-753-1311 Home-753-8656 4919 Parker, 72118 Horne-771-0405 1101 Winnebago 72116 Horne-771-4040 Tammy Collier, w 95 2505 Ozark, 72116 Work-835-5622 Indian Hills Home-835-5510 To be announced later B 96 Valencia Walker I3 96 801 So. RoclJwy P\u0026lt;1 rh,1m\\VL'rk-8J s-~ L, .::.:: Indian Hills Rd. L.R. 72205 Home-228-0017 l\\manda Ware w 94 122 Whitewood, 72120 Work-835-5622 Indian Hills Home-834-1216 To be announced later w 96 Anita Cameron w 95 134 Sheridan, 72116 Work-771-8114 West Campus Home-753-5466 Arlean Robertson B 96 803 w. 13th, 72114 Work-771-8200 East Campus Home-375-2698 To be announced later B 96 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HER IT AGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Mable Bynum Horace Smith and Connie Hickman April 20, 1992 Request for Districtwide Biracial Committee information In order to better understand the functioning and effectively monitor the performance of the Districtwide Biracial Committee, we will require the following information. The request is organized according to the categories identified in the monitoring guide you received. We realize that this is a very busy time of year, and it is not our intention to burden you further. However, we would like for the following information to be submitted to our office by April 29, 1992. We will call you on April 22, 1992 to answer any questions you may have regarding this request. Thank you for your cooperation. Recruitment  Committee job descriptions  List of individuals involved in the member recruitment process  Written description of the recruitment process Connnittee Composition  Current membership roster with information on race, gender, geographic area, address, home and work phone numbers  Schedule of committee meetings * Biracial committee meeting agenda, minutes/ attendance record  Written yearly goals and objectives, policies and procedures  Organizational chart Orientation and Training  Copy of the orientation packet provided for new committee members  Agenda for orientation session * Schedule of orientation/ trainings including time, location, and number of members attending * Descriptions of training provided for the committee (goals/ objectives, agendas, handouts, presenters, evaluations) Monitoring Process  Monitoring instrument  Schedule of monitoring (review reports) Flowchart describing the process by which the committee receives, assimilates, and reports along with corrective action identified and taken by the district Reporting Process  Schedule of reporting periods * School Biracial Committee Reports and principals' responses * Semester Monitoring Reports Support and Recognition  List of resources provided to the committee  List of methods of appreciation and schedule of recognition events for committee members * Indicates information which should be submitted as generated. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor November 16, 1992 Robert Johnson, Biracial Committee Chair 1912 Arrowhead North Little Rock, AR 72118 Dear Robert: 201 East Markham, Suite 51 0 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax {501) 371-0100 I am happy to share the enclosed 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees with you and your fellow Biracial Committee members. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) filed this report with the District Court today and also furnished copies to the three Pulaski County school districts. My associates and I sincerely thank you and your committee colleagues for having helped make this report possible. Your cooperation in talking with us, sharing materials, and answering our questionnaire were all invaluable as we gathered the information we needed. We hope you'll find that our assessment of the Biracial Committees, and their relationship to the districts and the desegregation process, is both comprehensive and accurate. We also hope that it provides some useful insights and suggestions. Any comments you and your committee may have about this report will be most welcome, and I would be pleased to hear from you. Your job as biracial committee members is a very important part of meeting the enormous challenges facing our school districts. Thank you for all the ways you are working to improve the lives of our children. a:yyours, Ann S. Brown .. - Attachment I - 011 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting on March 19, 1991 The North Little Rock Biracial Committee met on March 19, 1991 at 5:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following committee members were in attendance: Dan Floyd, Artha Minton, Thomas Baskins, Michelle Poole, Robert Johnson, Arnette Dodson, Charles Hunter, Felix Thibault, Gayle Wing, Sheryll Lipscomb, Rev. Rochester Rodgers, Valencia Power, Sue Bennett, and Anita Cameron. The following school district administrators were introduced by Mable Bynum: Gene Jones, Dana Chadwick, Jim Dyer, Greg Daniels, and Esther Crawford. Danny Shameer from the Arkansas Democrat was also present. The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson, Charles Hunter. Sue Bennett was named recorder for the meeting. Copies of the agenda, the proposed Biracial Committee Bylaws, and the STORM Team Guidelines, were given to those present. Copies of the First Semester Monitoring 1990-91, and the Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Meeting on March 11, 1991 had been mailed to members earlier, but were available to anyone who did not have a copy. The new members, Michelle Poole from Zone 3 and Arnette Dodson from Zone 4, were introduced to the committee. The first item for discussion was a report on the STORM (Success Through Outstanding Role Models) program. Mr. Paul Scott, coordinator for the program, reported the program is a role model program for selected black male students in the third through the sixth grade teamed with high school role models. The program is similar to the Ambassadors of Life Program and will center on providing positive experiences. The program is to be implemented in the Spring of 1990-91. Ms. Cameron stated that there are presently seventeen black male high school students who have been trained and accepted to participate. Mrs. Bynum stated that the students have been chosen from three elementary schools (Argenta, Pine, and Rose City) with plans to expand in the future. There are thirteen more mentors waiting for orientation and training. The elementary counselors have reported the students are excited about receiving their mentors. The plan for the program is for each high school student to meet one-to-one with a mentor at least once a month. Mr. Hunter asked what they would do and when would they start meeting. At this point, Ms. Cameron introduced four STORM members: Everett Smith, Clifton Jackson, Marc Thompson, and Rodney Sisk. They responded with \"play basketball, picnics, studying, etc.\" The plans are to begin next week. Mr. Johnson asked the students what motivated their participation. The responses were: \"It makes me feel good, the encouragement of Ms. Cameron, remembering looking up to older students when in elementary, etc.\" Mr. Baskin remarked -that since he works with r Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Inc., the desire to help means a lot. Those present gave the young students a hand and asked how to express appreciation at the end of the year. Ms. Cameron said, \"food works\". Mr. Thibault asked if the program would be evaluated. Mrs. Bynum said, \"yes, at intervals.\" Mr. Hunter asked the students to remember \"what you do is important, keep giving back.\" The second item for discussion was the Even Start Program Grant. Mrs. Bynum asked Jim Dyer to explain to the committee the rationale of the grant. Mr. Dyer, as Chapter I Coordinator, explained that a meeting was to be held immediately following the Biracial Committee Meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to procure financial assistance to eligible local educational agencies for the federal share of the cost of providing family-centered education projects to help parents become full partners in the education of their children. The idea is to train non-reading parents with children age one to seven to reach their full potential by coordination with other agencies. The agencies are: Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), Baptist Memorial Resource Center, Department of Human Services, Literacy Action of Central Arkansas, Laman Library, Family Advocacy Network, Adult Education Centers, Head Start, local churches, and civic organizations. Participants will reside in the attendance zones of the five areas being targeted: Dixie addition, Eastgate Terrace, Hemlock Courts, Shorter Gardens, and Silver City Courts. Mr. Dyer elaborated that in a needs assessment across the District, forty-four percent of the students in Chapter I schools are functioning below the 50th percentile on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6) in the area of Total Reading. Eighty percent of the kindergarten students given the Boehrn-R Test of Basic Concepts in the fall of 1990 scored below the 50th percentile. He said the application is due March 29, 1991 and that he had recently been in Baton Rouge receiving instructions for the grant. The total funding for Arkansas is $262,000 and we are asking for four year funding. Mr. Hunter then asked for a report concerning the corporal punishment committee. Mrs. Bynum stated the committee to develop long-term strategies is now meeting and is composed of four parents, four educators and four administrators. Members represent elementary and high school. They are charged with developing some plans for correcting student behavior and alternatives to corporal punishment. The committee will finalize its reports early enough to have new information included in 1991-92 student handbook. The committee then proceeded to discuss the committee bylaws. Mr. Hunter reminded the committee of the changes in Article II, Article V, Article VI, and Article VII. There was a brief discussion and Felix Thibault made a motion that the revised edition of the bylaws be adopted and Anita Cameron seconded. There was a unanimous acceptance by verbal \"ayes\". Article II (Terms of Membership) states that initial term of office shall be decided by lot to determine tenure. One-third will serve one year, one-third two years, and one-third three years. Once bylaws were adopted, Mrs. Bynum asked each member to draw a slip of paper (marked with the number one, two, or three). Mr. Thibault asked the chairman to draw for him since he had to leave. The committee agreed. The membership terms of each committee member was drawn as follows: ONE YEAR TERM TWO YEAR TERM Dan Floyd Michelle Poole Zone 2 Charles Hunter Belinda White Artha Minton Vacant Spot for Thomas Baskins Sheryll Lipscomb Rochester Rodgers Amanda Ware Pat Hunter Felix Thibault Susan Shaunfield Anita Cameron Ivory Young Minority #1 (See Bylaws) THREE YEAR TERM Robert Johnson Arnette Dodson Gayle Wing Opal Goldsby Valencia Power Sue Bennett Arlean Robertson Minority #2 (See Bylaws) There was a brief discussion regarding the terms. In case of a vacancy, the new member would have the same term as the person who left. The one year term ends in September, 1991. The final discussion of the committee was related to the school monitoring reports. Mr. Hunter asked if the members had gone over their reports. Ms. Cameron mentioned the need for black teachers was referred to several times in the reports. Mrs. Bynum said she believed the best answer would be to \"grow your own\". Mr. Chadwick stated that the legislature is now considering men in teaching as a minority and that a financial incentive would help recruitment. Ms. Cameron said a scholarship from the District would help those students considering teaching and would demonstrate commitment on the part of the North Little Rock School District. Mrs. Bynum stated that the District would look into the possibility of a teaching scholarship. She said she would like other discussion from the committee concerning this. Mr. Baskins noted that some reports, especially the North Little Rock High School-East Campus's, referred to purchases by teachers and asked that the District keep such personal expenditures at a minimum. Mrs. Bynum referred the committee to the packet of \"Responses from Principals\", and explained the importance of reading those whenever concerns were studied. She also mentioned that some teachers referred to \"ideal\" supplies instead of \"adequate\". Ms. Bennett also spoke about the impact of reorganization transfers and the time needed to put all things, including supplies, in place. Mr. Johnson asked if any new views or insights were produced by the visits. Mrs. Bynum said the visits were very useful and that they would be used more as continued visits are made. Issues, she said, will be raised to the principals and concerns would be brought to the front. Mr. Johnson asked if parents on the teams were helpful. Mrs. Bynum said yes and next time the team monitors would visit different schools, thereby proving a different view. Mr. Hunter suggested that the discussion of the last item be continued at the next meeting. Perhaps, at that time more time could be devoted to the Biracial Monitoring Team visits. The time for the next meeting was designated as being April 9, 1991 at 5:30 p.m., in the Board Room. Valencia Power will be the recorder at that meeting. As a parting comment, Mr. Hunter stated on this night there was a committee meeting to discuss the feasibility of a north of the river school district and south of the river school district. lie said he expected to hear more of this in the future. The meeting was adjourned. THIE NOJRTH LIT1I'LJER OCK PUIBLKCS CHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET August 2, 1991 MEMO TO: Members of District Biracial Committee FROM: Mable W. Bynum, Asst. Superintendent for Desegregation SUBJECT: Postponement of August Meeting As you are aware, the Committee scheduled its next meeting for Tuesday, August 6. After consulting a majority of the committee members, Mr. Smith, Chairman Charles Hunter and I decided to postpone that meeting. Desegregation related activities have been limited and without much impact so far this summer. Consequently, a meeting at this time would be very short, therefore, we decided to provide written updated information with the understanding that a meeting will be called if necessary prior to the scheduled September third meeting. If you have questions about this update, need clarification or want to share information/ideas, please call me. YOUR INPUT IS ALWAYS WELCOMED! Desegregation Plan Hearings Upon review of an earlier ruling, Judge Webber-Wright absolved the District of any responsibility for incorporating aspects of the revised December, 1989 plan. However, the modified Settlement Agreement has not been approved. The three school districts and the Joshua Intervenors have appealed Judge Webber- Wright's decision and a September fourth appellate court hearing is scheduled. Summer School Summer programs have been successfully completed with exception of the six Pre-Kindergarten programs $Cheduled to end August 9, and a two week program for a limited number of incoming seventh grade students considered to be most at risk of failure. That program will begin Monday, August 5, at all middle school campuses. Alternative Learning Center Plans are being completed for the Alternative Education Center at Argenta School with an August 26 opening anticipated. A six member advisory committee will meet soon to review implementation P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 plans. Charles Hunter and Pat Hunter of the Biracial Committee have been a::\nk.ed to serve on that committee. Pine Building Use The District is presently accepting proposals from parties interested in leasing the building and operating an educational/community program on the site. Proposals are being accepted through August 14 with the School Board expected to make a leasing decision at the August 27 meeting. Operation Stay in School The School Board approved Mr. Smith's request to enter into an agreement with the North Little Rock Police Department to participate in \"Operation Stay In School.\" This program is designed to curb truancy in the.District. Stu~er.ts observed off school property during school hours will be requested to provide verifiable proof of an excused absence. If a student is unable to provide such proof, he/she will be detained at the Alternative Education Center un ti 1 returned to school or home. 'rhis program was developed during the 1989 legislative session. Drug Policy Being Prepared The School Board also approved Mr. Smith's request to pursue the development cf a policy mandating drug testing for all per~onnel assigned to drive vehicles owned or leased by the District. Copies of policies from other school districts and companies have been reviewed by personnel and the Board will be requested to take action on a pre-tmployment drug screening policy at a special meeting called for August 6. Staffing Most vacancies have been filled. As we approach the school we are anticipating more vacancies to occur. very few black applicants for certified positions. contracted a few, but our numbers are certainly not you know of possible candidates, I encourage you to the Personnel Office as soon as possible. opening of We have seen We huve exciting. If refer them to NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting on 9/3/91 The North Little Rock Biracial Committee met on September 3, 1991, nt 5:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following committee members were in attendance: Mr. Charles Hunter - Chairperson, Mr. Dan Floyd, Mr. Thomas Baskins, Mrs. Michelle Poole, Mr. Robert Johnson, Mrs. Gayle Wing, Mrs. Opal Goldsby, Mrs. Valencia Power, Miss Anita Cameron, Mrs. Susan Shaunfield, and Mrs. Sue Bennett. Administrative staff attending: Mr. James Smith, Mrs. Mable Bynum, Mr. Bobby Acklin, Mr. Gene Jones, Mr. Jim Morris, Mr. Dana Chadwick, and Mr. Greg Daniels. Anita Cameron was appointed recorder for the meeti11g. The conwittee heard updates from the following divisions: Instruction - Mr. Jones updated the computer lab status -- there are now 28 station labs in each elementary school. Wiring at all facilities should be completed by the end of the month. He added that Belwood and Crestwood are implementing an experimental program that links classroom instruction with computer-assisted instruction. (Computers are placed in the classrooms rather than in a separate lab.) On early childhood projects, he stated that the District had been awarded a $106,000 grant from \"A Better Chance.\" The HIPPY program will be expanded to include Doone Park and Central. A pre-school center for thirty-sjx 3-4 year olds is being implemented at Central. Priority placement will be given to (1) children of high school students, (2) children who cannot be serviced by HIPPY, artd (3) handicapped children. A $152,000 \"Even Start\" grant has been received to provide adult education programs, part-time nursin9 care/immunizatio11, and additional para-professionals to work with housing project residf~nts. The Alternative School, housed in the old Argenta building, is providing services in a number of areas - (1) Student Assignment Classes (SAC) from both high school campuses, (2) Special Education classes, (3) Behavioral classes, (4) instruction for poorly to non-functional secondary students. The Child Study Center will work with the Alternative School popula t.ion, prov idiug therapeutic counseling. Plans are bein9 explored to work with Shorter College to provide college credit classes for Alternative School students. Mr. Jones further stated that over one thousand students wPre served through a variety of summer programs. Mr. Baskins asked how the administration felt with some of the charges made in the Joshua report. He wondered if there was any validity to the statement involving the sensitivity of the Principal at the West Campus regdrding suspensions. Mr. Acklin responded to the question by assuring Mr. Baskins that he had personally reviewed the suspensions and that we should see the actions happening and look at preventive measures. Ile also felt the monitoring team would find thE:re was nothir.g racial in the discipline referrals. The committee discussed other items mentioned by the Joshua Committee. One detail mentioned was the lack of knowledge about a multicultural curriculum. Mrs. Bynum explained there was a difference in phrasing. She said we used the term \"multicultural infusement.\" Mrs. Bynum said she would check with Mr. Jones ior the next meeting for a report on the infusion of this information. Mrs. Valencia Power mentioned it would seem difficult to do a thorough job in the two hours the team visited. Mr. Ilunter then asked if we should let them know what we are doiny. Mr. Smith said we will respond to the School Board, to this committee, and everywhere we have an opportunity. Mr. Smith said he believed that is what they expect. Mr. Morris said monitoring is a new process to all of us and we feel a need to respond to all questions. We are learniny together. 'l'he committee then moved to the ncY.t item on the agenda. Bynum told the committee that we need a member from Zone was a discussion of the location of the zone. She asked recommendations from the committee. Mrs. 1. There for Mr. Hunter asked if anyone would consider being a reccrder for the next year instead of rotating among educators. He said it is difficult to find a volunteer each month. Mrs. Bennett said she would serve as recorder if Mr. Hunter would consider another term as chairperson. Mrs. Bynum, serving as moderator, then asked the committee to consider making nomination::\nfor a new committee chairperson. Mr. Baski11s nominated Mr. Uunter. The nomination was closed. All members voled for Mr. Hunter to continue as chsirperson. Mr. Hunter resumed control of the meeting. Mr. Baskins then nominated Mrs. Gayle Wing for Vice-Chairperson. The nomination was closed. All members voted wjth a show cf hands for Gayle Wing as Vice-Chairperson. The committee agreed to meet on October 1, at 5:30 p.m., at the Alternative School facility (previously known as Argenta Elementary School). Meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. aw 'fHE NOJR'fH LIITilLE !ROCK Plffi~~1C SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR 3TREET NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Meeting on 9/25/91 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation team met on September 25, 1991, at 2:00 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members attended the meeting: Mrs. Mable Bynum, Mr. James Smith, Mr. Bobby Acklin, Mr. Donald Watkins, Mr. Gene Jones, Ms. Scharmel Bolling, and Mr. Greg Daniels. Mrs. Bynum opened the meeting by stating that she had invited Mrs. Ann Brown and her staff from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Mrs. Bynum introduced Mrs. Brown, and she in turn asked her staff to introduce themselves and explain their areas of responsibilities. Mr. Horace Smith introduced himself. He had previously worked with the Equity Assistance Center with the State Department of Education. He explained that his areas of responsibility with the Desegregation Monitoring Office would be as follows: Secondary Education, Staffing, Staff Development, Student Activities and Achievement. These areas entail the following: staff development, multicultural curriculum and infusion, secondary curriculum, instructional practices - secondary, library and media services, athletics and extracurricular activities, staff recruitment, hiring and distribution, student progress, achievement disparity, racial isolation/grouping of students, computer assisted instruction, new course offerings, bi-racial committees and incentive schools. Miss Connie Hickman was next to introduce herself. Miss Hickman had just recently passed the bar exam. She explained her areas of responsibility as follows: Community Involvement, Legal Information, District Policies. These areas entail the following: special programs (e.g. Asset), student recruitment, school volunteer programs, school/community partnership programs, New Futures, public relations, parent education, PTA/parent involvement programs, community resources, legal obligations and issues, policies and procedures, due process for staff and students and incentive schools. Mrs. Margie Powell introduced herself. Mrs. Powell described her duties as follows: Special Programs and Student Support Services. These areas entail the following: discipline, expulsions, and suspensions, dropout prevention/statistics, dropout prevention/ P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 ,, statistics, attendance, safety and security, extended day and year programs, compensatory/remedial programs, guidance and counseling, special education, gifted education, alternative programs, evaluation/testing/test scores, federal programs, vocational education and incentive schools. Mrs. Melissa Guldin introduced hersel~ and described her duties as follows: Early Childhood, Elemelltary Education, Student Assignments, School Categories. These areas entail the following: HIPPY and city-wide ECE programs, early childhood and four year old programs, daycare programs, elementary curriculum, instructional practices - elementary, magnet interdistrict, and area schools, incentive schools, facilities 2nd capacities, new school construction and expar,sion, desegregaticn t:ransfers, m-to-m transfers, student assignment processes, school racial bal\u0026amp;nce and transportation services. Mr. Bob Morgan introduced himself as a part time employee with the office. He described his responsibilities as: Finance and Computers, which include settlement monies, financial accountability, computer tracking of students and academic progress and data processing. Mrs. Brown complimented her team and stressed that her staff were given responsibility of the duties as assigned. She stated that each of her staff were available to be called upon at any time for assistance to the three districts. She said that the monitoring of her office would not be a process of trying to catch a district ir. failure to be in compliance with the Court Order, but to work with the districts to make sure that the provisions were being implerr,ented and timelines were being met. She said that Judge Webber-Wright placed emphasis on the implementation of early childhood programs, middle school programs, racial balance and incentive programs. Mrs. Brown further stated that in the monitoring of our schcols, they did not want the school personnel to feel uncomfortable in anyway. She said that she and her staff would be visiting with the principals in the schools, and that her office would report back to us after each monitoring visit and observatic.,n. Mrs. Bynum asked Mrs. Brown if we would be made aware of their schedule in visiting the schools. Mrs. Brown assured us that we would have a schedule. She also said she and her staff wanted to correlate their monitoring with the ether groups that would also be monitoring. She said that emphasis would be placed on ider.tifying priority areas. She stated that they have determir\ned three areas that they will be requesting information on from us, and a blanket request for information needed. She stressed that although they were appointed to serve the court, they want to work as partners with the districts to assure that the very best education was available for all students. Mrs. Brown stressed that the monitoring visits from her office would be on an informal basis. They would be auditing the provisions of the plan from a legal aspect. Mr. Smith expressed his confidence in the capabilities of our District's administrators and assured Mrs. Brown that our group would cooperate and work with her staff in anyway requested. Miss Hickman asked by what means we had come up with the present monitoring forms we were using. Mrs. Bynum responded that all three of the Distiicts had worked together in trying to produce a workable set of forms and that some revisions would be made from last year's forms. Mrs. Brown stressed the need to get away from so much data and point out what was working best. Nr. Jones questioned to what extent would the Early Childhood Education programs be monitored. Mrs. Brown responded that it was reasonable to agree that early childhood program would greatly impact on disparity in education, and these programs would be one of the priorities. Mr. Morgan said that one of their main goals would be to see a reduction in disparities. Mr. Jones inquired as to whether the Office of Desegregation Monitoring would be concentrating only on the provisions of the court approved plan or including programs, activities beyond the plan. Mrs. Brown responded that in her opinion there would be some portions of one District's program ~lans which would be beneficial for other districts, and that she did not see things in isolation. Miss Hickrnann explained that the staff was currently reviewing all plans to establish base-line requirements in order to better determine what to specifically monitor. Mrs. Bynum stated that the North Little Rock School District officials would have concrns over parameters used after the baseline was established since the plan provisions were already court approved. Mrs. Bynum reminded the Office of Desegregation Monitoring staff of their scheduled visit with other district administrutors on Monday, September 30, 1991. Meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting on October 1, 1991 The North Little Rock Districtwide Biracial Committee met October 1, 1991, at 5:30 p.m. at the Alternative School (formerly Argenta Elementary). Roll call was taken, and the following members were present: Thomas Baskins, Sue Bennett, Anita Cameron, Dan Floyd, Charles Hunter, Pat Hunter, Robert Johnson, Sheryll Lipscomb, Artha Minton, Michelle Poole, Valencia Power, Arlean Robertson, Rochester Rodgers, Felix Thibault, Belinda White, Gayle Wing, and Ivory Young. Charles Hunter called the meeting to order and then introduced our special guest, Dr. Steve Phaup. He introduced the administrators and Democrat reporter, Danny Shameer. Dr. Phaup stated that the ninth grade drop out rate in North Little Rock is as high as 33 percent by the time that class graduates. It is hoped that the Alternative School will reduce the drop-out rate and offer the students that come an opportunity to be successful. It is further stated that students who are expelled, suspended, and/or put on homebound can now benefit from the curriculum of the Alternative School. Presently, there are 42 students enrolled. The Alternative School is an option for students who otherwise cannot adjust to a regular school environment. Nancy Moore explained the alternative program and stressed that she hoped the student's needs will be met as individuals. The school has 19 people on its staff, seven of whom are male. The center's programs include: 1. Two elementary-level alternative classrooms for academically capable students who cannot succeed in a regular classroom environment. 2. Two special education classrooms, one for elementarylevel children and the other for secondary-level children. 3. The Child Study Center, where psychologists work with students. The psychologists are based at the center, but also go to the city's other schools. In addition, the center will have a drug counselor who works in other schools. 4. North Little Rock High School's student assignment class, a three or four day in-school suspension program. 5. A drop-off point for truants found by the North Little Rock Police Department. 6. An Alternative School on the first floor for seventh through twelfth grade. 7. Saturday School, a four-hour suspension program for non-violent students who break school rules during the week. During the tour, Mrs. Moore stated that\n\"The Alternative School is not for bad children, but for round pegs that don't fit into square holes.\" After the tour, the committee went to the cafeteria for refreshments and a discussion of the tour. Mr. Baskins commented that Mrs. Moore shows a positive attitude that this should help the school succeed. He commended her for that attitude. Mrs. Robertson stated she thought a positive attitude would keep more order in our schools. Dr. Phaup added the program was modeled after a program in Jonesboro, but has been expanded and adapted to our needs. He said that program seemed to be off to a good start. Mr. Smith discussed the fact that too many of our students were ending up on the streets. He said our goal here in North Little Rock is to have a place for every student. Mrs. Moore added, she hoped the Alternative School would be a haven for students having pain. Miss Cameron questioned if there would be a place for the large n~mber of pregnant girls that are in schools today. Dr. Phaup responded that we will be as flexible as we need to be to meet the needs of that particular group. After the discussion of the Alternative School, Mr. Hunter brought up the vacant slot for a Zone 1 patron. He said there are slots for other minorities. He asked for help from the committee to find likely candidates. Mrs. Bynum thanked the committee and patrons for giving of their time and efforts. She also discussed the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference to be held October 31 and November 1, at the Little Rock Hilton. She encouraged all members of the committee to attend. Mrs. Bynum also stated that the district would be able to pay the fees for a group of North Little Rock School District Representatives. The next meeting was set for November 5, at 5:30 p.rn. The meeting was then adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sue Bennett Recorder aw NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting on December 3, 1991 The North Little Rock Districtwide Biracial Committee met December 3, 1991, at 5:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administrative Building. Roll call was taken, and the following members were present: Sue Bennett, Charles Hunter, Pat Hunter, Robert Johnson, Opal Goldsby, Lori Pledger, Valencia Power, Felix Thibault, Gayle Wing, and Ivory Young. Mable Bynum, Jim Morris, Bobby Acklin, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford and James Smith were present from the administrative office. Charles Hunter called the meeting to order and asked for Mrs. Bynum to give an update. Mrs. Bynum stated that monitoring began with three schools today. She said some of our committee members are involved in that process, (e.g., Mr. Baskins is a member of a team, and he will share his experiences at the next meeting). She also mentioned Dan Floyd is on the Lynch Drive team and Michele Poole with Baring Cross. School monitoring will go through December 17th. A discussion centered around the role of the Equity Committee and its changing role in assessing strengths and areas of concern. The committee can be used to give feedback to the principal and to function as a sounding board. Some improvements in this year's monitoring include involving the principals more actively. Mrs. Bynum said, \"We learn as we go.\" Mrs. Bynum also apprised the committee of the Joshua Group's report. She said the group informed the administrative office they had written their primary reports. When they are received, the results will come to this committee. There was some discussion of the lack of interviews with the team after their visit. Mr. Hunter asked if the Joshua Group plans to do this very often. Mr. Thibault was concerned that the visits may be disruptive and asked if the Joshua Group notified the school before a visit. Mr. Smith told us the schools are informed. Mr. Smith gave an update on the court actions. He stated the unofficial word is that we will be back in court on December 16.\" Mr. Thibault expressed frustration that lots of money, which could be used for educating students, is going to attorneys. He asked if there was any hope of getting the school district out of court. Pat Hunter suggested some school systems were able to get out of the courts and perhaps we could find out how they achieved this end. Mr. Smith replied that the ability to get out of court depends on the court. The Eight Circuit Court does not see fit to release us. As a result, we will seek help from this committee on where to make cuts in our budget. Mr. Smith said we will need feedback from this committee. He also stated, \"We will continue to do the things we told the court we would do\nhowever, the players as well as the expectations of the court continue to change\nit is like a moving target.\" Mrs. Wing asked for an update on the STORM team. She mentioned that STORM started as a program for young black males to help other young black males and she wondered if it had been expanded to include white girls. Mrs. Bynum said there are thirty-two high school students assigned and they are going out to the elementary schools this week. She said STORM started in three schools and has grown to seven. She also mentioned the program has grown to capacity without hiring a full-time coordinator and there are no funds for additional staff. Mr. Johnson stated, \"There is potential to make a real difference here.\" He asked if there are grants or funding available from other sources. Mrs. Goldsby asked if a mini-grant might be useful. Mr. Johnson wondered if there were graduate students wanting to work on a project with the schools. Mrs. Bennett asked how the Community Service Committee (a committee studying the feasibility of requiring some community service before graduation from high school) was proceeding. She said if the program is adopted\nperhaps, the STORM team and similar projects could be considered community service. Mr. Chadwick stated the next meeting is in January, and at that time the Community Service Committee is going to discuss developing a pilot program involving community service. The plan is to utilize students from the East Campus. Mr. Johnson thinks community service is a great idea. He watched a young girl develop sensitivity and maturity after working with the United Cerebral Palsy last summer. The final discussion involved the Resource Police Officers on campus. Mr. Smith told us he had heard only positive comments. Mr. Hunter asked if it would be possible for us to invite Officer White (resource officer from the East Campus) to our next meeting. Mr. Smith said they usually come to extracurricular activities such as ball games and they probably wouldn't mind coming to our meeting. Now the city is working on a grant for an officer in the elementary schools. After deciding there were no further concerns, the committee decided to meet in the Board Room on January 7, 1992, at 5:30 p.m. for the next meeting. In the event of snow, the meeting will be cancelled. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Sue Bennett Recorder NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting on November 5, 1991 The North Little Rock Biracial Committee met on November 5, 1991, at 5:30 p.m. in the media center of Central Elementary School. The following committee members were in attendance: Arlean Robertson, Ivory Young, Opal Goldsby, Arnette Dotson, Lori Pledger, Susan Shaunfield, Gayle Wine, Thomas Baskins, Michele Poole, Valencia Power, Dan Floyd, Felix Thibault and Robert Johnson. The administrative staff members present were James Smith, Jim Morris, Dana Chadwick and Mable Bynum. Anita Cameron was ill and unable to attend. Jake Sandlin from the DemocratGazette represented the media. Mr. Hunter had sent word he would be late, so Gayle Wing opened the meeting. Mrs. Wing asked for an update on the District news. Mrs. Bynum stated she had talked with Mable Mitchell about our search for a patron from zone one. She said she was pleased to have a new member who had consented to represent that zone, and she introduced the new member, Lori Pledger. Then the committee introduced themselves to Lori. Mrs. Bynum gave the committee some background on the establishment of Central as an elementary school. She informed them it was created from the merger of Argenta and Pine Elementary Schools. She also introduced the Principal of Central Elementary, Kaye Lowe. Mr. Smith, The Superintendent of the North Little Rock School District, thanked the committee for their input and help on planning the joining of the two schools. Mrs. Goldsby commented that she thought the plan had been successful, and as a teacher on the site, she said she was enjoying the school. She also commented that there were fewer discipline problems. Mr. Smith stated he believed part of the reason for the improvement of discipline was the workshops given called \"Discipline with Dignity.\" The premise it is based on (Respect, Responsibility, and Love) seems to work. The next item on the agenda was a tour of the building. The tour, led by the principal, proceeded through several classrooms and the gym with a stop in the room for three/four year old students. Mrs. Lowe explained the program which serves children whose parents are now attending our high school and other high risk children. Next, the group moved to the computer lab. Letitia Martin, Instructional Computer Coordinator, and Cedric Black, Instructional Aide, were introduced to the entourage. Mrs. Martin explained that every day each student has time on the computer that is programmed for different levels so that all students may work on their own grade levels. Each committee member was given time to experiment and see a demonstration of the programs previously explained. After each person had some time with the program, Mrs. Martin answered questions from the group. The committee returned to the media center for comments and a discussion of the next meeting place and agenda. The comments were favorable and positive for extending the computer program. Mrs. Bynum reported that school-based desegregation teams had been names and would be trained soon. She also mentioned the Joshua Interveners site visits with resulting report would be completed soon, and the committee will be informed of the results when they arrive. Mr. Smith suggested we look at Ridgeroad Middle those who have not seen the recent renovations. check the calendar for meeting at Ridgeroad and there are no conflicts, the committee will meet Middle School on December 3, 1991, at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sue Bennett, Recorder aw School next for Mrs. Bynum will let us know. If at Ridgeroad NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting The North Little Rock Biracial Committee met on January 7, 1992, at 5:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administrative Office. The following committee members were in attendance: Thomas Baskins, Sue Bennett, Anita Cameron, Dan Floyd, Charles Hunter, Pat Hunter, Robert Johnson, Sheryll Lipscomb, Michelle Poole, Valencia Power, Susan Shaunfield, Felix Thibault, and Ivory Young. The administrative staff present were Mable Bynum, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Jim Morris, and James Smith. Jake Sandlin from the Democrat-Gazette represented the media. Garry Canady and Frank White were in attendance as guest speakers. Mr. Hunter opened the meeting with the introduction of Officers Canady and White. He explained that Garry and Frank are North Little Rock patrol officers assigned to the two North Little Rock High School campuses. Officer Canady works at the West Campus and Officer White works at the East Campus. (In August 1991, following City Council approval, the North Little Rock School District became the first in Arkansas to implement the Police Officers Resource Program being used nationally.) Mr. Hunter asked about their job and how it is going. Frank White said, \"Things are going well\". He said he began the year not wearing a uniform to ease into a teaching and public relation role. He said, \"I zeroed in on developing a rapport with the students and I am now beginning to see the results.\" Teachers were notified of different areas available for presentations. There have been 87 total presentations since the beginning of school. In addition, there have been 45 counseling sessions. Officer Canady explained that his approach is somewhat different. He has been working with students missing school and said there has been a drop in the number of students not attending. Garry said one of the services he provides is in helping the special education students get ready for their drivers' tests. He helps them study, takes them to take the test, and gives them the test. Twenty-five of twenty-nine have passed the test. Robert Johnson asked the officers if the students are confiding in them. Garry said yes, they do come by and talk. Garry said he has worked with the SADD group to procure a vehicle. The vehicle was placed on display for posters, etc. Charles Hunter asked the officers if there is a way to help them. Frank White said, \"There is a meeting of ssociation of Resource Officers. It could be new ideas to expand the program. The pport for the officers' attendance would be quested information concerning the students' recent fight at the East Campus. Officer White nts were supportive and concerned, and some Nanted a description of the fight. There was ~he crime rate in North Little Rock and in the discubsion reflected optimism that fighting in down. Officer Canady felt that the Resource ., and the curfew might be having an effect. 2xpressed their approval of the officers' work ~pplause. Mr. Hunter asked if there were other . Bynum mentioned the next court date is he also said, \"There will be a staff -gram concerning prejudice reduction _ixty people will be trained and then these in all secondary staff members.\" Mr. Floyd lt it is not good to be part of a monitoring Jwn school. He felt someone personally - be objective. Mrs. Bynum agreed but stated a staff member might be aware of a problem be addressed otherwise. Ms. Cameron suggested ~ea feedback for the Officer Resource Program J directly to the students. Mr. James Smith ,meron also asked for an update of the 1001 at the next meeting. Mr. Hunter closed by ~ meet again at 5:30 in the Board Room J2. However, if there is not an agenda, the ill be in March. 0 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Mee~ing on July 7, 1992 The North Little Rock Districtwide Biracial Committee m~t on July 7, 1992, at 5:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Central Office. The following corumictee members were present: Robert Johnson, Anita Cdltleron, Amanda wart, Pat Hunttr, Lori Pledger, Charles Hunter, Susan Shaunfield, Michelle Poole, Felix Thibault and Ivury Young. Jim Morris, Esther Crawford, Mable Bynum, and Dana Chadwick were also pLesent from the Central Office Staff. Charles Hunter opened the meeting with a discussion of the spring monitoring report. He asked for comments and questions regarding the report. A synopsis by Mable Bynum revealed that all schvols were in compliance with the student assignment plan and that the concerns from monitoring committees generally dealt with the ~ame weaknesses found during previous monitoring periods. She also stated that specific concerns from each building were directed to the proptr departments. Mr. Johnson comrnetted that discipline reports show the numbe of \"weapon related infrdctions\" and \"gang related activities\" were down. Possibilities for this were discussed including the Saturday Schoel alternative and the presence and effecciveness of the police officers in the High Schools. Felix Thibault questioued the frequency of monitoring schools twice each year. Mrs. Bynum related thac there is improvement in many cases from one monitoring periud tu the next and tha~ is important to note. Mr. Hunter concluded that even though the process is slow, it is reas~uLing tu know that we (the district) are duing something about it. Mrs. Bynum updated progress in the court hearings relating that the \"Incentive Schools\" were undergving municvriug reports at this time dnd as more informatiun was known, it would be reported. Dana Chadwick reported thac the new Mdth/Science Specialty High School has uot revealed entrance requirements as this is a planning year for the school. Mrs. Bynum gave each member copies of the North Little Rock Desegregation Plan and the Inttrdistrict Pldn which has been accepted as presented to the courts. Members were asked to read the plan~ for familiarity and they will be explained in detail at an early fall Biracial meeting. The last order of busintss on the agenda conce..cned filling the vacancies that will open from thuse members who served a two year term. Cha..clel::\u0026gt; Huntt:!r encouraged members to consider extending their ttrms and continue to serve on the Biracial Committee. Mrs. Bynum will cvntact these members to find out their intentious. She will also pc,11 committee members who hdve nut dttended meeting~ un a regular basis. Additionally, there are two slc,ts that could be filled by other minuritits. The Hispanic/American populatiun is incr~asing in our Di~trict every year, particularly in the elementary grades. District personl!tl and Biracial Committee members will try tu identify possible committee members from other minority groups. Members present voted to meet again September 1, 1992. SS:aw North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting on September 1, 1992 The North Little Rock Districtwide Biracial Committee met on September 1, 1992, at 5:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following committee members were present: Charles Hunter, Dan Floyd, Robert Johnson, Sheryl Lipscomb, Anita Cameron, Ivory Young, Artha Minton, Thomas Baskins, Pat Hunter, Arlean Robertson and Michelle Poole. The following administrative staff were pr~sent: James Smith, Mable Bynum, Dana Chadwick, Bobby Acklin, Jim Morris, Gene Jones, Esther Crawford and Greg Daniels. Chairman Charles Hunter called the meeting to order and opened discussion of the quarterly Status Report mailed to members for study prior to the meeting. Mr. Baskins questioned the need for such a lengthy report and Mrs. Bynum replied that it was court ordered. Mrs. Bynum also informed the committee that our request, from a previous meeting, for yearly monitoring reports rather than semester monitoring reports will be referred to the Desegregation Monitor's office and that she will wait for a response. Copies of the North Little Rock School District and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans were distributed to members not in attendance at the July meeting. Robert Johnson asked Gene Jones if a follow-up plan for students served by HIPPY and other pre-school programs had been devised. Mr. Jones responded that a coding system for permanent record information was being studied but had not been implemented. Mr. Johnson suggested that some system for checking the influence of these programs on student behavior should also be considered. He also suggested that the follow up could be used to channel funding into the programs proven most effective. Chairman Hunter requested that Mr. Jones provide the committee with an update on programs. Mr. Jones noted an expansion in the 3-4 year program and stated that 375 children were being serviced through HIPPY, Even Start and Arkansas Better Chance programs. Mr. Jones said that many students being serviced through the PALS Lab at the West Campus were testing above the highest level. He added that Prejudice Reduction Training sessions had been held for all transportation and food service workers and had been met with positive results. The Alternative School program has been expanded to include a class for special education students previously served through homebound services and a class for K-1 students with severe behavioral problems. He added that initial district enrollment figures reflect an increase of 100 students from 1991-92, even though kindergarten enrollment dropped by four students from the previous year. Mr. Hunter asked if the Cooperative Discipline program model had been presented to the staff? Mr. Jones responded that materials had been purchased and presented to building administrators during a two-day training session. These trained administrators then presented the information to their staffs during building level pre-school sessions. Mrs. Bynum asked Mr. Jones to explain the addition of a social worker to the support staff. He stated that Bobbie Riggins had been assigned to deal with pregnant girls and student mothers. Her duties include assisting the students in obtaining services provided by the Department of Human Services and assisting those who had dropped out in returning to school. Anita Cameron had positive comments about the initial phase of the program at the West Campus. Mr. Baskins asked Mr. Smith if the teacher dispute was likely to be settled soon and Mrs. Bynum asked to delay response on the issue until later in the meeting. Mrs. Bynum reported that District student handbooks had been received and revised by the Discipline Committee. She provided committee members with copies of each organizational level handbook. Mr. Acklin stated that he and Mr. Haynie, Transportation Director, were still \"working the bugs out\" of the student transportation assignments. Jim Morris was asked to address personnel concerns. He stated that there were no vacancies and that all but two of the employees affected by the RIF Policy had been reinstated or had been employed elsewhere. On the minority hiring problem, Mr. Morris stated that there were two new minority elementary teachers hired. Mrs. Bynum added that a gifted/talented teacher position and choral music teacher position had been filled by minorities. In reference to Mr. Baskins question concerning the teacher dispute, Mr. Smith reported that today had been the deadline for submitting stipulations and that negotiations were continuing in other areas. Mr. Baskins asked if a strike was likely. Mr. Smith said he hoped not but couldn't say. Mr. Smith then handed out a list of suggested expenditures (see attached) if the refinancing of bonds is approved at the September 15 election. Anita Cameron asked about publicity efforts on this issue. Mr. Smith responded that he had discussed it with various PTA groups and had provided information to the North Little Rock Times. Mrs. Bynum noted that some of the recommended expenditures were a direct result cf monitoring reports. Mr. Smith noted that transportation problems discussed earlier were a direct result of busses that needed to be replaced and noted that one of the suggested expenditures was for new busses. Mr. Johnson asked if the district had explored the possibility of natural gas/propane busses. Mr. Floyd stated that, due to increased costs for these fuels, a real savings would not be realized. Mr. Hunter advised the committee that committee member, Robert Johnson, was seeking a school board position in the September 15 election and wished him good luck. Mr. Hunter announced that the next meeting would be held on the first Tuesday in October at 5:30 p.m. The meeting adjourned. AC:aw I RECEiVED NOV 9 19'2 omce of Dasegreg~\\iMJno nitor~,g NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting on October 6, 1992 The North Little Rock Biracial Committee met on October 6, 1992, at 5:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following committee members were in attendance: Thomas Baskins, Sue Bennett, Anita Cameron, Caryn Duckery, Pat Hunter, Robert Johnson, Michelle Poole, Valencia Walker, Rev. Rochester Rodgers, Antonio Franco, Amanda Ware, Gayle Wing and Felix Thibault. The following administrative staff were in attendance: Mable Bynum, Dana Chadwick, Jim Morris, Greg Daniels and Bobby Acklin. The meeting was called to order by Vice President, Gayle Wing. Mable Bynum introduced and welcomed the two new members, Caryn Duckery and Antonio Franco. Mrs. Bynum also expressed the committee and school district's appreciation to Robert Johnson for his dedication to the district in running for the School Board. Mr. Johnson said he enjoyed the opportunity to say some things. He talked about having viewed an AETN broadcast about a program named MICRO being implemented in an elementary school with low standardized test scores. He said the school was organized like a micro community with banks, legislature, etc. Robert said he hoped we could investigate the organization of a program similar to this one. After a discussion of this school program, Mrs. Wing informed the committee that this was the time for new officers to be elected. The committee discussed the re-election of Charles Hunter for President. Mrs. Bynum told the committee that Mr. Hunter had called to apologize for not being able to attend, but he wanted it known that he thought other people should share the chairmanship. Anita Cameron nominated Robert Johnson for President. Felix Thibault seconded the motion and all voted in favor. Mr. Thibault then nominated Thomas Baskins for Vice President. Valencia Walker seconded and all voted in favor. Pat Hunter was nominated recording Secretary by Amanda Ware and seconded by Anita Cameron. All voted in favor. Following the election of officers, the 1992-93 enrollment data with a break down of racial composition of schools was furnished to each member. The data excluded kindergarten enrollment. Mrs. Bynum explained to the committee that our court plan says that each spring we must revisit enrollment within two points of compliance at each school. Our 1992-93 approved percent range for black enrollment is 37.9% - 63.1% for elementary and 35.9% - 59.8% for secondary. There was a discussion of our overall enrollment figures and 1992-93 enrollment numbers were compared with 1991-92. They are as noted below: Elementary Secondary District 1991-92 5083 (49.4% black) 4181 (43.9% black) 9264 (46.9% black) 1992-93 5116 (50.3% black) 4135 (45.8% black) 9251 (48.3% black) Mrs. Bynum furnished information regarding 1992-93 certified staffing percentages by race and gender as of October 1, 1992. Mr. Morris mentioned that eight of the thirteen teachers RIFed were recalled. Three of five not recalled were black. Mr. Johnson asked about recruiting black elementary counselors. Mr. Morris said that counselors must teach first so recruiting is done for teachers and then counselors are promoted from within. Mr. Chadwick told the group we can recruit from six counselor educator programs around the state. He related to the committee there had been a tri-district reception to encourage interested teachers to become counselors. He also mentioned there were several counselors around 40 years old who would be retiring about the same time and there would be a need to do some recruiting for several positions about the same time. Amanda Ware asked if she could talk about the Joshua Intervenor's visit. She said some of the teachers were upset about the monitoring. She said the teachers were concerned about the interruption of class time and there was some berating of the teachers. Mrs. Bynum mentioned that the District's Desegregation team had met with the intervenors and she had hoped that all would follow a procedure that would be more productive than in the past. The committee seemed to agree there appeared to be a lack of adequate inservice on monitoring that was causing the. problem. Mr. Thibault asked if the committee should put forth a letter requesting that the monitors develop and adhere to guidelines for more appropriate monitoring procedures? Mr. Johnson suggested the proper course of action would be to approach Mr. Smith and come to an agreement with him before taking any other action. He promised to report back to the committee on this matter. The committee agreed to adjourn until November 10, 1992. Mrs. Bynum will check to see if the Parent Center Annex would be available for the next meeting. SB:aw OCT 1 5 \\993 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Ollice of DesegregatioMn onitoring North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting on September 7, 1993 The North Little Rock School District Biracial Committee met on September 7, 1993, at 5:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administrative Building. The following members were present: Anita Cameron, Tammy Collier, Caryn Duckery, Dan Floyd, Antonio Franco, Charles Hunter, Pat Hunter, Robert Johnson, Arlean Robertson-Ford, Felix Thibault, and Valencia Walker. The administration was represented by the following: Bobby Acklin, Mable Bynum, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Greg Daniels, Gene Jones, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Chairman Robert Johnson called the meeting to order by welcoming the members back to the first meeting of the new school year. He announced that several members were unable to attend because of prior commitments. Chairman Johnson stated that he had planned a brainstorming session for this meeting to come up with items and information to focus on during the year. He continued by saying that during last years' meetings the committee had looked at different sections of the Desegregation Plan. He asked the committee what would be their response if they were asked by a patron, parent, or by Judge Webber-Wright, to explain where the North Little Rock School District was in compliance with implementing the required mandated plan, if they would be able to do so in an effective manner? After a brief discussion, it was concluded that most members were well informed. Chairman Johnson stressed the importance that the members primary responsibility was to be well informed about the plan and continue a monitoring process, in order to give advice and recommendations for improvement to the Administrators and the Board of Education. Using an easel and pad, Robert suggested that they make a list of items for study and focus during the regularly scheduled meetings. Felix Thibault suggested that the issue of academic achievement disparity should be a priority. Greg Daniels spoke to the development of a data base for longitudinal study of student achievement. He continued by stating that he had already begun a data base information for the pre-school students where the students can be evaluated as they come up through the system so that we can look at how effectively the different programs are working. Mr. Smith addressed the fact that so many patrons, parents, and the courts are not totally aware of how very low the test scores are for some students when they enter school. Mr. Jones commented that they are often in the 25 percentile. Mr. Smith said that in evaluating our progress of student achievement, Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting on Sept.ember 7, 1993 page 2 the factorof where the students were at the beginning should weigh heavily in measuring our success. Anita Cameron stated that many of the disparity reduction and remedial actions we have taken are at the early levels, and we have an immense need to take action at the secondary level to help students meet graduation requirements and retention of these students. She stressed that many of the students end up as drop-outs. A brief discussion followed with it being pointed out that teachers can in many cases identify these students at the elementary level, and some students are promoted without acquiring the necessary skills and grades to acquire enough credits for graduation, thus when they reach the ninth, tenth, or eleventh grades they become disillusioned and end up dropping from school. Arlean Robertson-Ford suggested that vocational programs started at the seventh grade level through the twelfth grade level would enable some students to obtain enough skills in some area to give incentive to complete graduation. Anita Cameron suggested that this could include some type of apprenticeship program. Robert Johnson spoke to the issue of students' perception of themselves and the black/white issue addressed at the previous meeting in June. He stressed the impact of the students' own self-esteem. Arlene Robertson-Ford addressed the issue. She pointed out that the lack of self-esteem in students could be helped by teachers, if they would take the time to identify these students that come from homes where they receive very little motivation or encouragement. These students need that extra attention given to them at the school site to boost their self concept. Robert Johnson asked if the district's teachers understood the Desegregation Plan? Anita Cameron responded that she thought the teachers understood the plan, but felt there was a lack of buying into the plan in their personal commitment and responsibility to the plan on the part of some teachers. The plan has been made available in each building and principals were directed to speak to their building staff concerning the Desegregation Plan during pre-school inservice sessions and at regular staff meetings. Valencia Walker stated that she felt that students need to be taught to like school and see the importance of education and the impact it will have on them in the future, before we can see a vast difference in test scores. She pointed out that many of our students' parents did not complete school, and they do not really see that it will make a difference in their own lives. She also gave examples where students were recognized for some particular achievement at school and because other students made light of it, the students were reluctant to come to the front of the room to accept the recognition and award. Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting on September 7, 1993 page 3 Arlean Robertson-Ford and Charles Hunter spoke to the issue of educating the parents. Mrs. Robertson-Ford related information from the Teachers of Tomorrow Academy materials that stressed that students should be rewarded for mistakes because it is alright to make mistakes, and adults also make mistakes. Her point being that if a student is trying to contribute to a class and he/she says something that is not necessarily correct, commend the student for his/her contribution. She also stressed that teachers should never give up trying to educate the parents if need be, because a continued effort would get results in many cases. Charles Hunter stressed the importance of educating the parents and public on the Desegregation Plan, because all they appear to know is what they read in the paper and see on the television. They really do not know exactly what the plan consists of, or the many programs offered by the North Little Rock School District. He suggested articles on programs and activities within the district. He said that he thought we had a great deal to offer the students of our area. Mrs. Bynum said she would discuss this matter with Karen Colford, the district's Communications Coordinator. Mr. Smith pointed out that the Desegregation Plan was written by the district and Judge Webber-Wright keeps telling us in court that it is our plan, and her role is to see that it is carried out. Anita Cameron spoke to the issue that the plan was written to help our educational program and the students, and that people should not see the district's programs and activities as efforts simply designed to\"get out of court.\" She stressed we are doing what needs to be done, and that we still had remaining needs. Felix Thibault spoke to his concern that many things that go before the court should be settled at the administrative level and not in the court. Robert Johnson pointed out that the district has made efforts to address concerns from monitoring groups or those from ODM in just such an effort to demonstrate good faith effort at plan compliance. Arlean Robertson-Ford suggested a group from the committee meet and put together a package of information concerning the Desegregation Plan, and let members of the Biracial Committee take it to each school, when the schools have Open House, PTA meetings, or parent sessions to meet with parents for a few minutes to explain the plan and what the district is trying to do. In summary the items and concerns identified are as follows: (1) Evaluate Programs Designed to Reduce Disparity (2) Dropout Rate/Graduation Rate (3) Look Into Apprenticeship Programs (4) Student Perceptions/Self Esteem Minutes of Districtwide Biracial Meeting on September 7, 1993 page 4 (5) Teacher Expectations of Students (6) Students See Relevance of Education/Like School (7) Continue to Educate Parents (8) Educate the Public (9) Presentations at Open House Robert Johnson asked that members choose several of the concerns that they were particularly interested in and meet in small groups at their convenience. He suggested that the groups could meet for discussion at 4:30 p.m. on October 5, 1993, prior to the regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m. Anita Cameron questioned how they should prioritize. Robert suggested that they would prioritize by commitments. Members then selected the concerns they would like to work on, and the concerns were grouped in sections of three. Mrs. Bynum related that members of the administration would be more than willing to be involved and assist in anyway they could. Robert asked that the individual groups contact Mrs. Bynum as to time and place they would meet, and if they wanted the assistance of any certain administrator to request that Mrs. Bynum handle that for them. Mr. Smith thanked the members for their dedication and services in participating in the committee stating that he appreciated them greatly, for they provided a great service to the district and community. He spoke to the issue of the millage increase vote and urged their support to help pass the millage on September 21, 1993. He pointed out that if we didn't get the increase we could eventually be forced to merge with the Little Rock and Pulaski County Districts and an automatic eight mills increase would be enforced. He stressed that the district was asking for the increase so that we could stay a separate entity and make our own decisions, instead of letting some one else make decisions for us. He furnished copies of \"Facts About the North Little Rock School Millage.\" (See Attachment 1.) The district is asking for a 3.0 mills increase for the North Little Rock School District, which would still be 4.6 mills less than Little Rock or Pulaski County Special School Districts. Mr. Smith stressed the need to have funds available to replace the desegregation funds currently being received from the settlement agreement, which will end after the 1995-96 school year. He spoke to the district's Project Link. The district has purchased two vans to provide transportation for parents and students, when it is necessary for a parent to come to school for a conference or a student to leave the campus. He said that many parents did not have transportation, and the administration thought that this might help eliminate some suspensions. The committee agreed that this was a commendable undertaking. Valencia Walker related that she had heard a secondary teacher Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting on September 7, 1993 page 5 complain that secondary students often failed to pick up their final report cards because they did not have transportation. She asked if possibly the Project Link van could be used to deliver report cards? A brief discussion followed concerning the cost involved and whether it would be less expensive to mail the report cards. Mr. Jones commented that the schools mail the report cards if a student will leave a stamped, addressed envelope in the office. It was agreed that consideration would be given to mailing these report cards if not cost prohibitive. The next item considered was the election of a Chairperson for the 1993-94 school year. Felix Thibault moved that Robert Johnson continue as Chairperson if he was willing to do so. The motion was seconded by Charles Hunter. Mrs. Bynum called for a vote. YEAS: Anita Cameron, Tammy Collier, Caryn Duckery, Dan Floyd, Antonio Franco, Charles Hunter, Pat Hunter, Arlean Robertson-Ford, Robert Johnson, Felix Thibault, Valencia Walker NAYS: None Charles Hunter moved that other officers would be elected at the October meeting. The motion was seconded by Anita Cameron. Mrs. Bynum called for a vote. YEAS: Anita Cameron, Tammy Collier, Carny Duckery, Dan Floyd. Antonio Franco, Charles Hunter, Pat Hunter, Arlean Robertson-Ford, Robert Johnson, Felix Thibault, Valencia Walker NAYS: None Robert Johnson suggested that individual groups might want to get together after the meeting adjourned to discuss a time and place convenient for the groups to meet. The next meeting was set for October 5, 1993, at 5:30 p.m., to meet at the Administration Building and be transported in the Project Link vans or other district vehicles to Lynch Drive Elementary School and Rose City Elementary Alternative Center. Minutes of the Districtwide Biracial Meeting on September 7, 1993 page 6 Meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, tlv4i:w~, ATTACHM1E NT JFA\u0026lt;CT~ about the North Little Rock School Millage Election Day : Tuesday, September 21, 1993 Current millage rates in local districts: Little Rock School District millage rate Pulaski County Special School District mi11age rate ~9.~:g~1:.R~J.t:S9D1iio.so.it ri..~~.~::\n:::::D::::\n::::::m!43.9 43.9 t::tii'.M\nJt: The North Little Rock School District is asking North Little Rock citizens for an increase in the mill levy on real and personal property. The current millage rate is 36.3. The School District is proposing a rate of 39.3 mills, an increase of 3.0 mills. 1.0 mill needed for capital outlay:  continued removal of asbestos from buildings  work toward compliance with Americans With Disabilities Act  repair of parking lots and driveways  roof replacements and building repairs  equipment 2.0 mills needed to:  provide required step increases for all eligible employees. (Certified and Classified)  replace revenue that would have been produced from assessments that have been removed due to recent legislation and court opinions (includes household personal property, car dealer inventories, and manufacturer inventories).  replace loss of property assessments to Pulaski County Special School District. This millage increase will cost approximately $60.00 more per year for the homeowner with property valued at $100,000. When voters pass the 3.0 mills, the millage for North Little Rock schools will still be 4.6 mills less than our neighbors in LRSD and PCSSD. Future millage increases may be necessary in order for the District to continue to provide our children with the same opportunities as LRSD and PCSSD. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on July 13, 1993 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation team met on Tuesday, July 13, 1993, at 2:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following members attended the meeting: Mable Bynum-Chairperson, Mr. James Smith, Mr. Bobby Acklin, Mr. Jerry Massey, Mr. Jim Morris, Mr. Donald Watkins and Karen Colford. Avis Wooldridge acted as reporter for the meeting. Mrs. Bynum opened the meeting by thanking the members for changing their schedules in order to meet. She stated that the team needed to discuss some of the things that had come up in court recently and emphasized that we should begin to prepare for an audit of our plan. She re-emphasized the responsibility of the team to monitor our plan and the effectiveness of the programs implemented and progress made in meeting all requirements. Mrs. Bynum stated that business cases was also an item addressed in court by Judge Webber-Wright. She continued a discussion with Mr. Watkins clarifying that business cases had been required of the other districts so that they could justify activities and programs related to in the budget especially as it relates to the requirements of the desegregation plan and the use of desegregation money. Mrs. Bynum emphasized a critical need of justification of inclusion or exclusion of an activity or program. A brief discussion followed concerning the Order of Judge Webber-Wright that both Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts revise their budgets. Mr. Smith commented on the possibility of the other two districts depleting their desegregation money prior to the seven years it would be allotted. He stressed the importance that we do not want this to happen in the North Little Rock School District. A lengthy discussion followed concerning funding of different programs and activities with Mr. Watkins explaining the specifics of which programs and activities are funded with desegregation money and funding supplied from other sources. Mr. Watkins commented that Bob Morgan from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring had met with him to study our budgeting procedure and was pleased with the way it was presented. Mrs. Bynum reminded the team that the fourth quarterly status update information was due. She went through the list pointing Minutes of Desegregation Team Meeting July 13, 1993 page 2 out specific information required of each administrator in this report. Mr. Acklin questioned if a discipline analysis should be included in the fourth quarter report. Mrs. Bynum responded that the discipline analysis would be presented to the Board of Education at the July meeting, and then included in the fourth quarterly court update. Mrs. Bynum reported that she and Mr. Smith had met with Attorney, Steve Jones, and in discussing the status reports agreed that perhaps, the team would be wise to take additional time to talk about and study the information submitted by each administrator when a quarterly report was due, thus ensure that each administrator would have a better understanding of each other's progress. She also suggested that we could have a synopsis of what is reported. Mr. Acklin brought up the next item for discussion. He reported that the principal at North Little Rock High School-East Campus had requested a cut off of M-to-M transfers to that building, because we were at full capacity at this time. Discussion followed with team members agreeing that if records show we were at full capacity, then we would have to cut off M-to-M transfers into that building, at least until after school starts and we can get an accurate student count. If enrollment allows for openings, we can then accept new M-to-M transfers at that location. Mrs. Bynum asked Mr. Acklin how we get figures on M-to-M transfer students who perhaps will not be returning to North Little Rock School District next year? Mr. Acklin responded that we get copies of withdrawal forms on students and this information is passed on to the principals as they are processed. Mr. Morris stated that the desegregation plan orders a cooperative working relationship within the three districts. He related an incident that happened recently in Personnel which shows that the North Little Rock School District is striving to meet this requirement. We had hired a black female applicant for an elementary position and she had signed a commitment, but later asked to be released to go to work for the Little Rock School District, and we have released her. The next item discussed was plans to move the Elementary Alternative School program to the Rose City Elementary School building vacated by combining Rose City with Lynch Drive Elementary School. The high cost of portable buildings that had to be used and energy inefficiency were some of the reasoning in combining the two schools. Discussion continued concerning the use of the building by fifty or sixty students as compared to 250 Minutes of Desegregation Team Meeting July 13, 1993 page 3 to 260 students. Mr. Smith pointed out that with the removal of the portable buildings, the school was left with a large playground which the elementary students did not have now at the Alternative School building. It was agreed that by using five or six of the rooms in the Rose City Elementary School building would be much more acceptable for the elementary students assigned to the Alternative program. It was agreed that the cafeteria was adequate to accommodate this small group of students. Mr. Smith pointed out that Margie Powell from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring had endorsed this use of the building in a conversation with Gene Jones. He also stated that our attorney was advising the Joshua Intervenors of these plans, and a meeting is scheduled with Biracial Committee members to inform them of the plan and to get their input on this move. The request to move this program will be presented to the School Board at the July meeting. Mrs. Bynum stated that Mr. Jones and Mr. Hawkins, Alternative Education Center's Principal, should look at the ODM's monitoring report of the Alternative School and make sure that all concerns in the report were addressed. She stressed that an assessment of both facilities should be made prior to the move. Mr. Acklin brought up a discussion of students who try to avoid attendance at the Alternative School after being assigned. He stated that he had received a doctor's note stating that a student assigned to the school was not able to be bussed. He continued by saying that after further investigation, the note was written for another child. He stressed that some of the excuses are legitimate, but they had to be scrutinized closely. He continued by asking the other team members if they heard grumbling about these assignments to be aware that we want to encourage their attendance to the Alternative School if they have been assigned there. Mr. Smith led the next item of discussion concerning the district's need of extra transportation in order to help parents get more involved with their children's education. He stated that he was considering buying an additional bus or two and hiring one or two paraprofessionals to transport parents to and from school for conferencing when needed. A brief discussion followed concerning the issue of many of the parents of our students not having transportation and in many cases do not have a telephone at their residence. Mr. Acklin pointed out that his office could use the help of a paraprofessional in a bus to check an address when his office is unable to reach a parent by telephone. Team members agreed there was a need for this service if the district could afford to implement the plan. Mr. Smith said that he would have the Purchasing Office to ask for bids on vehicles, and he would keep the team members informed of progress in this area. Minutes of Desegregation Team Meeting July 13, 1993 page 4 Mrs. Bynum stated plans to make the district's Desegregation Plan available to all certified personnel by the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. Plans to furnish copies of the Introduction and Overview sections of the Interdistrict Plan are now in the working. The entire Interdistrict Plan will be available for study in school offices and media centers. Mrs. Bynum stated a need to schedule dates for a plan review with our principals, as well as discussion of other legal issues, prior to the beginning of the new school year. She mentioned due process, sexual harassment, conflict resolution and ADA as examples of issues to be discussed. Mrs. Bynum inquired if the team members would like to set a different date and time to meet on a monthly basis. After a short discussion, it was agreed to schedule the meetings at the same time on the second Monday of each month at 1:30 p.m. She said that the Biracial Committee would also have to decide at the September meeting if they would use the same regular meeting date and time. Mrs. Bynum urged team members to submit names of parents living in Zone 1, who would be willing to serve on the Biracial Committee. Meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, {)~J~ Avis Wooldridge NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on 8/30/93 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation team met on Monday, August 30, 1993, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following members attended the meeting: Mrs. Mable Bynum-Chairperson, Mr. James Smith, Mr. Bobby Acklin, Mr. Jim Dyer, Mr. Gene Jones, Mr. Jerry Massey, Mr. Jim Morris, Mr. Donald Watkins, and Mrs. Karen Colford. Avis Wooldridge acted as recorder for the meeting. Mrs. Bynum opened the meeting by stressing that the fourth quarterly status reports should be submitted as soon as possible. She questioned members as to progress toward completion. Administrators reported that reports were complete or nearing completion. Mrs. Bynum furnished copies of forms showing each administrators' area of responsibility along with which quarterly report that the information should be included. (See Attachment 1.) The team members took a short time to study the information to see that information was available to submit with the fourth quarterly report. Mrs. Bynum addressed the need of audit reports. She stated that she and Mr. Smith had spoken to Attorney Steve Jones on this matter and it was decided that our attorney would meet with the team to look at the items we need to pull for assessment. Mr. Smith spoke to the importance of this assessment, in order for us to look at just what we have accomplished, and what we must concentrate on during the next few years to fully meet the mandated plan. Mrs. Bynum furnished copies of a form used by the Little Rock School District for implementation status to audit their progress of the Desegregation Plan. She suggested that we could develop a similar form which each administrator could use to assess his/her areas of responsibility. Mr. Jones commented that this would be a tremendous job. Mrs. Bynum stressed that each item addressed in the plan should be listed and assessed. Mr. Dyer spoke to the testing required of kindergarten students as addressed in the plan. He said that this was only one of the items called for in the plan and we must check to make sure the testing was being done in the schools and teachers using the scores for diagnostic purposes. Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on 8/30/93 page 2 Mrs. Bynum pointed out that the plan calls for kindergarten programs to be established at each of the elementary schools with 100 percent attendance by all eligible students. She stated that the District had accomplished this requirement, and also had implemented several pre-school programs which were proving successful. Mrs. Bynum said that she would check with Attorney Jones and set a convenient time for him to meet with us. She stressed that he would require documentation to cover each issue addressed. She suggested that each administrator read through the plan once again and make a list of his/her areas of responsibility making sure that each area was assessed. Mr. Daniels asked if it would be beneficial to have information in the data base file kept as a historical progress report on each item. After a brief discussion, it was decided that a committee of three or four persons from the team be appointed to study this idea and develop a form for such information that could be kept in the data base file, which could be updated periodically, giving us immediate access to progress thus far in each area. Mrs. Bynum, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Dyer, and Ms. Wooldridge agreed to serve on this committee. Mr. Jones asked if this would be used as the quarterly status update? Mrs. Bynum responded that this would not replace the quarterly status update reports, but would be kept as an annual update of progress covered each quarter for an annual assessment. Mr. Acklin informed the team members of some of the problems encountered this year with the student assignment plan. He related a complaint by a parent that her child was one of seven white students in a third grade classroom at Central Elementary School. After checking the enrollment of third grade classes at Central Elementary, it was found that we have only seven white students in each of the three third grade classes at that school. We further checked third grade enrollment in several other of our elementary schools and found they show the same pattern, but it was obvious that careful thought had been given in the placement of the students by race and gender, and the district had no control over the enrollment of a particular grade. Mrs. Bynum spoke to the issue by stating that the only solution to a situation like this would have all of a particular grade at one school. She pointed out that we were experiencing a reverse of the situation experienced 20 years ago, when white students outnumbered black students. Mr. Smith commented that the problem was prevalent in both third and fourth grades. Mrs. Bynum said that she had talked with Attorney Jones about the student assignment situation and it was his opinion that the district was implementing the student Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on 8/30/93 page 3 assignment plan as it was mandated, and we did not have a solution that would be financially feasible for the district. Mr. Smith addressed the issue of white parents pulling students out to go to private schools, which compounds our problem. A lengthy discussion followed concerning racial breakdown of the district with Mr. Smith pointing out that we were about 52 percent black at the present time. It was noted that all enrollment information was tentative before the October 1 official data. Mr. Massey pointed out that this was the reason that the Little Rock School District had established the incentive schools. Mr. Massey continued by stating that he did not know at what percentage the District would want to look for some options to prevent white flight. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Morris when would we look at student/ teacher shifts in elementary schools? Mr. Morris responded that he had made arrangements with Ms. Crawford to take care of it by mid-week. Mr. Smith cautioned that we should not let too much time elapse in order to avoid a student from getting too attached to a teacher. Mr. Dyer commented that there would also have to be a few modifications in the Chapter I staff after the numbers are analyzed. Mrs. Bynum asked if we should continue to follow the student assignment plan as it is now written? It was agreed that we would continue to adhere to the plan at the present time and wait to see what happens to the student population before going back to court to ask for modifications. Mr. Daniels stated that the plan calls for a straight alphabetic listing that we use for bussing, but asked if a straight alphabetic transfer by grades would be more effective in movement? It was agreed that by doing this we would be splitting students in the same family. Mr. Acklin said that we moved from a stand by list in the past. He said a better option might be to deal with each individual student as they enroll to avoid overcrowding in any one school or split classes. Mr. Smith stated that we needed to look at the entire student assignment process. He pointed out that when we first started a block of black students from each school was bussed for their entire elementary career. He continued by saying that occurred when the racial count was 80/20, but now that we are 50/50, maybe we should take a closer look at the whole process. He mentioned complaints from Park Hill regarding white students being bussed every other year. After further discussion, it was decided that we would immediately begin to study the matter and make recommended changes before the end of the year. Mr. Daniels commented that the fact of having so many small schools complicates the issue. Mrs. Bynum furnished copies of the recommendations from the Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on-8/30/93 page 4 Joshua Intervenors monitoring reports. (See Attachment 2.) She commented that they had made broad recommendations and asked members to take the time to study these recommendations. Mrs. Bynum said the Board of Education would be furnished copies and individual school copies would be sent to each school's principal to study. A lengthy discussion followed with particular errors in the reports being pointed out. Mrs. Bynum pointed out that we need to a member of the School Board to attend our Desegregation team meetings. It was agreed that we would wait until a new President of the Board of Education was elected and let that person decide which of the Board Members would serve on the team. Mrs. Bynum reminded the team members that the Biracial Committee was scheduled to meet on September 7, at 5:30 p.rn., in the Board Room. She urged their attendance and suggestions of items for discussion during the regularly scheduled Biracial Committee meetings during the school year. Mr. Smith suggested that the committee should be informed of the Project Link and that we should schedule one meeting at Lynch Drive Elementary to show them the additions and renovation that has been done on the building. Mrs. Bynum suggested that they also need to see the Elementary Alternative School that has been established at the Rose City site, since the committee was adamant about the need of quality alternative center in that area. Mr. Massey asked if there had been any monitoring visits reported at the Rose City facility? Mr. Smith responded that personnel from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring had been to the Lynch Drive Elementary School, and they had probably gone to look at the Rose City facility the same day. Mrs. Bynum stressed that we need to look at the concerns that ODM had shown in their report of the Alternative Education Center and make sure these concerns were corrected. She suggested we do the same at the Rose City location. Mr. Acklin addressed enrollment of students without a birth certificate. He said there were many students corning in without birth certificates or any school records. He said that he had let some enroll without a birth certificate and the counselors were upset with him. He said that Attorney Jones had agreed that we were obligated to take them in school if they lived within our school district. Mr. Smith stated that we could accept one of six different items: birth certificate, passport, baptismal certificate, statement of date of birth by a County Recorder, a parent's affidavit Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on 8/30/93 page 5 of date and place of birth, and shot records. Discussion continued concerning homeless students that are housed in church operated facilities. Mr. Smith stressed the importance of health records in order to protect the other students. Mr. Smith continued by saying that we must be sensitive to the students' needs, but we must obtain health records. Mr. Smith suggested that we follow up on screening any of these students before we go ahead and enroll the students. Mr. Jones reported that Sanford Tollette from Pfeifer Camp had called and asked if he could submit an alternative grant application through the North Little Rock School District to the State Department of Education. Mr. Jones said that he was working on an application for our district, and he understood that only one application from each district would be allowed. Mr. Smith responded that we would let Pfeifer Camp apply through our district only if more than one application would be considered, but the grant application for our district would have to take priority if only one application was allowed. Mr. Jones spoke to the information released by the State Department of Education concerning grant money from the government for the K-3 initiative program. He stated that our district was entitled to receive $148,960. under this program. He continued by pointing out that the district had already implemented the K-3 summer school program this summer using Chapter I funds, thus enabling us reimbursement of the funds used for the K-3 summer program. This funding will not be received until the later part of the year. A brief discussion followed concerning funding for reading recovery teachers. Mr. Jones reported on a problem with Chapter I. He asked Mr. Dyer to address the issue. Mr. Dyer stated that we had intended to do more of the whole class instruction in computer labs during the 1993-94 school year, but after we understood we had oral approval, and Mr. Dyer met with the principals to inform them of expansion, the State Department informed us that they were not sure about the program because the programs evaluation at Amboy and North Heights had not proven successful last year. He continued by reporting that he had met with Arlin Jones and Bob Kerr from the State Department of Education earlier today,and it was decided that they would allow implementation in four other elementary schools in the district during the 1993-94 school year. The schools identified were Lynch Drive, Boone Park, Central, and Park Hill. A lengthy discussion followed concerning factors surrounding the lack of effectiveness of the programs at Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on 8/30/93 page 6 Amboy and North Heights. Failure of teachers to become actively and enthusiastically involved with the program was discussed. Teachers must be with the students in the labs and they are able to work only with the Chapter I students. Discussion followed concerning how the schools were selected for participation in the program. Mr. Dyer explained that this program was tied to other programs in the schools, such as the H.O.T.S. program. Mr. Jones spoke to a new program sponsored by the Adult Literacy Commission. He stated that Ms. Jann Pharo represented us at a meeting recently and they want the district to implement a Toyota Family Literary program. Headstart will fund the classroom for three and four year old children and Adult Education will fund the adult parent in classes three days per week, with the parent serving as a volunteer at the school and working on the required credits for GED graduation. Mr. Jones stated that we would allot two rooms at the Rose City Alternative site for implementation of this program. A short discussion of the pre-school program followed. It was pointed out that we had not expanded the program this year, but preference was given to needy children and children of our own students. Mrs. Bynum reported on the Teachers of Tomorrow Academy. She stated an enrollment of 22 students thus far. Darlene Little from our district has been appointed teacher for the academy in view of the resignation of Michael Nellums, who previously had been appointed for the position. Meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on 9/13/93 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Monday, September 13, 1993, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following members attended the meeting: Mrs. Mable Bynum-Chairperson, Mr. James Smith, Mr. Jim Dyer, Mr. Gene Jones, Mr. Jerry Massey, Mr. Jim Morris, Mr. Donald Watkins, and Mrs. Karen Colford. Avis Wooldridge acted as recorder for the meeting. Mrs. Bynum opened the meeting by furnishing copies of the Joshua Monitoring Reports. After a thorough perusal of the reports, a lengthy discussion followed. Mrs. Bynum pointed out many things the Joshua Intervenors have failed to consider, some of these being that the North Little Rock School District is in compliance with their mandated plan and that our district had gone beyond what we said we would do in many areas. For example, the district had said that we would furnish transportation for students to attend extracurricular activities if the state would provide extra funding for transportation. Although the state failed to provide the extra funding, the district has taken it upon itself to provide this extra transportation. The implementation of the two Alternative Schools was also pointed out as ways the district has advanced beyond what we had said we would do. Our new program, Project Link, recently implemented, was also discussed. Many items in the monitoring reports addressed in error were called to the attention by various members. Mrs. Bynum stated that each principal was furnish\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_869","title":"\"Board of Education Committee Meeting Schedule,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"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","School board members","School boards","Meetings","School management and organization","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["\"Board of Education Committee Meeting Schedule,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/869"],"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.\nNOV 1 9 1991 Office of DesagregaiionM onitoring BOARDO F EDUCATION/COMMITMTEE TINGS CHEDULE SEE ATTACHMEN3 T Attachment 3 Welcome to a meeting of your School Board. I Board of Education Members Zonel Mable Mitchell 5006 Glenview Blvd. North Little Rock, AR 72117 945-2431 (September, 1989 - September, 1992) Zone2 Prentice Dupins 2623 Lincoln Ave. North Little Rock, AR 72114 945-4570 (September, 1991 - September, 1994) Zone3 Reverend J.W. Johnson 2201 Franklin North Little Rock, AR 72114 771-4506 (September, 1991 - September 1994) Zone4 Emily Denton 2416 South Drive North Little Rock, AR 72118 753-7396 (September, 1990- September, 1992) Zones Dixie Harrison 1 Shady Valley Court North Little Rock, AR 72116 753-1461 (September, 1990- September, 1993) Zone6 Pat Blackstone 3409 Bunker Hill Drive North Little Rock, AR 72116 753-5128 (September, 1990- September, 1993) Zone7 Lynn Hamilton 4103 Arlington North Little Rock, AR 72116 758-2209 (September, 1991 - September, 1994) James Smith, Superintendent 6315 Navajo Trail North Little Rock, AR 72116 835-3036 (Appointed by Board of Education July, 1989) North Little Rock School District P.O. Box 687  2700 Poplar St. North Little Rock, Arkansas 72115 501-771-8000 Welcome ... ... to a meeting of the North Little Rock Board of Education. We are glad you are here. Your Board of Education believes that involved, informed parents and citizens are necessary for ensuring that your schools meet your expectations. We encourage you to attend board meetings often, to stay informed and to become active in school affairs. We believe that children will benefit. Board Responsibilities The Board's responsibilities include the formation and adoption of policies consistent with state and federal laws, with regulations set by the Arkansas Depanment of Education and with the considered interest of the community. The board is not an administrative body\nadministration is delegated to the board's executive officer (superintendent) and the administrative staff of the district. Other board responsibilities include securing money for operational needs, authorizing major expenditures, authorizing the purchase or sale of school property and adopting the annual operating budget. The board selects and employs the superintendent of schools and gives final authority for the hiring and discharging of all district personnel, upon the superintendent's recommendation. Board members review and evaluate all phases of the district's instructional programs. The board serves as final appeal for students, teachers, principals and patrons. The Agenda Items of action are listed on an agenda, prepared by the board president and superintendent. Agendas are available to patrons at the door of the Board Room on the afternoon of regular meetings. A majority of the board must vote in favor of an item in order for it to pass. No official action (other than adjournment) may be taken unless at least four members are present. Organization of the Board The board was reorganized in 1989 from a sixmember board with all positions elected at-large to a seven-member board with each position representative of a geographic zone. The reorganization will occur during a four-year period. Members elected before 1989 will continue to serve as at-large members until a scheduled election is held for the zone he or she represents. Positions are for alternating threeyear terms, and elections are held each September. Board officers include a president, vice president and secretary for one-year terms. The president presides at all meetings and performs other duties as prescribed by law. Officers are elected annually. About Board Meetings Regular meetings are held the fourth Tuesday of each month at 5 p.m. at the District Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street. Special meetings are called as needed to take action to meet a deadline, to deal with an emergency situation or to discuss an urgent matter. All meetings are open to the public except when the board convenes for an executive session. An executive session may be called to discuss personnel, student, legal or other matters prescribed by law which require a high degree of confidentiality. Actions regarding all issues are made in open session and become public record. Reports of Board Actions All actions of the board are recorded in official minutes and kept on file in the Superintendent's Office. Minutes are available to anyone making a legitimate request during office hours. Members of the news media regularly attend board meetings. Their reports of board business usually appear on evening televisions news broadcasts or in the following day's newspaper editions. Addressing the Board To encourage public participation in decisions, the board provides opportunities for individuals or delegations to speak on matters of their concern after board adjournment of official business. In respect for those in attendance, presentations should be as brief as possible. Topics for Citizen Input Patrons may address the board on subjects within board authority. The board does not, however, participate in debates on issues and usually defers any action on items discussed until subsequent meetings. The board is not obligated to consider any matter unless it receives notice with information on the matter in writing at least one week in advance of the meeting. In order to address the board formally and to be placed on the agenda, a written request must be submitted to the Office of the Superintendent by 5 p.m. on the Tuesday preceding the meeting date. The request should include the name, address and telephone number of the speaker and group, if any, he or she represents plus a brief summary of the topic to be discussed. District Administration James Smith Superintendent of Schools Bobby Acklin Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs Mable Bynum Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Gene Jones Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Donald Watkins Assistant Superintendent for Business Services Guidelines for Addressing the Board To ensure that all persons have an opportunity to be heard and that meetings are conducted in an orderly, efficient manner, the board requests that speakers abide by the following guidelines: I. Each speaker is requested to use the lectern and microphone, to provide personal identification and to identify the group, if any, he or she represents. 2. Questions, suggestions, proposals or criticisms which have been presented verbally are more effective when also submitted in writing and signed by the individual or signed by the group's representative appearing before the board. 3. Persons appearing before the board are reminded, as a point of information, that members of the board are without authority to act independently on official matters. Questions may be directed to the board, but answers must be deferred pending consideration by the board. 4. Speakers may offer such objective criticism of school operations and programs as concern them\nbut in public session the board will not hear personal ' complaints about school personnel or about any person connected with the school system. All concerns should be addressed first at the school or district level, according to proper procedures for resolving problems, before referral to the board. 5. Speakers are requested to refrain from using inappropriate language and from engaging in any form of personal abuse. Need more information? Please call the Office of Information Services. 771-8013 I SCHOODLI STRICTSB OARDOSF DIRECTORS -i}LcJ. (c ... ___,,j _ Lc.,l\\ . r  .. . COlnfIYO F PULASKI )..1J.CC:\\il('-1-t,__:-),1 1/ i\n,,ui:i\" 1992 - 1993 tt,\u0026lt;,l.).-l-(2-c 3-vear terms i.ITTLER OCK* **43.9 Mills Dr. C. M. Mac Bernd1 Su12t. 1 810 West tlarkham1 LR 72201 324-2000 J. G. Jacovelli 6622 Gold Court 117 1994 :1resident Little Rock, AR 72209 568-7585 (H) John Moore 12015 Pleasant Tree Dr. 374-6535(W) /IS 1993 'lice President Little Rock, AR 72211 223-2297(H) ?atricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive 569-2498(W) 116 1994 Secretarv Little Rock, A..1- 72209 562-0571 (H) 0orsey W. Jackson 2901 N. Fillmore 375-3275(W) 113 1994 1ember Little Rock, AR 72207 664-2393(H) Jr. Katherine P. Mitchell 1605 Welch St. 374-6305(W) ltl 1993 ::-1ember Little Rock AR 72206 375-9377(H) John A. Riggs 3600 Foxcroft 570-3528(W) 114 19921' ~-1ember Little Rock. AR 72207 223-8916(H) 3ill D. Hamilton 306 Arthur Drive 661-2590(W) 112 1992\"' :1ember Little Rock, AR 72204 664-8727(H) ,',1992 LRSD school election postponed--when rescheduled, those elected shall serve to 1995 Hamilton was previously elected, and RiQQ\"ws as anoointed to serve the unexpired term ~,JORTLHIT ILE ROCK**336 . Mills ~Ir. James Smith, Supt., P.O. Box 687, J:,.n. . R 72ll5 771-8000 ~~:ableM itchell 5006 Glenview Blvd. Ill 1995 President North Little Rock, AR 72117 945-2431 (H) ?at Blackstone 3409 Bunker Hill 116 1993  :-ice President North Little Rock, AR 72116 753-5128(H) ~)rentice Dupins 431 McCain Blvd., F-23 112 1994 :'iecretarv North Little Rock, AR 72116 791-0267(H) ~1ru1 Hamil ton 4103 Arlington 117 1994 :1ember North Little Rock, AR 72116 758-2209(H)\n)ixie Harrison One Shady Valley Court 115 1993 '1ember North Little Rock, AR 72116 753-1461(1-I) ,~. W. Johnson 437 West Fourth St. 113 1993 _iember North Little Rock AR 72114 771-4 506 (H) '1arty Moore 4417 Central 114 1995 ,lember North Little Rock, AR 72118 758-318l(H) ~f-vear terms ':llJLASKCIO UNTSYP ECIAL**43.9M ills Mr. Bobby Lester, Supt. P.O. Box 1:3601L, .R. 72216 490-200( .,lr. Gene Goss 29 Narragansett Dr. !,fl 1994 .'resident North Little Rock1 A.~ 72120 835-8176(H) :'.r. Jim Burgett 35 Fairfield Drive 115 1994 _rice President North Little Rock. AR 72120 835-13ll(H) :\"1r. Reedie Ray 414 East Valentine Rd. 117 1996 .Secretary Jacksonville AR 72076 982-5650(H) -~-I.r Doyan Matt hews 5422 Elizabeth Lane 113 1996 -1ember North Little Rock AR 72118 851-2097(H) Yrr. Mack NcAlis ter P.O. Box 956 982-449l(W) 1!6 1995 : 1iember Jacksonville, AR 72076 :irs. Mildred Tatum 11405 Highway 365 Ill 1995 :'1ember Little Rock, AR 72206 897-4842(H) .. :~.rs. Ruth White Tucker 19001 Kanis Road 112 1993 .1ember Little Rock, AR 722ll 821-3224(H) ~repared by Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary !\".'\"\"1~~,...,,l'l~\n,:,::,~ ?ULASKCI OUNTBYO ARDO F EDUCATION u::.~~.\n:~) . .?: ~t~~ :J~~ : .~~ i~.~~-' ,0/16/92 372-7800 OCT i 9 1992 .. (5-year tenns) Mr. Cecil Bailey President Mr. Thomas Broughton Vice President Dr. George HcCrary Member Mr. E. Grainger Williams Member *1992 election postponed, Dr. Martin Zoldessy Member Ms. Debbie Crownover Secretary to the Board PULASKCIO UNIB'YO ARODF EDUCATION 1992 - 1993 5805 Eagle Creek North Little Rock, AR 72116 4602 W. 23rd Little Rock, AR 72204 t/2 Crestview Plaza Jacksonville, AR 72076 P.O. Box 366 372-4181 (W) tll NLRSD 1995 835-7104 (H) 664-6577(W) t/3 LRSD 199t 664-65 77 (H) South 982-455l(W) t/2 PCSSD 199'. North 372-3056(W) 115 LRSD 199,  Little Rock, AR 72203 666-8697(H) North position is currently at-large, but will be Zone 5 LRSD/No. 11601 Rodney Parham Little Rock, AR 72212 504 E. Devon Shen,ood, AR 72116 224-0200(W) //4 PCSSD 223-0lOO(H) South 372-7800(W) 835-9347(H) Secretary sine 1985 NO\\ 1 9 , 1 omcoef o BOARDO F EDUCAffOB/COIIMITrAEGEE NDAASN DH IBUTES See Attaclments (August, Septellher, October, 1991) Attachment A toring NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, August 27, 1991, 5 p.rn. I. CALL TO ORDER, Lynn Hamilton, President II. INVOCATION, Doyne Ward, Director-Purchasing III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Lynn Hamilton, President Mable Mitchell, Vice President Dixie Harrison, Secretary Pat Blackstone, Member Emily Denton, Member Prentice Dupins, Member J. w. Johnson, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Classrnates--s. Bolling . Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages . NLR Elementary Schools VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING(S) A. Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.rn. (Regular) PAGE A-1 B. Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 5:30 p.m. (Special) PAGE A-8 VII. ACTION ITEMS--UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Consider Recommendation on School Resource Officer and High School Crime Stoppers Program--Smith PAGE C-1 B. Consider Requests for Use of ~ine--J. Smith .. Agenda, Regular Board Meeting page 2 ,,, Tuesday, June 25, 1991, 5:00 p.m. VIII. ACTION ITEMS--NEW BUSINESS A. Consider Policy Changes--Policy CCC, Salary Deductions\nCEA, Sick Leave\nCEAA, Sick Leave Bank\nCEE, Military Leave\nCFEA, Compensatory Time for Teachers\nCFF, Substitute Teachers\nCFR, Tobacco Use by Employees\nCGF, Notification to Teachers\nand DBBB, Secondary Organization--Resulting from Negotiations--Smith (First Reading) PAGE H__ B. Consider Policy Changes on FAC, Attendance Requirements\nand CEJ, Holidays--Smith (First Reading) PAGE 8-24 c. Consider Policy CFS--Drug Testing--Smith (Second Reading) D. Consider Textbook Adoption--G. Jones E. Consider Energy Grant--J. Massey F. Consider Employment of Personnel--Morris G. Consider Items on Bid List-~Ward A. Television Equipment H. Consider Requests for Use of Buildings PAGE 8-28 PAGE I-1 PAGE E 1 PAGE P-1 PAGE R-1 PAGE S-1 I. Consider Adoption of School Budget for 1991-92-D. Watkins J. Consider Payment of Regular Bills--Watkins K. Consider Monthly Administrative Reports-Watkins IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Report on Negotiations B. Report on Summer School--Jones X. CALENDAR OF EVENTS PAGE T-1 PAGE T-6 PAGE I-2 A. Next Regularly Scheduled Board Meeting-~Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5:00 p.m., ) XI. ADJOURNMENT XII. VISITORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent MINUTES REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.m. The regular meeting of the North Little Rock Board of Education was held on Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Lynn Hamilton. The invocation was given by James Morris, Director of Personnel, with the flag salute following. Present Absent Others Present Votes Needed Agenda Changed Roll Call Lynn Hamilton, President Mable Mitchell, Vice President Pat Blackstone, Acting Secretary Emily Denton, Member J. w. Johnson, Member Dixie Harrison, Secretary Prentice Dupins, Member James Smith, Superintendent/Treasurer of the District\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs\nMable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGene Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction\nDonald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services\nJames Morris, Director of Personnel\nDoyne Ward, Director of Purchasing\nseveral other staff members\nmembers of the CTA\npatrons of the District\nmembers of the press\nand Bettye Albright, Secretary to the Superintendent, were also present. Mr. Hamilton called attention to two members of the Board being absent and four votes being needed for passage of any motion made by the Board. Mr. Hamilton asked that the two items listed under reports: July 15 Federal Court decision and use of Pine be changed as action items under unfinished business in order for the Board to act on these items if they wished. This was mutually agreed to by the other members of the Board. A-1 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 2 Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.rn. Disposition of Minutes YEAS: NAYS: Report by Attorney Board Discussion Recommendation Motion to Appeal YEAS: NAYS: Use of Pine/ Public Hearing A-2 Mr. Hamilton called for the dispcsition of the minutes of the regular meeting of Tuesday, June 25, 1991, 5 p.m. As there were no corrections, Mrs. Denton moved to accept the minutes as presented. Mrs. Mitchell seconded the motion. Elackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins,Harrison absent) Mr. Hamilton called on Steve Jones, District attorney, to present a report and recommendation on the July 15 court decision. Mr. Jones explained that the North Little Rock District was recognized by Judge Wright as not being part of the plan, but might wish to appeal in order to be a part of the future planning. He reported that the other three parties--the Joshua Intervenors, Little Rock, and Pulaski County had filed an appeal. Mr. Jones felt North Little Rock could live with the July 15 order, but the cost of the appeal would be minimal--a few hundred dollars--for a coattail brief. He mentioned the fact that since no one was on the other side of the opinion, North Little Rock could be considered an appellee by the courts if not involved in the appeal. He also spoke of the importance of unity among the parties. Board discussion included reversal of opinion, cost to District, revisions allowed by the settlement agreement\nopinion of Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals1 nonfundamental issue1 relationship with other parties\nagreement among parties when modifying plan1 parameters needed for changes agreed upon1 pros and cons on appealing1 results if win or lose1 article in paper mentioning consensus of Boards\nand and wishes of patrons in the District. Mr. Jones recommended that the Board join in the appeal as he thought unity among the parties was important. Mrs. Denton moved to join with other parties in the appeal of the July 15 court decision. Mrs. Mitchell seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Mr. Hamilton asked Mrs. Mitchell to report on the item for the use of the Pine Elementary building. Mrs. Mitchell reported on the number attending the public hearing July 16 at Pine for the purpose of hearing from the community on what services they wanted from the group using the building. She referred to the meeting being Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 3 ~ Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.m. Use of Pine continued Motion to Defer YEAS: NAYS: Proposals Audit Recommendation Motion YEAS: NAY: Student Truancy Supt.' s Report taped for the Board members who had not attended the meeting. She reported on the decision to asked for written proposals from those wishing to lease the building with a deadline set for August 14. She explained that the press release had gone out from the Superintendent's office on July 19, and that it was hoped that action would be taken by the Board at the regular meeting in August. Rev. Johnson moved to defer action until the August Board meeting. Mrs. Blackstone seconded the motion. After discussion by the Board, it was decided that this item would be tabled until all necessary information was received by the Board in order for action to be taken. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Rev. Johnson requested that copies of the submitted proposals be sent to the Board the week-end following the deadline. Mr. Hamilton called on Mr. Smith to make his recommendation to the Board resulting from the 1989-90 audit. Mr. Smith explained that with the Board's direction at the last regular me~ting, he had talked with Mr. Mike Cobb, the District's auditor, and felt the best procedure was to hire Mr. Cobb on an hourly basis to work with and advise the bookkeeping department before decisions are reached on its future needs. Mr. Smith reported that Mr. Cobb had estimated he would need to work two weeks'now with another fifty hours spr~ad throughout the year as a maximum, with his rate at $45 per hour. He recommended approval by the Board. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs. Mitchell seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Action Items-New Business First item to consider under new business was action on student truancy--Act 867 of 1989\". Mr. Hamilton called on Mr. Smith for his recommendation. Mr. Smith referred to the recommendations from the discipline committee in which one was for truant officers, so the District had decided to enter into an agreement with the North Little Rock Police Department (under Act 867 of 1989) for the purpose of trying to curtail student truancy. He called attention to a memo from Dana Chadwick, Director of Secondary Education, con-taining procedures for the implementation of plans to A-3 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 4 Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.rn. Student Truancy continued Supt.' s Recommendation Motion Board Supt.'s Report YEAS: NAYS: Drug Testing YEAS: NAYS: ASBA Fees YEAS: NAYS: A-4 keep the students in school. He referred to the police checking students seen out of school during reaular school hours\nand if do not have a pass, being~trar.sported to a designated location, such as the alternative school. Mr. Smith explained that the procedures will be looked at and possibly defined, but that action needed to be taken by the Board in order for the information to be included in the student handbook. He recommended that the North Little Rock School District enter into an agreement with the Police Department for the purpose of curtailing student truancy with future refining procedures. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs. Mitchell seconding the motion. Discussion by the Board included plans for vehicles driven by the students apprehended\nparents who work accompanying students\nphoto I.D.\ngetting the information into the handbooks and to the newspapers. Mr. Smith reported that cameras for taking photos for I. D. had been donated to the District\nthat he would be making recommendations concerning truant officers to the Board in the near future\nand that he had discussed these plans with the police department. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Next item concerned drug testing for employees driving school vehicles. Mr. Smith asked that the Board approve the concept with the view of approving a policy at a later meeting for preemployment testing for transportation, maintenance, and operation staff. He explained that random testing would be considered for those already employed by the District. Mrs. Denton moved to accept the Superintendent's recommendation to secure a policy for drug testing those driving District vehicles. Mrs. Blackstone seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Mr. Smith asked the Board to consider the 1991-1992 membership fees in the Arkansas School Boards Association. He called attention to the amount due, $1,210, as listed in the agenda. He, recommended approval. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs~ Mitchell seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 5 ~ Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.m. Purchasing Program YEAS: NAYS: Personnel Report YEAS: NAYS: Bids YEAS: NAYS: New Format Next, Mr. Hamilton called on Doyne Ward to explain the cooperative purchasing program for Board consideration. Mr. Ward called attention to the recent action taken at the 1991 session of the Arkansas Legislature enacting Act 759, creating a new recycling purchasing program for all cities, counties, and school districts for paper products. He explained that no fee was required for membership in the Cooperative Purchasing Program, and the District would not be obligated to purchase from the State Purchasing Program if a cheaper price was found. He recommended Board approval of the Resolution to comply with Act 749. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs. Mitchell seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Mr. Hamilton called upon James Morris, Director of Personnel, to present the personnel report and to include all recommendations for certified and classified changes at one time. Mr. Morris called attention to the certified and classified resignations, certified, administrative, and classified transfers\nand new staff members. He recommended approval of the personnel report. Rev. Johnson so moved, with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Mr. Hamilton asked Mr. Ward to present the bids. Mr. Ward called attention to those listed in the agenda, plus one additional bid for ramps and walks at the stadium from Hollis Construction Company in the amount of $11,600. The other bids included Xerographic paper, video equipment\ndistrict handbook\ndistrict forms\nchain link fence\nand the excavation/fence removal. Mr. Ward recommended Board approval of the specified bid. (The bids will be included with permanent minutes.) Rev. Johnson moved to accept the recommendation of Mr. Ward on the specified bids. Mrs. Mitchell seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Mrs. Mitchell expressed appreciation for the new format for reporting the bids. A-5 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 6 Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.rn. Use of Buildings YEAS: NAYS: Monthly Bills Questions About Bills YEAS: NAYS: Monthly Reports YEAS: NAYS: Letter of Congrats Discipline Report A-6 Mr. ward presented one request for the use cf buildings-Junior League of North Little Rock requesting use of East Campus auditorium for the Red Stocking Follies of 1992, April 22 through April 25. He recommended Board approval. Mrs. Mitchell so moved, with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Mr. Hamilton called on Donald Watkins to present the bills for Board consideration. Mr. Watkins called attention to the listing in the agenda submitted for Board consideration. He recommended Board approval. Rev. Johnson so moved, with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. Questions by the Board included the bill of $6,550.54 to the Excelsior Hotel, which was for an Outstanding Student Recognition Program, sponsored by the State Department of Education, paid through the District\nand the bill to the Lit~le Rock School District for Magnet Schools and students, $307,398.84. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absenl) Next, Mr. Watkins submitted the regular monthly administrative reports for the Board's approval. He called attention to the minus figure shown under Instruction: Materials and Other--$425,051--on the Expenditure Report. He explained that this had resulted from the purchase of textbooks\nthe comped program\nand the schools changing format for spending funds. Mrs. Denton moved to accept the reports a.s presented. Mrs. Blackstone seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent) Information Items Mr. Hamilton called attention to the letter from Governor Clinton congratulating Elizabeth Fulton, a high school teacher, for being selected as a state-level awardee in the Natio~al Science Foundation. Mr. Hamilton called on Bobby Acklin to present the discipline report for 1990-91. Mr. Acklin called attention to a handout compiled to comply with a court order, including the number of incidents (suspensions, etc.), and the number of students involved by school. Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 7 Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.m. Meetings of Board Motion to Adjourn YEAS: NAYS: Adjourr.ment Mr. Hamilton called attention to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, 5 p.m., and the budget workshop set for Tuesday, August 6, at 5:30 p.m. As this concluded the business of the agenda, Mr. Hamilton called for a motion to adjourn. Mrs. Mitchell so moved, with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. Blackstone, Denton,Hamilton,Johnson,Mitchell None (Dupins and Harrison absent} Mr. Hamilton declared the meeting duly adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Lynn Hamilton, President Pat Blackstone, Acting Secretary Visitors ' Mr. Hamilton opened the meeting for anyone in the audience wishing to address the Board. No one approached the Board. A-7 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 5:30 p.~. A special meeting of the North Little Rock Board of Education was held on Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 5:40 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Lynn Hamilton. Present Absent Others Present Purpose of the Meeting Food Service Budget ROLL CALL Lynn Hamilton, President Mable Mitchell, Vice President Dixie Harrison, Secretary Emily Denton, Member  Prentice Dupins, Member J. w. Johnson, Member Pat Blackstone, Member James Smith, Superintendent and Treasurer of the District\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs\nMable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nGene Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction\nDonald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services\nseveral other staff members, members of the press, and Bettye Albright, Secretary to the Superintendent, were also present. Mr. Hamilton called attention to the purpose of the special meeting--consideration of proposed food service budget for 1991-92\nconsideration of proposal for engineering studies for energy grant applications\nand consideration of the proposed policy for pre-employment drug testing. He asked that one item be added--an executive session to hear a personnel matter. This was mutually agreed to by the other members of the Board. Mr. Hamilton called upon Superintendent Smith to present the proposed food service budget for 1991-92. Mr. Smith called attention to the budget as prepared by James Pearson, Director of School Food Services. He explained that action A-8 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 2 Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 5:30 p.m. Budget continued Question by Board YEAS: NAYS: Engineering Studies YEAS: NAYS: Preemployment Drug Testing Policy YEAS: NAYS: Executive Session was needed due to the time factor in getting forms printed and information to patrons concerning the price increase proposed for next school year. Mr. Smith recommended approval of the budget including the price increases for lunch and breakfast. Mrs. Harrison so moved with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. Upon questioning by the Board, the Administration reported that the reasons for the price increases was for salaries and an increase in commodities. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Next, Mr. Smith presented proposals from the maintenance department for engineering studies necessary to apply for energy grants. He explained that the previous engineering studies had been used for previous applications. He called attention to the two proposals with the low quote from Goodman Engineers, Inc. being recommended. Mrs. Denton moved to accept the proposal as presented. Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Harnilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mr. Hamilton asked Mr. Smith to present the proposed policy for pre-employment drug testing. Mr. Smith called attention to the material from the District's attorney, Steve Jones, concerning a policy for pre-employment drug testing, with plans for random testing for those already employed by the District who drive District vehicles-transportation, maintenance, operation, and the Superintendent of Schools--in the future. Mr. Smith recommended Board approval of the suggested policy/procedures. Mrs. Harrison moved to accept the plans as presented. Mrs. Denton seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) At 5:45 p.m., Mr. Hamilton adjourned the meeting into executive session to consider a personnel matter. Open Session The Board reconvened into open session at 6:40 p.m. Motion to Adjourn YEAS: NAYS: As no action was taken, Mrs. Mitchell moved to adjourn. Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Hatrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) t Minutes,. Regular Board Meeting page 3 Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 5:30 p.m. Adjournment Mr. Hamilton declared the meeting adjourned into workshop session at 6:45 p.m. Lynn Hamilton, President Dixie Harrison, Secretary A-10 I. II. III. IV. v. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOO~ DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. CALL TO ORDER, Lynn Hamilton, President !~\"VOCATION, Justin Green, Sixth Grade Student from Park Hill, son of Tommy and Deborah Green FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Lynn Hamilton, President Mable Mitchell, Vice President Dixie Harrison, Secretary Pat Blackstone, Member Emily Denton, Member Prentice Dupins, Member J. w. Johnson, Member RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. North Little Rock's 1991-92 Teacher of the Year-Judy Pierson, Baring Cross CCE Coordinator B. Superintendent's Honor Roll--S. Bolling  Greg Daniels, Director, Computer Services . Liz Fulton, Teacher, NLRHS WEST Campus  Suzie Patrick, NLRHS Volunteer VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING(S) A. Tuesday, August 27, 1991, 5:00 p.m. (Regular) PAGE A-1 B. Thursday, September 5, 1991, 5:30 p.m. (Spec.) PAGE A-11 VII. ACTION ITEMS--UNFINISHED BUSINESS None Agendp, Regular Board Meeting  page 2 ., Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5:00 p.m. VIII. ACTION ITEMS--NEW BUSINESS A. Consider Reorganization'of the Board--Chairman Hamil ton PAGE C-1 B. Consider Designation of the Superintendent as Treasurer of the District--Chairman PAGE C-1 c. Consider Designation of the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services as Ex Officio Financial S~cretary-- Chairman PAGE C-1 D. Consider Policy Changes--Policy CCC, Salary Deductions\nCEA, Sick Leave\nCEAA, Sick Leave Bank\nCEE, Military Leave\nCFEA, Compensatory Time for Teachers\nCFF, Substitute Teachers\nCFR, Tobacco Use by Employees\nCGF, Notification to Teachers\nand DBBB, Secondary Organization--Resulting from Negotiations--Smith (Second Reading) PAGE 8-1 E. Consider Policy Changes on FAC, Attendance Requirements\nand CEJ, Holidays--Smith (Second Reading) PAGE B-24  F. Consider Approval of Special Education Budget Application--D. Watkins PAGE D-1 G. Consider Textbook Adoption Cornmittee--G. Jones PAGE I-1 H. Consider Chapter I Improvement Plan--Jones PAGE I-2 I. Consider Approval of Teacher of To~~orrow Concept--Bynurn J. Consider Employment of Personnel--Morris K. Consider Items on Bid List--D. Ward A. Stack Chairs L. Consider Requests for Use of Ruildings--Ward M. Consider Revision of Building Fee Schedule-Ward PAGE P-1 PAGE -R--1- FAGE S-1 PAGE S-4 N. Consider Administrative Salary Schedule and Classified Salary Schedule--Smith o. Consider Payment of Regular Bi11s--Watkins P. Consider Monthly Administrative Reports-Watkins PAGE T-1 PAGE T-11 Agenda, R~gular Board Meeting page 3 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5:00 p.m. IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Letter notifying Liz Fulton, Biology Teacher at the West Campus, of being selected for Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching. PAGE 2:l_ B. Letter from STEP, Inc. PAGE .kl_ c. Letter frcm Representative Ray Thornton on ?reject Even Start Grant. PAGE .J.:L D. Annual Report to Public on Standards--Jones X. CALENDAR OF EVENTS A. Next Regularly Scheduled Board Meeting--Tuesday, October 22, 1991, 5:00 p.rn. B. Fall Regional Meeting of ASBA at HLRHS East Campus on Thursday, October 3, 1991, 6:30 p.m. c. The National Co~mittee for School Desegregation Region VI Conference at the LR Hilton October 31-November 1. XI . ADJOURNMENT XII. VISITORS .. . ., NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent MINUTES REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, August 27, 1991, 5 p.m. The North Littl~ Rock Board of Education met in regular session on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, at 5 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Lynn Hamilton. The invocation was given by Doyne Ward, Director of Purchasing, with the flag salute following. Present Absent Others Present Agenda Changed Roll Call Lynn Hamilton, President Mable Mitchell, Vice President , Dixie Harrison, Secretary Pat Blackstcne, Member Emily Denton, Member Prentice Dupins, Member J. w. Johnson, Member None Mr. James Smith, Superintendent/Treasurer of District\nMable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregaticn\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs\nGene Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction\nDonald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services\nJames Morris, Director of Personnel\nDoyne Ward, Director of Purchasing\nJerry Massey, Dire-:tor of School Plant Services\nDana Chadwick, Director of Secondary Education\nseveral other staff members, members of the CTA\npatrons of the District\nmembers of the press, television stations\nand Bettye Albright, Secretary to the Superintendent, were also pre~ent. Mr. Hamilton asked for a change in the agenda--thc item under informatior.al items for a report on negotiations to be placed undez action items--unfinished business--as item B.l. This was mutually agreed to by the members of the Board. A-1 Minutes, Regular Beard Meeting page 2 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.rn. Classmates Update on Program New Partners Minutes of 7/23/91 and 8/6/91 Approved YEAS: NAYS: School Resource Officer Program Report on Trip A-2 Mr. Hamilton returned to the printed crder of the agenda, asking Scharmel Bolling, Coordinator of Information Services, to present the new classmates for the District. Ms. Bolling updated the Board on the classmates program in the District, reporting that since 1986, starting with two partners, it had grown to 34. She also reported on the total number of hours given and the monetary assistance received by the District through the program. Ms. Bolling introduced two representatives from Southwestern Bell and Ms. Esther Crawford, Director of Elementary Education, on the new classmates program with the Yellow Pages for grades two through six. Rev. Johnson presented certificates to those involved. Disposition of Minutes Mr. Hamilton called for the disposition of the minutes for the regular m~eting on Tuesday, July 23, 1991, 5 p.m. and the special meeting on Tuesday, August 6, 1991, 5:30 p.m. As there were no correct..ions, Mrs. Harrison moved to accept both sets of minutes as printed in the agenda. Mrs. Mitchell seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Action Iterns--Unfinished Business Mr. Smith presented the Administration's recommendation for a school resource officer at the two high school campuses for a high school crime stopperb program. He reported on a trip taken by several city representatives, including members of the police department, along with schooi representatives--the two high school principals and the director of secondary education--to Grand Prairie and Arlington, Texas, to view a similar program at the schools tht~re. Mr. Smith called on Dana Chadwick to report on the trip. Mr. Chadwick explained the purpose of the trip and the planned program as a type of pro activity measure--that two officers had been selected by Chief Nolan--Gary Canady and Frank White--who, it was felt, would work well with the young people on the campuses. He reported that this would be the first progr~ of its kind in Arkansas if approved by the Board. Mr. Chadwick referred to the job description listed in the agenda, citing safety and citizenship, for goals of the program. Minutes, Regular Board Meeting .. p'age 3 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Supt.' s Meetings Mayor/ Chief of Police Approval Board Questions Chief/ Mayor's Responses Board Discui.\nsion on Funds Race of Officers Discussed Supt.'s Recommendation/ E:\u0026lt;ecutive Session Mr. Smith reported on his meeting with Chief Nolan and Mayor Hays and a meeting held with students, parents, community leaders, and Board member, Mable Mitchell, who all had indicated positive feelings about the program . .Mayor Hays endorsed the program concept and also the two officers chosen for the positicns. Chief Nolan felt the prcgram would present a positive image for the police officers to the students and the public, as the crime stoppers program had been which was started to aid the police department during the past year. Chief Nolan also brought up the possibility of a new program DARE (drugs, etc.) for the lower grades in the future. He reported to the Board that the two officers would report to Captain Johnson of the police department and the school principal. Questions by the Board included whether or not the officers would be in uniform, would carry a gun, and the funding. Chief Nolan explained that it would be optional whether the officers wore a uniform or not, but that it was necessary for them to carry firearms at all times. Mayor Hays explained that it was hoped that the City and the District could share the cost on an equal basis  for the two officers' salary. The Board asked Mr. Smith if the money was available, and Mr. Smith explained that he felt the program was important enough to try and secure funds through a grant\nor if necessary, he \\,\nOuld solicit the necessary money from the community. It was asked by the Board if both officers being white would be objected to by the black community. Mrs. Mitchell, who had met with the group, reported en this being discussed, but that she had been assured that the two officers being recommended had no bias and were veteran officers who appeared would be a~le to handle the program regardless of race or gender. Other members of the Board expressed concern for this situation and the sensitivity of the officers in charge. Mr. Smith recommended approval of the program. Mr. Dupins asked fer the Board to adjourn into executive session to consider a personnel mutter. The Board went into executive session at 5:40 p.m. and returned at 5:55 p.m. Mr. Hamilton called for a motion concerning the crime stoppers program and resource officers at the high school campuses as recommended by Sup~rintendent Smith. A-3 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 4 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Motion YEAS: NAYS: Use of Pir,e Recommendation Eoard Discussion STEP'S Withdrawal Board Response Question YEAS: NAYS: Negos. A-4 Rev. Johnsen moved to accept the recommendation from Superintendent Smith with the proviso that, at the end of the semester, the program would be evaluated to see if the District wished to continue. Mrs. Blackstone seconded the motion. Blackstcne,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Jchnson,Mitchell None Next item for Board consideration was the use of Pine Elementary Building. Mr. Smith reminded the Boord that the public hearing had been held and proposals had been received and sent to the Board for consideration. He asked that Mrs. Mitchell make her recommendation to the Board. Mrs. Mitchell reported on studying the proposals, tolking with the people in the Eastgate area, holding meetings, to see what is wanted by the people of the area, as directed by Judge Wright. She recommended that the three groups, who had presented proposals to the Board, meet with the Administration to work out a compromise on the use of Pine, Rev. Johnson seconded th~ motion, with the stipulation that the District attorney be involved in the finalization of the agreement with the groups. Board discussion involved concern of the three groups being able to utilize the sam~ building without conflicts\nspace consideration\nservices rendered by the grcups\nduplication of services\nequal distribution of the school\ndiversity of community over services available to different groups and ages\nconcern about Administr~tion working on the compromise\nand possibility of STEP not wanting to be included under these conditions. Mr. Hamilton asked the representative of STEP if they were still opposed to sharing the facility, and Mrs. Sevier said they would not be interested under the conditions of the recommendation. The Board regretted STEP's decision to not share in the use of the building, but that if others requested to be included in the future, it would be considered. Mr. Dupins called for the question. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell Blackstone Mr. Hamilton called upcn Mr. Smith to make a repcrt on the progress of negotiations on salaries. Minute:,, Regular Board Meeting .. page 5 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Report by Supt. Board Discussicn Deadline Motion on Impasse Beard Discu5sion 'l'rust F'und Law CTA Remarks Board Direction Motion Withdrawn Break Mr. Smith regretted the misinformation that had gctten out concerning salaries. He reported the two negotiating teams were close to solving the problem, and hoped to resolve the situation in a short period of time. Board members discussed the teachers not having raises and contracts by the time school started\ngoing to impasse\nbad coromunications with people not being informed\nnegotiating in good faith\nCTA representing all teachers by the Agreement with the Board\nintention of the law to get the trust fund money to the teachers as soon as possible\nboth teams completing the negotiation process as quickly as possible\nsetting a deadline to complete negotiations or go to impasse\nand teachers, teaching, not worried about finances. Mr. Hamilton discussed setting a deadline for the salary negotiations to be completed. Mrs. Denton moved that the Board declare impasse one week frcrn tonight if agreement has not been reached by the two teams ready to bring to the Board for approval. Seconded by Mrs. Blackstone. Additional discussion by the Board included allowing the two teams to continue negotiations in good faith\nclarification cf the trust fund money and its distribution\nand negating the negotiations process. Superintendent Smith referred to the law which states that the money will be distributed equally unless the majority of the teachers and Board vote otherwise. He felt the teams were close to agreement. Ms. Sheehan also agreed that the teams were close\nthat the meeting today had been ccngenial\nthat the held up was looking at cost figures by both groups\nand asked for faith in the teams. The Board directed the Board team to negotiate in good faith and asked the CTA team to do the same and to come to an agreement without going to impasse. Mrs. Denton withdrew her motion, and Mrs. Blackstone withdrew her second. The Board took a ten minute break, reconvening at 7:05 p.m. A-5 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 6 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Policy Changes Policy Changes thru Negos./ First Reading Motion Discussion on Policy CFR CTA Response Board nesponse CTA' s Question on CFF Question YE/\\S: NAYS: Two Additional Policy Changes/ First Reading YEAS: NAYS: A-6 Action Items--New Business Mr. Hamilton culled upon Hr. Smith to present recomrnended policy changes resulting from negotiations. Mr. Smith present the following policies for Board approval on the first reaoing: CCC, Salary Deductions\nCEA, Sick Leave\nCEAA, Sick Leave Bank\nCEE, Military Leave\nCFEA, Compensatory Time for Teac_hers\nCFF, Substitute Teachers\nCFR, Tobacco Use by Employees\nCGF, Notification to Teachers\nand DBBB, Secondary Organization. Rev. Johnson moved to approve the recommended changes for the policies listed for the first reading. Mrs. Blackstone seconded the motion. Discussion involved Policy CFR, Tobacco Use by Employees. Mr. Smith explained to the Board that this was a negotiated item, but if it was not workable, it could be brought back to the table another time. Ms. Sheehan reported on the survey taken and the results studied by a committee before a recommendation was made. Board discussed the number involved\na compromise\nif all employees were involved\nt=xtreme measures of policy, and support. Ms. Sheehan called attention to Policy CFF, Substitute Teachers, in that it was not like the one signed off on by the two teams. It was explained that the only other change had been a requirement from the Federal Government. Vote was called for. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,H~rrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Next item for consideration was two additional policy changes--FAC, Attendance Requirements, and CEJ, Holidays. Mr. Smith explained that the age limit had been changed from 17 to 18 for school attendance and that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday had been added to the policy for  District-wide observance. He recommended Board approval on the first reading. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs. Harrison seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Minut~s, Regular Board Meeting .. p'age 7 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Policy CFS/ Second Reading YEAS: NAYS: Textbook Adoption YEAS: NAYS: Energy Grant Discussion YEAS: KAYS: Personnel Vacancies YEAS: NAYS: Next, Mr. Smith presented Policy CFS--Drug Testing--for Board approval on the second reading. Mrs. Harrison mcved to accept Policy CFS--Drug Testing--as presented by Superintendent Smith en the second reading. Mr. Dupins seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Mr. Hamilton called on Gene Jones to present the recommended textbook adoption. Mr. Jones reminded the Board that at the time other secondary textbooks had been adopted, the committee delayed a decision on the Arkansas History Textbook, because only one textbook was available for review. He explained that the Committee met on August 20 and selecttd those listed in the agenda. He recorornended Board approval. (These will be included with permanent minutes.) Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Mr. Hamilton called on Jerry Massey, Director of School Plant Services, to present his recommendation on an energy grant. Mr. Massey explained that the funcs would be spent at the East Campus Main Building, Lakewood Middle, and Rose City Middle Schools, with $114,000 for in-kind labor for the District. Mrs. Harrison moved to approve the energy grant as presented by Mr. Massey. Mrs. Mitchell seconded the motio~. Discussion included the possibility of applying for a loan from the Revolving Loan Fund for the District's cash part of this project, $162,888\nthe energy savings the District would receive in less than five years\nand the age of the buildings involved. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Mr. Hami:~ton called on James Morris to present the personnel report for the Board's consideration. Mr. Morris called attention to the resignations, new hires, and the transfer~. He also reported on two vacancies--one certified and one classified, which he felt would be filled quickly. He recommended Board approval of the various activities of the personnel departme:nt. Mrs. Blackstone so moved with Mrs. Denten seconding the motion. Upon questioning by the Board, Mr. Morris reported that the certified position was a special education spot at Ridgercad Middle School and the classified spot was at Rose City Middle School for an aide. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None A-7 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 8 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Bids YEAS: NAYS: Use of Equipment Use of Facilities YEAS: NAYS: School Budget Concerns of Board Supt.' s Remarks Questicn YEAS: NAYS: A-8 Mr. Hamilton called on Doyne Ward to present the items on the bid list. Mr. Ward called attenticn tc one bid on television equipment, recommending the low bid on all items. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs. Mitchell seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None It was asked what the equipment would be used for, and Mr. Ward reported for TV broadcasting. Mr. Ward presented one request for use of District facilities--UALR to use West Campus for the Off-Campus Credit Program. He recow.mended Board approval. Mrs. Denton so moved with Mrs. Harrison seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Jchnson,Mitchell None Mr. Hamilton called on Donald Watkins to present the school budget for 1991-92. Mr. Watkins called attention to the budget material being sent to the Board prior to the meeting. He explained that some areas had been reduced and transferred since the budget workshop, such as desegregation, instruction. etc. The proposed budget showed receipts of $35,630,385 and expenditures of $36,203,434. Mr. Watkins warned the Board of the seriousness of the tight budget. Rev. Johnson moved to approve the budget as presented by Mr. Watkins. Mrs. Denton seconded the motion. Concerns expressed by the Board were elementary music books\ncopying machines in the schools\nreduction of contingency fund\nmillage rededication acted on by the Courts\nand being covered on the appeal for millage rededication. Mr. Smith talked of money being earmarked\nenrollment for the year being down again--loss of 7 4 stud~nts, which will affect the district next year with a revenue loss of approximately $150,000\nand the need for maintenance on several school buildings. Mr. Hamilton called for the vote on acceptance of the school budget for 1991-92. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None Minutes, Regular Beard Meeting page 9 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. Monthly Bills YE1'.S: NAYS: Monthly Reports New Format YEAS: NAYS: Summer Schoel ROPES Opening of School Calendar/ Motion to Adjourn YEAS: NAYS: -- - ------- Mr. Hamilton called on Mr. Watkins to present the monthly bills for the Board's consideration. Mr. Watkins called attention to the listing in the agenda, and recorr.mended approval. Mrs. Harrison so moved with Rev. Johnson seconding the motion. Blackstcne ,Denton ,Dupins, llumil ton, Harrison, Johnson ,Mitchell None Next, Mr. Watkins called attention to the regular monthly administrative reports, citing a mistake on the summary of expenditures of over $800,000 on Capital Outlay item. He reported that this money had not been spent as shown. He submitted the reports for Board approval. Rev. Johnson so moved, and Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Upon questioning by the Board, Mr. Watkins explained that the new format for reporting will be used at the September meeting. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Jchnson,Mitchell None Mr. Hamilton called on Gene Jones to make a report on the summer school activities. Mr. Jones reported that over 1,000 students attended the various summer schools~-Chapter I for first and third grade students at North Heights, kindergarten at Pike View, and a pre-kindergarten program at six elementary schools\nsecondary surr.mer programs at the West Campus and Ridgeroad Middle Scheel, with a seventh grade transition program at each middle school. He e::plained that a report on the QUES'r program for gifted and talented students will be presented at a 1ater time. Mr. Jones called attention to several pictures on the wall showing students participating in the Ferndale 4-H ROPES Course. This was part of the transition program held at each midale school for seventh grade students. The Board e,:pressed appreciation to Mr. Jones for a good well done. Superintendent Smith reported on the beginning of school expressing appreciation to the staff for a smooth opening. Mr. Hamilton called attention to the next regular meeting set fer Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m., and called for a motion to adjourn. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mr. Dupins seconding the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Dupins,Aamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell NcnE:! A-9 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 10 Tuesday, August 27, 1990, 5 p.m. AdjournmE.nt Mr. Hamilton declared the meeting duly adjcurr,ed at 8:00 p.m. Lynn Hamilton, President D1::i1: Har:r i son, Secretary Visitors A-10 Mr. Hamilton opened the meeting up to those in the audience wishing tc address the Board. No one approached the Board, but Mrs. Blackstone remarked about the cooperation between the East and West Campuses and the use cf the TV stations. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Thursday, September 5, 1991, 5:30 p.m. A special meeting of the North Little Rock Board of Education was held on Thursday, Septen~er 5, 1991, 5:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Lynn Hamilton. Present Absent Others Present Purpcse of Meeting Salary Schedule CTA' s Position Roll Call Lynn Hamilton, President Pat Blackstone, Acting Secretary Emily Denton, Member (arrived 5:40 p.m.) Prentice Dupins, Membe.r J. w. Johnson, Member Mable Mitchell, Vice President Dixie Harrison, Secretary James Smith, Superintendent/Treasurer of Di5trict\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs\nMable Bynum, Assistant Sup~rintendent for Desegregation\nGene Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction\nDonald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services\nJames Morris, Director of Personnel\nDoyne ward, Director of Purchasing\nseveral other staff members, representatives cf the CTA\nmembers of the press\nano Bettye Albright, Secretary to the Superintendent, were also present. Mr. Hamilton explained that the purpose of the special board meeting was to consider the teachers salary schedule for 1991-92. Mr. Hamilton called upon Superintendent Smith to make his recommendation. Mr. Smith called attention to the salary schedule negotiated between the CTA and Board teams. He recommended Board approval. Mr. Hamilton called upon Nancy Sheehan, President of the North Little Rock Classrocm Teachers Association. Mrs. Sheehan referred to a letter hand-delivered during the day to the Board and the Superintendent stating that the contract language and 5alary schedule had been ratified by the general membership of the CTA. A-11 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 2 Thursday, September 5, 1991, 5:30 p.m. Vote of Teachers CTA Disagreed Supt.' s Remarks Motion Board Member Statement A-12 Mr. Smith called attention to the law concerning the distribution of the trust fund money in that a vote of the teachers was required. He reported on talking with the attorney from the State Department of Education and the attorney from the Arkansas School Boards Asscciation who both said that the District needed to have a vote of ~he majority of the teachers on the recommended salary schedule involving the trust fund money and its distribution if done uneq~ally. Ms. Sheehan disagreed about a vote being necessary~ legal counsel for the CTA said where a negotiation agreement is used, it is not required--only where the district's use a personnel policy committee. Mr. Smith again restated the advice he had been given and stated that the Legislature had stipulated the distributicn of the trust fund money would be agreed to by a majority vote of teh teachers. He felt docu mentation would be needed later on when the District was audited. He felt the outcome would be the same, so suggested the schedule be adopted at this time and the matt~r of the vote be considered before the end of the year. Mrs. Denton moved to accept the proposed salary schedule as presented by Superintendent Smith. Rev. Johnson seconded the motion. Mr. Dupins asked for clarification of the motion in that it was for the printed schedule presented to the Board. Mr. Hamilton agreed that this was the intent of the motion. Mrs. Blackstone asked to make a statement concerning the trust fund money so that it would appear in the record. She felt the money was intended to be spread across the board so that all teachers would get approximately $4,000 raise, and that it was done that way in districts that do not have a Negotiation:, Agre,.?ment. She W3~ concerned that the District already had one of the lowest starting salaries in the state and with this schedule it would be difficult to recruit new minority teachers, and to be competitive with the other districts in Pulaski County, Mrs. Blackstone also expressed concern about the press the District received during negotiations and the derogatory remarks made bY, the CTA. She also expressed concern about not being able to listen to the tapes in order to hear the ses~ions and to know personally what took place in the meetings. Minutes, Regular Board Meeting pcge 3' Thursday, September 5, 1991, 5:30 p.rn. Bd. Member Statement continued Question YEAS: NAYS: Impasse Items Supt.'s Remarks Motion to Adjourn Adjournment Mrs. Blackstone explained that she was pleased about those receiving the good raises but would have liked to have seen more put at the beginning level. As there were no other remarks by the Board of the CTA, Mr. Hamilton called for the question. Blackstone, Denton, Dupins, Hamilton, Johnson None (Harrison and Mitchell absent) Mr. Hamilton called attentien to the impasse items from the CTA and the Beard, and asked Mr. Smith to comment. Mr. Smith reported that the impasse items from the CTA included salary schedules (CCA)\ntuition reimbursement for teache1:s (CDI)\npersonal leave (CEB)\nextracurricular duties of teachers (CFEB)\nteacher authority (CHA)\nand working hours for instructional staff (CFA)\nand from the Beard Blue  Cross/Blue Shield Insurance. He explained that since these had not been resolved during the negotiations sessions that the procedure listed in the Professional Negotiation for an Advisory Board consisting of three individuals to help resolve these items would be appointed as soon as possible. Mr. Smith reported that the teachers would receive their raises in the October 1 pay check and that a recommendation on the administrators and classified employees salaries would be made some time next week. Mrs. Blackstone moved to adjourn, and Mr. Dupins seconded the motion. Mr. Hamiltcn declared the meeting adjourned a~ 5:55 p.m. Lynn Hamilton, President Pat Blackstone, Acting Secretary A-13 ' I' ,. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent AGENDA REGULAR MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, October 22, 1991, 5 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER, Mable Mitchell, President II. INVOCATION, Alexia Glover, 5th Grade Student from Redwood, Grandmother, Mrs. Alexander III. FLAG SALUTE IV. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Mable Mitchell, President Prentice Dupins, Vice President . Pat Blackstone, Secretary Emily Denton, Member Lynn Hamilton, Member Dixie Harrison, Member J. W. Johnson, Member V. RECOGNITION OF PEOPLE/EVENTS/PROGRAMS A. Special Presentation--M. Mitchell B. Superintendent's Honor Roll--S. Bolling . Suzie Patrick, NLRHS Volunteer . . Maria Bryant, Second Grade Teacher, Crestwood . Cornelius Burton, Worker, NLR Stadium VI. DISPOSITION OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING(S) A. Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. (Regular) PAGE A-1 B. Monday, October 7, 1991, 5:30 p.m. (Special) PAGE -A-10 VII. ACTION ITEMS--UNFINISHED BUSINESS J A. Consider Revision of Building Fee Schedule-- D. Ward PAGE -S-2 VIII. ACTION ITEMS--NEW BUSINESS A. Consider Superintendent's Salary--M. Mitchell Agenda, Regular Board Meeting page 2 Tuesday, October 22, 1991, 5 p.m. IX. x. B. Consider Application for Revolving Loan-D. Watkins c. Consider Employment of Perscnnel--J. Morris D. Consider Items on Bid List--Ward E. F. G. A. Furnaces B. Computers Consider Requests for Use of Buildings--ward Consider Payment of Regular Bills--Watkins Consider Monthly Administrative Reports-Watkins INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Student Enrollment B. Report from Impasse Committee--G. Jones c. Report on Chapter II--Jones D. Report on Student Test Results--Jones CALENDAR OF EVENTS PAGE -B-1 PAGE -P-1 PAGE -R-1 PAGE~ PAGE -T-1 PAGE -T-20 PAGE -Z-1 A. Next Regularly Scheduled Board Meeting--Tuesday, November 26, 1991, 5 p.m. XI. ADJOURNMENT XII. VISITORS , . NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent MINUTES REGULARM EETING, BOARDO F EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. The North Little Rock Board of Education met in regular session on Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Lynn Hamilton. The invocation was given by Justin Green, sixth grade student from Park Hill, with the flag salute following. Present Absent Others Present Teacher of Year Supt.'s Honor Roll Roll Call Lynn Hamilton, President Mable Mitchell, Vice Pr~sident Dixie Harrison, Secretary Emily Denton, Member Prentice Dupins, Member J. w. Johnson, Member Pat Blackstone, Member Mr. James Smith, Superintendent/Treasurer of District: Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation: Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs: Gene Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction: Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business services: James Morris, Director of Personnel: Doyne Ward, Director of Purchasing: several other staff members, members of the CTA: patrons of the District\nmembers of the press: and Bettye Albright, secretary to the Superintendent, were also present. Recognition of People/Events/Programs Scharmel Bolling, Coordinator of Information Services, introduced Judy Pierson, Baring Cross CCE Coordinator, as North Little Rock's 1991-92 Teacher of the Year. Rev. J. w. Johnson presented Judy with red roses, and Dixie Harrison presented her a 'plaque. Next, Ms. Bolling presented a new recognition program-Superintendent's Honor Roll. Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services, who was recommended by the Lakewood A-1 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 2 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Supt's Honor Roll continued 8/27/91 \u0026amp; 9/5/91 YEAS: NAYS: Reorgan. of Board-President YEAS: NAYS: Changing of Chairs Vice President YEAS: NAYS: A-2 Middle School, was the first to be introduced. Mrs. Denton presented Greg with a plaque. The next recipient was Liz Fulton, a science teacher from the West Campus, who had also been selected for a Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics, with Mrs. Mitchell presenting her plaque. (Suzie Patrick, a NLRHS volunteer had also b~en recommended, but could not attend the Board meeting. ) Disposition of Minutes Mr. Hamilton called for the disposition of the minutes of the regular meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 1991, 5 p.m. and the special meeting of Thursday, September S, 1991, 5:30 p.m. As there were no corrections, Mrs. Denton moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Harnilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell Non~ (Blackstone absent) Action Items--Unfinished Business None Action Items--New Business Mr. Hamilton explained that the first order of business was the reorganization of the Board. He entertained nominations for president, explaining that the new president would chair the remainder of the meeting. Mrs. Harrison nominated Mable Mitchell for president of the North Little Rock Board of Education. Rev. Johnson seconded the motion. As there were no other nominations, the vote was called for. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson None (Blackstone absent) Mr. Hamilton presented Mrs. Mitchell with the gavel. Mrs. Mitchell expressed her appreciation to the other members of the Board for the confidence placed in her as Chairman of the Board. Mrs. Mitchell called for nominations for Vice President. Mrs. Denton placed in nomination for Vice President, Prentice Dupins. Mrs. Harrison seconded the nomination. As there were no other nominations, a vote was called for. Denton,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent)  M\"i nutes, Regular Board Meeting page 3 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Secretary YEAS: NAYS: Parlimen. Treasurer Designated YEAS: NAYS: Ex Officio Financial Sec'y YEAS: NAYS: Policies Amendment to Motion YEAS: NAYS: Mrs. Mitchell called for nominations for secretary of the Board. Mrs. Harrison nominated Pat Blackstone. Mr. Hamilton seconded the nomination. As there were no other nominations, the vote was called for. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mrs. Mitchell asked that Rev. Johnson serve as parlimen~ tarian for another year. He agreed to do so. Next item of business was to consider the designation of the Superintendent as treasurer of the District. Rev. Johnson moved that the Superintendent of the School District be designated as Treasurer. Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Next, Mrs. Mitchell asked the Board to consider the designation of the Assistant Superintendent for Business Services as th~ ex officio financial secretary of the District. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mr. Dupins seconding the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) The next item to consider was the second reading for the policy changes resulting from negotiations. Mrs. Mitchell asked the Superintendent for his recommendation. Mr. Smith requested Board approval of the listed policy changes: CCC, Salary Deductions\nCEA, Sick Leave\nCEAA, Sick Leave Bank\nCEE, Military Leave\nCFEA, Compensatory Time for Teachers\nCFF, Substitute Teachers\nCFR, Tobacco Use\nand DBBB, Secondary Organization. Mr. Hamilton so moved with Mrs. Harrison seconding the motion. Mrs. Denton moved to amend the motion by removing policy CFR, Tobacco Use, and accepting all others. Mr. Dupins seconded the amendment. Discussion included reason for omitting Policy CFR\nquestion about negotiations item\nclarification of motion\nand intent of motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Ha~rison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) A-3 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 4 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Original Motion YEAS: NAYS: Motion to Approve Discussion by Board CTA Remarks Board Direction  Motion Withdrawn/ New Motion Discussion YEAS: NAYS: A-4 Action on original motion to accept the policies as presented with the exception of the one policy, CFR, Tobacco Use, which was removed by the amended motion, was called for. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mrs. Harrison moved to accept CFR, Tobacco Use, as negotiated and pxesented in the agenda on the second reading. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion. Discussion followed on the pros and cons of tobacco use at school district buildings--the extreme action of the policy\nthe need for a place out of the weather for those who smoke\nthe survey results\nsmoking allowed on the campuses but not in the buildings or vehicles\nareas properly ventilated for smokers\ncost factor\nand a program for those wishing to stop smoking. Mrs. Sue Simmons, a member of the committee on smoking, responded about the survey's results, and Ms. Nancy Sheehan, President of the CTA, talked about the cost. factor\nproblem of ventilation in the buildings\nand those expressing an interest in a program to help those wishing to stop smoking. The Board directed the Superintendent to look into developing a program to help those who wish to stop smoking. Mr. Hamilton suggested an amendment to the original motion to include in the motion a plan for a program to help people to quit smoking at no cost to the District and to ban smoking completely, from all school district property, effective by August 1, 1992. (Mrs. Harrison withdrew the origi~al motion, with M\n. Hamilton withdrawing his second.) After Board discussion, Mr. Hamilton moved to accept policy CFR as written and in addition to what is written in the policy, instruct the Administration to offer a program to the smokers to help them quit smoking, at no cost to the District, with a ban on smoking on all school district property to begin on August 1, 1992. Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Discussion by the Board ~ncluded extreme measures of original and newly suggested policy\ndifficulty of enforcement of such a policy\nsmoking at football games and other after school activities\nand the message , being sent to the school children seeing adults smoking. Question called for by the Chairman. Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell Denton, Dupins (Blackstone absent) .. Minutes, page 5 Tuesday, Regular Board Meeting September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Policies YEAS: NAYS: Spec. Educ. Budget YEAS: NAYS: Textbook Committee Discussion YEAS: NAYS: Chapter I Improvement Plan YEAS: NAYS: Next, Mrs. Mitchell asked the Superintendent to present the additional policies being recommended on the second reading. Mr. Smith called attention to FAC, Attendance Requirements\nand CEJ, Holidays. He recommended Board approval. Mrs. Denton so moved with Mr. Dupins seconding the motion. (Rev. Johnson called attention to two typing errors.) Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnscn,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mr. Watkins presented the special education budget application for Board consideration. He recommended Board approval., Mrs. Harrison moved to accept the special education application/budget as presented by Mr. Watkins. Rev. Johnson seconded the motion. (The application/budget will be included with permanent minutes.) Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mr. Jones presented the elementary language arts textbook adoption committee for Board consideration. He called attention to the need for a teacher from the seventh grade and a minority parent to serve on the committee before it is complete. He recommended Board approval of the committee. Mr. Hamilton moved to accept the adoption committee, and Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. It was asked by the Board when the two vacancies would be filled, and Mr. Jones reported before the process began, and he offered to bring the two additional membt!rs back to the Board for approval. No directive given on this suggestion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mrs. Mitchell asked Mr. Jones to present his recommendation on the Chapter I Improvement Plan. Mr. Jones called attention to three schools not making the District's goal-Amboy, Glenview, and Pike View, which will be involved in this plan. He called attention to the accelerated prograir. at Amboy as previously reported to the Board and the reading recovery project at Pike View. He recommended Board approval. Mrs. Harrison so moved with Rev. Johnson seconding the motion. , Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) A-5 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 6 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Teacher of Tomorrow Concept Discussion YEAS: NAYS: Personnel YEAS: NAYS: Bids YEAS: NAYS: Use of Buildings A-6 Mrs. Mitchell called on Mable Bynum to present the Teacher of Tomorrow concept to the Board for consideration. Mrs. Bynum called attention to the proposal given to the Board by the Superintendent, which stresses the critical shortage of minority teachers. She reported on the proposal of a teacher training academy as a means to address the shortage in the Pulaski County area, with sev~n educational institutions involved~-UAPB, UCA, UALR and Henderson State along with the three school districts in Pulaski County. She asked that the Board approve such a concept in order for funds to be applied for in order to comply with the Legislative mandate. Mrs. Harrison so moved with Rev. Johnson seconding the motion. It was asked by the Board if there was plans for one academy in the area for all districts or for one for each district. It was reported that the proposal was for one for all three districts. The graduation requirements were discussed as well as the entrance grade. It was also brought out that the district where the academy was located might have 2\"r1 advantage in recruiting. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mr. Morris presented the personnel report for the Board's consideration, calling attention to all vacancies being filled. He recommended Board acceptance of the resignations and Board approval of the new certified and classified staff. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mrs. Mitchell called on Doyne Ward to present the bids on the stack chairs. Mr. Ward called 'attention to the bids listed, recommending the low bid from Vireo Manufacturing Corporation in the amount of $3,197.40, with the chairs being used at various elementary schools. Mrs. Harrison so moved with Rev. Johnson seconding the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mr. Ward next presented three requests for use of building: Park Hill Baptist Church to use East Campus auditorium on April 7-9 and 11-12, 1992, for an Easter Pageant\nArkansas Odyssey of the Mind Association to use East Campus for annual state competition on April 11\nand Cornerstone Bible Fellowship to use Indian Hills \"Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 7 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Use of Bldgs. continued YEAS: NAYS: Fees for Use of Facilities Discussion Action Postponed YEAS: NAYS: Adm. Salary Schedule YEAS: NAYS: Monthly Bills YEAS: NAYS: Elementazy School cafeteria on Sunday, December 15 for Christmas banquet. He recommended Board approval. Rev. Johnson so moved with Mr. Dupins seconding the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Next item on the agenda for the Board's consideration was the fee schedule for school facilities. Mr. Ward called attention to an increase in several areas, recommending Board approval. Mrs. Harrison so moved with Rev. Johnson seconding the motion. Board discussion included if proposed increase was enough\nchanges for admission and non-admission groups\nutilities\nand personnel needed. Mrs. Harrison moved that action be postponed until next meeting, with Mr. Ward securing information on the rent charges for facilities in other districts. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) The next item was to consider the administrative salary schedule and classified salary schedule. Mrs. Mitchell called upon Superintendent Smith to make his recommendation. Mr. Smith reported that the classified salary scale was not ready but should be by the latter part of October. He referred to the teachers receiving 14.86 percent as approved by the Board at the 1ast meeting\nthat it was hoped to place 5 percent in the classified scale\nand recomm~nded 9.7 percent to be placed in the administrative scale. He recommended Board approval of the presented salary schedule for administrators. Mr. Hamilton so moved with Mrs. Denton seconding the motion. (The salary schedule will be included in permanent minutes.) Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Mrs. Mitchell called on Donald Watkins to present the monthly bills for the Board's consideration. Mr. Watkins called attention to the listing of the bills in the agenda, and submitted them for approval of the Board. Mr. Hamilton moved to accept the bills as presented by Mr. Watkins. Rev. Johnson seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) A-7. Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 8 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Monthly Reports Motion to Approve YEAS: NAYS: Letters of Congrats., etc. Annual Progress Student Enrollment Bd.'s Cert. Filed October Meeting/ ASBA/ NSD Region Conference A-8 Next, Mr. Watkins presented the regular monthly administrative reports, calling attention to a new activity account summary format and handing out a new, corrected copy. After a question about the funds from vending machines, Mrs. Harrison moved to approve the administrative reports with the addition of the hand-out. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone absent) Informational Items Mrs. Mitchell asked Superintendent Smith to respond to the letters included in the agenda. Mr. Smith called attention to the letter concerning Liz Fulton, biology teacher at the West Campus, being selected for a Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching. He reported that she was the third teacher in the District.during the past three years to win this award. He called attention to the letter from STEP, Inc., and a letter from Representative Thornton on the Project Even Start grant received by the District. Mr. Smith congratulated Jim Dyer, Jann Pharo, and Nova Staggs for their work in securing the grant. Next, Mr. Jones reported on the Annual Report of progress on the District's priorities and a progress report on meeting the State's standards. He called attention to a printed progress report which had been given to the Board prior to the meeting. (This annual report will be included in the permanent minutes.). Student enrollment was asked about and a copy was given to the Board members, which showed a total of 9,247 for the month of September. Rev. Johnson called attention to the three newly elected Board members' certificate being on file in the Superintendent's office. Calendar of Events Mrs. Mitchell called atteption to the next regularly scheduled Board meeting on Tuesday, October 22, 1991, 5 p.m.\nthe Fall Regional meeting of the ASBA at the East Campus cafeteria on Thursday, October 3, 1991, 6:30 p.m.\nand the National Committee for School Desegregation Region VI Conference at the Little Rock Hilton on October 31 through November 1. Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 9 Tuesday, September 24, 1991, 5 p.m. Calendar continued Motion to Adjourn YEAS: NAYS: Mr. Dupins extended an invitation to the other members of the Board to attend the National Committ~e for School Desegregation conference at the Little Rock Hilton on October 31. Mrs. Mitchell told the Board that Mrs. Bynum would be getting in touch with them about making reservations for the meeting. Rev. Johnson moved to adjourn, and Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Denton,Dupins,Hamilton,Harrison,Johnson,Mitchell None (Blackstone) Adjournment Mrs. Mitchell duly adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m. Mable Mitchell, President Emily Denton, Acting Secretary Visitors CTA Mrs. Mitchell open the meeting for anyone in the audience wishing to address the Board. She explained that in the future, the Board and Administration will set a time limi~ for those addressing the Board. Ms. Sheehan, president of the CTA, addressed the Board. A-9 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Office of the Superintendent MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING, BOARD OF EDUCATION Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street Monday, October 7, 1991, 5:30 p.m. A special meeting of the North Little Rock Board of Education was held on Monday, October 7, 1991, 5:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 2700 Poplar Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mable Mitchell. Present Absent Others Present Purpose of Meeting Classified Salary Scale Roll Call Mable Mitchell, President Pat Blackstone, Secretary Emily Denton, l-Iember Lynn Hamilton, Member Dixie Harrison, Member Prentice Dupins, Vice President J. w. Johnson, Member James Smith, Superintendent/Treasurer of District\nMable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation\nBobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs\nGene Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction\nDonald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Services\nJames Morris, Director of Personnel\nseveral other staff members, members of the press, and Bettye Albright 1 secretary to the Superintendent, were also present. Mrs. Mitchell called attention to the purpose of the special meeting--to consider the classified salary schedule. She called on Superintendent Smith to make his recommendation. Mr. Smith called attention to the informatiou being sent to the Board prior to the meeting for study. He explained that in the past, five separate salary schedules had been used for the classified employees but had been combined into the one being recommended. He reported on the difficulties of the transition, but felt it would work well in the future, after the initial problems have been worked out--that what affected one group would affect all classified employees. He explained that the administratots were in the process of explaining the new format A-10 Minutes, Regular Board Meeting page 2 Monday, October 7, 1991, 5:30 p.m. Classified Salary continued Questions by Board Motion to Approve YEAS: NAYS: Board Comments Supt.'s Remarks Motion to Adjourn YEAS: KAYS: Adjournment to the staff involved--that, over-all, a little over five percent had been placed in the schedule, with some staff receiving more and some less. (The scale will be ir.cluded with permanent minutes.) A question from the Board cor.cerned where the increment step for secretaries began and where the percentage for the Professional Standards was based. Mr. Hamilton moved to accept the salary schedule as presented and recommended by Superintendent Smith. Mrs. Harrison seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Hamilton,Harrison,Mitchell None (Dupins and Johnson absent) The Administration was commended by the Board for the consolidation of the salary schedules\nfelt it was a positive step for the classified employees. Mr. Smith explained that mistakes are probable with the beginning of a new scale but that these will be corrected as discovered. Mrs. Harrison moved to adjourn, and Mr. llarnilton seconded the motion. Blackstone,Denton,Harnilton,Harrison,Mitchell None (Dupins and Johnson absent) Mrs. Mitchell declared the meeting duly adjourned at 5:35 p.m. Mable Mitchell, President Pat Blackstone, Secretary A-11\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_255","title":"Board of Education members","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":["1991/2006"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["Board of Education members"],"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/255"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nA V :\u0026gt; THU : 3 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Of THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS CONCERNING THE JOINT OPERATION OF KLRE FM The purpose of this agreement is to provide for the joini operation of the radio station, KLRE FM, (hereafter referred to 1V as the \"Station) by the Little Rock School District (hereafter referred to as the \"School District\") and the University of Arkansas for the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (hereafter - -J', referred to as the \"University\".) i I. Purpose of the Station The station will operate in the interest, convenience, and ry of the Arkansas radio listener and will provide educa-informational, and cultural programming of consistently good quality. It will also provide an opportunity to qualified students of Doth institutions to participate in the operation of the Station. The Station will continue to conform to high stan-dards of operation. as represented by its present adherence to the criteria for qualification given by the Corporation for nacc I Public Broadcasting and Natioh'al Public Radio. II. Board of Overseers There will be a joint Board of Overseers (hereafter referred to as the \"Board\") to embody the unity of purpose of the two institutions in the operation of the station and to unify to the % maximum degree possible the resources contributed by them, with the following composition and general purposes: li 1 -1- ' M A V THU 3 : 3 2 P . 0 1. The Board will be responsible for establishing policy consistent with the purposes of the Station, as set forth above, and for recommending to the School District the selection of the Station Manager. 2. The Board will be comprised of seven (7) members. Three will be appointed by the Superintendent of the School District. Three will be appointed by the Chancellor of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. These six members will jointly, by majority vote, select an additional at-large member. In recognition of the commitment and significant contribution to KLRE FM of the organization known as the Friends of KLRE, the Superintendent and chancellor will each regularly select one of his or her three appointees to the Board from among the members of the Board of Directors of the Friends of KLRE, so long as the organization, its purposes, commitment and interest in KLRE remain essentially unchanged and at substantially the same or greater level of commitment as presently exists. Each selection of a Frlends of KLRE Board Member will be from a list of two nominees presented to the Superintendent or Chancellor by the Board of Directors of the Friends of KLRE. 3. Members of the Board will serve terms three years in length, with the Superintendent and Chancellor, respectively, determining which of their initial appointees will serve for terms of one, two, and three years. The at-large member will serve a three-year term. Any vacancy that occurs other than at the end of a term will be filled by the District, the University or the Board, as the case may be, for the balance of the unex- -2-T H LI : 3 2 F- . 0 3 pired term. When the term of Board position occupied by a a member of the Board of Directors of the Friends of KLRE expires, that position will be filled with a member of the Friends Board, so that there will always be two members of the Friends Board serving on the Board of Overseers, subject to Paragraph 2 above. 4. The Board will, by majority vote. elect its chair- person and otherwise organize and conduct its business in accordance with recognized rules of order. 3 . The school District will provide the members of the Board with general liability insurance against risks customarily insured against by Boards of commercial radio stations, if such coverage is obtainable at reasonable cost. III. Station Manager Under the oversight of the Board, the Station Manager will be responsible for the operation of the Station, including the selection and supervision of personnel and the administration of the budget, subject to the provisions of Section VIII below. IV. Sharing of Basic Financial Support The School District and the University will contribute equal amounts of basic financial support to the Station annually. a The Superintendent and the Chancellor will determine. in timely manner, the level of support to be contributed by the respective institutions for each succeeding year. In the event they are not able to agree on revised level of support for the upcoming year, the level set for the current year will continue to be applicable. -3- aM ft V  2 3  =\u0026gt; 1 THU F- . 0 -4 V. Location The University will provide a studio and house the Station in Stabler Hall. However, the Board may seek relocation of the Station to another site subject to the concurrence of the Superintendent and Chancellor. The university will accord to radio station staff the usual privileges, with regard to parking, building access, and such matters, as are accorded to institutional personnel. Withdrawal or Dissolution Withdrawal from this agreement, by either the School District VI . or the University, will require a written notice of two years. unless decided otherwise by mutual agreement. In the event of withdrawal, or of dissolution as a result of nonperformance of obligations, the party, if either, which beco- mes sole Ixcensee of the Station, will be granted use of all movable equipment which has been an integral part of the Station's operations, for the amount of One Thousand Dollars (Sl/000) per year, unless decided otherwise by mutual agreement. and the use of such equipment shall be automatically renewed annually for the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) per year. The withdrawing party or the party causing dissolution of the joint agreement as a result of nonperformance of its obligations, agrees to execute such documents. assignments, notices, applica- tions, instruments of transfer and any other documents or instru- ments necessary to effect the transfer of the license or any permits to the surviving party as sole licensee of the Station. -4- 3 1 THU 3:33 If because of the withdrawal by the University from this P . 0 5 joint undertaking or if the School District should become sole licensee of the Station as a result of the nonperformance of the obligations of the university hereunder, the School District shall have the option to lease the space in which the Station is then located. Such lease shall be upon terms and conditions as mutually agreed between the parties and shall be terminable by the lessee on reasonable notice out not less than sixty (60) days. The rental shall be reasonably related to the rental for similar space in the community considering, however, the value to the University of the continuing use of the Station by its students. VII. implementation 1. For the fiscal year during which this Agreement becomes effective, the School District and the University will each contribute on the effective date an amount equal to $178.08 for each day remaining in the fiscal year. This meets the cri- ter ion set by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as the minimum total budget for stations applying for Community Service Grant. 2. The current station Manager and staff of KLRE FM will be retained as employees of the School District\nprovided, however, nothing herein shall be deemed to accord a contractual right to continued employment to any such employee or to modify the employment agreements between the Little Rock School District and the current Station Manager and staff of KLRE FM. -S aM A  THU Si : 3 -T R . 0 e 3. The School District will contribute to the joint agreement KLRE FM, with its license, Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio qualification that provi- des National Public Radio programming and yearly Community Service Grant, the support of the Friends of KLRE FM, its underwriting, its grants and agreements, including the grants a from the Arkansas Arts Council and the Arkansas Endowment for the Humanities. The tower, transmission equipment, and building with associated land, currently used at 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive, will continue to be dedicated to KLRE FM as a backup for the main transmission system, use in microwave relay, and for ancillary services. in addition. such movable equipment, programming, programming supplies, and related materials as would enhance sta- tion operations in new location will be dedicated to the a jointly-operated station. Depending on the effect of applicable regulations on purchasing and property, and upon the judgment of the Board, such equipment may be retained on the School District inventory or may become jointly owned property or may be leased to the University. 4. The university will contribute to the joint agreement construction permit, 1icense, transmitter, transmission line. tower site and associated equipment for a transmission at the tower site including any buildings that the University may deem necessary, and the audio equipment that was previously purchased for a campus radio station. Depending on the effect of applicable regulations on purchasing and property, and upon the judgment of the Board, such equipment may be -6-THU = : 3 -4 R - 0 T retained on the university inventory or may become jointly owned property or may be leased to the School District. VIII. Continuing Operations 1. In order to conform to the laws of the State of Arkansas, the funds of the Station shall be received, recorded, disbursed, and reported through the accounting system of the School District. The Station shall, therefore, operate under the same laws, acts. regulations, administrative policies and proce- dures, and personnel policies and procedures as the School District. In addition. the Station shall be subject to the normal review. audit. and support of the School District officers having a function in the process. 2. The Board of Overseers shall cause an annual audit, independent or legislative. of the books to be made and shall make an annual financial report in writing to the cooperating institutions. 3. Contracts by the Station shall be let and purchases shall be made in accordance with the legal requirements applicable to contracts and purchases of the School District and shall be in accordance with the policies and procedures of the School District. The Station staff shall be eligible for the benefit programs available to the employees of the School District and shall for ail purposes be considered employees of the School District. 5. The foregoing approach is not meant to preclude other arrangements which might later be necessary or more -7- 4.r-1 V  2 3  5 1 5 I T H II appropriate and advantageous, if agreed to by the Superintendent F- . 0 S and Chancellor. IX. Special condition This Agreement shall be in effect and binding upon the School District and the University upon the satisfaction of the following specific condition: All necessary permits, applica- tions and approvals from the Federal Communications Commission shall have been obtained. X. Effective Date This Agreement shall become effective on the day the KLRE FM signal is broadcast simultaneously on its present frequency (90.5 FM) and on the frequency assigned to KUAR ( FM). XI. Binding Effect This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and upon their successors and assigns including any successor to the School District by merger or consolidation. THIS AGREEt*lNT is entered into this 7th day of July , 1986 by the undersigned officers of the University and the School District each of whom is duly authorized by appropriate resolution of the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas and the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District, as the case may be. for the school DISTRICT! FOR IVERS, Ys Ed Kelly, Superintendent ay T rnton, President - fir Date 7- 7- Date -8-STATfc OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SCHOOL EMPLOYEES CONTR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Copy SALARY CLASS Unci SCHOOL KLRE/KUAR This contract, made and entered into by and between the LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT of PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, and Charles Saults Witnesseth\n/ R - 0 By a majority vote Of the directors present at a legally held meeting\" on !I agrees to employ the said Charles Saults as Board Operator/ Producer I Position) in the above named school district for a period of days 12 months, beginning July 1, 1990 and ending June 30, 1991 paying for said services as follows\ncVJ/) bi / (check one) The rate of $ gcrfev-t .5ma,cn/per year (Daily Rate $ Plus ) The rate of $ Plus per hour for hours authorized.  RELATIVE OF BOARD MEMBER, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, OR SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR: Said Employee WAS NOT related to a member of the School Board, Superintendent of Schools, or senior administrators reporting directly to the Superintendent of Schools at the time of employment (Board Policy EPS Code: CBCA). ( ) Other conditions\nGiven this the AZ day of May 1990 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Employer) (Employee Signature) X Preitirlanf_____ ______ iPresideni cftle tdurai Board, J trresiaeni ci me Doar (Address of Employee) (SeSMr^UtUy School Board) Copies of this contraci are to be given to (1) employee, \u0026lt;2\u0026gt; the school board, \u0026lt;3) the county treasurer, and (4) the county supervisor. Food handlers must Comply with Act 128 of 1965. \"A legally held meeting is One held: (1) on the regular meeting date of the school board at which a quorum is present\n(2) at a called meeting lor which each director has been duly notified In advance and at which a quorum is present r-ttm r^\\frrr\u0026gt; r\u0026gt;z\u0026gt;rv [ i Little Rock School District Personnel Directory 1992 Board of Directors 2Lone 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Director Dr. Katherine Mitchell PO Box 1896,03 375-9377 W. D. \"Bill\" Hamilton 306 Arthur Drive, 04 664-8727 Dorsey Jackson 2901 No. Fillmore, 07 664-2393 Rollin Armstrdng 711 Shea, 05 Dr. 224-6982 John Moore 12015 Pleasant Tree Drive, 11 223-2297 Patricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive, 09 562-0571 Oma Jacovelli 6622 Gold Court, 09 568-7585 Term ends 1993 1992 1994 1992 1993 1994 1994 Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)324-20003-vear terms r T SCHOOL DISTRICTS BOARDS OF DIRECTORS COUNTY OF PULASKI 1992 - 1993 Ijii . a ll, ITLE ROCK **M3.9 Mills Dr-. C. .T ------ -- IL^lac Bernd, Supt., 810 West Marltham. LR 72201 G. Jacovelli 6^22 Gold Court------- -resident___________________ Little Rock,^AR 72209 4^ 12015 Pleasant Tree Dr. President__________________ Little Rock, AR 72211 -atricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive ^cretarv------------------------------- Little Rock, AR 72209 2W1 N. Fillmore _________________Little Rock, AR 72207 Dr. Katherine P. Mitchell 1605 Welch St. .Iember_________________________Little Rock, AR 72206 y^ohn A. Riggs 3600 Foxcroft rr------------------------Little Rock, .AR 72207 ill D. Hamilton 306 .Arthur Drive vQn----r-i----------------------Little Rock, AR 72204 x992 LRSD school election postponed- 568-7585(H) 374-6535(W) 223-2297(H) 3r9-2498(w) 562-0571(11) 375-3275(W) 664-2393(H) 374-6305(W) 375-9377(H) 5'70-3528(W) 223-8916(H) 661-2590(W) in in #6 in in #4 #2 324-2000 TW 1993 1994 199^ 1993 1992* 1992* xyyz school election postponed- when rescheduled, those elected shall serve to 1995 ^.TH SmERoS*---STf?fG was appointed to serve the unexpired tern biiiLh, kucK__36.3 Mills Mr. James Smith. Sunt. p^5 Rnv AS? tTTd toTTS------771-5000 1^ Mable Mitchell President Pat Blackstone 'ice President Prentice Dupins Secretary_______ Lynn Hariiilton Member___________ Dixie Harrison Member J. W. Johnson -iember Marty Moore Member Smith, Supt., P.O. Box 68/. NT.R, 771 IS 5006 Glenview Blvd. -------------------------------------------- North Little Rock, AR 72117 3409 Bunker Hill North Little Rock, AR 72116 431 McCain Blvd., F-23 North Little Rock, .AR 72116 4103 /Arlington North Little Rock, AR 72116 One Shady Valley Court North Little Rock, AR 72116 437 West Fourth St. ~ North Little Rock, AR 72114 4417 Central North Little Rock, AR 72118 753-5128 791-O267(H) 758-2209(H) 753-146KH) 771-4506(H) 758-3181(H) iil JE in in #5 in in 1993 1994 I99i^ 1993 1993 1995 4-vear terms __________________ ^ULASKl COUNTY SPECIAL**43.9 Mills -'Ir. Gene Goss President 3-r. Jim Burgett '.^ice President_________ ZMr, Reedie Ray Secretary_______________ Mr. Doyan Matthews Member___________________ LMr. Mack McAlister Member_________________\nirs. Mildred Tatum Member Mrs. Ruth White Tucker -Iember Mr. Bobby Lester, Supt. 29 Narragansett Dr. P.O. Box 8601, L.R. 72216 490-W North Little Rock, AR 72120 35 Fairfield Drive North Little Rock, AR 72120 414 East Valentine Rd. Jacksonville, AR 72076______ 5422 Elizabeth Lane North Little Rock, AR 72118 P.O. Box 956  Jacksonville, AR 72076 11405 Highway 365 Little Rock, AR 72206 19001 Kanis Road Little Rock, AR 72211 835-1311(H) 982-5650(H) 851-2O97(H) 982-4491(W) 897-4842(H) 821-3224(11) in in in in #6 #1 ?Z2 1994 199^ 1996 1996 1995 1995 1993 - repared by Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION .Q/16192 372-7800 J CCT I 9 1552(5-year terms) Mr. Cecil Bailey President Mr. Thomas Broughton Vice President Dr. George McCrary Member Mr, E, Grainger Williams PULASKI COUNTY BO.ARD OF EDUCATION 1992 - 1993 5805 Eagle Creek North Little Rode, AR 72116 4602 W. 23rd Little Rock, AR 72204 #2 Crestview Plaza Jacksonville, AR 72076 P.O. Box 366 372-4181(W) 835-7104(H) 664-6577(W) 982-4551(W) 372-3056(W) #1 NLRSD 1995 #3 LRSD South 199fc #2 PCSSD 199'' North #5 LRSD 1 . Little Rock, AR 12202, 666-8697(H) \"'North ~ 1992 election postponed, position is currently at-large, but will be Zone 5 LRSD/No. 199. Dr. Martin Zoldessy Member 11601 Rodney Parham Little Rock, AR 72212 224-0200(W) 223-0100(H) #4 PCSSD 199^ South Ms. Debbie Crownover Secretary to the Board 504 E. Devon Sherwood, AR 72116 372-7800(W) 835-9347(H) Secretary sine 1985John Moore 374-6535 (work) 223-2297 (home Bill Hamilton 664-8727 (home) Dr. Katherine Mitchell 374-6305 (work) 375-9377 (home) John Riggs 570-3528 (work) Pat Gee 569-2498 (work) 562-0571 (home) Oma (O.G.) Jacovelli 568-7585 (home) Dorsey Jackson 375-3275 (work) 664-2393 (home) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Board of Directors 1992-93May 5, 1992 Ms. Pat Gee Arkansas State Highway Dept. 10324 Interstate 30 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Dear Ms. Gee: As taxpayers in the Little Rock School District, we feel that now IS the time for the Little Rock School Board to deal effectively with the needs of the district as well as being sensitive to the needs of the majority of the patrons of the district. The Board must hire an African American Superintendent. It is because of the current high rate of failure for African American students in the Little Rock School District that we support the hiring of an African American Superintendent. are many factors which have resulted in this very high statistic. There Realizing that all of the blame does not belong to the schools, the schools must share some of the responsibility for this problem. There have not been programs or directed curriculum which have dealt with the problems of our children effectively. The fact that the district is 68% African American is a most prevalent statistic which should be considered in the hiring of a Superintendent. We need a Superintendent who can relate to the majority complexion of the district, as well as addressing the most urgent needs of our educational system. At this time, the hiring of a Superintendent who can alleviate our problems and bring our district into focus is most imperative. You must consider the most urgent needs of the district, as well as doing what is best to bring the majority on equal standards as the minority. For too long, the School Board has addressed the needs of the minority and neglected the needs of the majority. The solution for a district such as ours demands special consideration. You must consider the fact that African-Americans represent the majority of students in the Little Rock School District, and black patrons and students should be given special consideration in light of the years of neglect. Very truly yours.1. 2. 3 . Patron's List 4. V^- 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11V 12. 13. 14 . 15. 16.1 17. nri^ 18. 19. 20. 21. 22 . 23 . 24 . 25. - H3.?af''\u0026lt;i^\n-S^z /z - 8, ^2^ - 3 (^\n(U - 1 I I i. .JUL-27-92 MON 15:29 U S DISTRICT CLERK FAX NO. 15019724612 JUL-27-92 HON 13:09 U. S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 02 P. 03 t ii-iesQ. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J- 3 ra . WESTERN DIVISION 'r --------------- dale CHARLS3, ROBERT L. BROHN, SR., GHBN HBVBY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER V. 1cRC^92=476 PLAINTIFFS O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education o the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GES, DR. GEORGS CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSBV JACKSON, DR. KATKERINB MITCHELL and ff.b. BItiL\u0026gt;' HAMILTON, Individually and In Their official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and in their Official Capacities and THB little rock school DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT 1. Jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 u.S.c.  1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.c. 1973j as amended. Relief la sought pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and 42 U.S.c. S1973j, as amended. 2. Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States of the African American descent who reside in the Little Rock, Arkansas School District, a public body corporate. They bring thia action to redress rights guaranteed them under the Constitution of the United states and federal laws. 3. The defendants are O.G. Jacovelli, Patrioia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Doraey Jackson, Dr. Katherine Mitchell and W.D. \"Bill\" Hamilton, the individual directors of the BoardJUL-27-92 MON 15:29 U S DISTRICT CLERK JUL-27-92 MON 13:09 U. S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 15019724612 FAX NO. 7406096 P. 04 of Education of P. 03 the Little School District, a public body corporate\nand the Board of Education of Little Rock School District, 4. This is an action to reform the single member district school zone lines which are utilized by the defendants in school lections for the purpose of electing school directors. This is also an action to ensure that such reformation is pursuant to and consistent with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Plaintiffs seek to have the district reformed into eeven (7) single member districts of approximately equal population pursuant to a plan that allows citizens of African American descent the opportunity to maximize their opportunity to participate in the political process Early relief prior and to elect representation of their choice, to another school election is further sought. 5. When single member districts were established approximately seven (7) years ago. each district had approximately 25,000 residents. The lines were then drawn using data collected in 1980. That data is now obsolete. 6. The 1990 census reflects that Little Rock has a population of 175,795. The white population in Little Rock is 113,707 while the African American population is 59,742. The balance of th population consists of persons who are designated by the census as others including persons of Hispanics and Aslan origin. 7, Between 1980 and 1990, the African American population in Little Rock increased by approximately 6,600 while the white 2-JUL-27-92 MON 15:30 U S DISTRICT CLERK FAX NO. 15019724612 P. 04 JUL-27-92 MON 13:09 U. S. 01 ST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO, 7406096 P.05 population decreased by approximately 9,100. 8. Between 1980 and 1980/ the white population dramatically moved into the western sector of the Little Rook while the African American population moved into the southwest and central sectors of Little Rock. 9. As a consequence of demographic changes, the zones or election districts which are currently utilized fox the election of school directors are now significantly imbalanced. The following listing Bhowfi the relative population (by racial percentage) of each election population by race of each of the zones in the Little Rock school District or school zone in the defendant school district. RGHOQl DT3THICT (ZONE)_(Racial %1 1980 ONE 25,399 (31%) TWO 25,295 (69%) THREE 25,210 (7,3%) FOUR - 24,844 (2,9%) FIVE 25,016 (18,0%) STX 25,107 (17.36%) SEVEN 25,043 (14.1%) 1990 21,239 (85%) 16,607 (77.3%) 26,375 (15.0%) 32,421 (4.9%) 30,354 (24.3%) 23,536 (29.9%) 22,601 (33.2%) Imbalance 4,070 -8,688 +1,165 +7,577 +5,738 -1,571 -3,442 10, Ths United States Constitution provides that each person's vote shall be of equal weight. above do not allow for equal weight of pie of \"one man - one vote.\" The imbalances set forth each vote under the princi 11. The out of balance election syetem in the Little Rook School District limits and denies citizens of African American descent appropriate opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. 3' JUL-27-92 MON 15:30 U S DISTRICT CLERK . jUL-27-92 nON 13!10 u. S. DI ST. CT. LR ftRK. FAX NO. 15019724612 FAX NO. 7406096 P. 05 P.06 12. There is a history of Glectiona in the City of Little racially polarized voting in Rock and in school elections. Fuxthemore, the Little Rock School District has a history of unremadiated racial segregation in staff of African American descant. the treatment of pupils and Moreover/ resident citizens of African American descent continue to ejtperience difficulty in securing equal treatment from and by the access directors in the Little Rock School District. to the board of 13. The defendants are aware of the grossly inbalanced numbers in the zones or alection districts. They have taken no steps to bring the itibalance within the \"one man - one vote\" principle or within the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. The original redistricting of the Little Rock School District was encompassed in the cases of Little Rook School District at ^1. JLu Pulaski County Special Sohool-D.iatrict, ..ell,al  t (USDC HO. lr-C-82- 866) . These plaintiffs believe that Lt is appropriate for that history and background to be consldaxed in formulating the relief for which they pray, Ag^ga- 14. School elections are presently set to be held on September 15, 1992 for positions two (2) and four (4) now held by Defendants Hamilton and Cannon. Both districts are naw grossly imbalanced. See Paragraph Hine, supra 13. IC new school elections now set for September 15, 1992 proceed, plaintiffs stand to ba deprived of the right to vote and of their voting rights secured by th* Voting Rights Act. plaintiffs therefore seek to enjoin the schedule elections until a 4'jUL-27-92 MON 15:31 . , JUL-27-92 nON 13:10 U S DISTRICT CLERK u. S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO, 15019724612 FAX NO. 7406098 P. 07 P.06 new plan is approved by the Court which meets: (a) the \"one man - one vote\" requirement of the Constitution and, (b) the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. 16. The plaintiffs nave been deprived of well defined and well protected tights as guaranteed by federal law. They have no adequate remedy by which to redress these wrongs but this action for injunctive relief- Any other remedy would be eo uncertain, vexatious and time consuming as to deny full relief. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that this matter be expedited on the merits so that a decision thereon can ba promptly reached. Plaintiffs further pray that the present sones be realigned and redistricted in accordance with the \"one man - one vote\" principle and the principles of the Voting Rights Act including the creation of an additional majority African American school voting district. Plaintiffs also pray for their costa including reasonable couneel fees. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WAbKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rook, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 dselidrliiS-lP By: W. walker - Bar Ko. 64046 ^ley A. Branton, Jr., #90053 Mark Burnette - Bar Ko. 88073 Austin Porter Jr,, #86145 5.1 F5LED U.SS.. DDIISSJT-RRIlCCTT CCOOUUPRT EASTEh.--' r/.T-.rcT . nvMMCA OKiCO ci u IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 04 1992 CARL R, iiritr* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEW. CLERK .INTIFFS V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE'tfOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE), and without objection from any of the parties to this action, the PCBE Zone 5 election currently scheduled for September 15, 1992, is hereby postponed until the time of the LRSD 1992 Board of Education election. IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of September, 1992. UNITED SSTTAATTEESS DISTRIICCTT JUDGE R 3 c 1 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN :OMPL!^^WWiil^TlI RRIULE 53 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BY L TO: FROM: SUBJECT: little rock : SCHOOL DISTRICT STREET 72201 810 WEST  little rock, ARKANSAS January 4, 1993 All Building principals = Z 9 BWX 'J V JAN 1 2 159.3 -''ce cf Cuss-rsjation Mj and Department Heads ttonriQ id Mac Bernd, superintendent new policies of Schools C-- the manner in Bnclosed pleaee find .XaTgeSdat^SStralJ^e*^^\"-? Which we review meeting on the eliminated. -- \u0026amp;oi to he at e p.h. on The regular school Boar conduct an will continue the fourth Thursdajy of each month. Please dispose new policies  these two new poxx^^-- ?Aloies they replace. of the policies in your policy manual and r\"EPS CODE: BDDB ADOPTED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 12/18/92 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDB  SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools. The method used by the Superintendent to establish the Board agenda must provide an opportunity for the Board members to voice objections or add items. The agenda will contain only those items introduced by the Board members and Superintendent. Only items scheduled in the agenda will be acted upon in a regular Board meeting unless a suspension of the rules is agreed to in compliance with Policy BDDEB (Suspension of the Rules of Order). The order of business at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Call to Order Roll Call Minutes Presentations A. B. C. D. Superintendent Citizens Committees Board Members Partnerships Remarks From Citizens Action Agenda Report Agenda Consent Agenda Audience with Individuals or Groups Student and/or Employee Disciplinary Recommendations Adj ournment Persons wishing to address the Board during the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section of the agenda will be required to sign up and state the subject of their remarks prior to the convening of the meeting. The Board may vote to set time limitations or representatives to speak for large groups whose interests similar. P - require are Persons speaking about issues on the agenda for Board action will be given priority during the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section. If additional time is required for or employee remarks or if there is a large delegation wishing to address a single issue not on the agenda, the Board may vote to defer their comments to the \"Audience with Individuals or Groups\" complete the pending agenda in a timely manner. section in order toEPS CODE: BDDC ADOPTED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 12/18/92 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDC PREPARATION OF SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools in the following manner: On the second Thursday of each month the- Board of Directors will meet to review the agenda topics proposed by the Superintendent of Schools for that month's regular Board meeting on the fourth Thursday During the agenda review meeting Board members will have the opportunity to place items on the agenda and will decide whether items will be on the action agenda, report agenda, or consent agenda. At the conclusion of the agenda review meeting, the agenda will contain only those topics introduced by either the Superintendent or members of the Board of Directors. The Board will strive to keep its regularly scheduled meetings on the second and fourth Thursday of each month\nhowever, for good cause, the Board may move any regularly scheduled date to another date agreed to by a majority vote of the Board. The Superintendent will have the agenda and the appropriate background materials printed and delivered to the Board members at least two days prior to the regular Board meeting.CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNEMHI? of INOmDUAU AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTCaNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 3LTLDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Tslepaone (501) 376-2011 Fix No. (501) 376-2147 Dizcet Ko. 370-1506 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a report about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that\" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). All three school districts propos^ modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)1. Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Court since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation pl^. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: \"(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations. It On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1,1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2Court alsQ.notifT.ed the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------tu n'vvu.u 1C4UJ.1C uiai inusxv Lcavuci positionsf^he seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Coun and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review Aem). (I have transcripts of almost 3There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive ttem for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4M.i\\R 3 1995 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED U.S. OIST.^ICT COURT =ASTERhl 0!S7?:CT ARKANSAS MAR -1 1993 CARL h. p!LEF.K DEF.CLEft PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court hereby orders the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present at the March 19, 1993, hearing, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in Room 305 of the United States Post Office and Courthouse Building. The Court had previously requested that they be present but upon further reflection has detemnined that their presence is required. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. TED ST?AATTEESS DISTRICT JJUUTDGE RSCFr/FD V. 'THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE W5TH RULE 53 ANO/OR 7S(a) FRCP ON tl E STATEMENT OF JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT to Little Rock School Board and Counsel - March 19, 1993 An Order was issued directing the Little Rock School Board members to appear in Court this morning so that the Court may take this opportunity to explain this case and to explain the constraints placed upon your actions by the orders of the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court does not believe that you understand those orders, or if you do understand them, you do not seek to comply. Hopefully, after this morning, you will have an understanding\nbut whether you do or not. you must comply. This Court has been too lenient with you. The Court has given you ample leeway and opportunity to move toward a unitary school system. Those days of Court leniency and the assumption by the Court of good faith on your part are over. This current litigation is in a larger sense the continuation of desegregation litigation in the Little Rock School District which began in the Spring of 1956. At one time that litigation was thought to have been brought to a successful conclusion and the Little Rock school system seemed to have entered a period of relative tranquility and complete self-management. However, in 1982, the current litigation was brought by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District, as plaintiff, against the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. The Little Rock School District essentially was seeking county-wide desegregation and the -1-reconstituting of school boundaries between Little Rock and the County School District. The complaining party, the Little Rock School District, won its case. It also won its case against the State of Arkansas, and in a settlement involving the three school districts and the State, the State was assessed over $129,000,000 as something in the nature of reparations for its alleged role in promoting continued segregation in Pulaski County. As a part of the settlement approved by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the school districts agreed to a program which, it was believed, would ultimately lead to a unitary. desegregated school system in Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County. This settlement was essentially the product of the Little Rock School District, the victor in this litigation, and it was approved by the Court of Appeals at the behest and active encouragement of the Little Rock School District. Now, it must be put into effect by the District Court. This Court settlement which you and your lawyers agreed to put in place is a costly settlement. The magnet school aspect of it. which seems to be an enormous success, is not nearly as expensive as the incentive schools. which. with one exception, presently appear to be failures as far as desegregation is concerned. In addition to the structure of this system, there are innumerable other aspects of your settlement agreement. which OU were instrumental in having approved, which are very costly. Since the time of victory by the Little Rock School District in this case, when the Court of Appeals granted almost every facet -2-of relief requested by Little Rock, the Little Rock School District has shown a tendency to drag its feet and act as if it had lost, rather than won, the litigation which it instituted. The Little Rock School District and the other school districts are in Court because the Little Rock School district won its case and won the relief it requested. Yet the major complainer, the chief whiner, the number one barrier to a legitimate declaration of a unitary desegregated school system is the victorious complaining party, the Little Rock School District. The biblical reference, in a different context, is to the effect that if you ask, you will receive. Well, you asked, you got it, and it is the basic job of this Court to see that you receive it in full measure. To help this Court and to assist you in obtaining the relief that you sought and that has been approved for you as you requested, there has been created and approved by the Court of Appeals the Office of the Desegregation Monitoring. That office. as created, has been sufficient as currently staffed until recently when it became increasingly apparent that the Little Rock School District could not or would not develop a budget sufficient to identify the expenditure of desegregation funds. It is unclear to the Court  and would be unclear to anyone  how funds are being allocated to achieve the desegregation goals sought by the LRSD and approved by the Eighth Circuit. This Court has brought home this deficiency to the administration and attorneys of the LRSD on a number of occasions and has received only unfulfilled promises and requests to give you time. These deficiencies were brought to your -3-attention in the 1990 Curriculum Audit Report and in the Court's order of January 21, 1992. It was discussed again in a budget hearing in August 1992. You have had time. Because you have evidently failed to understand this concern, the Court directed that you appear here today. The Court, either today or in the next few days, will appoint a budget officer to be paid by the Little Rock School District, who will be a part of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and who will operate under the direction of Ann Brown. Now, there are some questions that you and others raise from time to time. My list is not exhaustive by any means, but it contains some rather common questions that are raised or falsely asserted as fact. Here are some of the leading ones, and here are the answers\n1. Whv can't we have neighborhood schools? That is a perfectly sound question to be put forward by someone who does not know anything about law. The fact is, there are many neighborhood schools. Because the settlement plans foster voluntary movement to facilitate desegregation, there are other types of schools too. such as magnets. interdistrict schools. and incentive schools. Many features of the desegregation plan are designed to give parents a choice in where their children attend school. However, because the order of the Court of Appeals requires racial balance in the schools, it is not always possible to have neighborhood schools and meet the requirements that have been imposed. That is why busing  which originated as a device to bring distant or -4-rural children to the closest public school - is employed as a device to disperse black children to predominantly white areas and white children to predominantly black areas. Racial barriers imposed by law in housing are unconstitutional\nbut for socioeconomic reasons, there is racial segregation in living patterns here. Extensive and expensive busing of school children to achieve racial balance is the only answer. Until the U. S. Supreme Court changes the law or until the Court of Appeals alters its orders, busing will remain a requirement that cannot be avoided. 2. Why can't we have a revised desegrecration plan focusing on high Quality education and student achievement? The Court is very sympathetic toward that goal and reminds you that the ultimate goal of desegregation is high quality. equitable education for all children. However, that is not all that you agreed to do in your settlement agreement, which you were successful in having the Court of Appeals approve. And so this Court, which in this respect acts as much in an administrative capacity as in a judicial capacity, is directed to carry out your expensive, approved plan. That plan of yours does focus on high quality education, but it also provides large sums of money for items that are not necessarily part of a basic or core curriculum. It was your plan that you agreed to\nyou got it approved by the Court of Appeals\nand I must enforce it. Let me make this clear: while the District Court has some latitude in modifying the plan, the Court of Appeals has identified elements of the plan which it deems essential and which, under present circumstances, are not within the prerogative of this Court of modify. -5-3. A budget officer to assist the School District is just a \"make work situation. No, it is not\nthat is patently false. The Court cannot determine how you are spending your money to achieve desegregation. Your administrators do not know. Your lawyers do not know. And you do not know. If the LRSD were a corporation, I would put it in receivership. By the way, do not think that I have not considered that with regard to the LRSD. Finally, I wish to close these remarks with some more words directed to the School Board. You are in the position of trustees for the school patrons. Until you begin to comply with the orders of this Court and the Court of Appeals, you are not carrying out your trust in an acceptable manner. I have never seen, heard or read of a case in which the victors conducted themselves like the vanquished  until now. If we have to have two full hearings a month, in which Board members are required to be present, then we will do so. We will do everything that is required to see that you take the medicine to achieve the cure that you asked the Federal Courts to give you. Following is a reminder of some of the provisions of the Plan or Court orders that you have yet to fulfill. Board Responsibilities According to the introductory section of the 1992 LRSD desegregation plan, the LRSD Board of Directors has committed to the following goals, but has so far not fulfilled them:  Eliminating achievement disparity between black and white students on norm-referenced and criterion referenced tests.  Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation. -6-in  Effectively using interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements all schools and to avoid resegregation. Additionally, under the title \"Leadership\" on pages 2-3 of the 1992 plan, the board and superintendent have failed to assert strong leadership in the following areas\n Clearly delineating the district's desegregation mission to the staff and the community.  Utilizing the desegregation mission as a guide for developing policies and setting expectations for the superintendent to implement those policies.  Adopting a budget that will provide the resources necessary for an effective, desegregated school system.  Making budgetary decisions consistent with district desegregation policies in terms of buildings, staff, materials, and equipment.  Conducting an annual self-evaluation of their commitment to a quality desegregated education. Incentive Schools  The district has failed to reserve kindergarten and four-year- old program seats for white students and to documented, those students. sustained, engage in and vigorous recruitment to attract (Plan page 140\nMay 1992 Order, page 28)  Program specialists have not been hired and placed at all incentive schools. (May 1992 order, page 41) A staffing needs assessment has not been administered, analyzed, and used as the basis for staffing decisions. 1992 order, page 41) (May  Themes have not been incorporated into the core curriculum at each incentive school. (May 1992 order, page 42)  Little significant progress has been made toward desegregating the incentive schools, (1992 plan, page 149) with the exception of Rockefeller.  There is a lack of coordinated recruitment and failure to implement all plan recruitment activities. 215-217) (1992 plan, pages  The Parent Council has not begun to monitor or report on all -7-activities related to the incentive school plan, page 151) program. (1992 Equity Issues  The district has failed to show significant progress in reducing the achievement disparity between black and white students. 26) (1992 plan, page 1\n1989 Settlement Agreement, page  Black students (particularly black males) continue to be disciplined at a rate disproportionate to their percentage of the student population. (1992 plan, pages 28, 33-34)  The district has failed to effectively address the overrepresentation of black students (particularly black males) in special education. (1992 plan, page 111) Recruitment  The district has not developed a strategic recruitment plan pursuant to the ODM Incentive School Recommendations (page 4) and the LRSD Marketing Plan.  A recruitment tracking system, first requested during the March 1991 hearing implemented. on LRSD school construction, has not been Additional Items from the May 1992 Order  A plan has not been submitted describing the extended activities designed to address the needs of Washington Magnet School attendance zone students. (May 1992 order, page 38) -8-RECgIVO Little Rock School District Board of Directors Memorandum APR I 1993 Office of Desegregation Mi To: Ann Brown From\nJohn Riggs, IV Re: Attached Statement Date\nMarch 31, 1993 Ann: I read the attached statement at the March 25th board meeting. I thought you may want a printed copy for your and possibly the court's information. If you should have any questions on what my intent or meaning in any of this was, kindly call me and I will do my best to explain the somewhat warped way that my brain sometimes operates. What do you think about the new MLK attendance zones? I like the idea of letting our patrons have the choice of attending a new interdistrict school or an old incentive school, but I fear we may run afoul of the court. STATEMENT OF JOHN RIGGS, IV TO THE LITTLE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT AT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL BOARD MEETING -3/25/93 Last Friday, March 19th, was my first visit to a federal court. I have a few observations on that first visit that I would like to share with our board, our administration, and our students and patrons. First, for the most part, people invoked in the federal court system are nice folks. Although at times some folks do get a tab over emotional, on the whole I was very well treated. The court folks were kind enough to reserve a nice big chair especially for me that was in front so that I could see the action up close and personal-if the proceedings had been a Razorback basketball game we would have had the equivalent of court side seats. Being fairly naive about courts and lawyers in general, I found the day to be a very interesting civics lesson, much like the civics lesson Dr. Bernd referred to when discussing some of our Central students and our hearing for Mr. Hickman. I would say on the whole, I enjoyed most of the day and look forward to my ne.xt indoctrination into how our court system works. I just wish you lawyers would stop suing me for trying to do the best I can in this job. I do feel I did pick the best profession for me by becoming a simple tractor salesman rather than a lawyer or judge While we were in court, the judge was nice enough to give us a report on our conduct and what she expects of us as the ultimate leaders of the LRSD. Some patrons and citizens I have talked with since Friday think the Judge was way out of line with this documentI do not. Frequently, as a manager, I give folks who work with and for me oral and written evaluations so that they can become better at their jobs by working on weaknesses and emphasizing strengths. Any good manager (and surly our federal judge would want to be construed as a good manager) does thisso I do not think her actions were out of line. I concur with Judge Wright that we have a legal if not moral obligation to do everything under our power to ensure that the LRSD is pursuing a course of quality desegregated education. I also happen to believe that we should do what ever it takes to comply with Judge Wrights ordersafter all, she is a federal judge, makes a hell of a lot more money than we do, and can not be fired or beat in an election. But besides those reasons, I believe we should do what we can to carry out this plan because the Little Rock School District Board of Directors voted to implement it to the best of the school district's ability, and I believe there are parts of it that are effective in achieving the goal of a quality, desegregated educational experience for our students though I again agree with the judge that there are parts of the plan that are expensive and may not be the most economical or effective means to achieve our goals. I do take offense to some of the statements made by Judge Wright in her report to us. First of all, I am not a whiner or a complainer. It offends me that the Judge feels the need to stereotype me for comments that were not made by me nor that reflect the official and stated policy of the LRSD. I would remind the Judge of her own words from the hearing last week \"impressions are important\". I believe that we should not allow ourselves to be involved in name callit will serve no useful purpose. Again, though I find other areas of agreement with Judge Wright. Her statement that the LRSD acts as if it lost its court case is a dead solid perfect description of how many of the patrons and even this board feels about our current situation. And understandably so, for any time that people lose the right to direct their lives and institutions, then those people have LOST. And in a real sense, the citizens of LR have lost most of the ability to direct the most important institution in our fair cityour schools. The vital, important lesson here is this: do the moral and right thing the first time and hold people accountable so that you do not put yourself in the position where you have to seek help from the federal court system. I also am very concerned about the judge's statements seemingly discouraging discussion by duly elected public officials at an official public meeting. Discussion and debate are key elements in a true democracy. Certainly public debate over the direction of our most important political entity, our schools, should be encouraged. Again. I am not suggesting in an way that we disregard the federal authorities in this casewe should make every reasonable effort to carry out our desegregation plan and Judge Wright' orders with all deliberate speed. I also have some concerns over Judge Wright's orders in regards to our attendance at court hearings. I chose to believe that Judge Wright is being truthful in her document when she requested our attendance at this particular hearii^ because she feared we do not understand our obligations or her ordersothers in the community believe Judge Wright's actions to be purely punitive and vindictive. I chose to reject this argument. I truly believe the judge is concerned about our understanding of some of the issues and her orders in this case. I would ask. though, that the judge give some considerations to the nature of this board when she requires our attendance at more hearings. The LRSD board is composed of non-paid volunteers who are elected by the ta.xpayers of the school district. Each of us have a job we are employed at in order that we can pay the rent, cloth and feed our family, and pay our taxes. We serve because we are committed to public service and to quality public education. The court must be mindful of the already countless hours of time that we take away from our jobs to serve our patrons. I believe the judge runs a very real risk of implying that only the independently wealthy who do not have to work can serve on this or any other public boardthis is a dangerous and wrong signal to send to our community, and again I will remind the Judge that in her own words that \"impressions are important\". I would contend that if the judge is truthful in her belief that we do not understand her orders (and again I believe that she is) then I would say that if this board does not understand what Judge Wright expects after Friday's hearing then there is absolutely no hope for us and Judge Wr^t should go ahead and hold us in contempt and take over complete control of the school district. I believe that this board certainly got the message and that there is no need to continue to require us to attend hearings for the expressed reason of understanding her orders. The judge also expressed concern that our council and superintendent were not relaying to the board the full concern of the court. I would suggest that as a compromise, if the judge will cancel her order to require us to attend hearings, I will agree to attend all hearings in the next year and give a personal report back to the board on just exactly what the court expects. Although I am like the rest of the board with a job outside of my school board activities, I am very fortunate to work for an employer who will allow me to make this time commitment to the court and fortunate to work with very competent and thoughtful co-workers who will take up the slack in my absence. So I believe the judge has accomplished her goal of getting our attention and I will be willing to attend further hearings to ensure the board keeps the message, although I am sure other board members will want from time to time to attend hearings as they can and as they have done in the past. I would like to explain to the judge and our patrons also why sometimes members of this board seemed confused ( as I am most of the time) about our desegregation plan. Partly, and especially as it relates to our budget, we get mixed signals from the court. One the one hand the judge and Mr. Morgan at the ODM(and certainly me and Tm sure other board members) are insisting that we spend the proceeds of our desegregation settlement wisely and where it will do the most good. Yet, the judge also directs us to fund programs that the school district, this board, perhaps the Joshua Intervenors, and the judge herself feel are ineffective and a waste of money. So here is the great dilemma: we get accused of not spending money wisely by the court and then we are told by the court to spend money on programs that the court feels are wasteful and will not further us on oiu- road to achieve unitary status by having excellent desegregated education in Little Rock. It is no wonder that my wife thinks Fm turning into a schizoid. I talked at the February board meeting about how my company produces a marketing document first and then puts the dollars to it, not vice-versa. This statement was made in the context of agreeing with the court for the need to hire someone to assist us with developing a budgeting process along those lines. I would also remind the court that one of the values of a marketing document is that it is flexible and can be changed as market conditions change. An inflexible document or plan is the surest way I know of to send a company or a school district into bankruptcy. Judge Wright stated in court Friday that we have some latitude to modify this plan.There are only a very few provisions of the plan that are sacred according to the Sth Circuit court of appeals. I have those items and will pass them out to our board in case some of us have forgotten what they were. Anything else is fair game as long as the parties in the case agree that the plan needs to be changed and the changes are not facially unconstitutional. .And finally, since I have taken up too much time already, let me address some thoughts to the Joshua intervenors, the LRSD administration, this board, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the court and most importantly, our patrons. I find it very disheartening that this board and district seem to always find themselves in some sort of battle on a continuing basis. What particularly bothers me is that most times those that we fight have the exact same goals as we do!! And that goal is this: that Little Rock should have the finest desegregated school system that can afford where fairness and equity are found as the rule and where our patrons and students feel that they getting the best education possible in our town. As I was leaving the hearing Friday, Mr. John Walker was we are holding the elevator door for me and said, \"come on Mr. Riggs, as long as you don't mind riding with the enemy.\" Now I know Mr. Walker said this in jest because he knows that I consider him a friend and have great respect for him, but it is this misconception that since we sometimes do not agree on strategies that we must be enemies that holds this district and even this city back from greatness. We are not the enemy of the Joshua Intervenors\nwe are not the enemy of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\nwe are not the enemy of Judge Wright and the eighth circuit court\nwe are not the enemy of the patrons of our gifted and talent programs\nwe are not the enemy of the students and parents from Central High\nwe are not the enemy of the Aero Space Education Center advocates. We are the enemy of ignorance\nwe are the enemy of prejudice\nwe are the enemy of inequity in education. I believe all these other groups believe ignorance, prejudice and inequity to be their enemy also. And so instead of enemies, we are allies in this school district's attempt to be an example of excellent desegregated education. It is this Paradigm that we must go forward with from this day on. This paradigm must have at its core inclusiveness\nthis paradigm must go along the lines of this: that to accomplish our ambitious and noble dream YOU AND I, not you OR I, but you AND I must work together, hand in hand to make our dream reality.f  RECEIVED FILED APR 7 1993 U.S. DIS) EASTERN OiS Office of Desegregation Monitofing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER APR - 2 1993 OiaRu I i bt'iMi * t wi wucFiK ey: CC?. CU5HK PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate\nCECIL BAILEY, THOMAS BROUGHTON, DR. GEORGE McCRARY, DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY, and E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as members of the Pulaski County Board of Education\nand THE PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A Public Corporate DEFENDANTS SEPARATE ANSWER OF O.G, JACOVELLI, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL, W.D. \"BILL\" HAMILTON AND THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT For their Separate AnsvJer to the Amended Complaint, defendants O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Jackson, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, W.D. \"Bill\" Hamilton and the Little Rock School District (collectively \"LRSD\" defendants), state: lalhy\\P-Ete-S^.Amt 1. The LRSD defendants admit the jurisdiction of the court. 2. The LRSD defendants admit the identity of the plaintiffs. 3. The LRSD defendants admit the identity of the defendants named in paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint, but deny that the Amended Complaint provides a sufficient basis upon which to proceed against any of the defendants individually. 4. Insofar as paragraph 4 alleges any wrongdoing on the part of the LRSD defendants, those allegations are denied. 5. Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint is admitted. 6. Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 7. Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 8. The LRSD defendants admit that during the decade between 1980 and 1990 there was western movement of both black and white populations in the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock School District, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint. 9. The LRSD defendants admit that the current LRSD election zones are imbalanced by population according to the 1990 census. but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint, 10. Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint is admitted. 11. Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 12. Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 13. Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint is denied.  14. Defendants admit that the elections scheduled for September 15, 1992 have been postponed. k*diy\\P-Efc-Sep.Ai 215. Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 16. Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 17. The LRSD defendants admit that the County Board of Education is authorized and required by statute to divide the Little Rock School District into zones for the purpose of electing members to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint. 18 Paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 19. Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 20 Paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint is denied. 21. The LRSD defendants deny that plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief requested in the prayer of the Amended Complaint. 22. The LRSD defendants deny each and every allegation contained in the Amended Complaint which is not specifically admitted in this Separate Answer. 23. The LRSD defendants affirmatively state that the Amended Complaint has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 24 . The LRSD defendants affirmatively state that they are public school officials who acted at all times in good faith and that they claim such immunities as are available to them on the basis of their status as public school officials and their good faith. 25. The LRSD defendants affirmatively state that they have no statutory duty or authority to establish or to reform the ]ci(l^\\P-Eb*Sep.AoB 3t boundaries of the zones from which the Little Rock School District Board Members are elected. 26. The LRSD defendants affirmatively state that the present Little Rock School District election zones were established by court order and that plaintiff should not be allowed to maintain a suit against these defendants which is premised upon defendants' compliance with an order of the district court. 27. The LRSD defendants affirmatively state that the Pulaski County Board of Education has prepared and presented to the district court a plan which brings the Little Rock School District election zones into compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" and which is in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. WHEREFORE, the LRSD defendants pray that the Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and for all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted, O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Mitchell, Jackson, W.D. Dr. \"Bill\" Little Rock School District Katherine Hamilton, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Bar No. 81083 |a\u0026lt;\u0026gt;y\\P-Be-S\u0026lt;p.Am 4t I  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Jacovelli, I certify that a copy of the foregoing Separate Answer of O.G. Jackson, Dr. Patricia Gee, Katherine Mitchell, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey W.D. \"Bill\" Hamilton and the Little Rock School District (collectively \"LRSD\" defendants) has been served on the following counsel by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of April, 1993. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A'. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Larry Vaught County Attorney Pulaski County Board of Education 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 stopher Helle k\u0026gt;lly\\P-Elo-Sep.Am 5 ReCEIVPi^ APR 1 3 1993 Ofiics ot L IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO EXCUSE ATTENDANCE For their Motion to Excuse Attendance, Ms. O.G. Jacovelli, Mr. John Moore and Mr. W.D. \"Bill\" Hamilton, individual members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, state: 1. That by Order dated March 1, 1993, the court has scheduled a hearing to consider budget cuts for Monday, April 19, 1993 to continue, if necessary, through Tuesday, April 20, 1993. 2. That Ms. Jacovelli was recently discharged from University Hospital and remains under the care of her physician. Dr. William E. Golden, M.D. By letter dated April 7, 1993, Dr. Golden has requested that his patient be excused from court appearances while she is recovering from her recent surgery. copy of Dr. Golden's letter to counsel is attached to this motion as Exhibit \"A\". That Mr. Moore is a practicing attorney. He is counsel of record in a case which is set for a jury trial beginning Monday, April 19, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. in the Saline County Courthouse. He kiihyXP-Budtei.Exc 3 . Aalso has a pre-trial conference in another case set for Monday, April 19, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. in the Grant County Courthouse. See attached Exhibit \"B\". 4. That Mr. Hamilton is employed by the Arkansas Department of Health. On behalf of the Department of Health he must attend a meeting of the Regional Program Advisory Committee for the Title X Family Planning Program of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, Region 6. The meeting will be held in Dallas, Texas. Due to this meeting, Mr. Hamilton will be out-of-state from April 18, 1993 to April 21, 1993. A copy of the RPAC agenda is attached to this motion as Exhibit \"C\". WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons. these board members request to be excused from the court's order directing their attendance at the April 19 and 20, 1993 hearing. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By CKristopher Hell^ Bar No. 81083 kaihyVP-Budget.Exc 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Excuse Attendance has been served on the follo^i^ same in the United States mail on this depositing copy of day of April, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Helle: kiihy\\P*Budset.Exc 3 .4hPF'-G\"- (et' o\nIEuI.IhI'IS II ITEF'KhL I IEE' Fh/ (10:501-1 1 n FOi 1? University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences DIVISION OF jeneralinternal MEDICINE 4301 Wesl Maiktiam Mail Slot i41 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-7199 Office (501)606-5236 Williom E. Golden, M.D. Directo* (Obert C. Lavender. M D. DiieCtOf General Meriidno Clinic Susan S. Beland. M D. Director MeOicBi Education Generat Meoicme Clinic Appt? 688-7911 Pflrioperative Consullaiion Service Appts 686-5236 epeppr- 688-6022 Univerailv Private Modical Group Appts 088-5545 zqual Opponuntty fcmployer April 7, 1993 Chri.s Heller Attorney at Law, Friday, Eldridg4 and Clark Dear Mr. Heller, Re: Oma C. Jacovelli Please excu.ae Oma G. Jacovelli from her .scheduled coiu-t appearances. Ms. Jacovelli has recently been diochnrgcd from University, .She is recovering from Hospital and remains under my care. surgery and will be unable Lo be in court for the indetennirifuL near .future. Sincerely, - - - - - .5\n V William E. Go.ldhiv, M.D. Director WG/pm Exhibit \"A\" DI STATE OF ARKANSAS Office of The Circuit/Chancery Judge SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS GRANT COUNTY COURTHOUSE SHERIDAN. ARKANSAS 72150 January 6, 1993 Mr. John E. Moore Attorney at Law 400 West Capitol, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Charles R. Padgham Attorney at Law 229 Hobson Avenue Hot Springs, AR 71913 RE: Glenn and Bradley VS Scallion Saline County Circuit Number CIV-92-721-2 Dear Mr. Moore and Mr. Padgham: PHILLIP H. SHIRRON CIRCUIT/CHANCERY JUDGE PHONE 501-942-7818 FAX 942-2442 I have set the above styled case for a jury trial, Monday, April 19. 1993 at 9:00 a.m. at the Saline County Courthouse in Benton, Arkansas. I am in possession of Mr. Moore's witness and exhibit lists and jury instructions. I have Mr. Padgham's jury instructions, but need his witness and exhibit lists by April 19. I would also need copies of any changes to the above, and copies of any new motions, etc. you. ene Davis Case Coordinator /dd cc: Pat Lightfoot, Court Reporter Saline County Circuit Clerk and File I i I i JAN - 7 1993 Exhibit \"B\" COUNTIES OF GRANT, HOT SPRING AND SALINE ! STATE OF ARKANSAS SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS GRANT COUNTY COURTHOUSE SHERIDAN. ARKANSAS 72 1 50 JOHN W. COUE CIRCUIT JUDGE PHONE S01 -942-2 1 65 March 18, 1993 Mr. John E. Moore Attorney at Law First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Mr. Peter A. Miller Attorney at Law The Stephens Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 111 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr, James F. Swindoll Attorney at Law Suite 200, 217 W. 2nd Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Lynn D. Lisk Attorney at Law Suite 1620, 111 Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert L. Depper, Jr. Attorney at Law 314 East Oak Street El Dorado, Arkansas 71730 Mr. Kevin J. Staten Attorney at Law Suite 300, 101 Spring Little Rock, AR 72201-2488 RE: Cason V. House Grant County Circuit No. CIV 92-101-1 Dear Attorneys: A pre-trial conference and hearing on all pending motions are hereby set for Monday, April 19, 1993 at 10:00 a.m. in the Grant County Courthouse. A trial date will be scheduled at the pre-trial conference. All attorneys or someone authorized to agree to a binding trial date, are required to attend. J\u0026lt;^hn W. Cole Cordially, JWC/me cc: Mrs. Lois Green, Court Reporter Mrs. Linda Shepherd, Circuit Clerk Court File V'\nMW I 0193 J II COUNTIES OF: HOT SPRING SAUNE. AND GRANT I-IhR 29 93 19:33 TO 93762147 FRijri kcPkuL'LiC . . -'C. ncr-ii- \u0026gt; r. JAMES BCWMAN ASSCXJIATES 421 EAST eth STREET  SUITE B  AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701  (512) 476-8341 MEMORANDUM TO: RPAC and RTAC Members PROM: Dick Casper SUBJECT: Schedule for our April meetings in Dallas DATE: 26 March 1993 Sunday, 4/18 - RPAC Members travel to Dallas and check into t Embassy Suites, Love Field (PH. 214/357-4500). the TBP has made room reservations and will provide airline tickets. Monday, 4/19 - RPAC Members meet in executive session to: 1. Develop plans for FY'94-'96 Regional Service Enhancement Activities 2. Develop Requests fur Proposals for any Ot the above Activities which are to be undertaken by one or more contractors 3. Plan for August 1993 RPAC meeting. Tuesday, 4/20 AM - RPAC Members continue in executive session. 1:30 PM - Begin general session to include reports from Paul Smith and Dick Casper. ??? PM - Resume executive session as needed. Wednesday, 4/21 AM - State Training Managers (other than Maggie Lujan) travel to Dallas, airline tickets provided by TCHT (see enclosed itineraries). (Hotel reservations have been made for Maggie to stay the night of 4/20. ) 8:30 AM - Nurse Practitioner RTAC meeting. 10:30 - General Training RTAC meeting. 1:30 PM - RPAC rAMirna frt laxecutivo taasion and Stato Training Managers have their own meeting. 4:30 ADJOURN Exhibit \"C\" RECEIVER COURT ijTcR.. district ARKANSAS APR 1 9 1993 IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS APR J 5 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring WESTERN DIVISION CARL R, Sy.-. CLERK /bvU'yy  DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the motion of Ms. Oma G. Jacovelli, Mr. John Moore, and Mr. W.D. \"Bill\" Hamilton, individual members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, to be excused from attending the hearing on the 1992-93 budget cuts, scheduled to resume on Monday, April 19, 1993. The motion is granted as to Ms. Jacovelli and Mr. Hamilton. The motion is conditionally granted as to Mr. Moore. If Mr. Moore does not have to appear at either of the two state court hearings. he is to appear at this Court's hearing. Because of their absence. a special, on-the-record hearing will be scheduled for Mr. Moore and Mr. Hamilton. If necessary. this hearing will be scheduled during an evening or on a Saturday. Ms. Jacovelli may attend the special hearing if her health permits. DATED this J^ day of April, 1993. COMFLL'J  -  II ' J DOCKET SHEET IN ^D/On_73{a) FRCP UNITED STATES DIS JUDGE f-h1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS ' 17 1993 CARLR. BRENTS, CLERK Bv.-_ J V DSP.CUKK PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has previously determined that the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors either do not understand the Court's Orders with respect to the District's obligations under the Plan, or deliberately do not seek to comply with those Orders. Because such noncompliance impedes the realization of a desegregated school system, this Court hereby orders each member of the school board to be present at all hearings in the Little Rock School desegregation case unless given specific permission to be absent. Those school board members who are excused from attending a particular hearing will be reguired to attend a review session. The Court has given much thought to the imposition of the attendance requirement on the school board members and concludes that there are no other suitable alternatives at this time. The ultimate accountability for the District lies with the District's school board. and it is the members of that board who are ultimately responsible for the District's good faith compliance \u0026amp; 2with the settlement plan. Yet the school board members, for whatever reason, have failed to fulfill their duties to ensure that the Court's Orders are heeded and that the District is competently managed. Such dereliction of duty has not gone unaddressed. In the past, the Court has instructed counsel for plaintiffs to inform the school board members of the Court's continuing concerns. At the February 1, 1993 hearing, the Court stated as follows\nI do intend to order that the counsel for the Little Rock School District inform the district concerning what the Court's concerns have been. Again, I mean, the whole theme for this hearing is that the Little Rock School District is not getting this Court's message ... It didn't get the message with respect to the junior high school problem. to the budgetary process. It didn't get the message with respect It didn't get the message with respect to preregistration and changes in the magnet school programs that had to be made and approved by the Court before preregistration. It didn't get that message. There is a communications problem between the Court and the Little Rock School District and I intend to be more active with respect to the Little Rock School District to address this problem. frequent hearings. I expect to have more I expect to ask Mr. [Christopher] Heller to tell them specifically what the Court has done. There needs to be more communication. Transcript of February 1, 1993 Hearing, pp. 104-05 (doc.#1756). The Court went on to instruct Mr. Heller that he inform the school board members of the Court's concerns, to which he replied that he would. Id. at 206. Mr. Heller subsequently issued a Memorandum (attached to this Order) to the Board of Directors and to Dr. Mac Bernd dated February 22, 1993, in which he purports to relay the Court's concerns. The Court finds Mr. Heller's Memorandum to state a brief history of the case that essentially does nothing to emphasize this -2-Court's concerns. Despite the Court's specific request, the school board members did not \"get the message.\" The District continues to suffer from repeated and continuous mismanagement, confrontation and delay with respect to Orders issued by this Court, and a lack of any leadership that could be expected to turn the situation around in a reasonable time. The District is hereby put on notice that these and other problems currently besetting the District would justify the imposition of a receivership, see, e.g., Morgan V. McDonough, 540 F.2d 527 (1st Cir. 1976), cert, denied, 429 U.S. 1042 (1977) , a situation to which the District finds itself moving ever closer. Although some have expressed concern that requiring the school board members to attend hearings in this matter will possibly deter individuals from running for the school board, implementation of the Plan is the Court's primary concern. Any impact such a requirement will have on the decision of others to run for the school board is secondary.* The Court would only note that it has never refused a reasonable request from a board member to be absent from a hearing. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that each member of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors be present at all hearings in the Little Rock School desegregation case unless given specific permission to be absent. Those school board members who are * Board member John Riggs, FV, in a letter to the Court dated June 10, 1993, requests that he be allowed to appear in court on behalf of the school board members instead of requiring that all members attend. Although the Court does not doubt the sincerity of Mr. Riggs request, the Court has unsuccessfully tried such an approach in its requests to counsel that the school board members be informed of the Courts continuing concerns. -3-excused from attending a particular hearing will be required to attend a review session. Dated this f C? day of June 1993. -4- IJNIT SS DtSSTtRriIct judge entered on docket rwpct i / '^1 - BY IN CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTCaiNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Tctophooe (501) 375-2011 Fix No. (501) 378-2147 DiratNo. 370-1506 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a report about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that\" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). All three school districts propos^ modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation c^ligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order fEed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Court since the pubEcation of the desegregation plans have been maUed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressmg issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: II (1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requu-ements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements: (3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary m order to align finances with desegregation allegations. II On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"sij)mit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 -- 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and suppEed the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. FoUowing an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elunination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2Court also notified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher positions in the seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". Ar. that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared. aU previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ay' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER FILED U.S DlSTniCT COURT eastern D1STR!*T ARKANSAS JUN J^1993 MS, CLERK IT PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has scheduled a hearing in this case for June 24, 1993 and ordered the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present. The Little Rock School District C16RK R/^ has filed a motion to excuse board members Patricia Gee and O.G. Jacovelli from the hearing on grounds that Ms. Jacovelli is currently hospitalized and recovering from surgery, while Ms. Gee is required to appear in the District Court of Kay County, Oklahoma. Upon careful consideration, the Court finds that the motion should be and hereby is granted. A review session for board members Patricia Gee and O.G. Jacovelli will be scheduled by separate order of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of June 1993. STATES DI st: CT JUDGE  - JOCU.MCHr Ei'ITERED ON ^CKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ON WITH RU' P !Y p/OR 79^) FRCP FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT, WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W . MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. 8UTTRY, P.A. PREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E, OAVIS. JR,. P.A. LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 JAMES C. CLARK, JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL 8. BENHAM III. P.A. larry W. BURKS. P.A. TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 601-376-2147 A WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. June 23, 1993 JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J- SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. Richard d. Taylor, p.a. JOSEPH 8 HURST. JR.. p.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P A LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A Thomas n. rose. p.a. Michael s. moore. p a Diane s. mackey, p.a. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P A CLYDE -TAB' TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT 8 BEACH, JR.. P A J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR . P A H. CHARLES GSCHWENO, JR.. P A HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY M. MOORE T. WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T. TURNER SARAH J. HEFFLEY JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF PAMELA O. PERCEFULL CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY.JR. COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P A.  ITEM'* DIRECT NO. (601) 370-1606 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 received JUN 2 4 1993 Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Case No. LR-C-82-866 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Judge Wright: Little Rock School District Board Members Bill Hamilton and John Riggs are out of the state in connection with our search for a new superintendent. They are scheduled to return Wednesday evening, but asked me to advise you that any unexpected delay in their travel plans could result in their being late for the hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 24, 1993. Yours very truly, Christopher Heller CJH/k cc: All Counsel of Record I R I? JUN 2 9 1993 PILED  Oitico of Oo^ V' i''.cn !9 ^'^kansas UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CARLR, 2 5 133J clerk ^P- CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF, vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS, MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS. ORDER Pending before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) requesting that School Board President John E. Moore be excused from attendance at hearings scheduled in this case for June 24, July 7, and July 8, 1993. Attorney Moore states that he must be absent on the 24th of June because he must attend a seminar to earn credits toward the required Continuing Legal Education hours that each Arkansas attorney must obtain each year. He further states that he must be absent on July 7 and July 8, 1993 because of trials scheduled in state court. The Court is familiar with the Continuing Legal Education requirements. Further, the Court assumes that since Mr. Moore is an officer of the Court (as an attorney licensed in this District) as well as a School Board Member, that he is being truthful with the Court and is acting in good faith. Mr. Moore is therefore excused from the June 24, July 7, and July 8 hearings. He must, however, attend the review sessions that are to be scheduled on these hearings. The Court would further require that he discuss the contents of those hearings with his fellow Board Members and with the School District attorney. I It is so ordered this day of June, 1993. -2, tates District Judge DOCKET SHeP IN this L - COMPLIANCE ON -2- DOCUME^^Wf IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CAfli. yy - 1 J393 K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The Court has scheduled a budget hearing for the PCSSD and the CLfl^ vs. LRSD on July 7th and 8th, 1993. This Order is to inform the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors that they will not be required to be present on Wednesday, July 7th, since the hearing on that day will primarily cover the budget for the PSCCD. However, there is a possibility that the hearing regarding PCSSD's budget could conclude on the afternoon of the 7th, in which case the Court would immediately begin the hearing on the budget for the LRSD. Therefore, the LRSD board members may desire to attend the afternoon session on Wednesday, July 7th, although they are not required to do so. The board members will, however, be required to attend the hearing on the budget for the LRSD on Thursday, July 8th, and there is a possibility that the hearing will continue into the morning of Friday, July 9th, which also will require the presence of the board members. The parties are put on notice that should the hearing not be completed during the morning of July 9th, the matter will possibly be continued into the following week. The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) has filed a motion to quash the subpoena of Sandra Roy [doc.#1870], Executive Director of PACT, on grounds that she has made prior travel plans and her testimony is not essential to the hearings on July 7th and Sth, 1993. PACT has also filed a motion for a continuance of the hearings on July 7th and Sth, 1993 [doc.#1871] on grounds that it will not have an adequate opportunity to prepare for any testimony that might be given by PACT in support of certified raises for Pulaski County Special School District teachers for the 1992-93 school year. For good cause shown, the motion to quash the subpoena of Sandra Roy is granted. The motion for a continuance, however, is denied. The Court has asked the PCSSD to explain how it can continue to fund its desegregation obligations, not whether it can justify the increase in teachers' salaries. Should justification for the increase in teachers' salaries become an issue, the Court will schedule a separate hearing on that issue. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of July 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRI'CT JUDGE -OMPLIANCE.WTTH RULE 5S AN, docket SHEET IN ON y-/-^ BY R 79(a) FRCP HLED M-S. district cm mv IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 0 1993 I I I I I I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL 301 1 2 1993 ORDER ncc/^rsi DEP. CtEflK PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has scheduled a hearing in this case for July 7 and 8, 1993 and ordered the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present. In addition, the Court has informed the parties that this matter may be continued on July 9, 1993 and into the following week. The Little Rock School District (LRSD) has filed a motion [doc.#1884] to excuse board members Dr. Katherine Mitchell and O.G. Jacovelli from the hearing on grounds that Dr. Mitchell is out of the State from June 28 to July 11 to attend conferences in connection with her work as President of Shorter College, while Ms. Jacovelli is currently hospitalized and recovering from surgery. The LRSD has also filed a motion [doc.#1880] asking that board member Dorsey Jackson be excused from the hearing on July 8, 1993 at 3:45 pB. in order to attend a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Centers for Youth and Families, and a motion [doc.#1889] to excuse board member Bill Hamilton on Friday, July 9 at 10:30 a.m. in order to attend a funeral, after which he will return to court. 18 9 2 I I I -I I (Finally, the LRSD has filed a supplemental motion [doc.#1890] to excuse board member John Moore from the budget hearing on July 8 and 9, 1993. Upon careful consideration, the Court finds that each of these motions should be and hereby is granted. A review session for these board members will be scheduled by separate order of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of July 1993. united 'STATfS DISTRI ITRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET BM COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7(a) FRCP ONP fl p WSTc\nijD\n5TRfcT,\n)^LsAS '\u0026lt;^UL 2 1 1995 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION carl R i3^E\n\\jTQ, Sy-. CLl:RK L:~f. Ci. hX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF, I I vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, I i MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., INTERVENORS, V MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS. ORDER Little Rock School Board Members Pat Gee, Kathrine Mitchell and John Moore were excused, for good cause shown, from attendance at recent hearings in this case. After consultation with these Board Members and with counsel for the District, Jerry Malone, a hearing has been set for 10:00 a.m. on Friday, July 30, 1993, to review the matters discussed at the missed hearings with these Board Members. It is so ordered this \u0026lt;?'! day of July, 1993. I I United States ates District Jud Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ICE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP I I I COMPL)^^ITHj ON BY J ! IUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk P.O. Box 869 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-0869 Carl R. Brents Clerk July 19, 1993 Gerald M. Parsons Chief Deputy Clerk Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Case No. LR-C-82-866 Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL . DISTRICT, ETC ET AL Dear Sir: Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal [certified] Docket Entries (certified] Order filed 6/17/93 Sincerely, Carl R. Brents, Clerk By: i Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk cc: w/encs. All Counsel of Record IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS c WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF APPEAL JUL i 6 1555, PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Notice is hereby given that plaintiff Little Rock School District appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the Order finding that \"problems currently besetting the district would justify the imposition of a I I 1 I receivership\" and requiring each Member of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present at all hearings in the Little Rock School Desegregation case unless given specific permission to be absent, entered in this case on June 17, 1993. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 I I BY Christopher Hell I 1 R^CEiven JUL 1 9 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that plaintiff Little Rock School District appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the Order finding that It problems currently besetting the district would justify the imposition of V. 1 a receivership\" and requiring each Member of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present at all hearings in the Little Rock School Desegregation case unless given specific permission to be absent, entered in this case on June 17, 1993. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 BY Christopher HellCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been served on the following counsel of record by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 16th day of July, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Norman Chachkin LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 99 Hudson Street New York, N.Y. 10013 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 1 I i 1 1 i 07-2'=\u0026gt; 1^993 07:20 \"ALKER RALPH WASHJNGTriN .mark BrRNETJE '' RRAWIDN, JR. AUSTIN porter. .\nii * AlfloadriHt^lo Fnirtw h FROM JOHN U.UALKEP P.fi. in (inwcu tt Ibn I'\u0026gt;nfnr. i.-tJumhi, TO 3710100 P . 02 r f H r . JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At l.aw 1723 BKoArnvAV Litile R(k:k. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (.501) .374-3758 FAX (.501) .374-4187 July 29, 1993 Mr. John Moore, President Little Rock School District 610 West Markham Little Rock, AR Dear Mr. Moore: I 1 Board 72201 Re\nDr. Henry Williams vjj n  ^1 morning's paper William's schedule, ------- .. it which set out Dr Henry t, scneauie, appears that Pha ------  capriciously omitted from his itinerLv t Intervenors 'versight and surely the Board of assume that is an with us. This is so blcaX the most . to meet District is implementation of its dSL?^ Problem facing the are the principal party. man ... him, except for the The other are urgent problem desegregation plan to which we  groups which will meet with ODM, are only minlmV117 involV^d^f at:?! ^Jt^ .JStSuSnS whTi^s^a? V a^sle^TarZ Tf h^ghi^t^r^oX constituencyrTglt^ShSr^' ' that litigation. defamation of constitutional rights, components of the school board' to have had we Would you please let meeting by Joshua e to include at leaest representatives with him. arrange an hour Thank you for your cooperation. sincerely yours, JtVW: j s cc\nmembers receive Dr. f v W( 'hn w. Walker Matthis (with the a Henry Williams copy Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Jerry Malone XtamwMiMaEWff TOTAL P.02 ESS i. d i. 11 I eanaFRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR. JAMES C. CLARK. JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL 8. MOORE A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 601-376-2147 August 4, 1993 RECEIVED DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WAOOELL. JR.. P.A CLYDE *TAB' TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWEND. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUV ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVtO 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE T. WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T. TURNER SARAH J. HEFFLEY JOHN RAY WHITE ceuMtci AUG 5 1993 WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR., P.A. VNITCR* OmiCT MO. (601) 370-1566 Mr. Carl Brents, Clerk United States District Court U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Avenue, Room 402 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al U.S.D.C., Eastern District, No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. Brents: Please find enclosed the original and one copy of a Motion to Excuse Board Member From Hearing on behalf of the Little Rock School District which I would ask you to file in the above- referenced matter. A self-addressed, stamped envelope has been enclosed for your use in returning a filed-marked copy of the Motion to me. By copy of this letter I am forwarding a copy of this pleading to all counsel of record. Kindest regards. Sincerely yours. Frederick S. Ursery FSU/dkf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker w/enclosure Mr. Sam Jones w/enclosure Mr. Steve Jones w/enclosure Mr. Richard Roachell w/enclosure Ms. Ann Brown w/enclosureIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO EXCUSE BOARD MEMBER FROM HEARING For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The court has scheduled a hearing in this case for August 12 and 13, 1993. The members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors are required to attend the hearing. 2. LRSD board member John Moore requests to be excused from the hearing in order to attend a jury trial in which he is the defense attorney in a case which is scheduled to start in the Independence County Circuit Court in Batesville on August 11 and continue through August 12, 1993. 3. Also he is currently scheduled to attend with his family an Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel seminar in Dallas, Texas on August 13 and 14, 1993. He is booked on a flight which is scheduled to leave Little Rock on the morning of August 13, 1993. 4. Attached hereto in support of the motion are the following items:(a) Letter from the Case Coordinator of the Independence County Circuit Court dated January 27, 1993, setting the case for trial during August 9 through 13, 1993. (b) A letter from John Moore of July 30, 1993, to the Case Coordinator confiirming that the case will start on the afternoon of August 11, 1993. (c) A copy of the airline ticket for a trip to Dallas on August 13. (d) A copy of an agenda for the Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel meeting for August 13 and 14 in Dallas, Texas. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above, LRSD prays for an order excusing Mr. Moore from attending the August 12 and 13, 1993 hearing. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District By: FREDERICK S. URSERY, #67055 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Excuse Board Member From Hearing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 4th day of August, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 FREDERIC URSERY 3JOHN E. MOORE Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett \u0026amp; Tilley, P.A. LAW OFFICES FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL. SUITE 1900 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 374-6535 FAX (SOU 374-5906 July 30, 1993 Ms. Donna Sullivan Case Coordinator Post Office Box 329 Mountain View, Arkansas 72560 RE: Kirby vs. Cameron Mutual Insurance Co. Independence Circuit No. CIV-91-338 Dear Ms. Sullivan: This conf inns our telephone conversation on July 30, 1993, in which you advised we would pick a jury on the above case Monday morning. August 9, 1993, and begin with the trial at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 11, 1993. I look forward to seeing you then. Ji E. Moore Sinc^ely, JEM/tbr cc: Mr. Jerry Post 5336 JOHN DAN KEMP CIRCUIT JUDGE P.O. BOX 329 mountain view, ar 72560 (SOI) 269-6989 FAX 269-8964 Circuit Court SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT INDEPENDENCE. CLEBURNE. STONE. IZARD AND FULTON COUNTIES January 27, 1993 FAY OILBECK COURT REPORTER PHONE 793-M13 DONNA SULUVAN CASE COORDINATOR PHONE 2e9-9e9 Mr. Jerry Post Attorney at Law P.O. Box 2595 Batesville*,- AR 72503 KE: Kirby v. Cameron Mutual Ins.Co. Independence County CIV 91-338 Dear Mr. Post: This will confirm that the above case is set for trial during the August 9th-13th, 1993, jury term in Batesville. Sunc^ely, Donna Sullivan DS/s cc: Mr. John E. Moore I? JAN28I993 ISSUED BY ANO VALID OHLY ON  ^SOUTHWEST AIRLINES . 19 nmiat anoiOR coupons FOR RELated.Chm PASSENGER TICKET AND BAGGAGE CHECK L. nc rwdTBAf^T HM REVERSE SIDE SUBJECT TO COHOITlONS OF CONTRACT ON ISSUED SY ANO VALtO ONLY 0 ' ^SOUTHWEST AIRLINES . k\u0026lt;9t a norm anoor coufons fon related charoes  Ufi22SSaSP5?X5S^ tokHaoeweh scieo or w exiendco l!S5SSSSSioET!MK^ro^tT^^ I SSSSn iSSomSIS^ niwSiE io Of cou,Af bsuo okd NO REfUHO ON LOST TICKETS lx s r 6T0NATURE OF CARDHOLDER FLIGHT COUPON 1 oS Touncooe 5O30t,\"ra oosflasHasas ifS'rttyOTErraroHN DATTBir (TOORTT^OHN I'LITTLE ROCK AR HOI TRANSFERABLE sziTTSTymi ITINERARY O\" f-. vr^trv I, V *SisniCKET DESiQNATOfl OTACLAS LOVE FIELD HKIF' . _______________ ISSUED IN EXCHANGE FOR I Efg H ig^HGiaiTOA OK*\"\" aWnffS ' LITDALHN 13'A*UG13'AG' CONJUNCTION TICKETS ODALLITHN a3H 13AUG 81 SHH 15AUG I ***** e 5prTnrenrrRES check-in and * if TRAVEL WITH COMPANION * FP TBM/CCIRS3m3Q3abDlDlb5M JOHN Luth. CODE: DaSObU FC LIT UN DAL71.82HXR UN LITALS 4HUR 116.36 *** E MOORE EXP Ob/TS ** !! UTH. code: SOtU FC USD TIS TAX lib.3b 11. bM Ml SC TICKET'EfT MAIL STOCK CONTROL HO. TX 4 CK nno7A77nn7? I CRN ALLOW PCS WT UNCKO DOCUMENT NUMBER CK 1 55b 510M7blD01i 0 I ***** ** *\u0026gt;* CHECR-IN REQUIRED 1 sab SlDMTblOOl Seminar Details Program Highlights ( Agenda Friday, August 13 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 1:00 to 1:45 p.m. 1:45 to 5:00 p.m. 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. Saturday, August 14 8:45 to 9:30 a.m. 9:30 to 11:30 a m, 11:30 to 11:45 a,m, 6:30 p,m, 7:00 p.m.  f \"Trial Strategy and Techniques\" presented by James McElhaney, Professor of Law Registration What You Need to Know about the Americans with Disabilities Act Trial Strategies and Techniques Reception for the President-Elect Proposed Changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .  How to Practice Law and Handle Stress ' Business Meeting Bus Leaves for the Cowboys Game Kickoff - Cowboys versus Raiders Hotel Accommodations Hotel rooms are available at The Westin Hotel in the Galleria for $88 per night (single occupancy) or $98 per night (double occupartcy). To reserve a room, call the Westin at 214-934-9494 and be sure to tell them you are with the Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel. Gfo F\u0026amp;S'S -CeA\u0026lt;**^  Registration I 4^ The cost of the seminar is $90 per registrant through August 1 and $ 100 per registrant thereafter. The spouse / guest fee is $25 and children are free. To register, please detach the registration form at the right and mail it and a check made payable to Arkansas Association of Defense Counsel to: Michael R. Mayton First Commercial Building, Suite 1700 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Registration will last from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on FridcQA------- August 13. Those who have not pre-registered may do so at this time. The fee includes all seminar materials and the reception. Travel Arrangements American Airlines is offering special rates for the meeting. To take advantage of the discounted fares, call American at 1-800-433-1790 between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m., daily, and refer to Meeting Number 0283HA. Continuing Legal Education The application process is underway for approximately five hours of CLE credit. Case Western Reserve University, School of Law James McElhaney is North America's most widely road author on the art of trial advocacy. Ho is author of McElhaney's Trial Notebook Secot^Edition (LS87, Amarican Bar Association), columnist for the ABA Journal's popular monthly feature \"Litigation\", and writes \"Trial Notebook\" lot Litigatiort Journal. As one of tha country's premier lecturers on evidence and trial :. practice, ho is consistently applauded tor his creative, energetic and elfoctiva teaching style. J \"How to Practice Law and Handle Stress\" ' presented by T. L. \"Pete\" Caudle, III Pete Caudle is a Dallas lawyer and frequent lecturer on numerous topics dealing with stress manag\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_253","title":"Board of Education members","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":["1991/2006"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Board of Education members"],"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/253"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence","clippings (information artifacts)"],"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\nB5032302 Date: March 23, 1995 To: Fred Smith From: Bill Mooney Subject: Finance Analysis Model We both know that the financial situation of the district makes sound decision-making critical to the future. .As resources become increasingly strained, decision-makers operate with less margin for error. The chance of making a good decision is increased by having useful information readily available. The main purpose of the Program Budget Document is to link program accomplishments with program expenditures so we would have better information to guide the district. We must always seek better ways of collecting data and analyzing it into useful information. One of the better ways might be the Finance Analysis Model. I want to share the attached pamphlet with you, and get your thoughts into further investigation of this model. Since the model is PC-based, it could probably run in our existing environment. Such a tool might assist the administration. Board, and community in making better decisions. The model has something of a history around Little Rock. Last year, Ann Brown and I encouraged Gene Wilhoit to look into using the models forerunner, the Micro-Finance Model, statewide. Additionally, one of the authors of the model, Sheree Speakman, was the lead person on the Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand study conducted for the district. I would bet she used some of her experience from that project as material for the model. Please read the pamphlet, then let me know what you think. I will be glad to help you in any way I can. Copy to: Ann Brown Hank Williams*! fu*:\nAPR 1 0 1995 Officu cf IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS . WESTERN DIVISION r AnAiAriSAo 95iPR-5 PM t*: L3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 8Y. PLAINTIFF Ot^LST\nlRa V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO EXCUSE BOARD MEMBER FROM HEARING For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The court has scheduled hearings in this case for April 10, 1995 and June 8-9, 1995. The members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. 2. LRSD board member John Riggs has previously made I arrangements to host a trade association meeting on April 10, 1995 and to attend a National Security Seminar in Pennsylvania during the week of June 5-9, 1995. Documents reflecting these commitments are attached. LRSD requests that Mr. Riggs . b^ excused fr ths hearings. Mr. Riggs understands that he may be required to attend review sessions. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, LRSD requests that board member John Riggs be excused from the court's order which requires his attendance April 10, 1995 and June 8-9, 1995. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTFRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 B Christopher He Bar No. 81083 er CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Excuse has been served on the following on this 6th day of April, 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 opher Heller c 2 APR-03-1995 11 = 55 FROn RIGGS ENG I Nt Di'-'. I u 50 f ^1595 x?SPRINGS!^ SOUTHEASTERN CATERPILLAR DEALERS PRODUCT SUPPORT ASSOCIATION March 31, 1995 PO BOX 1399 LITTLE ROCK. AR 72203 (501) 570-3100 J. A. Riggs Tractor Company Mr. John Riggs IV P. 0. Box 1399 Little Rock. AR 72203 Dear Mr. Riggs\nJ. A. Riggs Tractor Company is pleased to be hosting the 1995 Southeastern Caterpillar Dealers Product Support Association Meeting. This meeting is being held in Hot Springs, Arkansas beginning Sunday evening, April 9th and ending at noon on Tuesday, April 11th. You have been pre-registered for this meeting. Hotel reservations have been made for you, for Sunday night 4/9 and Mondiy-^/lO. The meeting will conclude Tuesday at noon. Please plan to be in Little Rock by 9:30 a.m. on Sunday at our store. We have a total of 120 people involved in this meeting and will require assistance from all Riggs personnel. We will have someone in charge of various responsibilities, transporting personnel from the Airport to Hot Springs, transporting personnel to the various activities and etc. You may be notified prior to the Sunday meeting for any assistance or assignment of responsibilities. If you are interested in attending the horse races at Oaklawn, contact Keith Riggs ASAP at extension 3536. Advance arrangements must be made. Wc want to be a good host and make our counterparts stay in our great state a pleasant experience. I know wc can count on you for whatever assistance is needed. We have an excellent meeting planned and should be very informative. See you Sunday morning April 9. Sincerely, PRESIDENT John Bennett I.A. Kisgs Ttjuoi Co. VICE PRESIDENT Sob McCarthy Stowers Mjirhinery Corp. John Bennett President Southeastern Caterpillar Dealer Product Support Association secretary/ TREASURER Bill Gregory Ubnehdrd Machinery Co. Winning Combinations 1x^00 TKun KlUUO ClNuiHC. Vi I u 30 fo^x^ r r. RfiPLVTO ATTeNTIONOF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY UNITEO STATES ARMY WAR COLLEGE CARLISLE BARRACKS, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-5050 March 9, 1995 (if 50* B Iq '^1 Office of the Commandant Mr. John A. Riggs, IV 3600 Foxcroft Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 Dear T4r. Riggs: We are delighted to invite you to participate in the 41st Annual National Security Seminar at the U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, from June 5-9, 1995. Each year we cap our academic program by inviting leading citizens from throughout the United States to discuss national security issues with our students in a week-long seminar. The focus for these discussions is provided by four nationally prominent speakers who will address international, domestic, defense, and economic/environmental issues as they relate to the welfare and security of the United States. The enclosed Prospectus outlines the objectives and organization of the Seminar and provides basic information on our College, its students, and the faculty. Briefly, the purpose of the Anny War College is to prepare a select group of officers to assume positions of great responsibility in the Army and throughout the defense community. A major portion of this preparation focuses on developing a deeper understanding of the society they serve, and the interests, issues, and trends that influence the formulation of national security policy. Over the years, the National Security Seminar has been an outstanding academic exercise. The participation of leading citizens from across the country has made that possible. You will be our guest ft^r die period of tlie National Security Seminar. You will have a student escort and we will provide all meals, lodging, and transportation at the Seminar site. Unfortunately, we are not able to pay for your travel to and from Carlisle. You may obtain additional information on these arrangements by writing to us at the above address, or calling the National Security Seminar Office at 717/245-3321. Pnmed onRecycietf Papv . RPR-03-1995 11 = 56 FROM RIGGS ENGlNt Diti. 30 rox.x\u0026lt; I I u -2- We have enclosed several forms which we ask you to complete. The first is a postcard acknowledging your commitment to attend. Please respond by the date indicated. If you are able to join us in June, we also ask that you complete a biographical form (Mail or FAX-717/245-3530) so that our students and other guests will know who you are. We will consider the returned biographical form as consent to maintain your name on the National Security Seminar Guest List file. Applicable Privacy Act data arc on the reverse of that form. We hope you will be able to join us. Il is important to our Army that our students have an opportunity to know your views on issues that impact on the welfare and security of our country. They need to understand your priorities and concerns. While we are not unmindful of the travel costs, you will find the Seminar very interesting and Carlisle Barracks and south-central Pennsylvania strikingly beautiful in June. Please join us for the experience. Sinccrely, Richard A. Ctiilcoat Major General, U.S. Anny Conunandant Enclosures i TOTAL P.04FILED COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AP 7 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER JAMESjy^^RMACK CLERK -a PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is a motion to excuse John Riggs, a member of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, from the budget hearings scheduled for April 10, 1995 and June 8-9, 1995. For good cause, the motion is granted. so ORDERED this 'day of April 1995. TRICT/JJUUDD(GE 7^ !_ _ c docket sneer in RULE 58 ANOOR 79(aj SJi.' a 2 3 9 7 ( /rye\u0026lt;/ LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 718 P01 AUG 10 95 15:54 Little Rock School District 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LnTLEROCK,AR 72201 r SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE FAX (501) 324-2146 I 1. DATE TO /a '3xZ4 3s \"1] FROM SENDERS PHONE # SUBJECT SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: /U ,  \u0026lt; No. of pages (including cover page) Fax Phone No. 3*7/\"^ Speed Dial 1 1^'  -Ui LPSD SLPTS OFFICE 718 P07 AUG 10 35 15:56 I ?5r COMSli^eD^TATeM^NT OFsRVtflU$^lxF^NDITVRfeS ANO IN ^UNJ V X X '%X- \u0026gt;* '\u0026gt; POATrtePEH'lo6sN0e0jDNe,3S J^ANPta^S IN ^UND SALANCE xf.-ZS\u0026gt;X:XjxSx*^x*-.\n. ,. --xftwx - V\nAPPROVED I RECEIPTS 1993/94 06/30/94 COLLECTED iREVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES DELINQUENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK___________ EXCESS TREASURER S FEE 41,027,982 4,502,692 21,420,949 145,eo x\u0026lt;x DRAFT 7 1994/95 * RECEIPTS 'S8',5S-  ! . 1 06/30/95 COLLECTED ! DEPOSITORY INTEREST !~revenue in lieu of taxes i MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS Bl 3-X-X Si\nrii REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY general SEVERANCE TAX roii'\na:a ( h 303,000 245,162 484,050 350,000 102,874 73,419 is.OOO REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 25,350,138 8,094,112 i SETTLEMENT LOAN I VOCATIONAL________________ ! HANDICAPPED CHILDREN iORPHAN CHILDREN________ J^RLY CHILDHOOD transportation INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M ADULT EDUCATION ____ COMPENSATORY EDUCATION SUMMER SCHOOL__________ WORKER S COMPENSATION r is 'X^s'^s i REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES ^PUBLIC LAW 874 [^TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUND i TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT ITRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUN P REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS i MAGNET SCHOOLS 1.341,887 1,210.000 ' 3,540 240,873 ' 2,700,000 2,883,425 ' 768,715 575,435 j 40,000 1,250,000 500,000 6,l88,199j\n13,930.088 ' i 39,625,387 5,666,289 22,011,928 146,379 333,970 182,353 194,465 265.622 74,416 96.58% 125.84% 102.76% 100.47% 110.22% 74.38% 40.17% 75.89% 72.34% 38,600,327 4,802,692 21,420,949 145,000 325,000 180,000 220,892 322,232 ' 102,005 40,330,355 5,030,840 ' 22,372,541 I 154,473! 5^345 'l57.38s' 280.904 I------ 104 48% 104.75% 104 44% 106.53% 162.21 3 !6%x 14^ 87.449 127.17% 487,906 115,^4J 151,41% 113.6736 T fog\u0026lt;gs.% I I 73,210 99.72%i 98.6'l%t 7^419 108,747 18,000 20,299 ! 148.12%! 1 24,710,980 8.094,112 1,382,418 1.282.804 3,198 263,992 3,553,095 2,720,581 792,081 517,260 29,969 1.228,696 6,262.966 13.301,449 97.48% 26.162,235 100.00% 103.02% 106.02% 90.34% 109.60% 131.60% 94.35% 103.04%' 89.89% 6,042,591 1,600,000 ' 1,320,000 1,344 499 3,198 } 233,992 [ 3,700,000 ! 3,100,000 I 797,893 580,435 367,319 26,499,961 6.042,591\n101.29%! 100.00% -------------------- 1,141,688 !__ 1,379,7O4T e,984~l' 233.992 3,786.987 2,831,743 811,822 565,922 428,361 528,051 iissL 86 49% 102,62% 218.39% 100.00% 102 35% 91.35% 101.75% 97.5094 143.76% 74.92%l QU 'anZtT 98.30%! 60.699 + 38.000 500,000 900,000 716.116 23.773 I 511,,561 I t 67.82% 102.31% 735,687 102.7$% jS?,10% 1O1.21! 95.15% -ii 6.107,922 I 6.406.502 14.236,l^ 13,542,343 340 104.89% 95.12%i -.5I sa r. LOCAL COUNTY STATE OTHER TOTAL INCOME BEGINNING BALANCE BUDGETTOTAL EXPENCHTLIRra SALARIES 1 EMPLOYEE benefits ' PURCHASED SERVICES f MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY \"__ ' OTHER objects' DEBT SERVICE TOTAL EXPENDITUBES FUND BALANCE CONTINGENCY UNDESIGNATED ENDING BALANCE BUDGET TOTAL a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL FUNO BUDGET SUMMARY FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1995 euo^\n66,119,097 91,419 45,252,162 2,154,116 113,616,794 4,164.563 117.SO1.157 APPROVED: 73.341,379 10,338,688 13,170,903' 3,273.118 2,644.992 5,504,406 6,533,631' 116,607,317 _____JO 993,840 993,840 117.801,167 69.457,703 129,046 44.257,796 1.273,021 115,117,566 kslj u FORECASTED\nsJRqjEQTW IN(X)M\u0026amp; 69,457.703 _____ 129,046' 44,257.796 _____1,273.021 115.117,'56 pfiOitEijrgp 3,338,606 37,627 (994,366) (831,095) 1,600,772 T) in in ' DISBURSEMENT 74,328,796 10,127.412* 12,285,606 3,200,799 1,934,494 5,592.513 ___ 8,647.933 116,117,553 EH^MBEiANCe FOH^STEO PROJECTED mjieetiaj (T) C-i n n o EXreNawREs tfAX^ 74,326,796 10,127,412 \" 12,285,606 3,200,799 1,934,494 5,592.513 8,647.933 116,117.553 (937,417) 211,476 885.297 72.319 710,498 ' (88,107) (114,302) 689,764 _______0 3,194,376 3,184,376 -J m n o w g 1 \u0026lt;s iX' JI cn in cn IW!JIU!L,,?\u0026lt;2222^ LRSD SUPT'S OFFICE 71R P04 AUG 10 95 15:57 ^ww.w^trOjsTRici^ :ae,y.x*v.\u0026gt;..x-,v.UA\u0026amp;b\u0026gt;xSt ^xyy.xx-\n\u0026lt;*** ?* FORTHePERWSeNOCOJUNeao 1994AJ^OT996 f *  -a '' x*'-i.-* 0^ S* __________________________________________________.:....,,_________ Expenses SALARIES_____________ BENEFITS_____________ PURCHASED SERVICES MATERIALS 4 SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY i OTHER OBJECTS DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY iAPPROVED 1993/94 06/30/94 S!?*\"!-\n 76,127,991 9,240,239 10,855.851 I 4,596,277 j 1,606,2^ 5.258,186 I 8.870,123 1,000,000 I GOtLEG^FEG*\n75,079,647 9,305,313 I 11,369,363 i 3,420,371 1,704,608 4,537,917 8,903,285 'W'WT' DRAFT 7 1994/95 06/30/95 % m\nI .,.49o:j8^ I EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS ~T 7,074.106 \u0026gt;*/(+ \u0026lt; 13.980,088 6,687,447 13,301,449 98.62% 100.70% 104.73% 74.42% 106.1 f 2%^ 86.30% 100.37% T ---------------------1-------------------------J. 73,341,379\n74,328,796' 10,338,888 r 10,127,412\n101.36% t 13,170,903 ! 12,285,606 3,273,118 2,644,992 5,504,406 8,533,631 3,200,799 1,934,494 5,592.513 + 97.95% 93.28% 97 79^ 73.14%) 101.60%! 8,647,933 1 t 101.34% 94.53% 8,711,620 35.15% 14.236.418 6,552,303 13,542,343 97.63% 95.12% 95:?^ INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE i (4,234,335) I (1,225,306) (3,794,221) IBEGINNING FUND BALANCE I I {1,145,788)1 I L I FEDERAL OPERATING I t 964,951 4,109,970\nr 1,034,369 4,985,188 609,068 4,184,363 609,888 4,184,363 I ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING I i 79,044 i * 761,542 I SSi -w *45^:1 609,888 4,184,363 isjssiisss 5,370 993,840 t 'ms y 5S*' 464,087 3,184,376 ILRSD SUPTS OFFICE 718 P05 AUG 10 95 15:56 PROJECT BEG BALANCE 07-01-94 MUOFt BOND ISSUS PLANT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 32,467.82 32,467.82 F7,64Ct,(700 BOND ISSUC CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 3,631.66 3,631.66 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,1995 INCOME 1994-95 TRANSFERS 1994-96 EXPENDITURES 1994-95 ENCUMBRANCES 1994-95 ENO BALANCE 06-30-96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,467.82 32,467.82 0 00 0.00 0.00 3,631.66 3,631.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 I I iS, 1S4.100 BQNO issue. KING FACILITIES STUBY CHICOT CONTINGENCY soarowz fl6,900.000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST ALT LEARNING CENTE BRADY BADGETT BASELINE FAIR PARK WESTERN HILLS DODD PULASKI HGTS El EM OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON EAST SIDE FRANKLIN STEPHENS MITCHELL CLOVERDALE ELEM WILSON CONTINGENCY , SUBTOTAL tis. 100,000 BOND issue BALE BASELINE BRADY CHICOT DODO FOREST HEIGHTS FOREST PARK 0188$ 469,839.22 37,154.41 506,993.63 729,98 10,541.35 203.26 10,279.42 12,610.03 4,370.30 381,618.93 19,680.93 6,160 02 3,569.07 11.684 73 28,352.62 9.876 16 2.514.28 19,040.60 3,625.09 47,812.10 17X22.54 68.082.96 472.32 3,370,631.05 1,998.17 0.00 0.00 294,135.83 4,325,311,73 24,976.69 11,086.46 10.306.60 235,777.43 48.184.93 25,872.19 27,640.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 (460,373.60) 242,000.00 150,000.00 68,373.60 0.00 24.894,99 (10,541.35) 9,101.79 (4.286.49) (12,194.57) (4,370.30) 453.08 1393.99! 1,131.61 (8,179.73) (13,648.52) (9.876.16) (2,514.28) 41.870.63 (3,625.09) (46,625.07) (7,152.01) 43.286 28 38,941.26 11,497.50 2,287.03 (51.136.61) 0.00 3.914.54 (8.536.80) 15.864.29) 66,146.49 134,127.81 (5.320,78) 730.14 53.684.00 61,080.00 114,764.00 10,368.03 9.305.04 5.992.93 108,763.17 20,034,01 6,766.03 4,700.68 3,505.00 14,704.10 21.695.25 2,287.03 7,983.50 20,644.10 348,321.32 40.939.43 11,497.50 2,287.03 638,694.15 8,070.67 3,427.86 1,770.00 206,984 91 83,331,42 (16,000.00) 22.319.84 730.14 0.00 0.00 9 466.72 188.316.00 150,000.00 44.447.91 392,229.63 15,256 84 0,00 0.00 0.00 415.46 0.00 272,855.76 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39,216.88 0.00 0.00 2,287.03 68.082.96 23.084.50 3.022,409.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 242,999.32 3.686,617.58 16,906.02 11,572.14 0.00 22,928.23 20,000.00 175,000.00 0.00 0.00 (fl ... li 1 i. J JLRSD SUPTS OFFICE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,1995 1 718 P06 AUG 10 95 15:58 J J J PROJECT GILLUM HALL HENDERSON IRC JEFFERSON KING MABELVALE JR MANN MEAOOWCLIFF MCCLaLAN PARKVIEW PURCHASING RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE TERRY WATSON ADMINSTRATION PLANT SERVICE WILLIAMS CONTINGENCY susrorxu BEG BALANCE 07-01 94 46,623.40 72,167.34 0.00 10.500.00 665,076.52 677,649.27 779,529.23 10,218.50 128,163.14 0.00 99.566.59 1,678.10 0.00 0.00 18,925.35 92.76 26,050.53 0.00 0.00 353,182.02 897,457.69 4,170,624.36 INCOME 1994-95 o.oo TRANSFERS 1994 95 (66,973.17) 52,915.83 (529.041,77) 32,000.00 110,022.40 (107,795.15) 8,167.46 114,016.06 5.788.16 102,980.51 155,009.18 (14,180.88) (92.76) 40,206.61 12,450.52 36,228.44 1126.888.631 0.00 EXPENDITURES 1994.S6 6,194.17 48,666.83 277,502.71 147,999.30 389,774.96 34,733 76 20,367.99 8,157.45 213.582.66 7,366.25 101,812.28 6.044.18 4,744.47 1,340.22 12,450.52 389,410.46 1,91,77a.O3 ENCUMBRANCES 1994-95 END BALANCE 06-30-96 46,623.40 0.00 4,260.00 10,500.00 387,573.81 608.20 421,764.28 85.507.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,168.23 148.966.00 0.00 0,00 26,050.53 33,866.29 0.00 0.00  i I -1 0.00 770,669.06 2,188,852.33 KEVEWS SALE OF PROP/MI8C PROCEEOS-FIRE LOSS HENDERSON HENDERSON WATER METRO GRANT INTEREST SUBTOTAL GffAND TOTAL 441,340.44 101,741.55 35,864.20 4,100.00 36.998.72 1,268.948.69 1,888.983.60 10.928.012.80 6.680.10 200.60 35,000.00 408,431.25 4)6,011.36 416,011.35 0.00 0.00 35,200.60 2.806.530.26 0.00 447,719.94 101.741.66 854.20 4,100.00 36,998.72 1,677,379.94 2,268,794.35 8.536,49,?, as 1 3 bOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 October 27, 1995 Mr. Michael Daugherty 2101 South Margin Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Michael: Congratulations on your election to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. From what Ive read, your professional and personal experiences give you insights that will be invaluable as the district makes decisions that affect the lives of so many. Im looking forward to getting to know you, and hope well find a time to begin that process soon. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience and lets arrange to get together. 1 hope you will also feel free to drop by ODM at any time to meet my colleagues and tour our offices. Under separate cover to your LRSD mail box. Im sending you some of our recent monitoring reports. 1 know that as a new board member youll be inundated Avith all sorts of paper, and 1 dont want to add too much to the pile. As is our practice, well routinely send you and other members of the board our new reports as we issue them. Please feel free to call on me or any member of my staff whenever we can answer a question or furnish information. We keep an open door and a pot of coffee on at all times, and well always be pleased to see you. Best wishes on your new venture. I know youre going to do a fine job. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 29, 1995 Ms. Stephanie Johnson 8701 Interstate 30 Apt. 206 Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Stephanie: I should have written this letter to you right after the election. Please forgive me for being slow to tell you how much 1 will miss you as a member of the Little Rock School District Board of Education. Although your tenure on the board was brief, it was nonetheless very significant. You displayed a quick grasp of the issues and a sincere, steadfast concern for the welfare of the children, parents, and employees of the district. You stepped in during a difficult time in the districts history, but you did not flinch when making touch decisions nor did you waver when taking a stand for your convictions. As both the desegregation monitor and a fellow citizen, 1 greatly appreciate the service you gave to our community as a board member. Although this phase of your public service is over for now. I know youll continue to serve in other roles because your heart is full of love and you will always care for others. Thank you for all youve done to make our town a better place for all of us. Your have my sincere best wishes for every success. Please dont ever hesitate to call on me whenever 1 can be of any help. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. i -LRSD ADMIN. BULDING 17:45 P. 02/02 (o Fax:1-501-324-2032 Jan 3 '96 \"a  LrrfLE Rock School District Media Advisory Januaiy' 3, 1996 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 1 i Special Board Meeting t\nI The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors has called a special Board meeting for '1 hursday, January 4,1996. The agenda for the meeting will include: I I Dress Code at the Alternative Learning Center Review of LRSD contract with Laidlaw Transit Personnel Item J. !t I The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m, in rhe Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building at 810 West Markham. 3 i t,' 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 73301  (.501)334-8000 -1*.%  gs3a!iamgai\u0026lt;!gajgaB!gMimj^ ss I F!LgD U S OISTaiCT COURT eastern DISTRICTARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1 2 1996 JAM^yv. McCormack. CLERK OEP CLERI^- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS 30, ORDER The Court has previously scheduled hearings for July 29 and 1996 to consider Little Rock School District (LRSD) budget matters for FY 1996-97. Also on those dates, the Court intended to review the 1996-97 budgets for the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Due to scheduling conflicts on the Court's docket (primarily as a result of an ongoing criminal trial), the Court will be unable to hold budget hearings on the dates scheduled. Those hearings are therefore canceled. In lieu of budget hearings. the Court orders the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to submit to the Office of Desegregation monitoring (ODM), on date and time to be a determined by them, any information ODM deems necessary for an adequate review of each district's budget. The Court expects the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to cooperate in good faith with ODMI regarding submission of any requested information so that further orders of the Court are unnecessary. Also before the Court is the Joshua Intervenors' motion for an interim award of attorney's fees and costs [doc.#2565]. * The Court hereby schedules a hearing on this motion to begin at 9:30 a. m. on July 29, 1996, in room #305, 600 West Capitol Avenue, U.S. Courthouse, in Little Rock, Arkansas. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of July 1996. un1tT) states^ di: .TES DlSTJ^ICT JUDGE rws document e.ntfc'- rule 56 '^ND/qh 7^) L I SHEET irj  Al hearing on this motion had previously been scheduled for July 1, 1996, but had to be cancelled due to an ongoing criminal trial. -2- /08 '30 96 12:05 301 324 2023 LRSD COM5IUXICATI --- 0D)I @002 002 1 xons Little Rock School District School Board Candidate Forum August 30,1996 For more information: Suellen Vanm 324-2020 Candidates for the upcoming Little Rock School Board elections wiU answer questions during a televised public forum on Tuesday, September 3, 1996, The forum will provide voters the opportunity to learn more about the Little Rock School Board candidates and their thoughts on educational issues. In Zone 1 the incumbent, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, has filed for re-election. Dr. Mitchell IS challenged by Sarah Facen and Kenyon Lowe, Sr. In Zone 5 only one individual, Larry Berkley, filed for election\nthe incumbent, Linda Pondexter, is not seeking re-election. School board elections are set for September 17. The school board candidate forum is sponsored by the Coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods and the Little Rock School District. Norns Deajon, KATV reporter, wiU serve as moderator. The forum wiU be broadcast live from the Little Rock School District Administration Building, 810 West Markham, over Comcast Cable Channel 4 at 6\n00 p.m., and wiU be rebroadcast each weekday at 8:30 a.m. and 1\n30 pm, through September 17, 810 West Markham StreetbaA PAGE 01/01 i i. , S\\  p. isms t  '  \u0026lt;J .1. ILittle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT received August 4,1998 AUfi ? - '933 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I want to update you on a change in the development of the agenda for Little Rock School District board meetings. The Board voted in July to open the Special Presentations section of the agenda to give more groups who are stakeholders in the District the opportunity to address the Board. We want to hear from representatives of all interested groups. Beginning with the August meeting, we ask that.you notify the Superintendents office if your organization wishes to have a representative address the Board at the regular monthly meeting. Contact Beverly Griffin at 324-2012 by noon on Monday preceding the board meeting and you will be placed on the agenda. Thank you for helping create the very best schools for our students. We look fcr.vard to conti Jing to hear from you at Board meetings. Yours truly, Judy Magness, President Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 ** 1998-99 BOARD MEETING DATES MONTH August September October November December January February March April May June ** ** MEETING DATE * (Notification Date) 08-27-98 *(08-24-98) 09-24-98 *(09-21-98) 10-22-98 *(10-19-98) 11-19-98 *(11-16-98) 12-17-98 *(12-14-98) 01-28-99 *(01-25-99) 02-25-99 *(02-22-99) 03-25-99 *(03-22-99) 04-22-99 *(04-19-99) *(05-24-99) 06-24-99 *(06-21-99) November and December Meetings are scheduled one week earlier than usual to avoid conflict with holidays.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 August 21, 1998 Mr. Mike Kumpuris 7606 Westwood Avenue Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Mike: Congratulations on your recent appointment to the Board of Directors in the Little Rock School District. Your experiences as an administrator, budget manager, and volunteer give you insights that will be invaluable as the district makes decisions that affect the lives of so many. I'm looking forward to getting to know you, and hope we'll soon be able to spend some time doing just that. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience so we can arrange a time to get together. Id be happy for you to drop by to meet my colleagues and tour our offices. Im enclosing the mission statement of our office so you can get a sense of our values and philosophy. Our intention is always to work positively and cooperatively with the school districts. Were very excited about the possibilities now taking shape in the LRSD and are anxious to support the districts implementation of its new desegregation and education plan. Please feel free to call on me or any member of my staff whenever we can answer a question or furnish information. We keep the door open and the coffee hot at all times, and we'll always be pleased to see you. Best wishes on your new venture. Sincerely yours, Brown Enc.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 12, 1998 Baker Kurrus 10816 Crestdale Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Baker: Congratulations on your recent election to the Board of Directors in the Little Rock School District. And to think we almost lost you to north Arkansas! Glad you decided to stay here in Little Rock where your experiences and insights will be invaluable as the district makes important decisions that affect the lives of so many. .Although youre no stranger to ODM and I think of you as a friend, its my custom to invite new board members to visit the office to get their bearings on our location and meet the staff. Id love to spend some time catching up with you. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience so we can arrange to get together. Ill be out of state for a while this month, but Polly will be happy to set up a time for us to meet after I return. Youve probably seen it before, but in case not. Im enclosing the ODM mission statement, which encompasses our values and philosophy. As you know, our intention is always to work positively and cooperatively with the school districts. Were very excited about the possibilities now taking shape in the LRSD and are working to support the districts implementation of its new desegregation and education plan. Please feel free to call on me or any member of my staff whenever we can answer a question or furnish information. We keep the door open and the coffee hot at all times, and we'll always be pleased to see you. Best wishes on your new venture. Sincerely yours, Auin S. Brown Enc. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 16, 2000 Mr. Tony Rose 8109 Mellwood Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Tony: Congratulations on your election to the Board of Directors in the Little Rock School District! Achieving public office is a significant accomplishment, and aspiring to service on the school board indicates that you care a great deal about children, which makes you a very important person indeed.. Its my custom to invite new board members to come visit us at ODM to get a bearing on our location, tour our offices, and meet the staff. Wed love to spend some time getting to know you and answering any questions you might have about our office and how we work. Please give me a call at your earliest convenience so we can arrange to get together. Im enclosing the ODM mission statement, which encompasses our values and philosophy. Our intention is always to work positively and cooperatively with the local school districts. We value our history of working closely with the LRSD and enjoy a congenial and productive relationship with the districts leaders. Please feel free to call on me or any member of my staff whenever we can answer a question or furnish information. We keep the door open and the coffee hot at all times, and well always be glad to see you. Best wishes on your new venture. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc. ZONE I 2 3 4 5 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS NAME Katherine Mitchell Michael Daugherty Judy Magness re/-ary H. Baker Kuitus Vce. Lairy Berkley Tony Rose 7 Sue Strickland ADDRESS 1605 Welch St. Little Rock, AR 72206 2101 S. Martin Little Rock, AR 72204 e-mail: mdaugh@virlualhosts.net 708 Hall Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 e-mail: jmagncs@ibm.net 10816 Crestdale Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 e-mail: bkunus@aol.com 14005 St. Charles Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72211 e-mail\nlany@carti.conQ 8I09Mellwood Little Rock, AR 72204 e-mail: lonyrose@cei.net 19 Peartiee Place Little Rock, AR 72209 e-mail: terrell@anstotle.nel TELEPHONE 375-6957 (li) 370-5255 (o) 664-3143 (h) 370-3580 (vm) 666-0923 (h) 224-4154 (h) 376-3300 (w) 225-7377 (h) 296-3254(w) 568-7587 (h) 569-3122 (w) 455-1843(h) TERM 2002 q CS) s? hO (S CS o (S co 2001 Cd K) A KO KO 2003 2001 2002 2003 2003 Q-aq-co a o I C5 N110/18/2000 08:48 3242032 LRSD PAGE 02/02 2000-2001 BOARD MEETING DATES MONTH AGENDA MF-KTING * (Items Due) REGULAR MEETING * * (Items Due) July 07-13-\u0026lt;X) (07-11-00) (n-n-OKi **(07-24-00) 08-10-00 * (00-00-00) 08-24-00 **\u0026lt;0-22-00\u0026gt; SqAember 09-14-00 (09-12-00) October 10-12-00 09-23-00 **(09-25M)0) 10.36300 **\u0026lt;20-25-00\nNovember 11-02-00 (10-31-00) 1146-00 **fJJ-J3-Wj December 12-07-00 *fJ2-O5-fl0 12-14-00 (12^11^0) laawxy 01-11-01 *f02-09-02\u0026gt; 01-25-01 **\u0026lt;02-22-02\nFebruary 02-08-01 *(02-06-01) 02-22-01 March 03-08-01 *\u0026lt;05-06-00 JJ 03-22-01 **(03-19-01) Afoil 0442:5.1 *(04-10-01) 04-26-01 May 05-10-01 *\u0026lt;05-0-02\u0026gt; 05-24-01 **rO5^2J-OZ\u0026gt; June 06-14-01 06-28-01 **(0^25-01) * Proposed agenda items due in the Superintendent's office by noon on Tuesday prior to meeting. (For publication and distribution to the Doard two diQis prior to the meeting.) fuudi^enda items due in tite Superintendents office BY NOON onMonday, (For publication in tiie monthly board agenda.)CM S) \\ CM O LU CL little rock school oistrict superintendent of schools Roy S. Brooks, Ed.D. BIO West Markhom Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (SOI) 447-1005 board of DDtECTORS ZONE 1 LU o Ll U. o (n q: LU cn a co a 2 3 4 cn in 5 __________NAME Kotherine Mitchell MichfleJ bflugheTty Bryon bay H. Baker Krrus t-arry Berkley I Y rH (S in 6 Tony ftase cn CM in 7 - Sue Strrcklond (S ID CM cn ADDRESS 1605 Welch St. Little Rock, AR 72206 e-mail: KPMITCHELL@PHILANDER.EDU 2101 S. Mortin Little Rack, AR 72204 e moil: rmdaughertyearistotle.net 337 Crystol Court Little Rock, AR 72205 e-moil: Bday@little\u0026lt;ock.state.arus 10816 Crestdale Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 _e-^il\nbkurrus@aol com 14005 St. Charles Blvd. ' Little Rock, AR 72211 e-tnail: iarry@corti.com 8109 Melfwood Little Rock, AR 72204 e-mail: tonyrosel@comca$t.net 13600 Otter Creek Parkway 4pt, 147, LR.AR 72219 e-mail: tstrickland33@conicosf.net tclephone 375-6957 (h) 370-5255(0) 664-3143 (h) 664-5776 (fi) 371-4770 (w) 224-4154 (h) 376-3300 (w) (h) 296-3254(i) 568-7587 (h) 569-8122 (w) 455-1843 term 2005 2004  2006 2004 2005 2006 2006ZONE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS NAME Katherine Mitchell Michael Daugherty Bryan Day H. Baker Kurrus Larry Berkley Tony Rose Sue Strickland ADDRESS 1605 Welch St. Little Rock, AR 72206 e-mail: KPMITCHELL@PHlLANDER.Fni) 2101 S. Martin Little Rock, AR 72204 e-mail: rmdaugherty@aristotle.net 337 Crystal Court Little Rock, AR 72205 e-mail\nBdav@littlei'ock.sta(e.ar.us 10816 Crestdale Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 e-mail\nbkurrus@aol.com T4OO5 St. Charles Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72211 e-mail: laiTv@carti.com 8109 Mellwood Little Rock, AR 72204 e-mail: tonvrosef^ei.net 19 Peartree Place Little Rock, AR 72209 suestrickl and200Q@yah oo.com TELEPHONE 315-695'1 (h) 370-5255 (o) 664-3143(h) 664-5776 (h) 371-4770 (w) 224-4154 (h) 376-3300 (w) 225-7377 (h) 296-3254(w) 568-7587 (h) 569-8122 (w) 455-1843 (h) TERM 2005 2004 2006 2004 2005 2006 2006,LRSD Board of Directors Page 1 of2 Little School [ Mom I Info [ parents | Schools | gjoard of E.d ) Adiitn VipS 5tu\u0026lt;lnt3 JoiS C.on*ac* (J Si* LK5D OKG Board Members Board Members Board Meeting Dates Board Meeting Minutes Board Policies Board Elections Policy Search ''1 .\"i i I I Katherine Mitchell Zone 1 R. Micheal Daughei Zone 2 President 7 Bryan C Zone : Secreta IfiBUf\nJ H. Baker Kurrus Zone 4 Vice President Larry Berkley Zone 5 Tony Rt Zone I http ://www. lrsd.org/Gen_Info/boardindex. cfrn?id=3 7 11/10/2005 .LRSD Board of Directors Page 2 of 2 aggwi ''v J -C-Msi*' Sue Strickland Zone 7 Home I Info | Schools | Board of Ed | Admin | News | Students Employees | Jobs | Contact Us | Site Guide Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock AR 72201 Ph. 501.4 http://www.lrsd.org/Gen Info/boardindex.cfm?id=37 11/10/2005 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1992 Armstrong, 86 newcomer to LR School Board, resigns CYNTI-114 uniA/ci I r ....______________________ BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Robin Armstrong, a Little Rock School Board member since 1986. resigned the position Thursday, citing job duties that would keep her from devoting enough time to the selection of a new superintendent and making other district- related decisions. I  w % a frequent Armstrong ally a knowledgeable board member who brought realism and common Armstrong, 39,' said her job LuJS as community affairs coordina- o t Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute s sense to an out-of-touch educational bureaucracy. Armstrong was president of the board in 1989 when Steele was hired and when the settlement to the desegregation lawsuit was negotiated among the three Pulaski County school districts. has expanded. She UM expanaea. bhe promotes he three CARTI centers in Little Rock, Mountain Home and Searcy, and IS a major organizer of the annual Festival of Trees fundraiser. -a I Armstrongs three-year term as the school board member ------= .he board Applicants should live hi the zone. The board will interview applicants March 19. Zone 4 encompasses an north of Rodney Parham --------  Hinson roads and r -   successor, who Arkansas River. The west re- boundary is the city limits Zih\"/ members, while the east boundary   would serve until the Sept. 15 aong North UniverLt? school election and be eligible AA._-...^.\"'''.Csity a three-vear term. the school board must make some critical decisions in the next few months including the selection of a superintendent to succeed Ruth Steele, who is retiring June 30. will be appointed by the remembers 1 Robin Armstrong an area and south of the runs nueandMissis.-ippfs^re^t.^''\" Rutherford, a former met school board member who was In her letter of resignation to board President O.G. Jaco- velli, Armstrong said the last six years had been a unique experience. She called her term a period of extreme highs and the lowest of lows. The lows included the loss school families in 1987 because of the controlled- choice student assignment plan, Armstrong said. Other lows included the financial problems that almost closed the district in 1990, The highs included the at- tainment of a court-approved settlement  at- . - in the desegregation lawsuit, she said. ~ uun Other highs included increasing en- T*- cooperation among cnh  ftilaski County school districts, the reinstatement of junior high athletic programs, passage of an 8-mill tax increase in 1990 and the employment of elementary school counselors. I iI 1 ) t -4 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1992 Pulaski Ex-LR schools chief gets Zone 4 position  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-Gazette Staff Writer\nFormer Little Rock Superintendent George D. Cannon was selected Thursday by iLittle Rock .School Board\nto fill the va- ' cancy created by the resig- .nation of Robin Arm. strong March 5, on / Cannon, mow a faculty\nmember I  Related article 3B the a t George Cannon Ihe University of Arkansas at\nLittle Rock, was one of seven ?applicants interviewed by the '.board for the Zone 4 position. The board interviewed each -applicant and then met in a closed session for about an hour before voting 4-0 in favor iisr Cannon. Board members present Thursday were O.G. jacovelli, W.D. Bill Hamilton. Pat Gee and Dorsey Jackson. iDr. Katherine Mitchell and 'John Moore were absent.\n Cannon. 50, will serve until the Sept, 15 school election, at which time he will be eligible '.to run for election to the\nboard. He said he will focus on the duties the board now faces and did not say whether he would seek election in Sep-\ntember. Cannon, who lives at 34 Inverness Circle, was superin- ffendent of the school district from October 1987 until he resigned in August 1989. He formerly was superintendent of schools in Meridian, Miss. He teaches school finance, school law, and board and superintendent relations at UALR, In his interview. Cannon said he has an understanding of many of the issues that make the Little Rock district more difficult to manage than 75 percent to 80 percent of other districts in the country. He said his top priority would be to clearly establish goals for the district so that all employees can articulate and work toward them. In response to questions from the board. Cannon said that he supported the health clinic at Central High School and that one of the most serious issues facing the district is the possible financial collapse of the Pulaski County Special School District, He said other concerns were the disparities in academic achievement of black and white students, and the districts financial stability. Cannon and his wife, Peggy, a sixth-grade teacher at Otter Creek Elementary, have three sons, the youngest of whom attends Carver Elementary School. The older sons have graduated. t j f 1Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1992 LRSD board member proposes contracting for support services BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Little Rock School Board member Dorsey Jackson asked the board Thursday to authorize a feasibility st 'n hiring private companies 'a provide the district with janitorial, transportation or other support services. Jackson said his discussions with district administrators and a private firm indicated the district could save as much as $1 million a year by contracting for the services rather than continuing to employ its own workers. Jackson said *hf districts mission is to provide a quality education. In :o doing, we should explore ,-a-\n.ous alternatives to providing such education in the most effective, cost-efficient manner as possible. Not only do I believe the cost savings would be substantial, Jackson said, but I think the amount of time devoted to these services by Dr. (Ruth) Steele and her administration could be much better spent on curriculum management and improving the educational performance of the students. He said the study would not commit the district to contracting services. But should 'he savings be substantial, he said, it would be difficult to justify not proceeding with implementation. The board took no action Thursday, but could do so at a meeting March 26. The proposal generated immediate reactions from board member W.D. Bill Hamilton and Frank Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers Association. Hamilton said private firms do not always treat their employees well and frequently when the employees and dishire part-time workers, who are ineligible for insurance benefits that district employees receive. 7 think the amount of time devoted to these services by Dr. (Ruth) Steele and her administration could be much better spent on curriculum management and improving the educational performance of the students.  Many of our support service employees are parents of children in our district, he said. By contracting services, we may be hurting our children as well as our employees. Martin said the CTA, which represents almost 1,000 of the support employees, will oppose any plans for contracting services. The district explored contracting for custodial services in 1986. but turned it down trict officials agreed to find other ways to cut costs. In other district business, James Ivey, the districts manager for support services since last summer, has submitted his resignation from the school district, effective June 30. Steele said steps will be taken immediately to fill the position so the new employee will be able to work with Ivey before he leaves. Ivey is the third top district administrator to announce plans to retire or resign this year. Steele and Deputy Superintendent Tony Wood also are leaving at the end of June. James Jennings, associate superintendent for desegregation. said a year ago that he may take a position at Hendrix College at Conway next year, although he has not yet taken any formal action.Arkcinscis Democrat-Gozette SATURDAY, JUNE 13 , 1992 Cannon makes finals for job in Louisiana by CYNTHIA wnvuci . V. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrai-Gazetto Siad Writer lu Dr. George Cannon h Cannon, a member of the Little Rock School Board and a former district superintendent, is one of six finalists for the job of superin- Monroe, La., City School District.  Brass, a member of the Monroe School Board and chairman of the superintendent search committee, said Friday that Cannon is one of the leading contenders for the job. The names of finalists were announced Thursday night. Brass said the school board plans to decide on a new superintendent on June 29. Cannon will be interviewed by the board Thursday. The advertised salary range for the position is $75,000 to $85,000 plus benefits that are negotiable. The district has about 11,000 students and an annual budget of $34 million . The current superintendent IS James L. Pughsley, who is resigning after serving two years of his four-year contract. Besides Cannon, finalists are Dr. H.P. Bell, an assistant superintendent in Dallas, Texas: Dr. Maxine Pijeau superintendent of the East Orange County, N.J., School District\nDr. Terry Terril, superintendent of the Caddo Parish La.. School District\nRichard Miles, an assistant superintendent in Monroe\nand Abe Pierce, an assistant superintendent in Ouachita Parish, La., School District. Cannon was superintendent of the Little Rock district from 1987 until August 1989. He IS a faculty member in the College of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. has unex- Since March, Cannon L been a Little Rock School Board member. He was appointed to fulfill the unex- Pired term of Robin Armstrong. who resigned. The term will end Sept. 15, at t'n'e Cannon would be elootion to the board from Zone 4. Arkansas Democrat Established 1871 Arkansas (gazette Established 1819 Arkansas Democrat gazette An Independent Daily and Sunday Newspaper   MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 Teacher contract on boards agenda The Little Rock School Board will hold a special meeting at 5 p.m. today to vote on the 1992- 93 teacher contract. In other business, the board will decide what process to use to fill the board vacancy created by the recent resignation oi ur. George Cannon. Cannon represented Zone 4, which encompasses northwest Little Rock. Also on the agenda will be a discussion on the feasibility of changing some of the districts Friday night high school football games to Saturday mornings.Arkansas Democrat THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 -- I School board hears proposal to rewrite policy on complaints BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Anonymous complainers to the Little Rock School District may find their future complaints unheeded if the school board next week approves a policy change on the matter. Superintendent Mac Bernd recommended during a board committee meeting Wednesday that the existing complaint policy be altered to say anonymous complaints will not be checked out. However, after board members objected to a blanket rejection of all anonymous calls and letters, the superintendent said he would rephrase the proposal to say that if facts in the anonymous complaint are verifiable, the complaint will not be ignored. We think it is important to have a statement in policy about handling anonymous complaints, Bernd said in introducing the proposal. We suggest they be disregarded. He said people should identify themselves so problems can be fully investigated. During an investigation, the person making the complaint may need to provide additional information. Bernd said no particular incident prompted the proposed policy change. Sometimes people have legitimate reasons for not identifying themselves, said board member Katherine Mitchell. Employees may be afraid to say something about a problem. Mitchell said writing a policy on anonymous complaints was a waste of time, and people should use common sense to determine whether a complaint is worth considering. The proposed policy also says the district welcomes constructive criticism when it is motivated by a sincere desire to improve the quality of the educational process. The policy proposal also states that employees will treat patrons courteously at all times. However, teachers or other school personnel need not endure insults or abusive treatment from any person pertaining to any complaint, the proposal says. Also on Wednesday, Brady Gadberry, the districts director of human relations, said that approximately 160 certified employees resigned or retired from I k I I 9 h n A 4 If M M w II \u0026lt; ill f r I I I 1 rArkansas Democrat \"^(^azcUc   MONDAY. FEBRUARY 1, 1993 Copyright o 1993, Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. Education briefs LR board names lawyer president John Moore, an attorney with the Huckaby, Munson, Rowlett and Tilley law firm, was elected president of the Little Rock School Board on Thursday night. He replaced O.G. Jacovelli, who remains on the board but is no longer an officer. Dorsey Jackson was elected vice president and Dr. Katherine Mitchell was elected secretary of the seven-member board.Arkansas Democrat .w\u0026gt; (gazette FRIDAY. FEBRUARY 26, 1993 CoDyngnt 5? 1993. Little Rock Newspapers. !nc. School boards must meet after 5 p.m. under bill passed 29-1 by Senate BY RACHEL ONEAL Democrat-Gazette Capitol Bureau An amendment that would allow school boards to meet in special session before 5 p.m. was soundly defeated Thursday by the state Senate. After the amendment failed, the Senate approved Senate Bill 418, which would require all school board meetings to be held after 5 p.m. The lead sponsor of the bill is Sen. James Scott of Warren. The unsuccessful amendment was proposed by Sen. David Malone of Fayetteville. If you call a special meeting and you have it at 2 p.m., then the people who want to come and voice their opinions will be at work, Sen. Mike Everett of Marked Tree, who voted against the amendment, said. But Malone said school districts dont want the Legislature to dictate all their rules and regulations. The bill was approved by a vote of 29-1. Sen. Joe Yates of Bentonville was the only senator who voted against the legislation. Also Thursday, the Senate approved two versions of bills to prohibit stalking. Before approving the bills, the Senate amended Senate Bill 2 to make it identical to House Bill 1201. SB 2 is sponsored by Sen. Eugene Bud Canada of Hot Springs. HB 1201 is sponsored by Rep. Judy Smith of Camden. Both bills would classify a stalker as a person who purposefully engages in a course of conduct that harasses another person and makes a terroristic threat with the intent of placing that person in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury. Under both bills, the acts of stalking must be separated by at least 36 hours and occur within one year. Second-degree stalking would carry a three- to 10-year prison term and a $10,000 fine. Under first-degree stalking, the convicted person must have been convicted of second-degree stalking within 10 years of the crime or must have been armed with a deadly weapon. SB 2 was approved unanimously. SB 1201 was approved 34-1.Arkansas Democrat SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1993 ' Copyright C 1993, Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. Legislative digest Sponsor delays bill on school boards The House sponsor of a bill that would require school boards to meet after 5 p.m. delayed consideration of the proposal by the House on Friday after several members objected. . The debate over Senate Bill 418 by Sen. James Scott of Warren was about the only discussion on a day when legislators were anxious to head home before expected bad weather hit  and catch the Razorback basketball game on TV. What it (SB 418) is doing is requiring them to meet when the public can meet with them, said Rep. Jimmie Don McKis- sack of Star City, who was handling the bill in the House. Rep. Pat Flanagin of Forrest City called it an honest and good government bill. But McKissack asked for the delay after Reps. Jimmie Wilson . of Lakeview and Roger Rorie of Clinton said the bill would take away local power from school boards.Arkansas Democrat (Bazcttc Arkansas Democrat Qpazette FRIDAY, MARCH 26,1993 Copyright  1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. LRSD board commits to court plan I I I I BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer In response to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wrights stern lecture last week to the Little Rock School Board, board members said Thursday that they believe the district must be committed to implementing the court-approved desegregation plan. Board members Dorsey Jackson and John A. Riggs IV both read lengthy statements, saying they didnt agree with all parts of the plan adopted by their predecessors, but court orders must be obeyed. In spite of my philosophical differences with this plan, I intend to use my influence as a board member to see it is implemented, Jackson read. Jackson, whom the judge called on to stop reading a magazine during the court hearing, apologized for his courtroom behavior and said he had no intention to resign despite pressure to do so. He went on to say that demands made on the district by the black Joshua intervenors were unreasonable. He asked that John Walker, the intervenors attorney, restrain his hostilities and enable the district to educate all children. Walker, who attended the meeting, questioned Jacksons sincerity and said he was begging the board to drop its adversary role and be cooperative in the school case. Riggs said in his six-page statement that he would attend all future court hearings and report to the board on them if Wright would release other members from attending. District Superintendent Mac Bernd told the board that steps are planned to immediately assess what components of the desegregation plan are being implemented and what remains to be done. In other business, the board approved\n A committee recommendation that a new interdistrict elementary school be built on the site of the Stephens Incentive Elementary School at 3700 W. 18th St.  The assignment of Sadie principal Mitchell, of Cloverdale Elementary School, as principal of the new Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School.Aikansas Democrat gazette FRIDAY, JUNE 11,1993 - 9B LRSD ponders appeal of hearing attendance order BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazene Education Writer The Little Rock School Board will vote June 24 on whether to appeal a federal judges requirement that its members appear at court hearings in the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The idea sparked strong opinions from all sides of the table when board member Dorsey Jackson brought it up during a work session Thursday to develop an agenda for the regular monthly board meeting June 24. He also proposed two other items designed to help ensure that the board will know whether the district and its employees are following court guidelines and the desegregation plan. Those proposals would:  Instruct the districts administration and legal staff to prepare a summarized list of timetables of specific desegregation plan items from all the various court orders in effect.  Direct the administration to prepare specific job descriptions for cabinet-level positions. The descriptions would identify specific sections of the desegregation plan for which the employee is responsible. The cabinet-level employee would be required to develop similar job descriptions for staff members. Since March, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright has required school board members to attend federal court hearings involving the district and the desegregation case. If she grants excused absences to any members, they must attend a review session at a later date to go over key points. Jackson said that requiring board members to attend hearings during the work day prevents them from performing their regular jobs and may ultimately limit the number of people who can serve on the school board. Board president John Moore, who was fined $100 for contempt of court after leaving a desegregation hearing Tuesday afternoon without permission because of a job commitment, favored placing Jacksons proposal to appeal on the June 24 agenda. Board members Pat Gee, Dr. Katherine Mitchell and Bill Hamilton spoke against adding the appeal to the agenda. They said the judge wants the board to witness firsthand how she believes the district is mishandling desegregation guidelines.Arkansas Democrat (j^azctte FRIDAY, JULY 16, 1993 . Copyright O 1993, Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. i.' EDITORIALS Emergency coming For the schools John Riggs of the Little Rock School Board got credit for this suggestion: When the board interviews prospects for a new superintendent to replace short-timer Mac Bernd, we want to make sure the next superintendent knows every wart on this school district. We want to talk them out of the job before they take it Good idea. Lets hope the board finds a candidate with staying power this time. But considering the challenge, not even a combination of Horace Mann, John Dewey, Maria Montessori and Booker T. Washington could do the job alone  not without a change in public attitude and public policy. The district is going broke, it faces receivership, the money from the legal settlement is running out, and the only clear prospect ahead is more of the same. Ba li .I. \u0026gt; )| 'I r/ I i l .. ll I 'I 111: Even if you dont care much about the school system in Little Rock, though you should, remember that, as the schools go, so goes the capital city. When young folks with families drift away, they take with them not just their kids but their houses and business and civic activities and spirit. Its time for more than a new superintendent. Its time for leadership  for ail those who are bound by the legal settlement to renegotiate it with the object of reviving public education in Central Arkansas. What good is preserving every metropolitan school districts stake in the settlement if it drags all of them down and chases folks away from the city? In the past, Arkansas has been good at rallying in times of crisis. A small band of women saved Little Rocks schools back in the bad old days. Businessmen have come to the citys rescue more than once, often quietly and almost unnoticed. What about an emergency committee of teachers, parents, public officials and civic leaders to rethink and revive public education in Little Rock before the approaching  emergency strikes full force? The community has the resources, it has the leadership, and it has the pride to make a new start. It need only unite and mobilize them. Here is something j to think about, but not too long. Here is j something that needs doing. Soon. I 'f! Arkansas Democrat (gazette TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1993 Copyright O 1993. UWe Rock Newspapers. Inc. The responsibilities of a school board I read with interest the article about the citizens committee that is trying to get the Little Rock School District to reconsider hiring John Hickman. They also made a lot of recommendations for other principals and vice principals at various schools in the district. They need to study the duties and responsibilities of a school board in Arkansas. The school board is charged with hiring and firing the superintendent and setting school policy. The superintendent is then charged with the responsibility of recommending the hiring and firing of all other personnel in the district. The school board either approves or disapproves of his recommendations, and other action by the school board should be considered interference with the duties of the superintendent. Everyone who aspires to a professional position must submit an application for that opening based on the qualifications set down by the state of Arkansas.Arkansas Demcxn-at ^(gazette -FRIDAY, FEBRUARY4,1994  School Board to tackle variety of topics The Little Rock School Board will meet today and Saturday for a two-day work session on a variety of topics, including presentation of preliminary information on the districts 1994-95 budget. The work session will begin at 4:30 p.m. today on the fourth floor of Worthen Bank, 200 W. Capitol Ave. 'The session will resume at 8 a.m. Saturday at the same location. Tentative agenda items include a report on the advantages and disadvantages of hiring private companies to perform jobs now done by nonteaching district employees, incentive schools and the districts desegregation plan, facilities, transportation, student discipline, board policies, district goals and the appointment of board members to committees.FRIDAY, APRIL 1,1994 LRSD officials present board with wish list worth $193,480 BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Despite the need to cut $7.2 million in expenses for next year. Little Rock School District administrators are recommending some more staff and programs for 1994-95. Some of the programs are required by the state and federal governments or the districts own desegregation plan. Programs proposed to the school board this week will cost about $193,480 from revenues that will total $136 million next year. The board hasnt approved the proposals or decided how expenses will be cut. The budget additions include:  $75,000 to expand district services to serve a minimum of 100 students with limited or no English skills.  $38,000 for revising math, language arts, foreign language and science courses to comply with state directives and for training teachers in those changes.  $25,000 for science equipment.  $18,000 for a secretary in the social studies department.  $3,000 for development of a Spanish immersion pilot program where virtually all instruction in a first-grade incentive school class would be in Spanish. The school that would hold the program hasnt been chosen.  $15,000 to revise the foreign language curriculum to accommodate students who have extensive instruction in elementary schools and those who dont. The University of Arkansas at Little Rock will assist with the project.  $18,000 for supplies and graduate course hours for math teachers in grades kindergarten through four. Two teachers in each of the 36 elementary schools will participate in the program. Another $377,000 would be spent on four Spanish teachers for the incentive elementary schools and equipment purchases to support the high-technology themes at Franklin, Rockefeller, Rightsell and Garland incentive schools. Those costs can be absorbed by doubling the funding those schools receive per student under the districts desegregation plan.Arkansas Democrat \"8? azcttc  K FRIDAY, MAY 27, 1 MJ LRSD board chief placed on probation for illegal duck hunt Ducks BY PATRICIA MANSON Democrat-Gazette Federal Reporter Little Rock School Board President Dorsey Jackson was placed on probation Thursday after pleading guilty to violating federal regulations during a January duck hunt. Jacksons conviction on six nnsdemeanor counts wont disqualify him from remaining on the school board, said the boards attorney. Christopher Heller. Five other defendants in the case also pleaded guilty Thursday to misdemeanors and were sentenced in federal court in Little Rock. Jacksons son and three other men admitted they shot more than their limit of ducks and Illegally tagged the birds to conceal the identity of the hunter who killed them. A sixth defendant admitted he had possessed illegally tagged ducks. J L I Federal officials said five of the defendants were responsible for shooting 23 ducks more than the limit dur- ing three days. The sixth defendant took the birds to a commercial picking operation officials said. Officers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service investi- Dorsey Jackson gated the case. In federal court Thursday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerry W. Cavaneau said duck hunters who violate regulations are cheating all the rest of us. When people in positions of trust and authority ignore the law, disrespect the law, we cant expect other people to respect it, Cavaneau told the defendants. The magistrate followed See DUCKS, Page 5B  Continued from Page 1B Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth F. Stolls sentencing recommendations, ordering all the defendants to pay restitution and placing five of them on probation. The men had faced a six-month jail term and a $5,000 fine on each count. Stoll told the magistrate that the investigation in the case began Jan. 8. Thal was the day three of the defendants returned to the Circle S Duck Club in Arkansas County with their limit of ducks and then went out hunting again, Stoll said. He said five of the defendants repealed the same procedure the next day, bringing in a limit of ducks and then going out again for more game. After being confronted by wildlife officers, the Jacksons admitted they also had killed more than their limit of ducks and illegally tagged the birds Jan. 7, the day before the investigation began, Stoll said. Defense attorney Jim Rhodes didnt challenge Stolls account, .saying the Jacksons and the other defendants had acknowledged their guilt from Day One. But in a February 3 interview with the Arkansas Democrat- Gazette, Jackson denied having been questioned by authorities about the incident. Five of the defendants were placed on one year of unsupervised probation, barred from hunting during that time and ordered to pay restitution. Those defendants were: Jackson, 50. He pleaded guilty to three counts of killing more than the three-duck daily limit and three counts of improperly tagging the excess. Cavaneau ordered Jackson to pay $2,500 in restitution.  Dorsey Jackson Jr., 22, of Little Rock. The school board presidents son also pleaded guilty to six misdemeanor counts. He was ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution.  CharlesE. Kalb, 31, of Memphis. He pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor counts and was ordered to pay $2,100 in restitution.  E.F. Lord Jr., 50, of Little Rock. He pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts and was ordered to pay $1,500 in restitution.  Robert C. Lord, 49, E.F Lord's brother, of Little Rock. He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts and was ordered to pay $1,200 in restitution. Wayne C. Sexton, 44, of Gillett, was the only defendant not placed on probation. He pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of having custody of 16 improperly tagged ducks and was ordered to pay $750 in restitution. Outside the courtroom. Special Agent Ron Parker of the federal wildlife service said tagging the hunters name and address the number and species of the birds and the date the birds were killed. The tag must be signed by the hunter, he said Parker said the tagging requirements are designed to make hunters accountable for the birds they kill and to prevent hunters from bagging more than the limit. violations and ''double trinnini\n\" --nr Irillinn \u0026lt;1____. or killing more than one limit  IS .q big problem among hunters. Federal regulations require hunters to lag the migratory game birds they have bagged if they leave the birds outside their homes or in someone elses possession, Parker said. He said the tag must includeSATURDAY. JUNE 4, 1994  Dorsey Jackson should resign Dorsey Jackson should resign from the Little Rock School Board. The board, patrons, community and children attending the Little Rock School District would be served positively by his departure. Jackson was ordered to pay $2,500 for exceeding his daily limitation of duck kills. Jackson allegedly admitted killing his daily limit, disposing of the ducks at a duck club, then returned to kill more ducks. Jackson broke the law six times. Jacksons son was also ordered to pay restitution for the same offense. Jackson, as president of the School Board, is in a position of trust and leadership in the community. He violated his position of trust and leadership. The example Jackson sets for his children is his business, but the example he sets for the community, and more importantly, the children attending the Little Rock School District, is all of our business and concern. How can the community expect Jack- son to credibly carry out the laws which govern our school district and the desegregation orders he is responsible for implementing when he has such disrespect for the law? If he does not resign, the board should pass a no-confidence resolution pertaining to his position as a board member. JOHN ROLLANS Little RockArkansas Democrat 'w (gazette  WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1994 Ducks unlimited When hunters are caught ow embarrassing for Dorsey Jackson, president of Little Rocks school board  and for the rest of us. Shooting only one duck too many would be a dubious examp le to set for the next generation. Mr. Jackson and four others now have pled guilty to bagging twenty-three over the legal limit back in January. Its also reported that they illegally tagged the carcasses to conceal who had killed the ducks. In February, Mr. Jackson denied that he had been questioned by authorities about the hunting incident when a reporter asked about it. Now this. Others on the hunt were Mr. Jacksons son, Dorsey Jackson Jr.\nCharles E. Kalb of Memphis\nand the brothers Lord  E.F. Jr. and Robert C. Another man, Wayne Sexton of Gillett, was arrested for possessing the  ducks. The game warden seems to have bagged quite a few. At least Mr. Jackson wont lose his seat as president of the school board. A federal magistrate could have sent all of the defendants to jail for six months and fined them $5,000. In ad- - dition to making restitution in amounts ranging from $1,200 to $2,500  Mr. Jackson paid the most  all the defendants were placed on probation. Lucky for them the magistrate didnt turn them all over to Ducks Unlimited. Those folks are not fond of people who violate the game laws. The Jacksons and their friends werent the first duck hunters to get caught thinking with their trigger fingers. Temptation has a way of clouding common sense  and legal bag limits. When hunters find themselves in marshlands frequented by swarms of quackers, something strange seems to overtake some of them. Like a spell. Back in the Senseless Sixties, for example, a hi^ official with the states Game and Fish Commission got into hot water over wild ducks. Seems that wildlife officers heard shooting in the woods near Pine Bluff and came upon a trail of duck carcasses with the breasts carved out. The trail led to the state official and another man, who ended up shouldering the blame. The official was suspended pending an investigation, but resigned before a hearing. When hunters disregard the legal limits, theyre cheating the legal hunters, as the judge in this case pointed out. As any school disciplinarian might add, lets hope theyve all learned their lesson by now. Arkansas Demcxaat ^azcttc TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11.1994 Wflliams, board member to host meeting on schools The Little Rock School District will hold a town hall meeting tonight with hosts Superintendent Henry Williams and Little Rock School Board member John Riggs. The 7 p.m. meeting, one in a series the district has scheduled, will be at Fulbright Elementary School, 300 Pleasant Valley Drive.Arkansas Democrat'  THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1994 LR School Board meets today at Ish The Little Rock School Board will hold its monthly agenda meeting at 5 p.m. today at the old Ish Elementary School building, 3003 S. Pulaski St. The district recently reopened the school to house pupils in pre-kindergarten through third grades who previously attended Chicot Elementary before it was damaged by arson Oct. 13. In addition to setting the agenda for its Nov. 17 meeting, the board will conduct a special meeting to fill an administrative vacancy in the districts data- processing department\ndiscuss a process for selling excess property\nreview the districts budgeting system\nand identify programs to be evaluated this year for their effectiveness.Arkansas Demcx^rat (gazette WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1995 A I iMi* MMz*nanr Inr LRSD decision-makers huddle to hone skills BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School Board members and the superintendent holed up in a hotel conference room most of Tuesday to stren^hen their working relationships and refine their system for making decisions. New Futures for Little Rock Youth sponsored the training for the board and Superintendent Henry Williams at the Little Rock Hilton Inn. Phillip Schlecty and Marty Vowels, educational consultants from Louisville, Ky,, led the training. New Futures is a collaboration of public and private agencies working in Little Rack to prevent teen-age pregnancy, youth violence and student failure in schools. The agency works closely with the Little Rock School District, Five of the seven Little Rock board members participated in the session. The others couldnt take part in most of the session because of illness or job responsibilities, Schlecty, president of the Center for Leadership in School Reform in Louisville, told school board members their roles should differ from those of other elected officials on governing boards. A school board members responsibility goes beyond representing a group of constituents and working for compromise. Schlecty said. Instead. a school board member should work for the common good of all students in a school district. That should include working with other board members to agree on what is important for students and educating constituents about those agreements and goals, Schlecty said. \"Its hard work. Its boring. It takes lots of conversation, he said of working for consensus. Its so much easier to just represent a constituency. and members Board Williams reviewed and discussed how they function and communicate with each other and the public. The session was held at least in part to prepare the board for coming sessions on the 1995-96 budget. Williams has said the district must cut as much as $8 million in expenses for next year.Arkansas Democrat j WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1995 Pulaski district grants teacher paid leave for LRSD board time BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer The Little Rock School Board j president, who teaches in the Pulaski County Special School District. was docked three days pay because she took time oiT to at-  tend board meetings. Classroom Teachers contract states that professional leave may be granted for a school-related or -sponsored activity directly related to professional improvement. Professional leave is granted to improve the instructional program of the district. The contract doesnt limit the But Tuesday night, the Pulaski County Special School Board number of professional days a granted Linda Pondexter paid teacher can use. professional leave. Board mem- Pondexter contended that the bers said Pondexters involve- district didnt apply the professional leave policy fairly. ment in both districts could contribute to solving the desegregation problems that encompass all three districts in the county. If anybody has the opportunity to bridge the gap between the two districts, we need to support them, board member Mildred Im not talking about abusing the leave. Its a day here, a day there, she said. Pondexter said she leaves extensive lesson plans for the days shes absent so her students dont lose important instructional time. My kids are proud of what I do, Pondexter said. Pondexter said she has lost several hundred dollars since she began serving on the Little Rock School Board in 1993. The three days pay the board refused to pay this year would have totaled about $600, Pondexter said. Pulaski County Special Superintendent Bobby Lester said- teachers have served in the past as North Little Rock School Board members but have never been granted professional leave. Instead, those teachers were al\u0026lt; lowed to take unpaid public service leave. I Tatum said. Pondexter, who teachers ninth-grade civics at Fuller Junior High, has asked for three separate days of paid professional leave since being elected board president last fall. The district denied her the pay, and the teachers union has compensated her. My first and foremost job is to educate the children of Pulaski County, Pondexter said. But it is important to extricate ourselves from the desegregation case with interdistrict cooperation. The Pulaski .Association ofArkansas I \u0026gt;ciiKx iat W (bnzclk 7UESDAY, MARCH 14, 1995 O.G. Jacovelli, 49, school board veteran, dies BY SANDRA COX OflfTxwrei-Gftzettfl Staff Wrtlef O.G. Jacovelli. a vocal sevenyear member of the Little Rock School Board who wasn't afraid to take unpopular stances, died early Monday morning of cancer. She was 49. \"She never worried about public opinion, said Linda Pondexter, Little Rock School Board president. \"But she worried about being right\" Jacovelli served on the board since her election in December 1987. She served as board president from September 1991 to January 1993 and as vice president from September 1990 to August 1991. \"We're all saddened, said Dr. Henry Williams, superintendent of Little Rock schools. \"It's an unfortunate and untimely death for a person that has worked so hard to do so much for so many. Oma Glynn Jacovelli was not afraid to make bold moves. For example, she spoke out in 1989 against the appointment of Buffalo. N.Y.. Superintendent Eugene Keville as a Little Rock school desegregation monitor. Angry because the school board voted against appealing U.S. District .Judge Henry Woods order rejecting a proposed desegregation settlement and empowering Keville as the monitor, she made a motion that Southwest Little Kock be de-an-nexed from the district. That motion failed. \"She was a spirited and courageous woman who was a real supporter of education and who, as a school board member, not only was well prepared, but had enormous influences on others. said Skip Kutherford, former Little Kock School Board member and president. Pondexter said it was at Ja-covelli's urging that she ran for board president. Andi Jacovelli was deeply dedicated to the district. Southwest Little Rock in particular, said her sister, Mary Beth Ross of Little Rock. \"This phone rang off the wall the whole time she was on the board until she became sick, Ross said in a telephone interview at her sisters house. \"Calls from parents, calls from teachers, calls from students. She would always call them back. ' Jacovelli was a founder of the McClellan Community School, located at McClellan High School, which serves as a community center and offers various 1 See JACOVELLI, Pago 3B O.G. Jacovelli --------- ------------- OMA GLYNN JACOVELLI, 49, ol Utile Rock, died March 13, 1995. She was a homemaker, a member ol the Little Rock School Board and a Baptist. Survivors Include her husband, Paul Jacovelli\nson, Jason Ross Jacovelli, ot Little Rock\nmother, Sarah Elizabeth Teas, Ft. Smith\ntwo brothers, John P. Teas, Jr. Tulsa, Oklahoma, James H. Teas, Little Rock\ntwo sisters, Dorothy McCartt, Ft. Smith, Mary Beth Ross, Little Rock. Memorial service will be 1 p.m., Wednesday, at the Roller-Drummond Funeral Home Southwest Chapel, with Rev. William Fields officiating. Memorials may be made Io Arkansas Cancer Research Center Tree ol Life, U.A.M.S. Jacovelli  Continued from Page 1B classes to Southwest Little Rock residents. She also took a siie-cial interest in band and music programs in the district. Last October, shortly before cancer began taking its toll on her, she visited Chicot Elementary, which was In her district, aRer it was gutted by fire. The visit was one of her last public appearances as board member. \"She was a woman of passion, conviction and tenacity, said Ann Brown, federal desegregation monitor. \"She fought hard for what she believed was right for children. We lost a very Applicants sought to fill vacant seat The Little Kock School Board will solicit applica-tion. s for the Zone 7 Southwest Little Kock seat lell vacant by Monday's death of O.G. .lacovelli. Snellen Vann, district spokesman, said district policy requires the board to appoint someone to finish a vacated term. Jacovcili'.s term ends in 1997. Vann said the board had not discussed any possible appointments. regular audience members at Little Rock School Board meetings aRer the announcement of the district's student assignment plan. In 1987, she became a candidate for the board In a three-way race for Zone 7, which resulted in a runoff that December with Douglas Hardin. Jacovelli won, with 81 percent of the votes. When re-elected last September, Jacovelli wa.s relieved. \"I take thi.s to mean that I am in touch with the public and I should keep on doing what I am doing. Jacovelli said the night of the election. great lady. .lacovelli wa.s born raised in Fayetteville. She was active in the Fayetteville High School band, playing the clarinet and eventually the saxophone. li, who was in the Navy. The two and had a son. Seventeen years ago, when her husband took a job willi AT\u0026amp;T, the familj moved to Pn-laski County, where her son wa.s a student in the Pulaski And she always dreamed of County Special School District, being a nurse, Ross said. Ja- She volunteered in the school coveili attended Sparks Nursing district, serving as a room moth- School in Fort Smith but never gradnated. In recent years, she had a part time job at the Kroger pharmac.v on Shackleford Koad in Little Kock. er and becoming active in the Parent Teacher.s Association. When her school was annexed to Little Kock's district, she became even more active in While in Fayetteville, she education affairs. .lacovelli, her met and married Paul Jacovel- husband and licr sister became Arkansas Democrat  FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1995 SWLR candidates sought to serve on school board The Little Rock School Information on the exact Board is seeking applications boundaries is available at the -   -  Pulaski County Election Com\nfrom Southwest Little Rock residents to fill a board vacancy for six months. Applications for the board seat are available at the school mission office or the Pulaski County Board of Education office, both at the county administration building at 201 S. districts administration build- Broadway. _ ing at 810 W. Markham St. School board members don t To aualifv for the seat, left va- receive salaries. qualify The person the remaining six cant by board member O.G. Ja- ' - - covellis death Monday, appli- board members select to fill the cants must be registered voters position will serve until the next school board election in in Pulaski County and live with- ---------- in the boundaries of Zone 7 of September. At that time, the ap- the school board election zones. The zone encompasses the pointee may choose to run for election to represent Zone 7 for the rest of the term, which ex- southwestern part of Little Rock, including most of the pires in September 1997. The deadline for applying area south of Base Line Road.  It also includes a section south for the board seat will be in ear- of Stagecoach Road and west of ly April, 15 days after a legal n^ Chicot Road, tice of the vacancy is published.Arkansas Democrat . SATURDAY, MARCH 18,1995 CoDWWht O UtB Rock Nwpaofj. Inc. O. G. Jacovelli You didnt have to agree with Oma Glynn Jacovelli to adniire her moxie, her dedication to Little Rocks public schools, and the way she always returned phone calls. Mrs. Jacovelli was the kind of citizen-legislator who explains why America works, or anyway why it used to. Her death at the age of 49 this week came as one more blow to a school district that doesnt need any more problems. Count among the mourners the community. It occurs to us at times like these that if every school district had more 0. G. Jacovellis, there would be a lot fewer problems for leaders like her to raise sand about In the end, the solution to the tangled web that all three of the school districts in Pulaski County have so artfully and so long spun around each other doesnt depend on courts or legislatures, but on citizens themselves. If we all just leave education to somebody else, instead of following Mrs. Jacovellis lead, those problems will never be resolved, certainly not the way they should be. Oma Glynn Jacovellis greatest legacy to public education remains her example.WEDNESDAY. MARCH 29,1995 4 seek to fill seat I I on school board opened in SWLR BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Four Southwest Little Rock residents have applied for the Little Rock School Board vacancy created by the March 13 death of O.G. Jacovelli. So far. the field includes two businessmen, a retired teacher and a community activist. The application deadline is Monday. The school board is advertising, for applicants to fill the position temporarily until the September 1995 school board election. Applicants must be registered voters who live within school board Election Zone 7. which encompasses much of Southwest Little Rock. The present six board members will choose a member from the pool of applicants. The appointment will expire in September when the next regular school board election is held. The appointed member is eligible to run for election then. The four applicants are Douglas Hardin, who ran unsuccessfully for a board position in 1987\nNola Nelms, who retired as a teacher from the Little Rock district three years ago\nDave Cooley, who owns his own lamination supply company\nand Paul Howell,.president of the .Arkansas Council of Vietnam Veterans of America. Hardin, 53, is the credit manager at Jungkind Photo-Graphic. He\nis a 1960 graduate of Central High School and a 1965 graduate of what is now the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. He and hisjwife. Sharon, who works for the' Internal Revenue Service, have two children: a son who will grstduate this year from Central Hi^ and a daughter who will griluate this spring from Notre Dame University. Hardin ran for the Zone 7 board position in 1987 and came in second in a three-way race. He lostthe runoff election to Jacov- ellL I'ive always been interested in the school district and have tried to keep up with it, Hardin said Tuesday. He said he is interested in helping the district improve security, manage its budget and bring an end to court supervision of the district in the 12-year-old school desegregation lawsuit Nelms. 63, worked for the Little Rock district for 23 years at Carver, Romine and Stephens elementary schools before retiring. She has worked 40 years as a teacher after beginning her career in Texas. The mother of two adult daughters. Nelms has a bachelor's degree from the University of -Arkansas at Fayetteville and a masters degree from UALR. Much of her experience in Little Rock came in inner-city schools where the focus has been on raising the achievement levels of black children while enticing whites to voluntarily attend the schools to improve their racial balance. Ive seen a lot of changes in 23 years, Nelms said. Weve made some mistakes, but there are a lot of good things too. Like Hardin, she also said she wanted to help the district meet its desegregation obligations and end the lawsuit. Both Nelms and Hardin said they would be interested in running for election in September. Howell and Cooley could not be reached for comment about their candidacies Tuesday. Cooleys son-in-law said Cooley owns his own business in North Little Rock. Howell is best known for his work in the state on behalf of veterans of the Vietnam War. A former U.S. Marine, he is president of the Arkansas Council of Vietnam Veterans of America. He also is vice president of the Chicot Elementary School Parent-Teacher Association, which has worked hard over the past several months to convince the Little Rock School District to rebuild the school, which arson partially destroyed last October. He most recently sought an appointment to fill a vacancy on the Little Rock Board of Directors.Arkansas Democrat '^(Bazcttc TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1995 3 more apply for LRSD board seat BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Three more people submitted applications by Mondays deadline to fill a Little Rock School Board vacancy, bringing the number of applicants for the boards Zone 7 position to seven. Zone 7 encompasses much of Southwest Little Rock. The vacancy was created by the March 13 death of Oma O.G. Jacovelli. The remaining six board members will appoint a person from the applicant pool to serve until the September school board election. The three latest candidates to submit applications are Tina Gatson, Claudius Johnson and Stephanie Johnson. Claudius Johnson, 44. is director of the Dunbar Recreation Center and a 20-year Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department employee. He and his wife Anita have two sons and three daughters who attend Booker Elementary, Magnet Arts Cloverdale Junior High, Henderson Junior High and Parkview High School. He graduated from Philander Smith College with a degree in physical education, and has done postgraduate studies at the University of Arkansas. Gatson. 36, is executive director of the George Washington Carver and College Station branches of the YMCA. She has two sons, who attend McClellan High School and Chicot Elementary School. She is past president of the Chicot Parent Teacher Association. Gatson is a graduate of Portland State University in Portland, Ore. She had a double major of psychology and elementary education. She moved to Little Rock in 1982. Stephanie Johnson, an employee at the Arkansas Department of Health, could not be reached Monday.Arkansas Democraf^Q^azcttc | FRIDAY, APRIL 14, 1995 Ol/ KlowcnarKrc Inz* LR School Board names Johnson to fill seat of late Jacovelli BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazene Education Writer The Little Rock School Board has chosen Stephanie Johnson, a one with tenacity, creativity, objectivity and commitment to service, My desire is to do whatever it takes to make me an effective board member, she said. In response to a question about her views on hiring private project director at the state Department of Health, to temporarily nil the Zone 7 vacancy creat- ----------- _ ed when O.G. Jacovelli died companies to operate the ais- March 13. tricts nonacademic departments. The board voted unanimously Johnson said she was a firm be- Thursday to se- i----- lect Johnson ! after publicly interviewing each of the six applicants for liever in promoting private business. But she also said she would have to know details about the cost of any contract, its feasibility and its impact on einployees, One area I would like to im- uie vacancy, C* prove is the image of the district *hen spending Johnson said, Obviously, there about an hour are a lot of negative images out in a closed ses- j u* there, and people have negative sron, l' 1 perceptions. ' Johnson will Johnson \"This district has so much to serve on the offer. Students who are on the board until the annual school right track truly know the strength of the district and its pro- the Kt election in September. She can run then for election from Zone 7, which encompasses much of Southwest Little Rock. The can- grams. Others interviewed included Tina Gatson, director of the didate elected in September will George Washington Carver YMCA\nserve until September 1997. Dave Cooley, owner of a lamina- Johnson, who has a psychology tion business\nClaudius Johnson, degree from the University of Ar- director of Dunbar Recreational kansas at Little Rock, administers Center\nPaul Howell, a communi- a health promotion project at the ty activist\nand Douglas Hardin, op- Health Department, The project is erations and credit manager for aimed at preventing school jungkind Photo-Graphic, dropouts, substance abuse and teen pregnancy through training in Like Johnson, several of the candidates had experience work- leadership and job skills, ing with youths. Others had finan- Johnsons primaiy duties in- ciai expertise. All but Stephanie elude developing curriculum for Johnson, who is single, have chil- training programs, budgeting, drgn, some of whom are adults, writing grants and monitoring the program. ' Tve been very involved with youth and children here in the city of the Little Rock. Johnson told the board. \"Quite frankly. Ive been on the other side of the fence, meaning that when I meet the children they've already been declared dysfunctional and may already be out of the school system, she sajd. :: -I thought this would be an excellent opportunity to have sorne input on how to keep children in school, to get their test scores up and to present a more positive image of the district.  She described herself as some-4B  FRIDAY, MAY 12, 1995 Teacher hearing halted as LR panel seeks legal opinion BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Board will ask the state attorney general for an opinion on whether each of 99 teachers objecting to salary cuts proposed for next! year is entitled to a separate hearing before the board. Board ponders bid to raise tax The boards decision Thursday \"t to seek the opinion cut lyight snort short a planned combined hear- ing for 48 of the 99 teachers. Representatives of the Classroom Teachers Association objected to the combined hearing, saying there were no legal provisions for such a proceeding and their members hadnt agreed to it. The Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act gives teachers the right to ask for a school board hearing upon being notified by a superintendent that changes in the terms and conditions of their contract will reduce their pay for the next school year. Late last month, the Little Rock district sent certified letters telling 2,500 teachers and administrators that Superintendent Henry Williams had recom- mended that the board cut the work year by two or three days next year, with salaries cut accordingly. Williams is also recommending against incremental pay increases for eligible teachers who traditionally get them for their additional year of experience. The school board has made no final decisions on the recom- mended contract changes. Board members are awaiting the outcome of contract negotiations between district administrators and the Classroom Teachers Association. Brady Gadberry, the districts director of labor relations, argued that the board could hold ar- combined public hearing for the 48 teachers Thursday because each cases circumstances a are identical and no privacy issues are involved. He also said that the contract with teachers and discrimination laws prohibit the board from treating one employee or group of employees differently than any other employee in the same situation. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School Board members remained undecided Thursday about whether to ask voters in September to approve a tax increase. At their agenda meeting, board members asked Superintendent Henry Williams for information on how much money each additional property tax mill would raise for the schools and how many mills would be necessary to keep the district solvent. Williams asked tlie board to think about whether a millage proposal would be feasible, how the money generated by a millage increase should be spent and how a millage campaign might be conducted. District officials are trying to make about $9 million in cuts and adjustments to balance next years budget. At this time last year, the board had to cut about $7 million in expenses to avoid an illegal deficit in the current year. Williams has said similar cuts might have to continue in subsequent years. The district, which last obtained a millage increase in 1990, has a 43.9-mill tax rate. It isn't among the 135 districts in the state that must seek a tax increase this year to avoid a 10 percent income tax surcharge on their patrons in 1996 as the result of a recent legislative act aimed at districts that dont meet minimum millage requirements for support of schools. The Little Rock district will get a small financial boost from the sale of property adjacent to Forest Heights Junior High School. The board Thursday approved the sale of the University Avenue property for $115,000 to the Mark V. Williamson Co. Inc., an insurance and bonds company. Frank Martin, CTA executive Bestir said she wanted an indi- I* Yidual hearing to get answers to naan t had time to consult with questions about whv the hoard its members about a group hearing and couldn't override an em- questions about why the board wont take actions, such as closing schools, that are more permanent solutions to the districts ployees legal right to a hearing. ov.uuuus lo They have a right to a hear- budget problems mg. and we believe it is a right teacher for 16 Bestir, a Iig ana we neiievci it is a right teacher for 18 years, said she to an individual hearing, he hasn't gotten a salary increase in Said. fwn vparc hpranco u 7\n, two years because she is ineligi- .liJh ** I incremental increase. Teacher Jennifer Farley said proposed budget cuts for next teachers didn't get notice of the liearing set for Thursday until . 1  ''' cosThe'ras mucii nev and benefits, ney for the CTA, said that while Once an employee requests a rontrlct''r,?dn'r ^ r ' *\"'\"K. the board is obligated to contract reduction notices, conduct it within five to 10 days teachers niight have iiidividiial unless both the board and the defenses that might cause their employee agree in writing to a contracts to be renewed without delay. Additional employees cnanges. could ask for hearings hetwopn as After the meeting, teacher Jo between now and May 30.I Arkansas Democrat ^(Bazcttc  WEDNESDAY, JULY 26,1995  OMalley chooses not to seek return to LRSD school board T. Kevin OMalley, a member of the Little Rock School Board since 1993, said Tuesday that he will not seek re-election in September to the Zone 2 position. OMalley cited family and job responsibilities as his reasons for not running for another term. A staff attorney for the Arkansas Board of Review, OMalley and his wife have two young sons. As of Tuesday, no one had filed as a candidate from Zone 2, which encompasses central Little Rock, including the Broadmoor and University Park neighborhoods near the campus of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Also, no candidates have filed for the Zones 4 and 7 positions on the board, but the incumbents, John A. Riggs IV and Stephanie Johnson, have announced that they intend to run. Zone 4 encompasses northwest Little Rock and Zone 7 covers Southwest Little Rock, including Otter Creek subdivision. The deadline for filing with the Pulaski County Election Commission as a candidate in the Sept. 19 school board elections is Aug. 4.Arkansas Democrat C^azett^ THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1995 Jty I I W I CoowWitC UB* Rock Nowkokoera. Inc. New board member says wifes job not nepotism emocrat-Gazstte staff 'The Little Rock School Boards newest member says a district policy against nepotism wont affect his family, although his wife is an instructional aide at Henderson Junior High School. The board has a policy against hiring anyone related to a member of the school board, the superintendent or senior-level administrators who report directly to the superintendent. The policy applies to spouses, siblings, grandparents, parents, children. aunts, uncles and even first cousins. Michael Daugherty said his wife, Sherry, has worked for the district for eight years and was a district employee before the nepotism policy was revised and adopted in 1994. He pointed out a policy clause that says the the policy will be applied prospectively and not affect the employment of anyone who was an employee when the policy adopted. was Daugherty said he conferred with several attorneys before entering the school board race. He produced an Aug. 25 letter from Mark Riable, a Little Rock lawyer, who said that after reviewing state laws and district policy he believed that Sherry Daughertys employment was not an issue Uiat would affect Daughertys candidacy. Daugherty was elected to the board 'Tuesday night in a runoff election against the Rev. Robert Willin^am. Daugherty replaces T. Kevin OMalley on the board.Arkansas Democrat ------- TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7..1995 EDITORIALS r .1 Illi i\u0026gt; II III ii I II III. I H.iiiiimil HIIiHIHH lU li !iJi I MI J School games in Little Rock A wake-ufj call to tlie school board A patron of Little Rocks scliool districtn. Baker Kurris, wlio has three cliildren in the public schoolspretty well summed up the publics disgust with politics-as-usual on the local school board. We are out here trying to recruit parents to the schools, he said of parents like himself, while members of the school board are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Here the school district is facing bankniptcy as desegregation hinds from the state nin out\na big contract for janitorial services turns out to be legally dubious\nthe school district is still mired in the i web of the law, complete with the usual legal fees\nand yet the board cant find anything better to do tlian play games with its school superintendents contract. Henry Williams, the first superintendent in years who shows promise of hanging around for a good while, now has been denied the conventional third-year extension of his contractby a vote of 4-to-3. Its clear that the school district has problemsand potentialon a large scale. During the last school year, a total of 4,!58O students left the district or 18 percent of enrollment. Yet the school district doesnt conduct exit interviews, and so can't report the reasons families give for leaving little Rocks public schools. Amazing. And sad. After all these years, the district still doesnt conduct the most rudimentary survey to find out why its I losing students. Any private outfit . that kissed off its clientele this way\nwouldnt be in business very long. Its as though the school system still hasn't realized its in a service : business and needs to learn some things about marketing. Many par-\nenis understand tlie problem, which is why theyre organizing a group (Parents in Public Schools) that would let patrons address the board and the bureaucracy with a united voiceand also tell tlie rest of us about the good tilings tliat go on in Little Rocks schools. It should be no surprise by now tliat the school district must attract more students if its going to maintain standards. To quote one finding by a committee of citizens that is drawing up a strategy for the school district: The current trend of declining student enrollment must be reversed, since future State revenue will be based on the number of students in the District Any interested observer can make some good giesses about why the district is losing students, just from reading interviews in the paper. Families are worried about discipline in the schools. Parents dont see enough other parents getting involved. 'The public, especially now, needs to see the superintendent and school board working together to attack the districts problems. Instead, the patrons see the board vote 4-to-3 against extending Dr. Williams contract There is talk about sending him a message, and nimors about some members wanting to replace him, and other fun- andgames. Meanwhile, business piles up. serious No matter how many businesses relocate to Little Rock, or how much construction is approved at the polls, no city can prosper if its public schools dont With the danger signs mounting, and conscientious parents coming together to lobby for the schools, what is the school board doing? Fooling with the superintendents contract Anybody who wants to send Hank Williams a message needs to consider using the U.S. Mails or Southwestern Bell\nvotes at school board meetings should not be conftised with Western Union. Speaking of sending a message, somebody needs to tell this school board to wake up and get serious. Because education is serious business. Not just for students and their families but for the whole community. This is Little Rocks future the public schools are shaping Or misshaping i1 Arkansas Democrat j -------- FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995 -------- 90 minutes per class up for study NLR board weighs changing schedule BY SUSAN ROTH Democrat-Gazette Education Writer North Little Rock High School students could have radically different schedules next fall if the school board approve.s a proposal to extend class periods to 90 minutes. Students at both the east and west campuses of the high school now have seven-period day.s with 50 minutes for each class. Under the new plan presented to the school board Thursday, they would have four extended class periods each day. Several board members applauded the proposal, but they did not take a vote. Administrators asked the board to consider Teachers say theyre working harder than ever before, but they would never go back, Chadwick said. ^ost administrators and teachers-at both schools are solidly behind the proposal. Several spoke enthusiastically about how working together on the research had dramatically boosted teacher morale. Some teachers are concerned about scheduling for foreign language classes and athletics, but Chadwick said everything can be worked out Were newcomers to this, but so many others have already waded through these waters and answered these questions. he said. Teachers said students are skeptical about having longer classes, but they may like having room for an extra elective. \"Students are stressed out. They have too much going on at once. said Bryan Duffie. a math teacher at the east campus who helped develop the plan. We think this can relieve some of their daily stress, and if we can alleviate some of that, it would help.\" Student stress could be re- lieved by having only four classes the plan at its January meeting so' instead of seven, some noted. they can put it into effect next fall. There are two possible schedOf the usual 50-minute period, only 27 minutes are considered quality instructional time be- ule plans for this block schedul- cause of interruptions, discipline ing concept. Students either See CLASSES, Page 3B would have the same four classes every day for a semester and then take four different classes at midyear, or they would take a total of eight classes at once, with four each day on alternating days for the entire year. Groups of teachers and administrators from each school spent ! the past two years researching similar programs at other high schools around thecountry.  Educators say the longer class- Classes  Continued from Page 2B and paperwork, said Anita es improve student discipline and j grades as well as teacher creativ- i ily. In the past six to eight years, : the concept has become the latest i thing in secondary education, es- ' Cameron, vice principal at the west campus. In addition to the additional class time, Cameron said, the new schedule would\n Allow teachers more time for planning and preparation because they would get a 90-minute prep period each day.  Provide enough time for teachers to present complete concepts.  Improve students comprehension by immersing them in the subject  Reduce the chaos and disciplinary problems associated with class changes by cutting them from six a day to three.  Foster innovations in teaching and allow more time for extra student participation, experimentation, lab work and guest presentations. pecially in other Southern states. ! In Arkansas, 12 to 15 schools have some version of block sched- I tditig while many others are I studying the idea, said Dana i tliadwick, director of North Little Rock secondary school administration. Chadwick said experts believe block scheduling will , .soon completely replace the tra- i (litional seven-period day.I [End spats FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995 LR board 9 A- rr is advised Find solutions or face disaster, patrons say BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Prominent Little Rock School District patrons appealed to school board members Thursday night to quit their political in- lighting and, instead, seek solutions to desegregation and money problems that are threatening to bankrupt the citys education system. r*ir. / 4m*- 'M L4^\\ J ^. ^aZ-s-^ 1? Sj nf? SO .KS .. Mtjf t. -M* In an unusual demonstration of community interest in the health of the public schools, corporate chief executive officers, parents, former school board members, community activists and Gov. Jim Guy Tucker turned .r' 1 'S hi* out for the special meeting Tucker did not speak. Little Rock School District Superintendent Henry Williams We need to transcend the di- members listen Thursday night as visiveness, the bitterness the reversing the racism and the mistrust and de- enrollment their top priority. Shulls and seven vote our full attentionand resources to the essential task of Little Rock School District student to meet the challenges of the 21st centu- ly. Baker Kurrus, a father and lawyer, told the board. Arkansas Democral-Gazelta/DAVID GOTTSCHALK Other speakers expressed concern for the school district and appealed to administrators to resolve the districts financial and desegregation-related problems during a special meeting called in response to parents' petitions. The board called the special meeting in response to petitions from more than 500 district pa- irons. About 125 people attended the orderly session, during u/ninh AirU4- _______I______  which eight speakers  renewed their commitment to the district but also chastised the district J , spelled out what would happen if the system goes bankrupt. Several speakers also asked the board to extend Superintendent Henry Williams two-year contract so he will have the full three-year contract permitted by state law. The board voted 4-3 against the extension Oct. 31. Williams has said repeatedly in recent months that the district IS scheduled to lose $5 million in state desegregation funds next year. The loss of those funds coupled with loss of state aid due to a declining student rollment, means the district i en-  - -UlULtltl can- 'r\"Plemeiit all parts I desegregation 31an, Williams has said. The district has cut about $7 nillion in expenses in each of ---I------- **i cavil UI he past two years but will have 0 close some schools next year See LRSD, Page 16AArkansas Democrat (gazelle FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1995 LRSD . Continued from Page 1A to save money. .Rhett Tucker, the chairmanelect of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and the father of two public school students, announced he will make state takeover. A 1995 statute allows the state to take over systems in distress. Such a takeover been achieved. But he warned that the aging plan is causing resegregation must be modified im- could result in the replacement of mediately. He urged the parties in the 13-year old court case to be the superintendent and staff, a new board election or the annexa- diplomatic, bold, unselfish and tion of the district to another more viable district. He asked district courageous. The five school board mem- ofiicials to make improvement hers at the meeting listened quiplans now before they are direct- etly to the presentation, which support of the public schools his ed to do so by the state. was interrupted six times by loud Surely local control is better applause, but made no comment top priority during his term. , Jhe well-being of the city and its people depend on the health of. the district. Tucker said, recalling a time a few years ago when a Fortune 500 company considered Little Rock as a site for its business. Three days of ap- than yet another external influ- ence, another cook in the kitchen, Argue said. at the conclusion of the session. Later, board member Katherine Mitchell said the unprece- Ben Smith, one of the founders dented meeting lifted her out of of the new Parents for Public Schools, told the board that he is aware of the districts attributes. the despair she often feels about the districts problems. It made me feel really good, pointments between company and city officials were planned. But. after corporate executives which are rarely publicized  she said. I didnt know that such as the scholarships students many people were knowledge- earn and learning programs. He able about the district and its reqd newspaper accounts of said his organization wants to problems. .scjiool district problems, they serve as the messenger to the But board member Michael canceled their appointments and public about the quality of the Daugherty said the group was lefl'town. .The next 18 months are criticalto the future of public educa- tidri in our city, Tucker said. We believe that the time is now schools. preaching to the choir Thursday Steve Shults, a Little Rock night. He said board members lawyer, asked the board to make it a No. 1 priority to stem the enare well aware of the problems. As for administrative stability, he rollment declines and then work said Williams creates that insta- for-bold new action. The business energetically to make prudent bility by looking for other jobs in community stands ready to do budget decisions. He said the board should focus what we can to be of assistance, he said. other cities. Other board members in atten- on what is best for students, not dance were John Riggs IV, presi- on the desires of any special in[ We can supply a lot of volun- in- dent Linda Pondexter and Pat eer help, and business and fi- terest group of parents, employ- Gee. Absent were Judy Magness ancial expertise and experience you will only ask John Steuri, cliairman and chief executive of- licer of Alltel Information Sys- ees or others. Further, it should and Sue Strickland. extend Williams contract, Shults said, citing Williams reputation as an effective leader who has tejns. told the board. made strides in managing the de- i We care and we want to help, segregation plan and budget bijt the bickering and the person- problems. We need Dr. Henry Williams aljattacks and the personal agen- das have got to stop, and everyone has got to work together to with all of his energy, creativeness, diligence and experience to help us resolve this mess were stthve these problems, he said. It is clear that there are highly in, Steuri said. Since JuneJ.982, diisruptive forces in this commu-  '   nijty who are profiting from this mpss and are hurting our schools arid the children whom we are weve had seven superintendents or acting superintendents in this school district. How do we expect parents to stay in our school district when we cannot even provide an environment where superintendents want to stay? Kurrus said: The more than desperately trying to educate. I am concerned that we will spend 1997 observing the 40th anniversary of the Central High Crisis of 1957 by experiencing yet 500 people who petitioned for another embarrassing, damaging this meeting have told you in a arid unnecessary public school very dramatic way that they care about this district, that they care about its students and that they party to that. care about the future of this com- :Rep. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock munity. He told the board that many of crlsis, Steuri said. And I don't think that any of us want to be a aftd the father of two public school students, warned the board the components of the districts th^t financial ruin could lead to a complex desegregation plan haveAricansas Democrat gazette FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1995  The choir is out of tune In response to Little Rock School Board member Michael Daughertys remark that me group was preaching to the choir at the 7 meeting, let me say to Daugherty that the choir is singing out of tune, and it is the congregation that must listen and the congregation that must suffer. What a pity that sitting in the congregation are our children M.W.SMYLY Little Rock2B  THURSDAY, JANUARY 11, 1996 Pulaski Arkansas Democrat ngr (gazette LRSD to halt televising special school board meetings oemocrawiazBite Edurata^iwter members conferred with and students ns nart nf  tcicH.  , __ n. I uTT superintendent over an  R^k School Di^ict dent where he threatened a news- 1. ., paper photographer. Sueilen Vann, the districts di- plans to stop televising the school boards special meetings and agenda meetings because of a lack of money. conferred with and students as part of a televi- nt production course at Metropolitan Vocational Technical Skills Center, Vann said. inci- thou^t that broadcasting the dis- rector of communications, said this week that the district will I^e change generated a hand- continue to televise the regiiiar fill of complaints to the distnct board meetings held the fourth last week when a special school Thursday of each month. There is bo^ meetingthe first meeting no direct cost to the district for meetings because broadcast During that meeting, they are produced by a teacher The district has televised the regular monthly meetings for several years on Comcast Cable Television Channel 4. Almost a year ago, the district started broadcasting its special and agenda board meetings because board members were trying to cut the districts budget and tnougnt Up until now, broadcasts of the cussioM would be important to special meetings and agenda j . meetings were produced by said the special meeting Bruce Miles. Miles is a district broadcasts were not budgeted for teacher, but he has his own video school year. She took money production company from other p^ of her communi- He produced the meetings cations department bu^et to pay through a business arrangement for broadcaste dunng the first se- between the district and his com- mester. Tom^ts 5 p.m. agenda pany at about $50 an hour, Vann meeting will be televised, but it said. will be the last such broadcast, Vann said. agenda It's not practical to expect the teacher and his students to pro- I I duce all the meetings, Vann said. Many of the students have afterschool jobs and the special meetings are ftequently scheduled by the board with less than a days notice. Additionally, students have transportation problems getting to and from the meetings, which are held in the districts downtown administration building. The meetings often run late into the evening'\"A^sasPemocrat^i^^g^  MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5,1996  Uniforms and the fight against TASS ,  Michael Daugherty called the other day with an update on hijand now the presidentsidea to require that students in public schools wear uniforms. The still-new member of Little Rocks school board wants everybody to know that hes making good on his campaign pledge. He proudly reports that, as of February 1st uniforms were to be required for students in Little Rocks alternative schools. These are the kids most at risk to be^n with, he says. Its a big test case for getting (uniforms) districtwide. Will it work? Who knows? But if it means schools will be safer, lets give it a whirl Besides, some of us remember uniforms as a way to eliminate one more distraction when kids are on the lookout for any at all. When battling TASSTeenage Attention Span Syndrome-teachers need all the help they can get (A note to critics\nUniforms dont give the false impression that all students are the same, just that theyre all in the same boat) We cant wait to see how the new classroom attire works in the alters native schools. Congratulations, Mr. Daugherty, on accomplishing the extraordinary\nYou ve kept a campaign promise. Talk about brazen. ( i 1Arkansas Democrat W (gazette THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1996 New school board needed ' Seven superintendents in the Little Rock school system in the past nine years. It should be quite apparent to any and all thinking people that what is needed is a new school board, not a new superintendent ' That is a shameful record. DAVID W. HANSON - - Fairfield BayARKANSAS TIMES  APRIL 5. 1996  T1 le Insider In transit The question isnt if, but when and under what terms Henry Williaiiis will depart as Little Rock school superintendent. The Insider has learned that a lawyer for the School Board (or should we say a lawyer See page 3 796756 0 6 Coniiniied from page I dispatched for the Board by President Linda Pondexter) and a lawyer for Williams met for the first time Tuesday to hammer out details of a buyout. .Jerry Malone of the Friday firm and James Penick reponedly tu e handling the chores for the Board and Wil- liams.respectively. Williams$115.(XX) contract runs through the 1996-97 school year. What's next Will the Little Rock School Board (or Czarina Pondexter) be ready with a replacement superintendent to spring on an unsuspecting public when they spring the Williams settlement? No. look for appointment of an interim management committee to run the district until a replacement is chosen. Names mentioned as possible participants on such a committee\nAssociate Superintendent Vic Anderson\nMann Magnet Principal Marian Lacey, and ad man Skip Rutherford, who helped write the current desegregation plan while a member of the School Board. Power mad Add School Board Member Mike Daugherty to the list of of public officials who believe their position exempts them from rule.s of common courtesy. After Pulaski Heights Junior High Principal Mona Briggs wrote Daugherty to object to the School Boards decision to reject janitorial schedule changes meant to improve efficiency, Daugherty responded: You asked why I didnt ask for input from you prior to voting for the change. If the truth be known, I neither desire nor\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_287","title":"Care Program Staff manual and other documents","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1999"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School-age child care","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Care Program Staff manual and other documents"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/287"],"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*-M 1 CA\u0026gt; CARE Program Rockefeller School 700 E. 17 Little Rock, AR 72206 Child's Name Child's Doctor or Clinic - Doctor or ClinicAddress- Hospital Preference Phone ------------------ Describe medical conditions, physical or mental problems, etc. the CARE staff should know about your child: In case of emergency, I auorize the C ARE Program to arrange for medical/dental care and transportation to the hospital or doctor of my choice or the hospital nearest to the school. CARE cannot assume financial liability for injuries, student accident insurance is available through the school office. I have read and understand the Care Program Discipline Plan. I accept responsibility for paying tuition charges according to CARE policies and procedures. Date Signature of Parent or Guardianf y CARE Program F Little Rock School District The CARE Program is anon-profit, self-supporting program of child care provided for elementary-age students and parents of the Little Rock School District. The program operates before and after school and all day on most school holidays. The CARE Program provides a structured program of creative activities and recreation in a nurturing environment. Varied group and independent activities are planned according to the students' ages and interests. The goals of the CARE PROGRAM are:  to provide a safe environment for students before and after school  to offer a wide variety of creative and recreational activities  to help create a positive school attitude  to encourage acceptable social and play skills - to help each child develop a positive self image LOCATIONS A CARE Program is located in LRSD elementary schools where there are a minimum of 15 participants between the ages of 5 -12 years and at selected schools for 4 year olds. received in the CARE Office on or before the 15th of each month for the upcoming month. example: October payment is due September 15th ilications are available for reduced rates at Incentive Schools HOURS Each program operates from 7:00 A.M. until school opens and from the close of school until 5:30 P.M. (6:(X) P.M. at Incentive School\u0026lt;J (y\u0026gt;^^^nklin, Garland, Ish,Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, Stephens), requirements are based on family size and income. on regular school days. During most school lol 's, from 7:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. at specified schools. The CARE Program is also open at several accessible schools when LRSD schools are closed due to severe weather. When school is closed for any reason before the normal dismissal time, CARE begins operation at the earlier time. FOOD SERVICES CARE provides a nuiritous breakfast and snack prepared by the LRSD Food Services Department Registration Fee J Full-time (5 days @ wk.) Part-time (4 days @ wk.) Part time (3 days \u0026lt; wk.) Part time (2 days @ wk.) Part time (1 day @ week) 3 Day Drop-in @$4.50 @day Holiday (reservations required) \"Snow\" Day 6.00 69.25 @ month 56.00 @ month 42.00 @ month 28.00 @ month 14.00 @ month 13.50 @ card 7.00 @ day 7.00 @ day SUPERVISION The CARE Program is supervised by a certified leacher/supervisor. A ratio of one adult instructor to every 18 children is maintained at each site. COST Monthly payments for regular school days, not including holidays, are averaged over nine equal payments. These payments must be REGISTRATION To register, return the completed registration form to the CARE Program Office with the $6.00 registraticn fee and 1st month tuition. The program will be available at schools with a minimum of 15 children participating on a monthly basis. If CARE is not offered due to an insufficient number of participants at a school, fees will be refunded. For further information, please call the CARE Program Office at 324-2395. $ CARE PROGRAM REGISTRATION TO REGISTER for 1991-92, mail $6.00 registration fee, 1st month tuition and completed form (front and back) to: ATTENDANCE AND FEES (Check one): Full-time and part-time fees are due two weeks in advance. example: October payment is due September 15 CARE Program 700 E. 17th Little Rock, AR 72206 Telephone: 324-2395  Full-time (5 days @ wk.)  Part-time (4 days @ wk.) . Part-time (3 days @ wk.) - Part-time (2 days @ wk.) - Part-time (1 day @ week) -3 Day Drop-in @ 4.50 @ day -Holiday (reservations required) -Snow\" Day $ 69.25 @ month 56.00 @ month 42.00 @ month 28.00 @ month 14.00 @ month 13.50 @ card 7.00 @ day 7.00 @ day Child's Name. Date Of Birth School Grade Date To Enter Care Mothers Name Fathers Name. Address- Zip Address Zip Phone (Home). (Woric) .Work Hours. Phone (Home) (Worit). .Work Hours_____ Emergency Information: Name, address and telq)hoDe numbers of persons to contact other than parent/guardian (2 required). Name. Address Plione (Home) (Work) Name Address Phone (Home) (Work) Persons Authorized to Pick Up Child: How/where did you first hear about the CARE Program? (check one) school friend/relative previously enrolled other COMPLETE AND SIGN OTHER SIDE OF FORM4 [Arkansas Democrat  SUNDAY, APRIL 18, 1999 { LR district tests waters on program The Little Rock School District will offer a before-school and afterschool care program at its eight new middle schools beginning next fall if there is sufficient parent interest District officials this week mailed notices asking parents of pupils in grades five through seven to preregister their children for the senice by Friday, A minimum of 15 full-time participants will be needed to open and operate the care program at each of the schools. To preregister, parents must complete a form and pay a $50 nonre- fundable deposit The district offers child care at its elementary schools but not at the ju- The care program fees include a $20 registration and charges ranging from $20 a month for one day of care a week to $100 a month for five days a week. nior highs for students in grades seven through nine. As part of plans to convert the junior highs into middle schools for sixth-, seventh- and eighthgraders, some parents had asked for an e.xpansion of the care program. The program is to provide creative and recreational time for students. The cai-e program fees include a S20 registration and charges ranging from J20 a month for one day of care a week to $100 a month for five days a week. The program hours will be 7 a JU. until the start of classes and from school dismissal until 6 p.m. More information or a preregistration form is available at the districts C.ARE progi'am office at 100 S. Arch Si or from the office at 324-2395. The schools planning to offer the program include Cloverdale. Dunbar. Forest Heights, Henderson, Mabel- vale, Mann, Pulaski Heights, and Southwest schools\nall will be middle schools next year.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: To: From: Re: April 20, 1999 Junious Babbs, Brady Gadberry, Bonnie Lesley, Sadie Mitchell Ann Bro,wnlk(4^___^ Request ror Information Im sending this memo to all of you hoping that it will increase the odds that I can get a small but critical bit of information. Does anyone know for sure what hours Dunbar Middle School will operate next year' Heres an overview of my plight: As the parent of an elementary school child who will be a 7' grader at Dunbar Middle School next year, I recently received in the mail a brochure for the new CARE Program in the middle schools, including a pre-registration form (copy enclosed). The literature explains that CARE will be available from 7 a.m. until school startup and from school dismissal until 6 p.m.\" and invites me to send a non-refundable $50 deposit to secure a place for my child. Ive used CARE for my children since its inception almost 20 years ago, so Im very familiar with the program. I know that my familys need for CARE depends on the time that school starts in the morning and lets out in the afternoon. Moms got the morning covered, and if school is over late, like 3:50 p.m.. Dad can pick up child and we dont need CARE. But if schools over early, say 2:30 p.m., thats another story and we need CARE. What a simple criterion: to determine whether or not to sign up for CARE, all I have to know is what hours middle school classes will operate. But guess what: no one can tell me! Not only do the school startup and school dismissal hours not appear on the CARE brochure, my phone calls to several offices (including that of CARE, Student Registration, Dunbar, and an associate superintendent) uncovered no one who could tell me with certainty what hours the middle schools will operate. How can the district expect parents to plunk down a non-refundable $50 and sign up tor a program four months in advance without having such a basic piece of information? Not only is a non-refundable $50 deposit outrageous (its way out of line with the programs price history, it isnt clear if it covers or is in addition to the $20 pre-registration fee, and is it still non- refundable if the minimum 15 students dont sign up?), its just plain bad business to expect parents to make a hefty non-refundable down payment on a service they may or may not need depending on school hours that no one can disclose at the time parents are being asked to pre-register. Given these circumstances, it wont be surprising if CARE isnt overwhelmed with sign-ups for its maiden venture into the middle schools. But will any dearth of pre-registration indicate a lack of need or rather parents unwillingness to risk losing fifty bucks on a service that may prove to be unneeded depending on the elusive school hours?Paoe Two April 20, 1999 In asking for your help in learning what hours Dunbar Middle School will operate next year, Im also asking that you carefully examine the scope, quality, and consistency of the customer service processes that need to be in place to effectively support those who are most directly affected by the transition to middle schools, namely parents, students, and teachers. As a parent. Ive already had very unhappy, frustrating experiences trying to navigate the shoals of a decidedly customer-unfriendly course selection process for middle schools. Now Im exasperated by the unsolved mystery of the middle school hours. And Ill bet Im not the only one. Enc.TO\nFROM: fJECHVIED MAY 1339 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATiONMOfllTOfii^'G Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring T\"^Martha Rogers, CARE Program Supervisor DATE: April 26, 1999 RE: Middle School Hours Ann, I received a copy of your memo and I can understand your frustration. I apologize if our office was partly responsible. The response from the parent survey regarding CARE for middle schools, did not indicate a need for CARE. In order to try to pursue the concept. The Little Rock School District felt that we could better determine a need if parents were asked to make a commitment by requiring a non- refundable deposit. The intention was that if it was determined that there was a need, and a CARE site opened, the deposit would be used for the registration fee and pan of the tuition fee. If CARE did not open at a particular school, the money would be refunded. If a site opened and based on the number of students interested, the staff would be hired and supplies and equipment would be purchased, those parents who withdrew from those programs would not be refunded the deposit. We stated in the middle school brochure that CARE hours would be from 7:00 a.m. until the start of school and from school dismissal until 6:00. Again I apologize that I was unable to confirm the middle school hours for you. If 1 can be of help in the future, please dont hesitate to call me.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PUPIL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Hay 3, 1999 TO: Ann Brown, Fed^al Honitor, ODH FROM: Jo Fvalyn Blstoity Director ot Pupil services SUBJECT: Follow-up: \"Reguest for information\" 1999 Junious forwarded to me a copy of your memo dated April 20, 1999, regarding guestions and concerns you have about opening and closing times for district middle schools for 1999-2000 and the CARE program deposit for middle school students. First, let me respond to your comments regarding the hours of CARE alluded to in the CARE Middle School registration information that was sent out. Since no information regarding a change in the opening and closing times for junior high/middle schools had been distributed from the District, we made the assumption that the hours would be the same or with only a slight modification. Consequently, we thought it would be safe to indicate that the CARE hours from \"7:00 a.m. until school start-up and from school dismissal until 6\n00 p.m. would PeJR. n capture any minor deviations from the current school schedule if changes in school opening and closing times were subsequently made. If we are to be The reason we made the decision to require a deposit for CARE at Middle Schools is because of our need to determine staffing requirements for 19992000 based on the number of students registered for CARE at specific school locations. _______________ ready to open CARE in new sites in August, staff will have to be recruited and trained, as well as furnishings and equipment purchases made before school starts. This deadline really forces us to have firm participation intentions, early on before this school year ends because of the front-end start-up expenses that would have to be obligated. The In our view, a deposit would indicate a firm intent on the part of parents to participate in the CARE program. The deposit would be credited toward the first months tuition, so it would not be lost. However, if we do not receive the minimum of twelve students to open a CARE site, the deposit would be refunded to the parent. The deposit would only be \"non refundable\" if the parent failed to fill his/her reserved slot. Conditions for a refundable or non refundable deposit were not addressed in the CARE registration information that was distributed. Me apologize tor any confusion or inconvenience this may have caused. Please feel free to call ae if we need to discuss further.STAFF MANUAL REVISED 1991-92 RECEIVED CARE PROGRAM STAFF MANUAL OCT 2 8 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Office of Desegregation Monitoring I . Introduction 1 II . III. A. B. Program Description Program Goals...... Personnel Policies A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I . J. K. L. M. N. 0. Employee Dual ifications..... Organizational Relationships Selection of Personnel...... Performance Responsibilities Staff Training and Support.. Licensing Requirements...... Conditions of Employment.... Terminations and Due Process Grievances................... Compensation.................. Hours of Work....... Fringe Benefits.............. Service Records.............. Change of Address........... Guidelines for Site Staff... Program Policies 1 1 .4 .4 .4 . 5 .6 .6 .6 .7 .9 .9 .9 10 10 10 10 13 A. B. C. D. E. F. 6. H. I . J . K. L. M. N. 0. Office Check-in...................... Payrol 1 Time Sheets........... Attendance............................. Tuition........................ Late Fees................................ Field Trips. ......................... Parent Sign-Out Sheets.............. Injuries and Accidents............... Medications............................ Inventory and Supply Requests....... Food Service Requirements............ Building Pass. . ........................ Confidentiality. ............. Suspected Child Abuse or Neglect.... Fire, Tornado, and Earthquake Drills 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 IV. Daily Site Procedures 19 A. B. C. D. Staff Arrival....... Check-In of Children Snack Time........... Active Play......... 20 20 21 22E. P . 6. H. Activity Time H ree P1ay . . . Sign Cut of Children........... Close Down and Staff Departure V. Discipline A. B. C. D. E. Philosophy of CARE Discipline Plan... Discipline Plan........................ Guidelines for Staff................... How to Communicate with CARE Children Handling Common Behavior Problems.... 26 27 29 29 29 VI . Programming with Children A. B. C. D. E. F. Activities....................................... Daily Schedule................................... Time Schedule for Regular School Days....... Time Schedule for Long Days/Holidays........ Activity Ideas...............................   Procedures for Inclement Weather Conditions. 34 34 35 36 36 371 CARE PROGRAM I . INTRODUCTION A. Program Description As a school-age child care service, the CARE Program B. provides an informal and unique environment for children of different, ages to live and learn together. maintains CARE structured environment to insure order and safety, yet provides children with opportunities to make choices and activities. become involved in both group and independent The program includes a wide range of social. recreational, and creative opportunities. Program Goals a The CARE Program staff strives to achieve the following goals: -to provide a safe environment for students before and after school, -to offer a wide variety of creative and recreational activities, -to help children feel good about themselves and develop positive attitudes toward school, growth in -to encourage relationships and social skills.! ! b ''r\u0026gt;'^0^ I : P HOITOUaORlk!! . I no J. J-q XI3 590 (nftipo'-i-i -A 'Ti/\nipo-i'H HflAO sr!?- .ejxvias ns T ta I: X ri 3HA3 jTismno'tx vnti biis . 3gfi J 9po3 3op.iri(j bi!\u0026gt;. !:\u0026gt; I x d r\u0026gt; 9jjw-1 ijijri 7 i \u0026amp;i'\nr'!c\u0026gt;+ni ri\u0026amp; isb3o STu^nx ot in as? b fife  3 \u0026amp; aA 3bxvoiq I znsiTn-io'i 4 S.iaiT! ul 2sxt xnjjJ loqqq I n jn .tnsbnsqsbnx bos quo-e n.tc-d . Xsxnoa to. gpctsTi abii'j fs S'- tl oj- s-spfi .J-ns-'isttib to I s b s 'i).''t ,-j \\i ' J- e i'4stbi.x.\u0026gt;l.:i nX bSVJOxri..\nssox vo'-iq smopsd s api st nifim J SV .,y-tstB'a b(ia esboi onx . esx 4 xri4jd-ioqqc svx\niTifc-irJ'... 'iq scl S3.f..i-1'^ si.\") fi a3.j bn\u0026amp; . : iKnaxJ\u0026amp;s-iqs^ S.(so8 l!iS-ip.~J-)S Q I* o Qnxwgllot Slid ovsxriq?:- ot .egviita tsda fnanpo-i*^' 3\u0026gt;1AO srlT :aXsop tana, slotsd adnsbuda 101 .tnsi'nno'^.xvn\"' sta.a sbxvoiq a:J - I siio.xdssT 39-1 bnfe S'\u0026lt; X j6S\"13 to Yd'3 iiav qo/svsb tans as'x Isamsrid xuods bopp isst H loorioxi staxw 6 isdtfe istirj od , .as'xd xvxdoe- .all .h-de Xsxpoa iaort.oa b36(/i{p.:J nai b I X d 3 q I sd od-. asbudxdda bns aq cd.anaxd-s X S'l svld xapq :ix dfwaip spa-dijoona od- . .iij.^.i.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|i mil III II ..-iL_iL.LII.I.II. Jinn, III II |i I.iiiiiilll|^|^ . n.im 1 iiiimnriioiiMnGTjiOT I I4 II. PERSONNEL POLICIES A, Employee Qualification The following minimum qualifications are required of CARE Program site staff members: 1. High school diplofpa or GFiD and background of successful, practical experience in groups of children. working with Genuine 1 ove and respect for young children and strong motivation to work with them. Pleasant personality. 4. Minimum age of 13 years. 5. Understands the positive approach to discipline and student behavior management. Willing to learn the policies and procedures of the CARE Program and the Little Rock School District. 7. Desire to work within school philosophy. the framework of a specific 8. Willing to share any special talents and interests with the children. B. Organizational Relationships CARE staff members are employees of the Little Rock School District and: Work under the supervision of the Supervisor of the CARE Program. Work under the cooperating supervision of the building principal. C. Selection of Personnel 6. 1. 1. All applicants for CARE positions must complete and submit a written application form to the Supervisor who will review forms. interview qualified persons. and recommend applicants for employment. Three personal reference and information regarding the application previous employment are required on form. References and previous employment will be checked by telephone or written reference form.5 4 . 5. D. All employee information will be filed in a confidential permanent personnel record maintained in the LRSD Personnel Office. Applicants recommended for employment must be approved by the LRSD Board of Education. Each employee will receive a contract showing salary, contract length. and other pertinent information. Performance Responsibilities of Site Staff 1. Site staff are responsible for planning and implementation of the daily program. a. Plan and implement a weekly schedule of developmentally appropriate experiences for the school-age children attending CARE. 4. 5. b. c . Provide supervision and leadership in a positive manner to children engaged in CARE activities. Participate in activities with children, encouraging them to become increasingly responsible for their behavior and choice of activities. Follow procedures in safeguarding the health and safety of children at all times and in handling emergency situations. Organize and maintain all CARE equipment, and space\nsupplies, order additional material as needed. Communicate appropriate information to parents. teachers, principal, cafeteria manager. and supervisor/coordinator concerning the children and program. (Lead) Perform the administrative functions of the programs a. Complete the time sheet each day and mail to CARE office in time for preparation of payroll. b. Complete and mail all reports and forms to CARE Office when requested (bi-weekly payroll sheets, monthly student attendance, orders, etc.) supply inventory and Di tributer notices to parents as requested by CARE Office staff. d . Keep accurate records of each student's attendancee f . 9- in the roll book and mail the CARE Main tain business cl 6 copy of attendance Office at the end of each month. record of current addresses, phone numbers, numbers for each child. to home and and emergency telephone Provide cafeteria manager with information regarding number of children eating breakfast each day\nupdate afternoon snack count based on number of children attending. Follow instructions for drop-in procedures section D. average p. 14 E. Staff Training and Support CARE employees are required to attend 10 hours of in-service training yearly to increase skills and learn about creative and enrichment activities. The following staff support and training will be provided: 1. Orientation session before school begins each fal 1 . Periodic workshops and resource materials on developmentally appropriate experiences for school-age children. Frequent personal contact with CARE coordinator and supervisor. F . B. 4. Annual written evaluation of performance with continuous oversight and positive suggestions for improvement. Licensing Requirements 1. Annual skin test for tuberculosis is required by Arkansas day care licensing regulations. Ten hours of in-service training or outside workshop attendance regarding child care practices are required each year and will be documented in personnel records. Conditions of Employment 1. For the first year of continuous employment, persons shall be employed on a probationary basis and may be discharged at any time'they are not needed or when their work. unsatisfactory. IS After employees have worked for one year and been4 . 7 contracted for the second year, permanent emp1oyees \u0026gt; they shall become Job performance will be evaluated annually in writinig by the CARE Supervisor- A recommendation will be made for continued employment, dismissal , or reassignment of the employee. Employees will be assigned by the Supervisor to a specific CARE site on the basis of the number of full-time participants and the needs of the program. 5. Permanent employees may be discharged for inefficiency, repeated absence or late arrival on the job, for conduct unbecoming an employee of the LRSD, or other reasons believed to be detrimental to the best interests of the program. A. Permanent employees may be laid off due to a lack of work or financial circumstances of the program. An employee desiring to terminate employment should submit a written resignation at least two S. weeks in advance. Additional regulations regarding termination and due process for permanent employees can be found in the LRSD \"Non-Organized Support Staff Employee Handbook\" available in the LRSD Office of Human Resources and school offices. H. Terminations and Due Process for Permanent Employees In order to maintain a good working environment, all employees are expected to conform to reasonable standards of performance and conduct. When an employee demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to maintain these standards, the supervisor will take necessary corrective action. This action is directed toward resolving personal and work-related problems which interfere with the employee's effectiveness. When all reasonable efforts to correct employee deficiencies are exhausted, it is necessary that this person be terminated. There are occasions when persons, because of the nature of their misconduct, recommended for immediate termination. must be suspended and 1. Following are examples of offenses for which an employee will be recommended for immediate termination. These offenses may include. but arenot 1imited to: cl n Lonvic tion, felony or m.i a t a t. r i a 1 court 8 level, of I s demeanor which is manifestly inconsistent with the safe and efficient operation of CARE. C. F i g fl t i. n g , threaten ing, bodily injury to an Bodily injury an or attempting to do employee or student. means physical pain, illness 9 or impairment of physical condition. Carrying weapons. A weapon is any object that could cause injury to another person and is not. required to be in the possession of the employee in the normal course of the job. d. Stealing or misappropriation of property of employees of the LRSD. e f . 9  Malicious mischief\nthe abuse, misuse, or deliberate destruction or damaging of property, tools, or employees of the LRSD. equipment of other Altering or tampering with time sheets, sign in/out rosters, or other reporting documents relative to attendance, promptness, departure. or Drinking alcoholic beverages on the job during working hours\nintroduction of, any alcoholic or the possession beverage or of , on or LRSD property at any time. This also includes reporting alcohol. to work while under the influence of h. Use of narcotics and/or the use, possession. or transmitting on school premises of drugs or substances capable of modifying mood and/or behavior. i . Insubordination, including refusal or failure to perform work assigned and/or refusal to obey orders of supervisors. k. Disorder1y, disruptive, school premises. The making of or or ma1ic ious or immoral conduct on publishing of false. vicious, tatements concerning employees j . of the LRSD. 1 . Falsification of personnel or other officialm, n. o. 9 school or insurance records, or making false statements when applying for employment. Falsifying or refusing to give testimony concerning incidents which are being investigated. Harboring a disease which, through carelessness, may endanger .the health of fellow workers. Failure to observe or purposefully disregarding school district or CARE Program policies or procedures. I , Grievances 1. Employees have the right to present grievance and shall be assured of freedom from restraint, interference, discrimination, and reprisal. Employees are encouraged to pursue an informal approach through their immediate supervisor to resolve a grievance. result in a satisfactory solution Should this approach not J the employee should then follow the Grievance Procedure as outlined in the \"Non-Organized Support Staff Employee Handbook available in the LRSD Office of Human Resources. J . Compensation 1. The CARE Program salary schedule is based on job responsibilities and years of experience. Each employee will receive a contract indicating a specific school assignment and salary level. Overtime work shall be avoided insofar as is possible, but may be required in the interest of efficient and safe operation. Overtime hours causing a LRSD employee to work more than' 40 hours in a regular work, week will be paid at the current overtime rate. K. Hours o'f Work Hours of worker shall be determined by the supervisor and shall be designed to facilitate the most efficient operation o'f the CARE Program on a self-supporting basis. Before-school assignments will be for 1 or 2 hours and after-school assignments will be for no more 3-1/4 hours depending upon the specific school site and program needs.L. Fringe Benefits 10 1 . Permanent CARE Program employees who are regularly employed in the LRSD for- 25 hours or more per week are eligible to receive LRSD employee benefits (health, life, dentcal , and disability insurance) . providing they have worked in the position for one year. Enrollment procedures and information concerning the various policies can in the \"Non-Organized Support Staff Employee Handbook available in the LRSD Office of Human Resources. M. Service Records A service record is maintained in the LRSD Office of Human Resources for every employee and contains all information pertinent to employment. N. Change of Address Any change of address or telephone number must be reported to the CARE and Human Resources Offices. O. Guidelines for Site Staff 1. BE ON TIME! If you are sick or an emergency arises, call the supervisor to arrange for a substitute. ARRIVING LATE FOR WORK, AND THEREBY LEAVING CHILDREN UNSUPERVISED, IS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT. NEVER leave a child or a group of children unsupervised even for a brief time period. Always tell a co-worker if you must leave a group of children briefly. Make sure another person will be temporarily supervising your children. 4, Eat and drink only with the children. 5. Constant and effective supervision of the children is required. while supervising Sitting or standing in one location activities is not a safe or acceptable practice. must move around the area, To effectively supervise, you continuously scan the 6. group, by an adult. and make sure every child is being observed The school telephone may not be used for personal calls during CARE, It may be used only for emergency purposes related to the children or to contact the CARE Office.8. 9, 10. 11. 13. 14. 11 Always handle yourself in a professional manner when dealing with children, parents, and school staff. YOU are a representative of the LRSD! Use good language and correct. English in the presence of the children. Never use paddling. or physical punishment (spanking. sarcastic pinching, hitting, poking, etc.), verbal threats. remarks in CARE. Know what children are capable of at each age level. Hold them to a standard they are capable of achieving. Respect individual differences. Everything should have a special place in the CARE area. Help children learn to return each thing to its place. Care area must be kept clean. Show affection to all children alike\nwith respect. hurt feelings. treat them Never say anything that might cause Children need to experience success most of the time. Guide them appropriately\nplan for success! Dress appropriately for your job in clothes that look neat and clean. are safe for interacting with the children on the playground. and are comfortable in the heat or cold. Remember, all schools have rules for the appearance of their staff. If shorts are worn in very hot weather. the shorts must be \"long\" (no shorter than \" above the knee) and loose fitting.12 I1314 H  Office Cheek I n CARE Program staff members are arrival to check the CARE mail box for messages. required upon This lets the CARE B. C. D. E. teacher receive daily. reports and messages from the CARE office Payroll Time Sheets staff attendance will be mailed A time sheet for recording i.,._= of the time period and will be The lead staff person should record to each school in advane kept in the cabinet. the a.m./p.m. attendance of each person on a daily basis. do not include time Record only time actually worked\nmissed due to arriving late or leaving before the end of the CARE day. At the end of the payroll period, each the time sheet and verify the accuracy to arriving late or person should sign The amount of the payroll checks will of their hours. based on these hours records. Daily Attendance in be and the CARE Office substitute Roll Books\nAttendance records on each child are required for both a.m. and p.m. participation. Specific instructions for recording attendance are of the roll book. Tuition Fees\nlocated on the inside front cover the Parent Handbook are Monthly tuition charges listed in full on the 15th of the preceding month. due in The fee must be paid before the child may continue participation in the program on the 1st of the month. Please call the CARE Office (uncertain about whether a child shoulcT^e'^Tdwfed to continue attending. .1st program is supported completely by parent fees, fees must be paid in advance at the CARE Office. and long days are prepaid, parents purchase drop-in The and the Drop-in or Care teachers will long day cards in the CARE office. record all drop-ins according to instructions and will long day card to equal the value of that punch parent's day. Parents must sign a drop-in or long day attendance form Late Fees\nThe CARE Program concludes at 5 0 p.m. each day (6\n00 at Incentive Schools). the late charge for arriving after closing time late) and an is $ .50 for arriving by 5 5 (1-5 minutes additional $1.00 for each additional five minute period. This charge must be paid directly to the CARE teacher upon picking up the child. Since CAREF. B. H. I . employees and af ter work , school custodian CARE reserves the program when Field Trips\nparents are According to LRSD policy. is required away 15 have other obligations the right to remove a child from late over three times. a signed parent permission form for each child for any trip, from the school. When a field trip copies of this permission form should be the CARE Office and completed in advance Parents should be notified in writing of by foot or car, is planned, requested from b'y the parents, the destination of the field trip and the time of departure and return. In addition, the school secretary and the CARE Office should be advised of your plans. LRSD buses are usually unavailable in the afternoon for CARE Program field trips. possibility of transportation. If you should wish to check the complete the field trip form and mail it to the CARE Office at least three weeks in advance of the field trip date. Parent Sign-Out Sheets\nOn regular school days children come directly from their class to the CARE area. Each parent should be asked to sign his/her name on the computerized Sign-Out Sheet upon picking up a child. It is important to make sure that each child is dismissed only to the parent, specified on the registration card, permission from the parent. On holidays or Teacher Workdays, both sign person or person with written parents are expected to in and out, providing the CARE staff with an emergency telephone number for the day. Inj uries and Accidents\nRecord the occurrence of bumps. received by children in CARE in sc rapes, and scratches the spiral bound injury log. This is to provide information about the injury and its treatment should it be needed at a the instructions on Report more serious later date. Fol low the inside cover of the injury log. injuries to the Supervisor and send her a completed accident form, CARE staff. signed by both parent and Medications CARE staff are to follow the procedures of LRSD Health Services Department regarding medication to be given to chiIdren. On regular school days medicine is given only by the school nurse or principal.16 J . K. L. On long days in CARE, CAKE staff may (jive medicine provided the parent brinijs with directions Keep the in a n d medic\nine in locked cabinet. it in the prescription bottle completes a written permission form, the school office or on a high shelf Inventory and Supply Requests\nAn annual inventory should be completed for each CARE site in the spring. This will indicate which materials need to be replenished before the beginning of school To request supplies or proj ec t, call or send a request in August. items needed for a specific craft Food Service Requirements\nBreakfast\nby our children. CARE is charged for You are asked for the Cafeteria Manager, to the CARE Office. every breakfast consumed to fill out a daily form children eating breakfast that day. indicating the number of Please be accurate, since we will be billed for these breakfasts. Sn ac k\nafternoon The Cafeteria Manager will prepare and leave the nack for CARE based on the number of children and staff regularly attending. Please monitor the leftover snacks carefully and reduce the snack, count when your enrollment or attendance declines. expenses within the budgeted amount, To keep food we have to monitor our snack costs closely and not waste money. Leftover Food\nIf there is extra food, you may divide it among children wanting a second serving. Put remaining food in trash can and return uncut fresh fruit on tray to the kitchen. Do not take left, over food home. The Cafeteria Manager will use several forms each day to exchange information with you. Fill them in daily and leave them on the tray. Use the comments section to adjust the snack number and communicate concerns. Food Not Left\nIf you are unable to find the afternoon snack, call the cafeteria manager at home to see if the snack was prepared. If find it or come to school to locate it, emergency peanut butter and crackers. he is unable to tell you where to you may serve your Let the CARE Office know to send you more emergency food the next day. Buildinq Pass\nA child requesting permission to return to the building to use the restroom must take a CARE \"building pass\". This pass must be returned to the same adult. ' Observe closely the length of time the child is in the building. If the child is away from the playground or CARE area for more than 3 or 4 minutes. an adult needs to check on the child.17 M. Confidentiality\nAlways maintain confidentiality about information related to CARE children. Do not discuss a child or provide written information about him to persons other than his parents or per ons needing the specific information to care for the child. Do not discuss or .give information about a child to the parents of another child. This also includes late charge forms. emergency cards, roll book, and communications from parents or our office. Any requests from other than CARE or school office staff should be referred to the Supervisor. N. Suspected Child Abuse or Neglect: 0. A CARE employee who suspects a child's physical or mental health and/or welfare may be adversely affected by abuse or neglect., shall report these concerns to the school principal. The principal will then contact SCAN. staff is unable to report to the school principal, If CARE she should contact the CARE Supervisor who will contact the appropriate authorities for an investigation. Fire Dri11, Tornado Drill, and Earthquake Drill\nFIRE DRILLS MUST BE HELD MONTHLY! 1. Assign a student to be line leader, if necessary. Announce fire drill in a loud, clear voice. Have the children walk quickly and quietly in a single file to the designated area on the playground. If possible, one adult should be at the front of the line and one at the back. 4. The last adult in line should make sure that all children are out of the building, including restrooms. 5. Take the roll book with you. and check, to make sure every child is out of the building. 6. After accounting for every child, return to the building in an orderly and controlled manner. 7 . Practice and discuss this procedure with your children every month and on all long days in CARE. TORNADO DRILL: Practice monthly Follow steps in fire drill procedure, except go to area in the building specified by the principal. Children shouldface the wall, h?ads to protec t Do riot pract.ice kneel, and place drills on the procedures .18 the.ir arms over the.ir from falling debris. Avoid window areas. fire drill, same day because in the event of tornado drill, and earthquake chiIdren may be confused on a rea 1 emergency. EARTHQUAKE DRILL\nPractice Monthly Be prepared to anticipate and avoid dangers, the following procedures. Prac tice INSIDE\n1. Move away from windows. heavy objects that can fall. brick wal1, shelves and Take cover under table, desk or counter. cover head with elbows clasp hands firmly behind neck. If notebooks or jackets are handy hold over head for added protection from flying debris and glass. Evacuate area as soon as possible away from the building as far as possible and away from power 1ines. OUTSIDE\n1. On playground, move to an open space, away from buildings and overhead power lines. Lie down or crouch close to the ground. looking around for danger movement. that may demand Keep) Remain down until shaking stops! Emergency drill procedures MUST be conducted according to the following schedule. 1. FIRE DRILL First Monday of each month. TORNADO DRILL Second Monday of each month. EARTHQUAKE DRILL Third Monday of each month.19H . TAFF arrival 1. Arrival T imes s_ All CARE Program substitute hould arrive in 20 staff members the CARE area c\\n d 15 minutes before school dismissal. Office Check-In\nCARE mail box in The lead staff member should check the school office to pick up the the mail and for the day (may messages about absences or bookkeeping include supplies or messages procedures). Before the children arrive, Site Check and Set-U\u0026amp;j- staff should complete the following steps: the a. Set up all administrative supplies for book, sign-out form, parent handouts). the day (roll Be organized! b. Set up snack and activity supplies for the day. c . Conduct a d . NOTE\nI B. I I I I to be utilized brief site check of the area cafeteria or gym). by CARE (restrooms, playground. Prepare for the arrival of the children. CARE staff should not disturb any on-going classes. All staff are school personnel or reminded that traffic congestion urrounds every school at dismissal time. inside the CARE area Staff should arrange to arrive time. Strictly follow all regulations regarding patrol guards, and parking Strictly follow traffic flow. areas. on CHECK-IN OF CHILDREN 1. Arrival of Children\nAll children should report to the dismissal from their classroom. CARE area immediately upon During the first week, of school, CARE staff should use list and meet the kindergarten children door. In larger programs, kindergartners met in their wing o* hiiilriino all vear by a CARE staff member. the first week, of school. at their classroom In larger programs. f the building all year by a . Storage of Children's Belgnginas a. b. c . are Each child's personal belongings designated place bookbag or backpack in stool, cubby. locker, a bin ) . Staff should assist children in belongings. After children's belongings should not should be stored in a (cafeteria storing their are stored. the children return to the storage area Without staff approval and supervision.21 C. Roll Call a. b. c. d. e. f . All children must tae seated during roll call. Roll call must be conducted by the CARE staff, usually the lead staff member. Every child must be accounted for within the first 15 minutes after school dismissal (present in CARE, from school today, dismissed early, etc . ) absent When a child does not arrive in CARE as scheduled and cannot be accounted for at the school, the following steps should be taken: 1. 4. Check, with school secretary and teacher to see if the child was absent or dismissed early. Call to inform parent of child's absence in CARE and ask for information concerning the child. Notify the school principal and search the school and school grounds for the missing child. Discontinue the search and inform the parent. principal, located. and CARE Office that the child cannot be When a child not enrolled in CARE arrive on the site, follow these steps: 1. Call the CARE Office for any information. If the child has not been enrolled in CARE, return the child to the school office immediately. Following roll call, daily announcements should be made regarding activities for the day, and rules/procedures that need review. special events. SNACK time The afternoon snack will be left by the cafeteria staff. usually in the refrigerator in or near the kitchen. Fol low these steps for serving snack\n1 . Children should be taken to wash their hands. Upon returning, children should be seated during the serving and eating of snack. All staff should wash their hands before serving snack and use the rubber glove provided on tray.Snack cause should be served the in an efficient manner that does not 1 4 . D. E. F. children to wi^it for a long pt- methods are ef fective s children arrive, use \"iod  Sever 1 put snacks sn ac k. he 1 per s out on to pass table before snack out, or have children walk in table. All children a 1 ine to pick u p snack from cart or should remain seated until snack is finished CARE staff should supervise the clean-up after snacks, helping the children as needed. a. b. c . d . ' NOTE\n6. Have children dispose of uneaten food and paper. Examine paper the floor and clean any spills with broom or towe1s. Wipe tables. Return tray to kitchen. for small group Snack, time is a quiet time should never participate in conversations. Children or move physical activities around the room while eating. ACTIVE PLAY TIME is required every day... Outside play\nraining, below freezing or it is Unless the temperature is should be outside each afternoon for such as the children active play. Four Square, Include both free play and group games. kickbal1, basketba11, etc . Active Play for Bad Weather\nUse the \"Indoor/Outdoor Game Book\" inside in bad weather. for active games to play Use the You may also include group exercising, War Ball, and beachball volleyball. on paper plates to music. \"iceskating\" ... Be creative and in control. include a daily be creative, and be varied. Avoid limiting the activity to crayons or markers and paper day after day. ACTIVITY TIME should be planned in advance, opportunity to be creative, and be varied. or Use aciivi c y LU L.I oy -------------   ' x and weekly and seasonal themes, pecxal_xn-cabinet children, and ideas from your art. resource book, in FREE PLAY should be included in the daily schedule for a specific time. Children should be closely supervised and provided with adequate and varied game Children s/toys/art materials. SIGNOUT 1. Each child must be signed out by a parent/guardian or person listed on tudent registration form or person authorized in writing by parent. to you to show their It is good to require a person not. known driver's 1icense. If an unauthorized person comes to pick, up a child, dismiss the child to them unless you can contact a do not parent to4. H. get verbal permission, identity. Check the driver's license to verify Children authorized by a parent, to leave CARE and walk home or go to a class should have written permission days/time and sign themselves out. Distribute indicating communications from the CARE Office to parents as These communications should be kept they sign out, confidential and may include memos and financial statements. NOTE\nA child may never be checked out by an unauthorized person or allowed to leave on his own without permission from parent. CLOSE DONN AND STAFF DEPARTURE 1. Site Close Downs following steps should be followed: During the last 15 minutes of the day, the a. Return all equipment and supplies neatly to the cabinet. b. Make a final check of areas used by CARE to be sure materials are secured in cabinet, toilets have been flushed. area is clean, and Staff Departure Time a . One staff (Tiember must remain until last child has been picked up, even if parent arrives after closing time. Parent may be charged late fee for arriving past closing b. time. other staff time. hoLild work until their assigned closing c Staff will be paid for working assigned hours. If staff members leave early on any day, they will be paid only for time actually worked. iiM2425V nfSCIPLINE A. Phi 1 ospphv of sc ipline Plan The discipline policy of the CARt rrogram is based on th_ belief that each child is for his own Discipline in CARE should focus teaching, positive reinforcement, rather than punishment, are taught the standards of behavior expected in for misbehavior. of the CARE Program responsible behavior. in CARE on learning, and reinforcement, taught the standards Children CARE and the consequences to handle stressful or They are encouraged to find an acceptable way and to learn from mistakes. difficult situations activity is used to give the child time Time out from group to calm down. reflect on his behavior, consider the consequences, and evaluate alternatives. CARE staff are expected to request parents help with behavior problems that cannot be solved by time out. the right to suspend a We also reserve the right to suspeiiu . child from CARE for a designated amount of time, or to expel a child from the program for an indefinite period of time. or an if all positive i 1 UI U y I CT n I I -u-r. ------- . efforts are made and the child cannot conform required behavior. to the and hitting) of any .child_is Corporal punishment (spankinq never allowed in the CARE Proqram under any------- Threatening, hitting, or spanking a child are immediate suspension and recommendation for termination of employment in the LRSD. Only the means of discipline Ixste ^the CARE discipline plan (time out, behavior documents) permitted in controlling student behavior in CARE. If have followed this plan and a child's behavior continues allowed in circumstances. or and recommendation the LRSD. in the CARE discipline pian (time out, are CARE, you have followed this plan and a child's behavior to be disruptive, you need to request assistance.  ' to redirection t_ children will respond positively activity, discussion of the problem behavior, generous praise for efforts to improve. discussion praise for The aim of discipline is The aim of punishment is NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE! to another time out, and to help children build good habits, to break the child of a bad habit.Il B. Discipline Plan for CARE Program Behavior rules for students! 1. Follow directions of CARE teachers. No cursing, teasing, or 4. 5, 6. Show respect to others\nof all students. Return all materials to Keep hands, threatening. respect the rights and property their proper place. feet and objects to self. Leave assigned area with permission only. Positive consequences may include\nVerbal praise and immediate feedback Positive comments to parents Sood citizen display or individual recognition Ribbons, treats Special group activities, proj ec ts, rewards Negative consequences for breaking the CARE rules\nLevel 1\nFor the first infraction an individual conference between student and staff will be held to discuss the child's behavior, from group activities. Child may receive time out Level Behavioral document or note to parent to be signed and returned. Child will lose a play or recreational privilege in CARE for 1-2 days. Level Second behavioral document to parent. Conference between student, parent, and staff required to discuss behavior. Child will lose a play or recreational privilege in CARE for 3-5 days. Level 4\nShort term suspension of 35 days from CARE, refund of money paid for these days. No Level 5\nExpulsion from CARE Program, paid for remainder of month. No refund of money Severe Clause\nendangers the safety of others, suspended from the CARE Program, between parent and staff. If a student is severely disruptive or he/she will be immediately pending a conference Note\nCorporal punishment (paddling) will not be used in disciplining children in the CARE Program.28 C. (3 u i d alines f o r S t a f f .1 . Consistency of discipline is more important than severity. 2. Any penalty imposed should be the natural outcome of the For example^ if a child gets out of hand while misbehavior, I ----, playing Connect Four, he should be removed from the game to area and allowed back when ready to behave he s another appropriately. Correction misbehavior should be made as close to the time of the as possible and with the child s full understanding of why it. is imposed. 4. State expectations for child's behavior in positive terms, what the child can't do breeds rebellion. Emphasis on resentment, and feelings of frustration. as \"no\", \"don't do that\", etc., emphasizes the negative and rather than what Using words such 6, 7. 8. \"no\" , \"don't do that\", teaches the child what should not be done, he should do. Good discipline allows the child to feel that his side of the case has been heard, that his point of view is understood. administering Good discipline also requires that the person it understand what caused the misbehavior and remove the causes if possible. People are always more cooperative if they feel liked. When a child is frustrated, help him accepted and relaxed, understand his feelings and find appropriate ways PUNISHMENT JUST ADDS TO THE CHILD'S with these feelings. FRUSTRATION. to deal Correction of a child should never be made out of a feeling of anger or on a personal basi evident when we say help with snack. Punitive feelings are she doesn't deserve to play a game. etc. \" or \"if he does this to me, then I will do that to her. around.\" for She can't get away with that while I'm Likewise, good behavior should never be bargained Praise for - \"I'll give you a present if you are good.\" than punishment or good behavior is much stronger motivation bribes. Time out from group activities allows the child to consider his unacceptable behavior and how he could have better handled the situation to stay within Total isolation is not necessary or appropriate. Time out should be limited to three to five minutes for less serious the CARE rules. more than five to ten minutes for more offenses and no -- _ offenses (actions that might cause harm to another serious person).29 D. How to Communicate with CARE Children CARE staff should realize the importance of communication in relation to guidance. The fallowing suggestions will be helpful as you work with the children and try to guide them toward acceptable behavior. 1. RECOGNIZE THAT GOOD COMMUNICATION IS.THE KEY TO GETTING COOPERATION. A conscious effort must be made to learn to communicate effectively with children. ACCEPT THE CHILD'S NEED TO CONTROL YET EXPRESS HIS ANGER, natural. One must help children learn that anger is It i feelings in outward. healthy and wise to express these acceptable ways instead of keeping them pent up. being destructive, or hurting others. LEARN TO LISTEN WITHOUT PRECONCEIVED OPINIONS IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING SAID. Hear the children out completely. Listen to them from their points of view in order to avoid short-circuiting the lines of communication. 4. STAY TUNED IN WITH THE RIGHT TONE OF VOICE. Sarcasm, preaching, and unpleasant tones of voice turn off communication. LEARN TO SPEAK TO THE CHILD'S FEELING, NOT TO THE WORDS. Strive always to decode the underlying message. He 1 p the child find his own answers by asking questions in return. 6. KEEP PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION CONFIDENTIAL. Do not 7. E. laugh at or belittle the child. Do not discuss the child's concerns with others. LEARN FROM MISTAKES. ALL OVER AGAIN. LEARN TO LAUGH, LOVE, AND BEGIN Handling Common Behavior Problems\nChild is angry Causes: Being told \"no\", \"stop\", or \"don't too often. Prevented from doing something he wanted to do. Demands beyond child's achievement level. Do Not: Become angry yourself. Do: Use time out to calm the child. Try to reason or talk with him after he is calm.0 Ch_i l_d_ Causes\nTreated unfairly or another child. New baby in family. Peer Pressure. Lin f a i r comparison made to Do Not\nShame him. Do: Try to help child improve his self-image. Help him express his feelings. Chi Id demands attention Causes: Is bored. Feels left out, insecure. Do Not\nRidicule or shame. Ignore or isolate. Scold or punish. Do: Try to help child improve his self-image. Help him express his feelings. I I Child uses bad language Causes\nTrying to get attention. Imitating others. Letting off steam I I 1 Do Not: Do\nBet exited or Make an show shock or embarrassment. issue of it. Calmly tell child to stop. Suggest substitutes for the word. healthy outlet for his feelings. Offer Child is destructive Causes: Feels jealous, bored. Wants attention. Desires excitement. Do Not: Tell him he is bad or preach at him. Sco1d, yel1, or shout. Punish, spank, or hit him. Do: Provide an adequate space for wear and tear on equipment. play and expect some Substitute something else destroyed. Provide things to pound. for cut., what is being and tear.Child won't share Causes: Do Not: Do: 31 Needs experience in owning and sharing. Snatch things away from him. Scold him or tell him you do not like him. Be fair in settling children's arguments over things. As much as possible let children settle their own arguments. Child hurts other children Causes\nIs troubled or angry about something. Do Not\nPunish or hurt him. Make him feel Act angry. II bad\" . Insist that child apologize. Do: Quietly separate the children. Divert his attention and take away the hurting object, calmly and firmly. Teach him there are some things we do not do. Help child to feel good about himself. Ask that he try to be more tolerant in the future. Child does not tell the truth Causes: Fear of punishment. Likes to exaggerate, Is seeking attention. imitate. Do Not\nPunish or shame or reject. Make him apologize. Do\nProvide him with opportunities for enriching his imagination. Help him discover the difference between fact and fantasy. Tell him the truth. Give positive strokes when he tells the truth under stress.'I l ! I I I J'\u0026lt;4 VI . PROGRAMMING WITH CHILDREN A. Ac tivities The CARE Program much more than babysitting. 11 is a B. school-age child care program of activities that are: '* Planned! Every day has a written plan. * Exciting and fun. * Varied, not the same thing day after day. * Developmental - ones that challenge children to grow, ones learn and try new things. where staff can interact * Done in a small group with children. not just supervise. To help you plan the program for your CARE site, the CARE ideas for activities supervisor and coordinator will provide and games on a monthly. addition, resources in your this section of the staff manual. CARE cabinet include In addition. resources the Indoor/Outdoor Games Book, LRSD Recreation manual and the Art Book. theme for a Activities can be organized around a specific (Me, Friends, Fall, Thanksgiving, Space, etc.) OR around a special event (September week or a month, Insects, Birds, Thanksgiving, birthdays. Circus Day, Have fun! etc.). Keep spicing up the program! staff meeting should be held to plan the Every week a --- activities for the next week, and supplies must be ordered Remember to have alternate plans for bad in advance. weather days when outdoor play is not possible. Daily Schedule The CARE day is planned around the following times\nSnack Time\nWhat's after-school play without a snack? Outdoor Time\nActive game and free play to use lots of Indoor Time\nClean-Up Time\nphysical energy. Large group. activities card games. games, This small group, and independent including art, construction housekeeping, is a time table games, materia1s, active d rama, homework, etc . to create 3 learn a new sk ill, and just have fun. Time to mess, play game put away materials, clean up with a *5! mall group, any and have contact with individual parents as they arrive.\u0026gt;? C. J i b' 35 rIME SCHEDULE FOR REGULAR SCHOOL DAYS (f z L. C| I..' \\ 'll , J I i i -I , I !'  J.i rk.'s ! j' I- \\ I .. bJ 9 .-J-bH tfJ V I , ':3.i Slum , snifi,-ib 3S i-.. q.'J fifislb 3sx:f-.ivjr.j bs yti 1 q  \u0026lt;3S'if fa rife .'.I (i-j I. .l-'jj iJ-'lJifiC-J '/ \u0026gt;5 ( 1 rl.'-inul ?t\nJ i JbO , :11OO 'I ' bi'.iiT J 9 ) ).)\u0026lt; \"q .:\u0026lt; Ef i up yj f. vi V '1 9 n.) \"t fc I 1 7 fl 1.H ' . s v ri '(O I- i I f-\"Orl .-t 1.1  10 11 'I ul.i LisJ uO -i^Oi.id V'lod ) esii iv j J uA \u0026gt;S ( . b.i'a ,. \"uds + cjS SQiTiiO' quo-iU .1 i e-inS toH\" H b 'Ub'fi 3d+. no Cl u i e i m\ni b b.iif qu nsbIC 'y t bd Ifi X ,i esd.unim LJ' sidd 3 n f. p'iid c.i , fa J\nlaris. Id fed S 3f-!d tu .d.., Vb.i-fl 1 3(d li.(j.ir. . (13 1.f X r!3 X 1'aqij : pn.t I. .3Ufe J 3V ZIAHHU fed X V X .d fl fe ,E3MAa nx loxi.d Xxidqferl .c- d'.i.iuf:\u0026gt; arid noi. fz: -t dag Ct J fa if* r I rife J C-I f\n-i 3au3M0ii! Qd gdfiboi ud x.n.rpi * I.) i s\n.n.( Ci.d 3 I (life vrj'n\n\u0026gt;\"i\ni  O.rP-. \u0026lt;1-: 3rM *7? ID. TIME SCHEDULE OR I ONG DAY /'HOL .[DAY 5N0w DAY NOTE\nU S ? this C\nl!E?Puli' ai:i\u0026gt; a 51 a r t i i'l g poin t E. 36 cArtcJ cAcipL it tcc* meet the 7!00-B 0 needs of your children. 0 ,0-9:00 9:OO-1O:OO 10:00-1.1. ! 15 1.1:15-12:00 12 s 00-1\n00 1:00-2 30\no 00 00-4\n45 4:45-5 0 ACTIVITY IDEAS Activi ties Arrival of children Independent Activitie games, free play) 15 (card games, board Breakfast and clean up Creative Activity (art project, puppet construction Outside Play Restroom, and use. drama, music, etc. ) lunch and clean up Quiet Time -kindergartners -Others rest or must.  n p ** have quiet activities Choice of creative activity ?\u0026lt; free play Snack\nrestroom Outside Play Small Group Games ?\u0026lt; Activities (story book ?\u0026lt; record, \"Hot Potato\", etc.) Clean up and dismissal should be ready to begin immediately upon the arrival of the children. Staff should use the 15 before school is dismissed to get supplies out of cabinet and ready to use for planned activities. GAMES, minutes the Labeling CREATIVE the tables with removable signs (HOMEWORK, AREA, ART PROJECT, etc.) has proven to be a helpful tool in sure to locate the quiet organizing the CARE area. Be activities away from the ones action. encouraging conversation and The following pages have many ideas for active play and creative projects you will want to include in your CARL session plans.37 F. PRCCEDURES FOR EMFRPFNCY OR INCLEMENT NEITHER CONDI TJCjNS\nPLAN A\nEARLY CLOSINC Subject: When schools are dismissed early due to increasingly 'bad weather, CARE WILL BE IN OPERATION from the time school is dismissed until 5:30 P.M. (6:00 extended day sites). When schools are 0 Time: CARE staff will report at the time school is dismissed and will remain until the last child is picked up (no later than the usual closing time). Parents are urged to pick up their children as soon as announcements are made about hazardous driving conditions, streets that, become dangerous Some of the schools are on and are closed to traffic at an early time. PLAN B\nLRSD SCHOOLS CLOSED Subj ec t\nWhen school is dismissed for the entire day due to bad weather. CARE WILL BE IN OPERATION IN SPECIFIED SCHOOLS from 8s00 A.M. to 5 0 P.M. If CARE has to be closed due to extremely hazardous road conditions, made on radio and TV stations. announcements will be Charge s There is a $7.00 fee for each emergency day to be paid There will be no additional fee upon signing in your child. charged for snow days added to the school calendar in since these days were paid for in a prior month. Child Needs: June, A sack lunch and drink, for the noontime meal. Breakfast and snacks will be provided. Kindergartners and four year olds need to bring a rest mat and time. towels for nap Location\nCARE will be in operation at specified schools. Parents may use any one of these schools. Upon arrival parents must write their name and daytime phone number The CARE office will be closed on these on the signin sheet, days. Special Staff Instructions: Work schedule for days when LRSD schools are closed for emergency or bad weather will be sent to all staff and a copy will be kept at each snow site. When schools are closed early or before school opens for the day this staff schedule goes into effect. ***0FFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ABOUT EARLY DISMISSAL AND/OR CLOSING OF SCHOOLS WILL BE MADE ON KARN RADIO AND TV STATIONS 4, 7, 11***CARE Program CS Little Rock School District CB CARE Program Rockefeller School 700 East 17th St. Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 324-2395 RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Introduction 1 Program Description 1 Enrolling Your Child Hours and Days of Operation Payment of Fees Payment of Fees (Drop-In) Fee Schedule Multiple Enrollment Within Family Holiday Attendance Late Pickup Charge 4 Returned Checks 4 Extended Absences 4 Parent Communications 4 Release of Children 4 Food Services 4 Inclement Weather Plans 5 Health Forms 5 Student Accident Insurance 5 Illness in CARE 5 Medication 5 Discipline 6 Parties and Special Occasions 6 Appendix As Inclement Weather Procedures...? Appendix Bs CARE Payment Schedule/Calendar . . 8 Appendix C\nDiscipline Plan 9B EH 1 Introduction The CARE Program is a non-profit. self-supporting program of child care provided for elementary-age students and parents of the Little Rock School District. The LRSD Board of Education authorised the development of the program for the 1980-81 school year. Based on a survey of district needs, CARE was initially offered in thirteen primary schools. The program continues to strive to meet the needs of district patrons by offering CARE in elementary schools with a minimum of fifteen participants. The CARE Program provides a continuation of important elements in the child's educational environment: a well-known, comfortable place. with a friendly staff, and other children they already know. The program eliminates parental concerns about children being transported to 'J another location for child care. This manual explains the CARE policies and operational procedures. suggestions. Parents are encouraged and volunteer to share to observe, make their skills and interests with the CARE children. Program Description As a school-age child care service. the CARE Program provides an informal and unique environment for children of different ages to live and learn together. CARE maintains a structured environment to insure order and safety, yet provides children with opportunities to make choices and become involved in both group and independent activities. The program includes a wide range of social, and creative opportunities. recreational, The CARE Program is based on the following goals: -to provide a safe environment for students before and after school, -to offer a wide variety of creative and recreational activities, -to help children feel good about themselves and develop positive attitudes toward school. -to encourage growth in skills. relationships and socialE n r Q11 i. n q Y o u r C h i 1 ci A child may be enrolled in the CARE Program on a \"full-time, drop-in, or part-time ( 1 , 1 3, or 4 days per week) basis. To register a child, return with the $6.00 registration the completed registration form fee to the CARE Program Office, Rockefeller School, 700 E. 17th, Little Rock, AR. 06. The first monthly payment must be made before your child' first day of attendance in CARE. (324-2395) / Hours and Days of Operation Each program operates from 7:00 A.M. from the close of school until 5\no P.M. until school opens and (6:00 at Incentive Schools) on regular school days and FROM 7:00 A.M.-5 50 P.M. on most school holidays. 8:00 A.M.-5\n0 P.M. On \"Snow days, CARE is open from at specified schools. When a school site is closed before the normal dismissal time, CARE begins operation at the earlier time. CARE is closed on all legal holidays and other holidays when the school sites are unavailable for use. Payment of Fees Full-time and part-time tuition payments are due in the CARE Program Office on the 15th of the month (two weeks in advance) and must be paid in full by th first of the month in order for your child to participate in the CARE Program. A $5.00 late payment fee will be charged for payments received after the 1st day of the month, payment schedule. See appendix B for Reservations for holiday CARE and payment of the $7.00 per day fee are due in the CARE office prior to the holiday. No refunds can be made in event your child does not attend on the holiday. Payment of Fees (Drop-In) A drop-in card must be purchased at the CARE office for any regular school day. 3 days in a month. the card each time the child attends. The cost is $4.50 per day not to exceed Care teachers will punch out one day on accepted on holidays. Drops-ins are not. refer to Holiday Care page 3. Fee Schedule Monthly fees for regular school days, not holidays, are averaged over nine advance each month. including equal payments and due in There is an additional $7.00 charge per day for CARE at specified sites on holidays. Mail or deliver payments and Rockefeller School, reservations to the CARE Office 700 East 171 h, Little Rock, at '7 06. Ar. /There will be a $7,00 charge per child for attending CARE on a \"Snow Day.\" your child. Snow Day fees must be paid when you sign in Applications are available for free or reduced rates at Incentive Schools (Franklin, Garland, Rightsei 1, Rockefeller, Stephens,). Ish, Mitchel 1, Eligibility requirements are based on family size and income. The following fees are charged for participation: Categories Fees \"Annual Registration Fee Ful1-time Part-time Part-time Part-time (5 days @ week) (4 days @ week) (3 days @ week) (2 days @ week) Drop-In (up to 3 days @ month) Holiday (reservations required) \"Snow\" Day Late Payment Fee Late Pickup Charges (1-5 minutes) (Each additional 5 minutes) 6.00 69.25 @ month 56.00 @ mon t h 42.00 @ month 28.00 @ month 13.50 @ card 7.00 @ day 7.00 Q day 5.00 @ month .50 daily 1.00 daily Multiple Enrollment t*lithin Family If one family enrolls three or more children in the CARE Program, the charge for the third child and every child thereafter will be one-half the normal rate. to a one-family unit with all children under the guardianship of the parent making payments. This applies Holiday Attendance Parents will be notified in advance of the schools which will be open for CARE from 7:00 A.M.5 Teacher Workdays and school holidays. 30 P.M. during Reservations for child care at one of these schools and payment of the $7.00 fee for each day must be received in the CARE Office by the reservation deadline in order for your child to attend. Hiring of staff and purchasing of food/supplies for the children must be done in advance on the basis of the paid reservations received by this date. issued to parents upon receipt of payment. A long day card will be No refunds can be made in the event your child does not attend CARE on the hoiiday. $ The CARE Program is closed on all legal holidays and other holidays when chool sites are unavailable for use.4 Late Pickup Charge CARE concludes at 5 O P.M. each day. The late charge for arriving after this time is $.50 for arriving 1-5 minutes late and an additional $1.00 for each additional five minute period. This charge must be paid directly to the CARE teacher upon picking up your child. In addition, you will also be charged for any overtime pay required for the school custodian to remain until your arriva1. A record will be kept of the dismissal time for your child. Since CARE employees and school custodians have other obligations after work, the CARE Program reserves the right to remove a child from the program when parents are late over three times. Returned Checks . A $5 service charge will be assessed for all checks returned due to insufficient funds. In the event a check is returned, future payments must be made in cash. money order, or cashier's check. Extended Absences If your child is out of CARE for 5 or more consecutive days. please notify the CARE Office (324-\n95) upon your child's return and request a credit toward your month. fees for the next Parent Communications Please notify the CARE staff (324-:\np5) of any changes in important information relating to your child (telephone numbers, emergency numbers, address, allergies. etc . ) If your child is sick or will be out of town, would appreciate notification. the CARE staff Release of Children A child will be dismissed from CARE only to his/her parents or persons authorised on the registration form to pick up the child. Each child must be signed out with CARE staff on a daily basis before leaving the CARE site. Food Services CARE students are offered breakfast and snack during the hours of operation. The food is prepared by the LRSD Food Services Department and meets the federal breakfast program guidelines, consideration guide1ines. The snack menu given to IS planned by CARE staff with nu t r i t i ona 1 con ten t and cost.5 inclement weather are explained The CARE Program plans for .in Appendix A. When school .is closed due to inclement Appendix A. weather, CARE will be open at. specified schools unless road conditions are extremely hazardous. This decision will be made by the LRSD Superintendent and based on involved for staff and students to reach the school the safety risk building. CARE will be open from 8\noo A.n.-o\nw r. ri. at. specified schools (Refer to Appendix A). In the event CARE is closed, announcements will be made on radio, Channel 4, and local TV stations. There will be a $/.00 8:00 M.-5:30 P.M. and stations. Cab 1 e This charge per child for attending CARE on a \"Snow day\". '  Breakfast and fee is to be paid upon signing in your child. snack will be furnished by CARE, and each child should bring a sack, lunch and drink. Four year olds and kindergartners need to bring a rest mat and two towels, pick up your children as soon as possible. We urge you to School days missed due to snow will be added to the CARE calendar, and your child may attend CARE on those days with no additional charge. Health Forms section of the Parents must, complete the health information registration form for each child. The form will be on file at the CARE site and should This form for each child. be kept current. information is extremely important in the event your child needs medical or emergency attention. Student Accident Insurance The LRSD CARE Program cannot assume liability for Parents are encouraged to financial injuries received by students. apply for the low-cost student accident insurance offered each year through the school district. Enrollment forms are available in the school office. Illness in CARE ) ill and unable to participate in CARE If your child becomes _____________ a parent will be requested to pick, up the child. Should the staff be unable to reach parents or guardians. activities, emergency persons listed on child's records will be called. Medication to a child must be authorized by Any medication to be given written statement from the physician and/or parent and a given be in by the the school nurse or principal. original container. All medication must with the child's name, type and date of prescribed medication, dosage. amount, and time ofWhen medication nurse for proper is required, storage, completed by the parent. Discipline it is to be given to the school and a medication sheet must be The CARE Program's discipline plan is outlined in Appendix C. In CARE children are expected to be responsible'for their own behavior and respect the rights of others. Time-out from group activities may be used to encourage a child to calm down and reflect on his/her behavior. Parental help will be requested for behavior problems that cannot be solved by time-out. suspend a child for 3-5 days, We reserve the right to or to expel a child from the program, after appropriate efforts to correct the behavior problems have been made and the child is still unable to conform to the required behavior. A child may be immediately suspended for severely disruptive behavior or endangering the safety of others. Parties and Special Occasions Parties may be held throughout the year on special occasions and holidays, appreciated, Although parental help with parties is parents are under no obligation. Parties are organized entirely on a volunteer basis. Arrangements for parties and special celebrations may be made through the CARE staff.7 Appendix A CARE Program INCLEMENT WEATHER PROCEDURES Plan A\nSubj ect: When schools are dismissed early due to increasingly bad weather, CARE WILL BE IN OPERATION from the time school is dismissed until T ime: Plan B\n5 \u0026lt;) P.M. Staff will report to CARE at the time school is dismissed. We urge you to pick up your children as soon as announcements are made about hazardous driving conditions, since some of the schools are on streets that become dangerous and are blocked to traffic at an early time. Subj ect: When school is dismissed for the entire day due to bad weather, CARE WILL BE IN OPERATION in selected schools. We urge you to make early pick ups. Time: 8:00 A.M. to 5\no P.M. Charge: $7.00 fee to be paid upon signing in your child. Bring : Sack lunch and a drink for noontime meal. Rest mat ?\u0026lt; two towels for 4 year olds ?\u0026lt; Kinder gartners. (Breakfast ?\u0026lt; snack furnished by CARE) Location: CARE will be open at the following schools which are the most accessible during ice and snow\nBrady Chicot Forest Park Gibbs Magnet 7915 W. Markham (near Mississippi) moo Chicot Rd. 1600 North Tyler (off Cantrell) 1115 W. 16th (near Chester) You may take your child to any of these schools. bring your child each morning, When you telephone number on the sign-in sheet. write your name and daytime This procedure will enable the CARE staff to contact you in an emergency. CARE has to be closed due to extremely hazardous road If conditions, announcements will be made on. Cable Channel 4, local radio and TV stations. ** OFF IC I AL ANNOUNCEMENTS ABOUT EARLY DISMISSAL ?\u0026lt; CLOSING OF SCHOOLS WILL BE MADE ON RADIO AND TV STATIONS**8 Appendix B CARE Payment Schedule TUITION PAYMENTS ARE DUE ON THE FOLLOWINS DATE: August 15, 1991- September 16, 1991 October 15, 1991 November 15, 1991- December 16, January 15, 1991-- 1992---- February 14, 1992 March 16, 1992--- April 15, 1992 Aug/Sept. Tuition - October Tuition November Tuition December Tuition January Tuition February Tuition March Tuition April Tuition May/June Tuition All payments received ten (10) days after the due date will be accessed a $5.00 late charge. CALENDAR August 26, 1991 September 2, 1991 September 23, 1991 September 30, 1991 October 21, 1991 October 31, 1991 November 1, 1991 November 7-8, 1991 November 28-29, 1991 December 23, 1991 January 6, 1992 January 20, 1992 January 23, 1992 January 24, 1992 March 2, 1992 March 26, 1992 March 27, 1992 March 30-April 3, 1992 May 25, 1992 June 5, 1992 First Day for Students Labor Day (School Closed) Staff Development Day Parent Conference Day Staff Development Day End of First Quarter (45 Days) Work Day (Records Day) AEA (Inservice Days) Thanksgiving Holidays Christmas Vacation Classes Resume Martin L. King Holiday End of Second Quarter (44 Days) Work Day (Records Day) Parent Conference Day End of Third Quarter (43 Days) Work Day (Records Day) Spring Break Memorial Day (School Out) Last Day for Students9 CARE Program Discipline Plan Appendix C Eiehavior rules for students: 1. Follow directions of CARE teachers. No cursing, Show respect to others\nteasing, or threatening. respect the rights and 4. 5. 6. property of all students. Return all materials to their proper place. Keep hands, feet and objects to self. Leave assigned area with permission only. Positive consequences may include: Verbal praise and immediate feedback. Positive comments to parents Good citizen display or individual Ribbons, treats recognition Special group activities. proj ec ts, rewards Negative consequences for breaking the CARE rules\nLevel 1\nFor the first infraction an individual conference between student and staff will be held to discuss the child's behavior. Child may receive time-out from group activities to consider his/her actions. Level Behavioral document or note to parent to be signed and returned. Child may lose a play or recreational privilege in CARE for 1- days. Level Second behavioral document to parent. Conference between student, parent, and staff required to discuss behavior. Child may lose a play or recreational privilege in CARE for 3-5 days. Level 4\nShort term suspension of 3-5 days from CARE, refund of money paid for these days. No Level 5\nExpulsion from CARE Program, paid for remainder of month. No refund of money Severe Clause: endangers the safety of others. If a student is severely disruptive or he/she will be immediately suspended from the CARE Program, pending a conference between parent and staff. Note\nCorporal punishment (paddling) will not be used in disciplining children in the CARE Program.\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_288","title":"Classroom Teachers Association","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":["1991/2006"],"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","Parents' and teachers' associations","Teachers","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Classroom Teachers Association"],"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/288"],"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\nRECEIVED May 5 1991 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION . Filed us. DISTRICT COURT 'TC^M rMO'^Djr-r Ar!L/AM rr-aM ni*?jr.T ^ckansA^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-86^ fi. E Sy\n----------- MAY 01 1991 PLAINTIFF StNTS, CLEFih i' PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK CLASSROOM TEACHERS ASSOCIATION'S OBJECTIONS TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'SPROPOSED DESEGREGATIONPIJ^N Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (\"LRCTA\"), one of the Knight. Intervenors, presents the following objections to the May 1, 1991 Litrle Rock School District Desegregation Plan: I. PARTICULAR OBJECTIONS 1. In Volume II, Incentive Schools, page 292, Re: 02267, vs. the Support Programs are described. The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (\"LRCTA\") objects to the section of the plan which denies LRCTA the right to negotiate. Pursuant to the Professional Negotiations Agreement, Article II, Subsection A and the Educational Support Personnel (\"ESP\"), Article III, LRCTA is authorized to negotiate \"salaries. teaching conditions. class size, teacher load and other conditions of employment. II Such authorization includes the extra hour(s) of the school day and Office of Desegregation Monitoringextra day of the school year for Incentive School personnel, certified and uncertified. The Little Rock School District imposed the extra hour and the additional pay for Incentive School personnel during 1990-91 school refusing to negotiate despite the demand from LRCTA. Further, LRCTA demands the right to negotiate the stipend for Homework Centers certified personnel and instructional aides described in Volume II, page 292-E, Re\n02268. II. STAFF RECRUITMENT 2. In Volume II, Incentive Schools Staffing, page 318, Re: 02270, LRCTA objects to the lack of clarity in this section calling for staff recruitment with specific experience showing tl a commitment to working in an urban district.\" Will past teaching experience in the Little Rock School District be sufficient evidence of a commitment to working in an urban district? 3. In Volume II, Incentive School Staffing, Section H, Page 322, Re: No. 02296, 02297, LRCTA objects to the denial of the right to appoint members of the committee although LRCTA represents all staff. Pursuant to the Professional Negotiations Agreement, Article XXXV, LRCTA asserts the right to appoint members to this committee as outlined in that section of the PNA for joint committees.Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL and ROACHELL 1014 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203 01) 378-. By: (da Barr Langford, 89 Attorneys for Knight In' 171 rvenors L CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On May 1, 1991, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following: H, William Allen Allen Law Firm 1200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M, Samuel Jones III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring P. 0. Box 687 No. Little Rock, AR 72115B 09/11/92 18:04 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/003 Little Rogk School District PRESS release Superintendent Bernd Comments on Teacher Contract Agreement Friday, September 11,1992 For more information, contact Dianne G. Woodruff, 324-2020 E\u0026gt;r. Mac Bemd, superintendent of the Little Rock School District, today thanked teachers in the District and their leadership for working together toward a contract agreement for the 1992-93 school year. Teachers ratified at a 4:30 p.m. meeting today the tentative agreement reached by the District and the Classroom Teachers Association teams late Thursday. The agreement provides that senior teachers who have reached the last step of their salary schedule by the start of the 1992-93 school year will receive $200 each on August 1, 1993, as a non-recurring payment if at the close of the District's 1992-93 fiscal year, total operating receipts, excluding loans, exceed total operating expenses by no less than $100,000. The new contract will expire August 1,1993. Other than these provisions, the new contract, which now must be ratified by the LRSD Board of Directors, is the same contract as the successor contract that expired Tuesday. The Board will consider the proposal at a special board meeting set for 5 p.m. Monday, September 14. -more-09?'ll/92. 18:05 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003/003 Page 2 LRSD Contract Comments \"I sincerely appreciate teachers being understanding, reasonable and cooperative in light of District finances and other circumstances. The negotiation process was a fruitful effort overall,\" Bernd added. \"Ultimately, it is most important to underscore that all parties have had the best interests of all the children and all our patrons and staff at heart in reaching the agreement. Dialogue and open communication are paramount if we are to work together to improve teaching and learning. H 'We heard loud and clear the teachers' concerns about classroom discipline and we believe they heard our concerns about the importance of the role supervision plays toward improved safety and security. We know that most teachers volunteer much more than the minimum time proposed for supervision and we believe that they are committed to work cooperatively with us to assure that all schools are equally safe and secure,\" Bernd said. Bemd said he would direct principals to work with their individual staffs to develop building-specific discipline management plans that match need to available supervision time under the contract. \"We know that anytime there is change, there is frustration involved. A lot of things have changed in the District this year. We have a new computer system and a new curriculum supported by a computerized management system to enhance teachers ability to meet individual needs of students. And they are dealing with a new administration. That's a full plate and understandably teachers are concerned and somewhat frustrated with the beginning of a new year. I pledge to work closely with them to make the changes as smooth as possible and to address their concerns,\" Bemd said. -more-Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: October 5, 1994 To: Frank Martin From: Aj/'Ann Brown Subject: Reassignment of IRC Personnel I enjoyed our chat today and look forward to talking with you further on October 18. Thanks for agreeing to look into the situation regarding Leola Scoggins and Pearl Jackson, two IRC aides whose reassignments have made these two CTA members very unhappy. They met with me before school started and I suggested that they talk with you to determine the status of their complaint. Heres a copy of what I received from Leola, which you may already have in your files. 1 appreciate your looking into e matter and letting Leola and Pearl Icnow what next steps to anticipate. They both feel pretty helpless, but perhaps the situation isnt hopeless. Although theres probably not much I can do, please let me know how I can help. Thanks very much.July 20, 1993 Brady Gadberry Labor Relations Specialist 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: IRC Position Dear Brady: I would like to reiterate my desire to be reinstated to Aides position at the Instructional Resource Center. I understand that some aides position might be restored and I would like one of them. I have worked at IRC for several years and in the Little Rock School District for 19 years. Your positive consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, eoIaTCScog' Leola Scoggins August 6, 1993 QUALIFICATIONS: 1. High school diploma: Monticello Arkansas/College Beebe Junior College (3 accredited hours) 2. Demonstrates creative/artistic ability: I demonstrate creative/artistic ability, been apart of this staff for more than 10 Having years our duties consist of creating and designing activities for class room use for students, teachers, and administrators. 3. Experience in computer/typing: amount o experience in'computer/typing. I have a limited But I am eager to learn and I now have a computer system at home that will allow me to enhance my computer/typing skills. 4. Evidence of strong organizational and positive interpersonal skills: I have strong organizational and positive interpersonal skills. Working at IRC for some ten years I always had an excellent relationship with my co-workers, supervisor, administration, and students. I always have a positive outlook once I know the direction I cun to For three years I have been the supervisor and organizer for Home Health Care. I'm in total go. control of daily operations which include the scheduling of vacations and the keeping of payroll records. 5. Ability to understand and carry out oral and written instructions independently and efficiently: This is a daily requirement. 6. Ability to be flexible with work schedule: able to have a flexible work schedule. I am 7. Evidence of a strong commi'tment to quality desegregated education: I see people as who they I have always had an open mind regarding desegregation. are. student regardless of race. I want only the best for each BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES:1. 2. I have the ability to assist in the creation and preparation of activities that correlate with curriculum objectives, pre-kindergarten - grade 12. I know that together we can develop a system for working with duplicating materials for several departments in order to have the materials ready for workshops or meeting in a timely manner. 3. If given time I will learn the curriculum the area in which I will assist. 4 . content of I have the knowledge to assist with duties such as video distribution, laminating materials, processing resource materials. 5. I can and will participate in inservices and staff meetings. 6. I can and will report to and complete the daily work schedule as assigned 7. I can and will perform other duties best of my ability. as assigned to theOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: February 9, 1995 To: LRCTA, NLRCTA, and PACT Managers From: Ann Brown Subject: Monitoring Schedules Enclosed is our schedule for upcoming site-monitoring of some schools in all three districts. I realize this is late notice for the dates that are coming up so soon next week, and I apologize for having inadvertently neglected to inform you before now. However, we have already notified the school districts and building principals that we will be in their schools on those days, so our visit won't come as a surprise to them. 1 want to be true to my commitment to keep you posted on our monitoring schedule, and will notify you as we continue to develop our calendar. Unfortunately, I have had very limited success in trying to coordinate monitoring schedules among the various groups. For example, I did not receive ADE's monitoring schedule until after they had almost completed their visits. I have their commitment to notify me before they begin spring monitoring. As for Joshua, counsel has told me that he presently has no monitoring scheduled, although he may decide to do some at the spur-of-the moment. If so, he is to notify me. We have recently discovered that many PCSSD teachers believe that ODM or the Court has required them to color highlight their plan books to indicate such emphasis as multicultural lessons. Neither ODM nor the Court requires or expects any type of color-coding. As a matter of fact, as we discussed last fall, ODM monitors never even look at teacher plan books. The color highlighting is a request from internal PCSSD monitoring teams, who have no relationship to ODM or the Court. If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call me. I'll be glad to hear from you.Scheduled ODM Monitoring Visits Date School Monday, February 13, 1995 LRSD Alternative School Tuesday, February 14, 1995 NLRSD Alternative School Thursday, February 16, 1995 PCSSD Alternative School Wednesday, February 22, 1995 Rightsell Incentive School Tuesday, February 28, 1995 Rockefeller Incentive School Thursday, March 2. 1995 Garland Incentive School Friday, March 3, 1995 Franklin Incentive School Tuesday, March 7, 1995 Mitchell Incentive SchoolOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 April 25, 1995 Mrs. Betty L. Mitchell Pulaski Heights Junior High School 401 No. Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Betty: Congratulations on your election to the presidency of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association! The post is very challenging and important, and 1 know youll bring energetic leadership to the organization. Id like to invite you to visit my office at your convenience so we can get to know each other better. Tlte ODM staff would love to meet you and answer any questions you may have. Wed be happy to give you a tour of our offices and to explain our monitoring philosophy and approach. We also have a number of monitoring reports on the Uttle Rock School District that wed be pleased to share with you. As you look forward to your presidency, 1 wish you the very best and hope you will not hesitate to let me know whenever 1 may be of assistance. Please let me know when youd like to come by. My colleagues and 1 would welcome the opportunity to visit with you. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Frank Martin 1 AUG 14 1995 August 10, 1995 Office of Desegregdiicn ?\u0026lt;ion'!oriP9 Betty Mitchell Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association 1500 West 4th Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell: The CTA membership of Metropolitan is appointment of Mr. MMiicchhaaeell Peterson concerned over recommendation of the teacher/parent interview the about the unanimous j-euuuunenaarion or the teacher/parent interview team and the recommendation of the Director of Vocational Education for the Little Rock District. Mr. Peterson interviewed. neither applied for the position. He also has no vocational background. nor was he Because of the unique situation of vocational education we urgently need stronger and more experienced vocational leadership for our facility. We realize that the appointment of Mr. Peterson has not been voted on or approved by the Board. T\" 12 _ __ 1_\n_ ___J_____ _ timely response to our inquiry before such action is taken. We would appreciate an immediate and Respectfully, CTA Membership cc: School Board ODM/Ann Brown Frank Martin Revolutionizing Education in Arkansas .4 one-day workshop for Arkansas citizens who want our state's schools revitalized and our children s educational performance optimized. Friday, January 26th, Excelsior Hotel, Little Rock Presented by the Arkansas Policy Foundation Featured Keynote Comments By: Denis Doyle of the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C. Mr. Doyle currently serves as a Senior Fellow in Education at the Heritage Foundation and since 1980 has written e.xtensiveiy on education reform. Among his recently published books are Winning rhe Brain Race, A Bold Plan to .Slake Our Schools Competitive and Reinventing Education: Entrepreneurship in America's Public Schools. His free- markei, competition based ideas concerning schools have captivated leading reformers around the nation. Michael Williams, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Mr. Williams, a prominent black attorney from Fort Worth. Te-xas, served as Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education under Lamar .Alex.'indcr and Lauro Cavazos. His e.xperience as head of the Department of Education's Civil Rights Division provided him unique knowledge of both school choice reforms and desegregation issues. Fannie Lewis, Cleveland Ohio City Councllwoman/Educatlon Activist Ms. Lewis, a black liberal democrat from Cleveland, Ohio, joined forces with Ohio's white conservative Governor, and together they are revolutionizing Cleveland's schools. Her experiences in school reform should be instructive for Little Rock and any other school districts facing similar challenges. Other special work and information sessions will include... 1. New developments on the legal front that could expedite the lifting of court-monitored desegregation plans...of particular interest to Little Rock School Districts. 2. The dangers of Outcome Sased Education (OBE) and what to do about them. 3. A preview of an innovative new privately funded voucher program in Little Rock. The Children's Educational Opportunity Foundation {CEO program). currently benefiting almost 400 parents and children. 4. A comprehensive overview of bold new education reform initiatives across the states. Also...The Great Debate on School Choice and Voucher Issues! Grainger Ledbetter of the Arkansas Education Association (AEA) vs. Jeanne Allen with the Center for Education Reform SPACE LIMITED...PLAN TO ATTEND NOW!! FRIDAY, JANUARY 26TH, EXCELSIOR HOTEL, LITTLE ROCK 10:00 am until 4:00 PM...($15.00 conference fee includes lunch) I Call Donna Watson at 501-227-4815 by Jan. 19th, 1996. The Arkansas Policy Foundation, 8201 Cantrell Road, #325, Little Rock, Arkansas 72227re: Rnoo . rrsi ra TAI \u0026gt; FEB January 30, 1996 Office of Oesesreaaicn M 5018 Country Club Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72207 Betty Mitchell LRCTA 1500 West 4th, Suite 305 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell, I would like to be appointed to the new Desegregation Planning Committee. I talked with Ms. Pondexter about it today. She suggested that I write the request to you. I am qualified to serve for several reason. My son will graduate next year from Central High School. He has attended the Little Rock public schools since he entered kindergarten. I have taught school for the Little Rock School District for twenty-five years. I taught at the Kramer Project for ten years. For the next fifteen years I have worked at the Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet/Incentive School. I have taught four-year olds since 19888, I was a member of the Early Childhood Committee that was begun by Mr. Reviile in 1989. Since I have been a strong supporter of the L.R.S.D. and early childhood education, as well as teaching at an incentive school. 1 feel I would be an asset to your committee. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Beth Foti cc\nLinda Pendexter I*Ln-TLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 TO. Bvidrd of Directors FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT\nFebruary' 1996 bred L. Smith. Manager of Support Services Henrv^ Superintendent of School.? I SenbeeMaster (jtuestions he toiiowing informatio! is being provided in response to concerns raised by M? Gee (list snacheii\nand .Ms. Pondexte., Section 6.6 of'he ServiceMaster contract is attached. Item s2 of Ms. Gees list - ServiceMaster will receive no more than the contract amount Any additional savings below the 510.8 million budget amo'unt will remam wmh the District Item ot Ms. Gees list - It was agreed that withi.n 40 days no adjustment to the 1995-96 budget would be made since we would only be charged a pro-rated amount for the first year of tiie contract  Item 01 M.\u0026lt;. Gees list - Four (4) payments have oeen made to Se'wiceMaster for the months of October. 1995, tnrough January, 1^96.  Item 45 of Ms. uees h$t - The S'.G.213 per monli: is Lite amount to satisfv the auarantes since ServiceMaster is required to provide actual documentation to support the supplies and equipment cost  Item 46 of Ms. Gees list - Based on actual expenditures for the past several ye.ars, the 1995- 96 budget amount provides a realistic baseline. item ^7 of Ms. Gees list - .^.nached is a schedule that shews the $10 8 million. With respect to the energy savings, the effect of the energy savings orograms has alrcadv be?-, includea m the 1995-96 budget. It is true that a mild winter would have a positive i -noact guarantee compliance. The converse is also true impact on guarantee compliance. on \\ harsh wmter would have a nesatn. 1JC  hem ot Ms. Crees iis' - h is probably not possible to list all potential points of concern However we eo have a detailed budget and Exhibit A is a part of the contract.  Item #9 ol Ms. Gees list - 'fhe OEM system would only enhance, not conflict with, the Districts system. cc. Doug Eaton Jerr/ Compton FLSxa3  Little Rock Schoo! District 1995-So Biidsel Ana'ysis FuncSon ,-tncno.i Jesaiphon 2639 Other Faciiities Acq 3Co 2542 Upkeep or Suildings 2641 Service .Area Oirecuoi 2544 Upkeep of Squipmerii 2545 VePicie Maintenance 26-10 Asbesios rrogra.m \\1agnet SctipoiG Sooeptuies A.^nojn! '$240,213 8.924.431 201.085 12,800 S3.20C 61,338 1.076.370 2'30,000 Tata $10,779,937Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 June 26, 1997 Ms. Betty Mitchell 107 Detonti Drive Little Rock, AR 72113 Dear Betty: As you leave the presidency of the LRCTA and return to the classroom, 1 want to tell you how very much my colleagues at ODM and I have enjoyed working with you during your tenure. You brought your level head and steady hands to the helm during a time when the Little Rock School District was (once again) navigating troubled waters. Despite the turbulence, you never failed to keep your balance, perspective, and on-target grasp of the facts: you could always penetrate the rhetorical fog and see what was really going on. (More than once, your knowing glance inspired me to hang in at yet another tong meeting!) But no matter how great the challenge or vexing the circumstances, you never failed to maintain your congenial, down-to-earth demeanor that has always made me glad to see you. You have earned my respect, gratitude, and affection, Betty, and all of us at ODM will certainly miss you. However, I know where to find you, and Ill look forward to catching up with you at the flea markets. All best wishes for a happy return to the classroom. Sincerely yours, 'Ann S. BrownLRCTA PN UPDATE $$$Big Bucks$$$ for Central Office Chicken Feed for School Employees After months of excuses and delays the District finally presented its salary offer to the Association last night. Rarely have promising negotiations taken so drastic a nose dive. Despite the lavish raises Dr. Camine showered on his favorite administrators, (excluding the superintendent, the highest paid LRSD administrative position jumped 13% from $64,831 to $90,000) there is precious little in the cookie jar for the folks in the trenches. The Districts three year offer is a clear indication of just where teachers and support persoimel figure on the Districts priority list. 1st Year ( 3% of last Years Sth Circuit money) NO NEW MONEY 2nd Year 1.75% 3rd Year 1.75% To sweeten this deal the District threw in a paltry $200 increase in the senior stipend and raised the District contribution on the insurance to $174. To Add Insult To Injury...this so-called offer is withdrawn if\n The property tax amendment passes and the property tax is abolished.  The Sth Circuit money turns out to be less than 7 million for any of the three years.  The Arkansas Legislature changes the funding formula to little Rocks detriment. The question on the mind of every hardworking teacher and ESP should be... Why does the District always find big bucks for top level administrators and only nickels and dimes for the employees who actually work with students? DISCIPLINE: The two teams are at loggerheads on this critical issue. Our priority is safe and orderly classrooms, the Districts seems to be safeguarding the authority of its principals. WERE MILES APART..BUT WERE STILL TALKING.... The Districts proposal on the supplemental salary schedule is a good beginning but a three year deal with little or no money is impossible. The contract has been extended to the day before students arrive and we believe a settlement is still possible. Any real progress depends on Dr. Camine and his Administration understanding that we need more than lip service on discipline and that our salaries are every bit as important as the salaries of his downtown administrators!!! TRANSFERS \u0026amp; VACANCIES..The District has bungled transfers and vacancies this year even more than usual. If you believed you have been unjustly denied a position, moved or surplused without just cause, call the office ASAP. QUOTE OF THE YEAR.. On July 22, in the Arkansas Democrat, Dr. Camine was quoted as saying that he tried to limit administrators pay raises to 10 percent. Needless to say he was not successful.8' i^nrki \"?, I*-- a: 2201 (5GVittle Rock Classroom Teachers Associafioi\u0026gt; Update RECEIVED NOV 2 3 1988 November 17, 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGS3EGAT10N MONITORING As you well know, the Association has ratified an agreement that includes a 4.5% raise, more than $500.00 added to tlie topped - out stipend for those not receiving an annual increment, increases for stipend work and many other new items in the contract. One of tlie more frustrating aspects of the negotiation was trying to fix a date when we could start collecting the new raises (as well as the 3% raise still due under last years contract). Because the money needs to be released by the Federal District Court, everyone it seems has been pointing the finger there as the cause of the problem. However, our inquiries to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has indicated that the blame rests with the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District, who have been ordered to negotiate a settlement between their differences over how much each district is to receive from the court. Well, those negotiations have broken down and the court now is required to conduct a hearing on the matter before rendering a decision. That date is January 4,1999. No one expects the decision from that hearing to be delayed in any way so as soon as a decision is rendered, then our agreement with the Little Rock School District calls for payment under the contract to begin within thirty (30) days. The court decision will not affect the negotiated agreement in any way. But it will result in the payment being postponed until early 1999.AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MEMBERSHIP OF LRCTA Lou Ethel Nauden 4400 West 22 nd Street Little Rock, AR 72204 November 19, 1998 Willie Givens, President Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association 1500 West 4\nh Street Little Rock, /irkansas 72201 Dear Mr Givens: This letter is written confirmation of my verbal resignation of my membership in the Little Rock Classroom Tt'achers .Association effective for the 1998-99 School 'f ear. I am convinced that the Association vdth its current STAFF and LEADERSHIP is no longer working in the best interest of the tear hets of the Little Rock School l.)istrict. I have spent many years v/orking in the Association with man) different presidents and numerous elected leaders. 1 have agreed and disagreed philosophically with a number of them, however, I was convinced, that all of them v/ere committed to serving in the best interest of the membership. 1 no longer sense that commitment on the part of the current staff and leadership. It saddens me to see how truly self-serving 'the leadership has become. I he lack of staff competence and commitment further troubles me. As I worked 1 dreamed of seeing tfie LRCTA Logo on our owtj building in tine city of Little Rock, and of an organization so strong that we could have a major i mpact ori educational issues in this commiinily. I guess it was just an unrealistic dream. I directed all of my resources toward w\u0026lt;\n-rki ng in the local association, never seeking state or national elective office, because I knew our members were primarily concer ned with issues thiat impacted them in their immediate enviromnent, the Little Rock School Distric t and the state of Arkansas. My tenure as president of the Association, my seivice as a board member, and my many years of w orking with the PN Team as a member and as chairperson were all services rendered unselfishly. There are tho le who hasten to criticize my decision to resign with the\nspurious argument that when the ball game is not played my way, 1 take my ball and go home To those critics I say, You are play ing with my ball - my thirty-two years of service to the organization. And more importantly, yon are not playing the game well. A parapjV'ise of.some advice from the poet, Kipling, expresses my teelings clearly. I CANNOl and WILL NOT be led by a company of fools. Sincerely, Lou Ethel NaadenI I 10B  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  SATURDAY, JUNE 13, I I A long way to go as LRSD, CTA open contract negotiations BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazelle Staff Writer In the first teacher contract negotiating session of the year, Little Rock School District representatives Friday pro Elimination of hospital indemnity, short-term disability, long-term disability or life insurance coverage for employees by the district. The district would contribute $17.06 posed cutting the work years employee'per month' for the length next year, freezing teacher salaries and reducing insurance benefits. Representatives of the school district and the Classroom Teachers Association met for about 30 minutes Friday afternoon to exchange economic proposals. state health plan coverage and $13.44 per employee per month for dental insurance. The dis- trict now pays the entire portion of the individual em- The meeting, which was closed to the public, marked the beginning of negotiations on the 1992-93 teachers contract. The three-year contract now in effect is due to expire Sept. 8. Jim Moore, an attorney who represents the school district, and Eleanor Coleman, CTA president, would not disclose the terms of the contract proposals made by their negotiating teams Friday. We have a long way to go, Coleman said. A very long way. A source who asked not to be identified told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the CTA is asking for a 10 percent salary increase for next year. In addition, the source said the district - which is facing a $7.7 million budget deficit next year - is asking for.numerous reductions in employee benefits, including:  A five-day reduction in the work year, which could result in less pay for employees. It was not clear Friday if the reduction would affect all certified employees or just those who have annual contracts for 9'/2 months or longer.  No overall salary raises and no incremental increases for an additional year of experience. District teachers have generally received 3 percent increases for experience along with a general pay raise. ployee health insurance coverage not paid by the state. This year, the state pays $71 per employee and the district pays $122.  An increase in student instruction time for elementary and secondary teachers. Secondary teachers, for example, could eventually be required to teach as much 5% hours a day if the proposal is adopted. That compares with the current limit of 5 hours a day.  A reduction in teacher planning time from 270 minutes to 230 minutes a week.  Teachers may be required to supervise pupils in the lunchroom for an average of one day per week. The current contract gives teachers a duty- free 30-minute lunch period. If the proposal is approved, teachers also could be assigned to supervise children on the playground without extra pay. Now, teachers who volunteer for playground duty are paid $10 an hour. According to the source, the CTA in its proposal has asked for an additional day of personal leave. payment for unused sick leave, a teacher retirement incentive and direct deposit of paychecks. No date was set Friday for the next negotiations session. The negotiations are done by team.s representing the district and the teachers. Any agreement the teams reach must be submitted to the ' school board and the CTA membership for ratification.Aricansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, AUGUST 22, 1992 = I B Tough issues take CTA, LRSD through day of talks Representatives of the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association worked for about eight hours Friday on the 1992-93 teachers contract without reaching a settlement. The two negotiating teams will resume their talks at 4:30 p.m. Monday  the day most dis- trict teachers will return to' ered by the terms of the 1991-92 contract, which does not expire until Sept. 8. The negotiating sessions are closed to the public, and spokesmen for both teams have declined to give any specific details about the issues in dispute. Frank Martin, executive director of the CTA, said the teams spent Friday holding long discussions on a couple of issues that have disturbed both teachers and administrators for many years. He called them tough issues and said the districts team is asking for concessions from the teachers that the district cant buy. In June, the CTA asked for 10 percent raises, plus an annual 3 percent incremental raise for -- - V.1 yc3r of experience. The district proposed freezing salaries and increments. Since that time, however, the district included the incremental experience raises in the 1992-93 budget. Teachers who are the most experienced and are at the top of the salary schedule are not eligible for the incremental raises. The negotiating teams met each day this week.LRSD, CTA attain tentative agreement Arkansas Democrat \"CSazettc FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1992. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazene Staff Writer Negotiating teams for the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association reached a tentative agreement on the 1992-93 teacher contract about 10:40 p.m. Thursday after five hours of negotiations. A.W. Mille, a mediator with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, said no details of the tentative agreement would be released before a CTA membership meeting set for 4:30 p.m. today at Hall High School. Mille said he thought it best not to divulge details so that rumors wouldnt hurt the agreement. He said it was best if all teachers heard the agreement at the same time. We think it is a mutually satisfying agreement, Jim Moore, an attorney for the district, said. Eleanor Coleman, CTA president, said, Weve pushed hard to get a decent settlement. The old contract expired at I midnight Tuesday, Teachers vot-ed earlier this week to take a strike vote Sept. 17 if an agreement was not reached. The big issues in the talks had been the districts request for additional supervision time from teachers and teachers concerns about a lack of enforcement of the student discipline policies. The district team declared an impasse Tuesday, prompting the two teams to call in the mediator. Mille carried proposals back and forth between the teams Wednesday and Thursday nights. 'The teams never met until after the tentative agreement was reached Thursday night. About 1,600 of the districts teachers are expected to get an average 2.8 percent pay raise for their additional year of experience. The remaining teachers are ineligible for an experience increment. The CTA and the Little Rock School Board must ratify the Agreement to make it official. -ARKAN^S DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1992  LR teachers union ratifies contract, keeps contror of workday BY CYNTHIA HOWELL mocrat-Gazdfle Start Wmtr The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association on Friday ratified a 1992-93 teacher con- traclf that virtually is identical to the 1991-92 contract, which e.xpired at midnight Tuesday. The new agreement calls for npuiew teacher supervision duties, no shorter preparation periods or longer workdays, all of which were proposed early in the negotiations by the Little Rock School District. The new agreement does alter the expiration date of the contract so ' that future negotiations wont occur while school is in session. It was moved from Sept. 8 to Aug. I. Host discrict teachers will get an average 2.3 percent pay increase for their additional year of experience. However, about 350 teachers are ineligible for an experience increment The new agreement says that if district revenues exceed expenditures bjf $100,000 this year, senior teachers will get a S200 onetime payment by Aug. 1. \"I feel like an abused senior citizen, one teacher of 20 years quipped after the CT.A. membership meeting at Hall High School. 1 don't know how they can justify not giving raises to those of us who have dedicated our lives to the district\" About 500 of the districts 2,000 teachers attended the meeting. The beginning teacher salary will remain at $19,489. A teacher with 20 years of experience and a masters degree plus 30 hours of additional college credit will earn $39,485. See CONTRACT. Page 18A Teachers  Continued from Page 1A We're pleased to have an agreement.\" Eleanor Coleman, CTA president, said. \"Some of the teachers are not totally pleased and that is understandable. We were not able to get what we wanted for our senior teachers. I am one of them. I won't get a single penny more this year.' Coleman said the CT.A will be able to work with administrators to improve student discipline through a standing ad hoc committee that exists in the contract. During the contract negotiations. the CTA members complained that district administrators were lax in enforcing student discipline policies. Most teachers interviewed Friday were philosophical about the status quo contract, the first in many years that did not provide across-the-board raises, Its acceptable. I can live with it, Jake Tidmore, a teacher at Southwest Junior High School, said. We didnt get a raise. That was the bad news. The good news was we didnt give up anything. Its acceptable. I can live with it. We didnt get a raise. That was the bad news. The good news was we didnt give up anything. Im all right about it for one year, Patsy Campbell, a district employee of more than 30 years, said about the lack of a raise. I think the cuts (made in July by the board) were real. The board cut $10.7 million in expenses this year to balance the district budget. We didnt want to go on strike or disrupt the students, Linda Jones, a teacher at Hall High School, said. But she also said she was disappointed with Superintendent Mac Bernd for creating an adversarial relaSTUDYING THE CONTRACT  Sue Buffalo, a counselor at the Alternative Learning Center in the Little Rock School District, examines Friday a copy of the 1992-93 contract negotiated by the district and the Little Rpck Classroom Teachers Association. Teachers ratifiediti agreement Friday afternoon at Hall High School. tionship with teachers and for reducing the number of counselors in the district. Representatives of the CTA and the school district reached a tentative contract agreement late Thursday night with the assistance of A.W. Mille, a mediator with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The terms of the agreement were not released until Fridays meeting. Before the agreement becomes final, the school board must approve it. A special meeting to vote on the pact, as well as to decide the process for filling a vacant board seat and to discuss the feasibility of Saturday morning football games, is set for 5 p.m. Monday at the administration building at 810 W. Markham St. \"I sincerely appreciate teachers being understanding, reasonable and cooperative in light of district finances and other circumstances, Bernd said at a news conference Friday afternoon. The negotiations process was a fruitful effort overall. He said district administrators heard \"loud and clear Bernd said he would direct principals to work with their staffs to develop discipline management plans at the schools. He also acknowledged the change that teachers face this -4 ZJ Arkansas Oamocrat-Gazena/Oavid GoOschaik teachers concerns about classroom discipline. We believe they heard our concerns about the importance of the role supervision plays toward improved safety and security. We know that most teachers volunteer much more than the minimum time proposed for supervision and we believe they are are committed to work cooperatively with us to assure that all schools are equally safe and secure. 1 year as the result of a new I sincerely appreciate teachers being understanding, reasonable and cooperative in light of district finances and other circumstances. riculum, a new computer system and a new administration. Thats a full plate and understandably teachers are concerned and somewhat frustrated? ... I pledge to work closely with them to make the changes as smooth as possible and to address their concerns, Bernd said. Bernd said he plans to appoint a joint committee as allowed by the contract to study the feasibility of increasing the instructional day. Increasing instructional time was part of the districts original proposal in the contract negotiations, but was withdrawn. He alio called on teachers to assist district administrators in appealing for help from the state Legislature to curb escalating costs of employee health benefits. j The district pays KW percent of the costs of the benefits for individual employees. The district absorbed a $1.4 million increase in insurance costs this year.Arkansas Democrat Y azcttc FRIDAY. FEBRUARY 12. 1993 Copyright C 1993. Little Rock Newspapers, 1nc. Bernd urged to settle pact with CTA Board members ask about 93-94 budget Little Rock School Board members Dorsey Jackson and John Moore urged Superintendent Mac Bernd on Thursday to meet with the Classroom Teachers Association and settle the 1993-94 teacher contract as soon as possible. The topic came up during the boards monthly agenda meeting. The board members asked when the 1993-94 budget would be ready for board action. Bernd has said that expenses would have to be cut for next year by about S5.2 million. Two committees, one made up of district residents and another of employees, are reviewing district expenses and will make a report to Bernd in early March about ways to save money and operate more efficiently- Bernd said he plans to present the proposed budget to the board by late March or early April. Jackson said it would be good to have employee contracts settled by that time, and he recommended that negotiations begin soon so that outdated contract provisions could be discussed and eliminated. Gary Jones, the districts manager of resources and school support, said he has met with eight different employee groups, but only the teachers have a contract for the current year. He said that negotiations are drawing to a close on a two-year contract for district bus drivers and custodians. He estimated that those settlements could be reached within two to four weeks. Were very close, he said.Arkansas Democrat '^(i^azelte SUNDAY, MARCH 14. 1993 Copyright 0 1993, Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. M T . Arkansas Democrat ^(fjazette Ledbetter outpolls 2, wins AEA presidency BY JERRY DEAN Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Grainger Ledbetter, 36, an English teacher in the Little Rock School District, was chosen Saturday as president of the Arkansas Education Association. About 9,100 AEA members statewide gave Ledbetter 55.1 percent of the vote over candidates Kay Williams, 50, of Greene County Ledbetter Tech in Paragould and Carolyn Jones, 43, of Watson Education Center in El Dorado. Those results mean a runoff wont be necessary in the AEAs general elections April 19-27. Pat Jones, an AEA spokesman, said the AEA Elections Committee will have to certify results of the election to Sid Johnson, a Fort Smith teacher who is the current AEA president, on Monday. Ledbetter, who begins serving his two-year term Aug. 1, said he had campaigned extensively for the office. He thanked his campaign chairman, Eleanor Coleman, and congratulated his opponents on an issues-oriented race. Im going to try to build a unified association that can face tough issues that arent getting any easier, Ledbetter said. Those issues include re-examining health insurance bidding and costs, educational reforms, and collective bargaining efforts aimed at improving teachers salaries and working conditions statewide, he said. Ledbetter, who most recently taught English at Henderson Junior High, promised to remain an outspoken advocate sonnel. He is now on a leave of absence to complete his masters degree in history. Ledbetter, now serving on the AEA Executive Committee and the executive committee of the National Council of Urban Education Associations, has taught in Little Rock public schools 11 years. Ledbetter has been president of the AEA local organi-zation, the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association,' for four years. ' He is best known for haVing led a districtwide teaghers strike that closed schoojs.for six days, and for having Ipd a strike of the districts school bus drivers. AEA presidents are. restricted to serving no more, than two two-year terms as president. for teachers and support per- I WEDNESDAY, JULY 14,1993  3B CTA will consider renegotiating raises\nBY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District will approach the teachers union Monday to discuss a num- ber of matters  including whether teachers are willing to renegotiate part of their 3 percent raises. Estelle Matthis, interim superintendent, said Tuesday she will bring up the matter of the raises next week when she meets with Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association President Eleanor Coleman and CTA Executive Director Frank Martin. The CTA office is closed until Monday. Matthis meeting with the CTA also will deal with other matters involving the upcoming school year. The federal judge who oversees the desegregation case ordered the Little Rock School Board to pare down its $140 million budget and left it up to the district on how to do it. ! The board met in a workshop session last Friday, when it asked the district administration to look at about $3 million in cuts and outlined four other general areas to consider. The board wants to know if the CTA would be willing to con-' : sider giving up part of the 3 per-: i cent teacher raise for the 1993-: 94 academic year.  ? Other areas the board asked the district to look at included\nreducing expenses in services, supplies and equipment\nstaffing efficiency\nhow to phase in teacher training sessions on a new system to track student learning and the impact of possibly closing Ish Elementary School, a decision that would be made by a federal court. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright has given the district until 6 p.m. Aug. 2 to submit a revised 1993-94budget. Hearings on the revised bud-\nget are set for Aug. 12-13.  :How to kill a city (And how to build one) Neighborhood rivalries, petty jealousies, suspicions and turf wars . . . all can combine to kill a community. One was reminded of that ugly possi- iility just this week, when the director of one museum in Little Rock issued a public statement attacking plans to build a new, large-screen theater in connection with another museum in town. A different and better spirit was shown by a couple of other items in the news:  The union of classroom teachers in Little Rock agreed to reconsider  not give up. mind you, just rethink  part of the 3 percent raise the teachers are due next school year. For a group that got no raise this last school year, thats civic spirit. The union has recognized the bind that the Little Rock School District has got itself into. Its willingness to cooperate with the school board shows a spirit of cooperation. It also shows a warranted respect for the federal judge overseeing the district. The judge, Susan Webber Wright, has told the district it shouldnt be budgeting money thats going to run out for expenses that will keep recurring  like teachers salaries. Thats sound, if obvious, advice. The teachers willingness to think about this shows sound judgment  and good will. You can build a lot on those qualities.  ACORN, whose local chapter would much prefer electing all city directors by ward, nevertheless has come out in favor of the proposal on the ballot Tuesday to elect only seven directors by ward, and elect another three city-wide. Thats the plan proposed by the Future-Little Rock project after long sessions and considerable effort. By supporting the plan on Tuesdays ballot. .ACORN is accepting the popular will\na plan to elect all directors by ward was turned down by the voters just last year. ACORN is is now ready to accept half a loaf. Or rather seventenths of a loaf, since seven of the ten directors would be elected by ward, while all are elected at-large now. To quote .ACORNs spokesman, The Future-Little Rock proposal is not perfect, but we do believe it is better tian the system we have now. Such an approach shows a talent for compromise and a capacity for good will. Both qualities will be needed if Little Rock is to thrive in the years ahead. Little Rock can work if all its people work together. Arkansas Democrar Established 1871 Arkansas azeUe Established 1819 Arkansas Democrat (gazette Arkansas' Newspaper Walter E. Hussman, Jr., Publisher Griffin Smith, jr. Ejcecubve Editor Paul Greenberg Editoriai Page Editor Paul R. Smith V.P. / General Manager Lynn Hamilton V.P. / Operations John Mobbs Advertising Director Larry Graham Circulation Director Estel Jeffery, Jr. Director of Promotions 6B  SATURDAY, JULY 24, 1993   Copyright 9 1993 UWe Rock Newsoaoers. Inc.Arkansas Democrat (gazette\n SATURDAY, APRIL 23,1994 Copyright  tittle Rock Newspapers, Inc. LR teachers seek 6 percent raise BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat*Gazette Educatkxi Writer The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association wants a 6 percent across-the-board raise next year, although The CTAs initial proposal school officials initial contract proposal would freeze salaries. Negotiating teams for the Little Rock School District and the CTA met for the first time Monday and Tuesday to clarify their proposals for changes in the 1994-95 teachers contract. There are about 60 proposals on the table. Frank Martin, CTA executive director, and Brady Gad- berry, district labor relations director, said they would like to complete negotiations for next year by the end of May, Martin and Gadberry are the chief negotiators for their teams, which are scheduled to meet at least two afternoons a week until May 23. If the teams reach a tentative agreement on a contract, it must be submitted to the school board and the CTA membership for final approval. calls for a 6 percent raise for all teachers, plus an incremental raise of about 3 percent for each eligible employee for experience. Longtime employees who have reached the top of the salary schedule are ineligible for the experience increment. The district has proposed reductions of two days in the teacher work year, a reduction in fringe benefits, and a cap on William Broadnax. Besides Martin, the CTA the districts contribution to employees health insurance team includes CTA President coverage. Currently, the state and the district pay the employees insurance, although employees must pay for coverage fortheir spouses and chil- dren. -\n, Also on the table is the experience increment, which is now a $2 million provision in the districts 1994-95 budget j proposal but has been proposed as a cut to balance the budget. Besides Gadberry, Little Rock district negotiating team members include Mark Mil- hoilen, manager of support services\nDr. Richard Hurley, director of human resources\nAssistant Superintendent Lan7 Robertson\nFranklin Incentive School Principal Franklin Davis\nDodd Elementary School Principal Patty McNeil\nand Henderson Junior High School Assistant Principal i 1 I Eleanor Coleman and teachers Katherine Wright Knight Betty Mitchell, Don Williams, Clementine Kelley, Deborah DesJardin and Johnny Gross. The next two sessions are set for 4:30 p.m. Monday and Tuesday. hArkansas Democrat '^(Gazette ' FRIDAY, MAY 13,1994 Rival teacher union to fight job cuts Group says LRSD broke law by not sending letters earlier BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer A small and little-known , group of teachers affiliated with the American Federation of i Teachers and the AFL-CIO will challenge the Little Rock School Districts decision to eliminate 80 teaching positions next year. The Federation of Metropolitan Teachers, which says it has about 200 members, will send a letter to the school district alleging the district violated the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Larry Buck, a teacher at Henderson Junior High School, said 'Thursday the district didnt notify all affected teachers by May 1 of its plans to eliminate their jobs or to discontinue the supplemental pay about 400 teachers get for extra duty. Extra duty includes coaching, sponsoring student activities or supervising students before or after school. The Fair Dismissal Act auto- matically renews the contracts of certified teachers and administrators if the employees arent notified of changes in their working conditions by May 1. May 1 was a Sunday. Buck, chairman of the federations legal services committee, said some of the affected teachers got their letters April 30, a Saturday\nothers didnt get them until the next Monday, May 2. So all affected teachers and supplemental pay contracts should be reinstated. Buck said. He said it would be unfair to employees to only reinstate those teachers who received notices May 2. un- Brady Gadberry, director of labor relations for the district, said all the notices were sent by certified mail April 29, in compliance with the law. He said the significant date is the postmark, not the date the teacher got the letter. Buck said he hopes the dispute can be resolved within the district. Asked if the federation would sue the district, he said that decision would have to be made later. The district is cutting positions as a cost-saving measure. The supplemental pay contracts are being reviewed and many will be reinstated once district officials have determined what extra duty positions are needed based on student enrollment for next year and teacher job signments. as- The federation is affiliated not only with the AFL-CIO but with the Arkansas Federation of Teachers, which has about 2,500 members. Buck said. The AFT and its Arkansas affiliates are rivals of the National Education Association and its affiliates, the Arkansas Education Association and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association.I Arkansas Democrat W^azcttTI TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1994 Copyright  UWe Rock Newspapers, Jnc. LRSD teachers to decide today on new contract\nOK predicted Little Rock School District teachers will vote today on a proposed contract that would give most of them incremental pay raises in the coming school year for experience. The district and the Classroom Teachers Association tentatively agreed to a contract July 18. The contract doesnt include an across-the-board raise for teachers. The Little Rock School Board also must approve the contract. Frank Martin, CTA executive director, said he expects the teachers to approve the contract. The CTA, which has about 2,000 members, will vote at 4:30 p.m. at Hall High School. The tentative contract includes the incremental raise traditionally paid to eligible teachers for their extra year of That increment experience. will be $803 per teacher this year. The districts most senior teachers, those with 20 or more years of experience, are ineligible for the increment and wont get a raise.WEDNESDAY, WTTW Copyngnt O UWe Rock Newspapers, inc. LRSD teachers approve new contract BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Start Writer Little Rock School District teachers grudgingly approved a contract for the 1994-95 school year Tuesday that includes a pay increase for teachers with less than 20 years experience, but no across-the-board raise, No ones coming out of here very happy, Frank Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers Association, said after the vote. The teachers are not going to continue to subsidize the districts mismanagement. Martin said the approximate-ly 280 teachers in attendance voted for the contract in a voice  vote. Officials said the turnout teacher at Fair Park Elemen-was low  the district employs tary, said she voted against the about 1,700 teaches  because contract because 20-year veter-many teachers were on vacation ans wont get raises and smok-or at work, ing is now banned on school The contract includes the grounds. raise traditionally paid to eligi Ive been smoking since the ble teachers for their extra year of experience. That increment will be $803 per teacher this year. About 400 of the districts most senior teachers, those with 20 or more years of experience\n, are ineligible for the increment. Gail Delozier, a first-grade eighth grade and I wasnt bothering anybody, Delozier said, Its the only filing I can do to get a release, See TEACHERS, Page 7B BALLOT BROWSING  Little Rock School District schoolteachers Gail Delozier (left) and Malinda Martin look over the ballot before the Little Rock Classroom Teach- Arkansas Defnocrat-Gazstta/DavKl Gottschalk ers Associations vote Tuesday night on the 1994-95 teachers contract. Those present approved the pact reluctantly. Teachers  Continued from Page IB Faye Parker, a teacher at the Little Rock Adult Education Center, said she voted for the contract, We didnt lose any benefits, Parker said. District officials and the Classroom Teachers Association tentatively agreed to the contract July 18, but it required approval by the teachers union and the school board. The school board hasnt voted on the contract. The CTA negotiating team made a plea directly to Superintendent Henry Williams for an increase or bonus for the senior teachers. But Williams said granting that request would deplete the districts pool of reserve money. Other terms of the contract include:  No changes to the 1993-94 salaiy schedule for 1994-95. The starting salary for a beginning teacher will remain at $20,074 for the second straight year.  A new contract expiration date of June 30, 1995, The 1993- 94 contract expired Monday.  Creation of a teacher-administrator committee to clarify ambiguous language in the , contract.  An increase in allowances for travel expenses to conform with changes made for the district administrators and school board members.  Clarification of the longterm leave policies for teachers. FRIDAY, AUGUST 26,1994  7B LRSD board tables motion on teacher bonuses BY SHAREESE HAROLD Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Tenured teachers in the Little Rock School District will have to wait until the next school board meeting to find out if they will receive a salary bonus this school year. The board voted Thursday to table a proposal that would have given at the end of the school year a bonus to teachers at the top of the pay schedule who are not receiving raises this year. Earlier this month, the board ratified teacher contracts for the 1994 1995 school year that did not include salary increases for those who have taught 20 or more years in the district. Board member Linda Pon- dexter, a Little Rock educator for 26 years, said she felt slighted by district administrators who waited until Thursday to explain that her proposal might cause snags in the districts federal desegregation case. Pon- dexter initiated the proposal three weeks ago. But isnt it strange, she said, that a letter from our attorney, dated with todays date, was sent to us explaining the potential legal problems we could have with this motion? Jerry Malone, one of the districts desegregation attorneys, urged the board to consider how the court would view an action to compensate teachers by a method not spelled out in the budget policy handbook it gave the court. Board member Kevin OMalley moved to table the issue until the legal problems are addressed. I can support the philosophy behind this motion, OMalley said, but there are problems with it now. The board voted unanimously to discuss the issue at its next meeting. It also voted to consider Pendexters proposal to use excess state funds the district might receive this year once student enrollment figures are tallied to compensate the teachers. I think this action is necessary to give those who have served this district the longest a shot in the arm, Pondexter said. About 520 teachers and education support staff members could be alTected by the bonus. Pondexlers motion would direct the districts labor negotiators to settle the bonus amount with the teachers union negotiators. In other business, the board rejected on the first reading a revised employee nepotism policy that would have allowed distant relatives of board members and the superintendent to work in the district. It also voted to sell the Eastside Junior High School building at 14th and Scott Streets. Adult education courses now being held at that school will be moved to Forest Heights Junior High School at University Avt enue and Evergreen Street. The 47-year-old structure is in the citys historical district and has not been used as a junior high school since 1964.1 Arkansas Democrat '^(j?azcltg SATURDAY_, APRIL. 22,1995 Special ed teacher to lead association Betty Mitchell, a special education teacher at Pulaski Heights Junior High School, was recently elected president of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association. She defeated John Gross, CTA vice president and a teacher at Dunbar Magnet Junior High, for the position. Mitchell will take office Aug. 1, following Eleanor Coleman, an elementary school counselor who was the union president for four years. I want to maintain the strength and unity that the CTA has always had and exhibited, Mitchell said when asked about the goals for her two-year term. Its imperative that we continue to have stability at a time when the Little Rock School District is unstable because of its finances and the discipline problems in the schools.Arkansas Democrat ^(j^azette THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1995 LR teachers push for mediation BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Dernocrat-Gazette Education Writer Contract negotiators for the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association want help  and fast  from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Brady Gadberry, the districts director of labor relations, and Frank Martin, CTA executive director, agreed Friday to ask the mediation service to select an outside fact-finder who can come into the district this month to recommend terms of a settlement on the 1995-96 teachers contract. Recognizing that difficult bargaining was ahead, negotiators for the two organizations agreed weeks ago to use a fact-finder to help them resolve their differences. The fact-finder from Texas selected by the negotiators couldnt come to Little Rock until mid-August. Martin said Friday the teams cant wait that long. The contract expires the first of August. The two teams of administrators and teachers have been meeting regularly to negotiate changes in the contract language, but theyve set aside some potentially explosive salary issues. Officials in the financially strapped school district have recommended a two-day cut in the teacher work year and an accompanying cut in pay to help avoid a budget deficit next year. The district also has recommended freezing all employee salaries and not distributing the annual 3 percent increment that many teachers traditionally get for their additional year of experience. The CTA opposes those proposals.I Arkansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, JUNE3O, 1995 Arbitrator selected to help teachers, LRSD come to terms BY CYNTHIA HOWELL playgrounds and lunchrooms. Democrat-Gazette Educabon Wnter jjjg school district is trying Officials for the Little Rock to cut as much as $9 million in School District and the Classexpenses for the year. The room Teachers Association will school board has already voted turn to a federally appointed to eliminate a deputy superinfact-finder today for help in re- tendents position, close two el- solving disputes in teacher contract negotiations. Francis X. Quinn, an arbitrator based in Tulsa, will listen to arguments by the district and the CTA at a session set for 9 a.m. ementary schools and turn over transportation to a private company. One of the first items to be Most of the contract disputes center on the districts efforts to cut discussed will be an extension of the 1994-95 teachers con- expenses. District tract, Frank Martin, CTA execu- officials have orooosed tive director, said Thursday. proposea The contract for the districts shortening the school more than 1,500 teachers is to expire today, the last day of the districts fiscal year. Most of the contract disputes center on the districts efforts to cut expenses. District officials have proposed shortening year by two days and cutting employee salaries accordingly. The Federal Mediation and the school year by two days and Conciliation Service appointed cutting employee salaries ac- Quinn at the request of Martin cordingly. and Brady Gadberry, the dis- Also, the district has offered tricts director of labor rela- no incremental increases to tions. teachers for their added year of After hearing the presenta- experience. In the past, most tions today, Quinn will have teachers got incremental in- about 20 days to prepare sug- creases of about 3 percent a gestions for resolving the dis- year. Other disagreements con- agreements. The bargaining groups can cern the districts proposals to accept Quinns recommenda- cap health insurance benefits tions, reject them or use them for employees and to require as a basis for further negotia- teachers to handle some supervision of students in such areas tions. Quinn charges $600 a day for outside their classrooms as his arbitration services.Arkansas Democrat TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1995 Copyright O little Rock Newspapers, Inc, Fact finder recommends teacher raise, shorter year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Denxiciat-Gazette Education Writer nonbinding. The district or the CTA can accept reject or modify A fact finder hired to help re- them. solve contract disputes between Its basically a good recommen- the Little Rock School District and dation, said Brady Gadberry, the the teachers union has recommended that most teachers get a districts director of labor rela- tions. As with any arbitrators decision, there are things you like better than others. Frank Martin, executive direc- pay raise this year for their extra year of teaching experience. But Francis X. Quinn of Tulsa ------------ also recommended a two-day re- tor of the CTA, said he was pieced duction in the 192-day teacher that Quinn recommended continu- work year, which could partly off- ing the incremental pay raise that set any raise. teachers traditionally get for an exRepresentatives of the school tra year of experience. He also district and the Classroom Teach- liked toat Quinn recommended ers Association will meet at 1 p.m. $810 stipends for many of the dis- Wednesday to decide whether tricts most senior teachers. Quinns recommendations can be But the reduction of the fyro used to settle the 1995-96 teacher contract Quinns reconunendations are days will give us some trouble, Martin said, questioning whether it See TEACHERS, Page 5B Teachers schedule and are ineligible for an the shorter year. automatic experience increment A teacher at the top of the Little  Continued from Page 1B would be legal. Quinn also recom- experience but less than hours mended reducing the pay rate for of credit above the bachelors deteachers who choose six periods gree. But Quinn omitted from the pool Rock salary schedule earns $41,051 of teachers eligible for the stipend a year. If Quinns recommendation those who have at least 16 years of was adopted, the teacher would per day instead of five. The district earn an $810 stipend but would lose $427.60 if two work days were cut A beginning teacher who earns has paid teachers 20 percent of those teachers could get paid more their daily rate of pay for the sixth by acquiring more education. The class. -Acting on an administrative district traditionally pays teachers Gadberry said Quinn felt that $20,262 would get the $810 incre- ment but would lose $211.06 if the two days were cut The overriding assumptions in proposal, Quinn dropped that pay not only for their years of expert- this fact-finding were that the 1995- rate to 10 percent. Quinn issued his written recommendations Friday after hearing ence, but also for their extra edu- 96 expenditures would not exceed cational hours. Quinn accepted the districts projected 94-95 expenditures, Quinn wrote. However, we con- presentations from district and proposal that the teacher work eluded, based on the evidence subunion representatives June 30. The year be cut by the two days in No- mitted, that a modest salary in- CTA and the district had asked the vember when teachers attend the Federal Mediation and Concilia- Arkansas Education Association tion Service for a fact finder to rec- convention. In the past, schools ficiency. crease was possible and necessary to maintain morale and teacher ef ommend a resolution to their con- were closed to students on those tract disputes. Most of the disputes days, but teachers were paid to center on money and the districts participate in training programs. efforts to cut up to $9 million in expenses for the coming school year. Martin and Gadberry said Monday they would check with Quinn to The teachers who give their life of service of education to this student generation should be re^ warded on a par with others who render valuable service to the com- Specifically, Quinn recommend- make sure he intended that the two munity, he concluded. ed that the teacher salary schedule AEA days be unpaid days, because remain unchanged but that each teacher move one step on the schedule, making teachers eligible for an $810 increment. Last years teacher contract exit was only implied and not written pired June 30, leaving teachers, in the recommendation. who are supposed to return to work _ The district hopes to save about in mid-AugusL without a contracC- $700,000 this year by reducing the The CTA has a policy against' Teachers who have 17 to 20 work year by two days for teachers years of experience and 24 or more hours of college credit beyond a and three days for administrators. teachers working without a coU'' tract Gadberry said the district is Five employee groups, including continuing to honor the terms of bachelors degree should also get bus drivers, aides, custodians, se- the expired contract in hopes of. an $810 stipend, Quinn said. Those curity officers and food service teachers are at the top of the salary workers would be unaffected by quickly reaching a settlement on a new contractArkansas Democrat (j^azdte  FRIDAY, JULY 28, 1995   LR teachers association will meet to discuss contract negotiations several years ago stating that they programs sponsored by the Arkan- _  ._! __TT, At A MM A/tAn Little Rock Classroom Teach- several years ago stating that they prop-ms sponsoreo oy me mi ,'ScE will report .III not work without a contract sak ^Kat.on l''me''HS's?h.!'oDtrTc^^ \"Tb\"o ncgotlntloB teams met yeuby twdays and the admuiis- i  Mmbe? Eip mcS a 5 WeSwSThurrfa, and will mUe i Sn o\" Aug sTn ttie Pa'rkview resume tnte at.a m. today ld save the district about TrK5CT\"ve ad'tt.\"lsS Sd k Ser this month, a tederally director, said Thursday the meet- teams were optimistic that a r SC'i'wOTkdOTbreteed :5tS'rEe::ua^,'?B^^^^ ssasscSte^ErSiucEts ?uSS-Wd.he SsVeS^ S'E:\ns*'%e7cSeS\"bSith: S\nrrlddS. Lfc im?mh?r?SS u2 proposal as their salarms also experience. The ejsenence inc,^ the meeting to decide what to do if would be reduced by two days, there is no contract settlement by proAug 14 the day that most teachers posal are days in November that are scheduled to return to work schools are traditionally closed so for the 1995-96 school year. that teachers can attend profes- CTA members passed a policy s------ --------------- The two negotiating teams met year by two days and the adminis- Wednesday and Thursday and will trative work year by three days resume talks at 10:30 a.m. today. v. c Jd  \"\" Spokesmen for both the CTA $7(W,0(W. ...................... and the school district said the teams were optimistic that a set- The days affected by the pro- ment amounts to $810 per teacher. District officials said they would accept the fact-finders recommendations, but the CTA balked, say- uiai VC. -__________ W that they were being asked to sional conferences and training fund their own salary increases.L Arkansas Democrat C^azcttc SATURDAY, JULY 29 iqqc\nCoDvnm, o Unio Teachers slate contract session The Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association will try to reach a contract settlement Thursday morning, just hours before teachers meet at 5 p.m. to decide whether to return to work without contracts. Brady Gadberry, the districts chief negotiator, said after a bargaining session Friday that the negotiating teams appeared close to an agreement and he hopes the talks next week will produce a settlement that the CTA officials can carry to their membership meeting for approval. The teams will present their best and final offers at the Thursday session, Gadberry said. He is optimistic that those proposals will be so similar that a tentative agreement can be reached quickly. The main contention between the teams is a district proposal to discontinue paying teachers for attending two days of professional conferences and training sessions sponsored each November by the Arkansas Education Association. Those two days have been considered work days for teachers in past years, although students do not attend classes on those days. Other unresolved issues include new provisions on enforcing school district discipline policies and an anticipated increase this year in employee insurance premiums.THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2000  District, teachers sign tentative pact for coming 3 years LR School Board, union members may OK contract with 7.25% and 5% raises next week BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Most Little Rock School District teachers can expect total pay increases of 7.25 percent this year and more than 5 percent in each of the next two years, according to a tentative contract signed Wednesday by district and teacher leaders. The three-year agreement must be ratified by the Little Rock School Board and the membership of the Classroom Teachers Associ- perience increment traditionally paid eligible teachers for their additional year of work - *** As a result, a majority of teach- ation to become final. That is expected to happen next week. The teachers association has scheduled a membership meeting at 5 p.m. Tuesday, the day before most teachers start work for the 200001 school year. The meeting to act on the contract proposal will be at the Arkansas Education Association building, 1500 W. 4th St. As of late Wednesday, the School Board had not scheduled a time to consider the newly inked agreement but has a special meeting set for 530,p.m. Tuesday on a different matter. 'P Brady Gadberry, special assis- tant to die superintendent and the ence will be $50,363, compared districts chief negotiator, said the   * three-year proposal is significant because it will contribute to longterm stability and enable the district and community to concen- trate on attaining release from . crease percentages as nonrestrict- federal court monitoring of the districts desegregation efforts. The districts 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes procedures for court release by next June. Wednesdays agreement is actually Uie second three-year pact between the district and the teachers union, Gadberry said. But the first agreement, in 1989-90, was concluded after teachers went for almost an entire school year without a contract. As a result, the first year of the three-year contract was retroactive. According to terms of the agreement, all teachers will get a 4.25 percent pay increase this year and a minimum increase of 2.875 percent in each of the next two years, which amounts to a 10 percent raise over three years. The annual raises are coupled with the average 3.03 percent ex- ers should see a 7.25 percent increase this year and well over 5 , percent in the next two years. ' Teachers who have the most experience in the district and have reached the top of the salary schedule are ineligible for the 3.03 percent increment. But they do get a $1,500 stipend. -*  TTie salary for a beginning teacher with a bachelors degree will go from $23,135 in 1999-2000, to $24,118 this year. The top salary for a teacher with 20 years of experi- with $48,372 last year. .. The contract proposal establishes a minimum salary increase for the second and third years.but also establishes a procedure'to in- ed revenues to the district increase. Gadberry said there was a strong probability that pay increases will exceed the minimum. The contract language takes into accoimt the possibility of teacher raises enacted by state lawmakers when the Arkansas General Assembly convenes in January. Gov. Mike Huckabee and others have See TEACHERS, Page 5B V s 7: i )* iit' Icn, a __ f Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEVE KEESEE Teachers  Continued from Page IB indicated that raising teacher salaries will be a priority during the legislative session. The Little Rock contract proposal includes adjustments in the salaiy schedule, beginning with the 2001-02 school year, as a way to raise beginning salaries and entice new teachers to the district. According to the proposal, salaries paid first-time teachers this year will be eliminated for 2001-02. This years salaries for all second-year teachers will become the first-year salaries in 2001-02 and a new second-year salaiy level has been developed. Players in the contract negotiations, which began in earnest last June, were reluctant Wednesday to reveal the terms of the proposal until after it could be presented to the teachers. that she felt very positive about the The teams used Francis X. Quinn, a labor relations specialist from Oklahoma, on both Tuesday and Wednesday to complete tlie negotiations. Quinn has been employed by the district and the association at different times in the past as an arbitrator or fact finder in employee and contract disputes. He was in the Little Rock School District this week for matters not related to the contract negotiations when he was called on : to help, Gadberry said. Other changes in the contract for this year include the creation of a sick bank that will enable em-proposal and deferred other com- pigyees to donate unused sick days ments until after next week^s mem-\n    .......... bership meeting. Gadberry released the pro-posed terms to the Arkansas to be used by other critically ill employees. Signing in Heather Passmore stands beside her children, Emily, 4, Eric, 6, and Andrew, 8, at Little Rock's Carver Magnet Elementary School during registration Wednesday. Registration for all Little Rock School District schools will go on3rom 10 a.m.-7 p.m.today. The two older children will be first- and third-graders. Classes start Tuesday at Mabelvale, Woodruff and Stephens. Other Little Jtock schools start classes Aug. 21. and no experience in 2001-02 will, be $25,803. A second-year teacher newspaper submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the with the same degree will earn $26300. A third year teacher will earn $26,796. In the final year of the contract, . information. The states Freedom of Information Act states that all records maintained in public offices or by public employees with-the beginning salary will be $26,835, i n t-j ie sco.p e of their emplo-y me,nt the second-year salary will be ure presunied to be public records. $27351, and the third-year teacher And according to the law, any citi-with a bachelors degree will be ^^n of the state may inspect and paid ^,687. The top salary in the coPV public records. district that year will be $53,777. Gadberry said his reluctance to Players in the contract negotia- release the information was in def-tions, which began in earnest last erence to the union. June, were reluctant Wednesday to The negotiating teams met most reveal the terms of the proposal of Tuesday and for a few hours until after it could be presented to Wednesday to find acceptable lan-the teachers. guage on the restructuring of the Clementine Kelley, president of salary schedule beginning with the teachers association, said only 2001-2002. , Arkansas Democrat | FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 1995 CoDvritfrt O.Uttle Rock Newsoaoera. Inc. Teachers send negotiators back to table with orders to hang tough on contract BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Members of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers .Association sent their officers back to the contract negotiating table Thursday with instructions not to accept less than current benefits and salaries. The CT.A and the Little Rock School District are negotiating a 1995-96 teacher contract. The major remaining hurdle is a proposal to shorten the teacher work year by two days, with an accompanying cut in salaries. We wanted to get a feel from the membership about whether there was room for compromise. We got a resounding no.'  Frank .Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers Association, said after the closed union meeting. Their message to us was that they have given and given and given, and they dont want to give any more. About 300 teachers attended the late-aftemoon meeting at Parkview Magnet High School. Martin said. About 85 percent of the districts almost 2,000 teachers belong to the CTA. The negotiating teams have another week to reach an agreement. Teachers, now without contracts, are scheduled to begin work Aug. 14. Students return Aug. 21. The CTA has a no-contract, no-work policy. Martin said he expects the district and CTA negotiating teams to meet again soon, possibly as early as today. The teams met briefly Thursday morning, when they were scheduled to present their best and final offers. But the CTA team wanted to delay making an offer until it had a chance to confer with the membership. .As a result, the district team decided to withhold its offer until the CTA was prepared. Brady Gadberry, the districts chief negotiator, refused to disclose the terms of the districts offer. But he did say the offer represented a significant change from the districts previous positions and should move the parties close to a settlement. A federally appointed factfinder called in by the teams last month recommended giving most teachers an incremental pay increase of $810 for their additional year of teaching experience. But he also recommended the two-day work-year reduction, which would cost teachers $220 to $447. While the district was willing to accept the fact-finders recommendations. the CTA balked, saying that teachers would end up paying their own increases through the two-day loss. Those two days are the ones when teachers attend professional conferences and training sessions sponsored by the .Arkansas Education Association in November. Martin said teachers objected Thursday to having district-paid health insurance premiums capped in exchange for keeping the two workdays. The district and the state pay the premiums, but the district recently was told those costs will increase this year by as much as $250,000.Arkansas Democrat [ TUESDAY, AUGUST 8,1995 Copvrifjht  Little Rock Newspepers. Inc. M I 11111 ! rOll % V? i iiriss? Arkansas Democial-GazeMe/STEVE KEESEE administration office at 810 W. Markham St. while district and union officials tried to negotiate a contract. NEGOTIATIONS STALL  Qordon McIntyre, a teacher al Brady Elementary School, makes his position plain as he and about 30 fellow Little Rock teachers picket outside Flap over picketers cancels contract talks BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democfftt-Gazetle EdtJcaHon Writer Contract negotiations between quiet, the Little Rock School District terview in a room off the lobby. Gadberry asked the teachers to be Though the leachers were weland the Classroom Teachers Asso- c--o-m---e- t-o-- -s-i t in the lobby. Gadberi.y. ciation ended before they got said he asked them to take their started Monday, thanks to a confrontation over picketing teachers them, he said. in the Administration Building signs outside. That upset some of Frank Martin. CTA executive lobbv. director, said the organization s The negotiating teams will try again today to bargain, as dead-line. s for reaching a settlement ap proach. The CTA has a member ....... ship meeting at 4:30 p.m. Thursday against continuing the talks lor at Hall High School to ratify a con- -' tract proposal or decide what to do if there is no contract by next Monday  the day most teachers nothing, Martin .said, arc supposed to report to work..................................... . ....... Mondays dispute centered on the picketing teachers. The CTA liad organized about 30 members to picket outside the Administration Building while contract talks took place on the building's third negotiating team became angry about the lobb.v exchange and asked Gadberry to apologize, but he didn't. The C'l'A team decided the day. District administrators overreacted and made a big to-do about If we were going to storm the Bastille, we would do it wiUi more than 30 people.\" Martin said. Despite the dispute and the escalating tensions between the district and the CTA, Gadberry said Boor. Hot, humid weather forced some of the teachers indoors at 2 p.m. for water and a chance to cool off. he is optimistic that the teams can reach an agreement. Martin said the side issue.s arc distracting to the contract talks, but the teams still have time to reach a settlement. Brady Gadberry, the districts The teams arc to meet again at chief negotiator, said the teachers 9 a.iii. today. Teachers are expcct-were noisy and disturbed a job in- eedd ttoo rreessuumee ppiicckkeettiinngg.. 2B  FRIDAY, AUGUST 9. 1996 LR teachers warn district that strike may be imminent BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Wnter With Monday looming as the first day of work for Little Rock teachers, , union leaders warned the school board Thursday that the districts last salary offer in contract negotiations wont be acceptable, This puts us in a very, verj' dangerous position, Frank Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers .Association, told board members Thursday night as he reminded them of the unions longstanding 'no-contract, no-work policy. '.The last best offer that was made to us. in the opinion of my team and my executive board, will be insufficient to get ratified by the membership, Martin told the board. Union leaders are planning a membership meeting this weekend to d^ide exactly how to proceed if there is no contract. Most of the dis- tricSs more than 1,500 teachers are supposed to report to work Monday for.-Jhe new school year. Students are5cheduled to start classes a week later, on Aug. 19. want to remind you that we ar^'not advocating or looking for trouble. Martin said. We have had enOiigh crises in the 12 years that I haydbeen here to last us more than a d^ple of lifetimes. ^iven the good will that has beeji built up in this community, it wouid be an absolute disaster to be priced in a position of having to disrupt the services of the schools to the-students. jtertin asked the board to expand the boundaries in which dis- trietiadministrators are working to seftib the 1996-97 contract. He said it appeared that the districts negotiating team had little authority to bargain over salaries and other money issues. But Dr. \"Vic Anderson, the assistant superintendent overseeing day-to-day district operations in the absence of a superintendent, said administrators are acting appropriately, given district finances, 'Our work force is very impor- , tant to us, Anderson added, We ! value them greatly. We want all our j employees to be satisfied with the i best package that we can provide to i them. We also have a responsibility j to leave the district in a financially j sound condition. We can't give away i that we do not have to revenue give.' Teachers initially sought a 5 percent across-the-board raise, plus cent aLTus5-uie-uu\u0026lt;uu loiac, piuo the incremental raises that some  teachers get for each additional year of experience. Representatives of the two negotiating teams declined Thursday to give any specifics about the districts most recent offer. Skip Rutherford, a public relations company executive who serves with Anderson on the team that is supervising the districL assured the board that administrators are working to resolve the contract disputes. No one in this city wants a work stoppage, Rutherford said. But he said that administrators have to be concerned about the districts future. What we do in August of 1996 may force a school board in August 1997 or August 1998 to make some very painful cuts out of very important programs, Rutherford said.IjVrkansas Democrat THURSDAY, AUGUST 10,1995 \"      IV, .CoovTiffht  Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. LR teachers, district talk into night BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ..... .......................-- AND SANDRA COX Democral-Qazette Staff Writers Negotiating teams representing the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association continued talks late Wednesday in an effort to reach a contract Without disclosing details, Marwithout disclosing details. Mar- .solved. The teams have worked con tin said the association had offered sisteiitly to find ways around the its last proposal. settlement and avert a union vote today on a possible teacher strike. Frank Martin, CTA executive director, said he thought the two We think we can make a settlement, he said. The C'JA has set a membership meeting for 4:30 p.m. today at Hall High School. Teachers are expected to either vote on a settlement agreement or decide what to do if hurdles, he said. there is no contract by the time they  . . are supposed to report to work groups were \"relatively close to a Monday. settlement. yiie established a no con- Gadberry and Martin refused to reveal the terms of the proposals. The teams have been negotiating for much of the summer. In July, a federally appointed fact finder recommended a settlement that called for the district to pay teachers an extra $810 for their extra year of work experience. He also ei-s attend professional conferences . and training sessions sponsored by' the Arkansas Education Association. The Little Rock School District has about 2,000 teachers. About 85 percent of the teachers belong to the CTA. As of 10:40 p.m., the two groups were still meeting behind closed doors at the district Administration Building. recommended cutting the two workdays  which would mean cuts in salary ranging from .$200 to rp. .. , , MOO -- and reducing the pay for The negotiating teams began teachers who teach six periods a meeting shortly afier 1 p.m............................. Wednesday, prepared to go until midnight or later if needed to reach tract, no-work policy several years ago. But about 9:30 p.m., after the association took a dinner break lasting more than an hour, Frank Martin, CTA executive director, said the group and the district were still beriy, chief negotiator for wrestling over two issues: proposals ....................... to cap employee insurance benefits and eliminate two workdays. a settlement. p.m. Earlier in the day. Brady Gad the school district, said he hoped an agreement would be reached, but stubborn issues remained to be re- day instead of the traditional five. The school district was willing to accept the fact finders report. But the CTA balked, saying that by cutting the two workdays, they were paying for their own incremental raises. The workday.s at issue are the two day-s in November when teach-Arkansas Democrat ((jazeltcJ FRIDAY, AUGUST 11.1995 LR teachers wrap up $810, new contract BY SUSAN ROTH AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writers Little Rock teachers have a new contract, four days before most return to school for the 1995- 96 year. And in a year when the district had to close a $9 million budget gap, they managed to keep all 192 workdays, fully paid health insurance and step increases of $810 for all teachers. The increases are for stepping up a year in employment but normally stop after a number of years. The district had sought to cut the step increases and two days from the teacher contract to save more than $1 million. Administrators also tried to cap the health CTA  Continued from Page 1B Tied the settlement after only 15 minutes behind closed doors. Frank Martin, executive director of the teachers union, said he believed that the teachers quickly approved the pact because they  knew we would make no great progress this year. The teachers initially asked for a 5 percent raise besides the $810 step increment across the board. The school district, meanwhile, proposed no raise.s or increments for the teachers. Instead, the district would have cut tlieir pay by reducing the school year by two days to 190. A federally appointed fact-finder recommended last month that the district pay all teachers the $810 step increase but cut the two work- ' insurance plan: collectively teachers would have had to pay an extra $200,000 for insurance. Union officials saw the settlement as a clear victory. Administrators and school board members viewed it as a mixed bag  some gains but losses on some of big-ticket items. The negotiating teams, which started talks in February, tentatively agreed to the settlement just before midni^t Wednesday, \"rhe new contract is retroactive to July 1. We had a real show of support from the membership, said Betty Mitchell, president of the Classroom Teachers Association, after the teachers voted 'Thursday afternoon. 'The message was clear Dont give an inch. As in any negotiations, both sides got some of what they wanted and left the bargaining table wishing they had gotten a few more things, Brady Gadberry, the districts chief negotiator, told school board members Thursday evening as he asked them to approve the agreement By a 54) vote, the board gave it the nod with little discussion. At the teachers meeting in Hall High School auditoriiun, about 350 members of the 1,47^ member CTA unanimously rati- See CTA, Page 5B days. The district liked the recommendation, but the CTA objected. Union officials were particularly pleased that teachers at the top of the salary schedule would also receive the ^10. Top-level teachers earned $41,061 last year. Tliey received no increment or pay raise last year. The teachers did agree to two cuts proposed by the district. Junior and senior high teachers who teach six classes every day instead of the standard five will receive an extra 10 percent stipend, down from 20 percent. Teachers who lose preparation time because they must travel between schools will receive a maximum of $2,000. They used to receive a stipend amounting to 20 percent of their salaries. Those two items wilt save the district $150,000, officials said. Partly as a result of the settle- ment, the district will draw on a $20 million state desegregation loan to cover its expenses this year. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who monitors the districts compliance with its desegregation plan, has objected in the past to using the nonrecurring loan ftinds to finance recurring expenses. IArk,ansas Democrat (gazelle J _ MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1996 LR teachers ro leaders: Keep talking .^ay raises, insurance .\u0026lt;ey sticking points BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazerte tducation Wrner Members of the Little Rock Tlassroom Teachers Association .iirected their representatives Sunday to continue negotiating vith school district officials over a 1996-97 teacher contract and re-oort back to the membership Thursday. About 250 teachers marked heir last day of summer vacation Sunday afternoon by attending the closed Classroom Teachers Association meeting in the Hall High School media center. Most of the districts teachers will return to work today to prepare for the See TEACHERS, Page 3B Teachers I 1 A 4 1^ Forest Heights Junior High School teachers Patricia Wilkerson (right center) and Meny Zakrzewski (left center) discuss contract  Continued from Page 1B start of school Aug. 19. We wanted to give teachers the status of negotiations,\" said Frank Martin, Classroom Teachers Association executive director. They directed us to go back to the table to get the best settlement we can get.\" The teachers also instructed union leaders to establish a crisis committee, which is routinely formed when tensions in the contract negotiations escalate. The committee supports the union negotiating team in ways ranging from painting signs for informational picket lines to communicating with the membership and the public. Negotiating teams for the Classroom Teachers Association and Little Rock School District met almost everj day last week, but broke for the weekend despite union objections. The teams are scheduled to resume talks at 4 p.m. today. We'd like to get this wrapped up by Wednesday, Martin said, adding that the union membership will meet again at 4:30 p.m. Thursday at Hall for another update. Thursday is also the day inter- Robert.s starts work, adding a new player to the negotiations process. The Classroom Teachers Association has a standing no-contract. no-work policy, which is generally interpreted to mean teachers won't work when schools open for students if the employees do not have a contract. Little Rock teachers have gone on strike only once, in 1987, but have teetered on the brink in other years. 5 V I TS, 'tSCY im Superintendent Dr. Don ri ArXansas Democral-Gazene/BENJAMIN KRA demands Sunday pnor to a meeting at Hall High School. Abe 250 teachers from the Little Hock School District pardcipated. assume at least a share of the cost of the premiums for individual insurance coverage, a cost the district has heretofore paid entirely. Teachers said Sunday that they feared any raises they get will be offset by the cost of the insurance. Another issue deals with providing stipends for senior teachers. Last year, because no across-the- board raises were paid and the senior teachers were ineligible for an incremental raise, the Martin said the union team is employees got an $810 stipend, prepared to negotiate until the The district team has proposed start of school next Monday to get paying that same stipend, but a settlement. over two years' time, resulting in The 1995-96 teacher contract the teachers getting only about expired June 30. $400 each year. Union and school district offi- Sundays union meeting was cials have declined to reveal de- primarily informational. Howev-tails of their contract talks. But, teachers who attended the meeting Sunday indicated that the district is offering an across-the-board 2 percent raise plus the incremental increases many teachers traditionally get for their additional year of experience. The increment is between 2 and 3 percent, but as many as 400 of the districts most experienced teachers er, teachers expressed frustration over the lack of a contract and the possibility they will not get satisfactory raises. Weve had more superintendents in the last five years than we have had raises, quipped one teacher as she left the meeting. Once the two teams reach a tentative settlement, the agree-ment must be ratified by both the have reached the top of the pay Classroom Teachers Association scale and are ineligible for the incremental increases. One of the sticking points in the negotiations is insurance. membership and the Little Rock School board. The district has more than 1,500 teachers, the majority of teachers said Sunday. The district whom are Classroom Teachers team is proposing that teachers Association members. Arkaniias Democrat FRIDAY. AUGUST 16, 1996  3B LR school year wont be tardy: Teacher contract talks settled BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Wnter The Little Rock School District and its teachers averted a possible strike next week by agreeing Thursday to a contract that gives teachers a 2.46 percent across-the-board raise plus an $830 increase for each additional year of experience. Bargaining teams representing the district and the Classroom Teachers Association negotiated all night Wednesday. They arrived at a tentative agreement just minutes before an association membership meeting at 4:30 p.m. Thursday at Hall High. Several hundred members quickly ratified the agreement as did Little Rock School Board members a few minutes later. Some teachers will get salary increases of almost $2,000 under the new contract \"This will get the school year off to an excellent start Betty Mitchell, teacher association president said. \"This is the first time in three years that teachers have gotten a raise.' she added, although most teachers did get step increases for their years of experience during that time. All in all. its a very good package. Brady Gadberry, the districts director of labor relations, told the school board Thursday. Negotiations on the contract began last spring but intensified last week as the beginning of school year drew closer. The teacher association has a standing \"no-con- tract, no-work policy that threatened to keep schools closed Monday. The bargaining teams began negotiating Wednesday at 9:30 a.m. ____ and kept at it until 7:30 a.m. Thurs- payment by the district day, when they declared an impasse. After lunch, administrators asked to meet again. The teams ________ reached a one-year, tentative each employee for the next two agreement about 4:15 p.m. years. If the premium is less than The major points in the talks centered on salary increases and insurance. In the past, the district and the state have paid each employees insurance premium for individual coverage  $155 per person this past year. The districts negotiating team initially wanted the employees to assume part of the insurance costs, but the teacher association insisted on 100 percent As a result of Thursdays agreement, the district will apply S164 a month to insurance coverage for the monthly allowance, the employee can apply the excess to coverage for a spouse or dependents. If any employee has insurance from a source other than the district and does not want to participate in any of the school insurance programs, he will get a $550 stipend. Also as part of the agreement the district and the teachers agreed to drop the districts longterm disability insurance coverage. That will save $533,000. which will be returned to the teacher salary fund. The agreement gives all teachers the 2.46 percent general raise. The beginning salary for a teacher-, with a bachelors degree will ba\u0026gt; S20.760 this year. The districts top.' salary will be $42,870 for teachers with a masters degree plus 36 ad-\nditional college hours and 21' - years of experience. Most teachers also will get $830\nfor each additional year of experi-' ence. Teachers at the top of the salaiy schedule and ineligible for that experience increment will get an $810 stipend! -Also, a teacher may get $100 a semester for perfect attendance,-. Teachers with perfect attendance, all vear are eligible for a total of $300.Arkansas Den: ?crat (gazette  TUESDAY, AUGUST 25,1998  ( LR teachers, district narrow differences over pay raises Union, schools may reach tentative accord today, director says BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Differences over salary increases for teachers kept representatives of the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association at the bargaining table late Monday. Teams negotiating a 1998-99 teacher contract traded proposals for more than nine hours as they worked into the night to reach a tentative agreement before a union membership meeting at 4:30 p.m. today at the Hall High School auditorium. The teams stood 1.5 percentage points apart on a salary agreement, representatives from the teams confirmed shortly before 11 p.m. Neither side would reveal details about the salary offers. Teachers had asked for a 7 per-  cent raise plus the traditional increment of 2.7 percent to 3 percent for their extra year of teaching experience. District officials have expressed a willingness to raise employee salaries but said they cant pay the increases until a federal court rules on the amount of money that the state must reimburse the district for past teacher retirement and health insurance. Classroom Martin, Frank Teachers Association executive director, said the teachers team will present the membership today with a tentative agreement or the districts final offer. The Classroom Teachers Association membership has rarely approved a district offer that lacks the Classroom Teachers Association negotiating teams stamp of approval. If it has no tentative agreement to present today, the teachers team will likely have to recommend alternatives to the membership. But no decisions about alternatives had come Monday. There has been no threat or discussion of a teacher strike. The teams have reached tentative agreements on parts of the contract. Brady Gadberry, the chief negotiator for the district, said the teams had agreed to insurance and stipend provisions. He said he wont describe the agreements until all negotiations are complete. Martin said the teams also had reached a consensus on contract language that would let a teacher appeal to a building or district committee if he thought a principal had failed to enforce student discipline. The Little Rock district the largest in the state, has about 1,800 teachers\nabout 85 percent belong to the association. Besides Martin, the teachers negotiating team includes Classroom Teachers Association President Grainger Led- I better and district teachers. Gadberrys team included the districts financial managers, principals and administrative representatives. 'The Little Rock School Board and the Classroom Teachers Association members must ratify any tentative agreement between the district and the Classroom Teachers Association.' Atluuisas Ueniocrat T^XlifrazclU' |  WEDNESDAY, AUGUS f 26. 1998 Teachers unhappy with raises send negotiators back to table UY CYN IJ llA HOWELL ARJGXNSAS nE.M(X KAI-GAZErii: Dissatisfied with a proposed 4.5 percent raise contingent on a federal court order, member.$ of the Little Ilock Classroom Teachers administrators in the district got raises of 10 percent or more earlier this Slimmer. 'rherc i.s no money in IkhkI and too many *ifs tied to (Ik* promises. teacher IJcmy Ne.sby said after the meeting. Nesby is a contiaclI l\u0026lt; alIlcIs' wiuthT school d*i.'s..t.r.i.c. t g*ocl*ia\u0026gt;tibnegr otefa tmhe. teachers union ne-icpresenlalives. Despite the lack of a contract agreement in what is teachers h,nue KOCK Association told their negotiating team Tuesday to resume 1998-99 The teachers reviewed the sala^ issue during a l'A-hour ......... vn,uu..,enuu5iaiK \"'^filing at Hall High School. They of any kind has been heanl of a asked their negotiating team to re-  port back to them within HI days. About 400 teachers attended district Uie private late-altemoon meeting. Afterward, several teachers grumbled about having to wait for deferred raises fon the second straiglit year when seven top-level third week of work, no serious talk job action, such as a strike. Representatives of the school and the association worked for almost 11 hours Monday to reach a tentative contract agreement before the teachers upion membership meeting. The Teachers \"Continued from Page 1B teams broke up shortly after midnight with tentative agreements on everything except salary and teacher workload. The teams differed by 1.5 percentage points on a salary increase. At the membership meeting, the teachers union team presented teachers with tlie dislricts and the associations respective final salary offers. The district's offer included: .  A total increase of 7.5 percent, consisting of a 4.5 percent across-the- board raise coupled with an increment of 2.7 percent to 3 percent traditionally paid teachers for their additional year of experience. The 4.5 percent increase, however, would be contingent on finalization of a federal court decision expected to reimburse the district for millions of dollars for teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the slate was supposed to pay.  A $1,180 stipend to the districts most experienced teachers who are no longer eligible for the cx- See TEACHERS, Page 3B I? ft if?: 1 V o I Little Rock sclioolleacliers Eleanor Colotnan (left) and Gait Delozier look over contract proposals before a teachers meeting Tuesday to discuss negotiations between the Afknusns Dcmocrnl-G.izclte.CHniS JOHNSON Classroom Teachers Association and the school district. The teachers voted to send their representatives back to the bargaining table. perience increment. would begin Oct. 1. Payment  An increase in the monthly insurance contribution from $164 to $178. beginning Sept. 15. That  would pay the premiums for two of the least expensive health plans available to individual employees.  An increase in the supplemental pay distributed to coaches and other teachers who take on extra duties, such as supervising tracurricular activities. ex- The amount of the increase, beginning this year, would mirror the percentage increase in the base salary. The teachers union salaiy proposal differs only in that it calls for pajinent of the 4.5 percent across-the-board raise plus an additional 1.5 percent if the reini- ' bursement of state fund.s for 1996- 1 98 exceeds $13.4 million. I All totaled, the teachers union . is seeking 6 percent plus the tra- ! ditional increment, as compared to the districts 4.5 percent plus the increment. In addition to tho salary proposals for this year, teachers employed by the district in 1997-98 will eventually get a retroactive 3 percent raise negotiated last school year but deferred until the district won its court case against the stale. As a result, many teachers could eventually see their nav increase by 10.5 percent this year. A beginning teacher would make $22,625 this year, $2,510 more than a beginning teacher last year, under the districts proposal and with the deferred 3 percent from last year. A teacher with 19 years of experience and a masters degree plus 30 hours would make $4,092 more than last year. Frank Marlin, executive director of the teacliers association, said Tuesday that the teachers want a better salary offer and theyre mad because they've had to wait for increases. But, he said, the two negotiating teams agree on the increase in the insurance benefit, the supplemental pay increase and the experience increment. T'he teams also have tentatively agreed on new contract language that makes teachers and principals equally responsible for enforcing student discipline policies. A discipline supcrvisoiy committee will be established with the authority to review disci-plinaiy actions taken by princi-pahs that are inconsistent with a school's discipline plan and district policy. We think weve put an exceptionally good offer on tlie table already, Brady Gadbeny. the districts chief negotiator, said after the association meeting, rm not sure I understand how wo can put anything else on the table, but 1 don't want to foreclose on the possibility of a scUlcincnt agreement. Gadbeny said this years offer of 7.5 percent is belter than last year's package of 725 percent, including the deferred 3 percent, that teachers adopted. Iliis year's benefits offer includes an 8.6 percent increase in the district's contribution to employee Insurance preiniunis, he said. There is no schedule for ob-taining a decision on (he reimbursement of state funds to Uie^ Little Rock district. A federal peals court ruled in July that the-district was entitled to the money. The appeals court directed U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to decide exactly how much money is owed to tlic district. The stale has proposed a formula by which Little Rock would  get about $15 million. At the same time, the stale has asked the 8tb- U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals- to recon.sider its order. :  Arkansas Democrat '^(iS^azcll^  WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2/1^^ Teachers to get word on LR contract talks The Little Rock Classroom teachers Association has scheduled a membership meeting for L30 p.m. Thursday at the Hall High School auditorium to consider the outcome of negotiations over a 1998-99 teachers' contract. Contract negotiations scheduled for Tuesday afternoon between Little Rock School District administrators and the teachers' association were postponed until this afteimoon because a negotiator was ill. Last week, the two bargaining teams tentatively agreed to virtually all provisions of a contract except salarv\nThe teams were 1.5 percentage points apart in talks over salan- increases. Teachers sought a 6 per- cent increase plus the traditional 3 percent given for an additional year of experience. The district offered 4.5 percent plus the experience increment. Both proposals hinged on the district receiving reimbursement 01 millions of dollars in state funds for 1996-98 shortfalls in the states contribution toward teacher re- tiiement and health insurance re- costs. The association has since changed its position and is asking for a 2 percent across-the-board salary- increase by Oct. 1 and a 4 percent increase later, when the district gets the state funding.I Arkansas Democrat T^djirtzclle ]  THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1993 District declares impasse Schools seek mediator to solve salary dispute BY CYNTHIA HOWELL AHKANSAS MCMlMKARiAZI: I! T. Representatives of the Little Rock School District declared an impasse Thursday in salaiy negotiations with the Classroom Teach- Impasse  Continued from Page 1B teacher retirement and health insurance costs for 1996-98. The 0.75 percent brings the possible raise to 5.25 percent. The district asked for the 107 percent reimbursement in federal court last month.  An increase in health insurance contributions, from $164 to $178 a month, and in the stipend paid teachers for extra duty. Coupled with the experience increment and contingent on the court order, the district is offering a total increase of 7.5 percent to 8.25 percent. Gadberiy said that until the impasse is resolved, the district will operate under the terms of last years contract and will proceed , ... , ., ,, with plans to pay teachers the tra- ers Association and said they ditional 2 7 percent to 3 percent in- ,.,i,i ....11 p ii r.  r,...i experience. Teachers at mediator. the top of the salary schedule who Distiict teachers will consider are ineligible for that increment the latest development in tlie 1998- will get a stipend of $980, just as 99 teacher contract tatks at an as- they did last year. sociation membership meeting set The district also will continue for 4:30 p.m. today at Hall High last years payment of $164 a month would call for help from a federal School. Frank Martin, executive director of the association, said district olTicials declared an impasse after the association asked for a 1.5 percent across the-board raise by Oct. 1, plus a 4..5 percent raise when the state reimburses the district for shortfalls in state funding. Coupled with the traditional increase for experience, the association is seeking a total pay increase of about 9 percent. Brady Gadberiy, the districts chief negotiator, said he was disappointed by the impasse. But tlie call for a mediator became necessary when the association team retreated from its earlier salary position to a more entrenched position, he said. Gadberiy said the distr ict cannot give teachers an across-the- board raise until the state reimburses it for 199G-98 teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The district is awaiting a federal court order on how the state debt to the district must be calculated. Also contingent on the court order is a 3 percent salaiy increase for teachers defeired from last year. The teniis of the districts last salaiy oiler included:  The traditional 2.7 percent to 3 percent increase for a teachers additional year of experience.  A $1,130 stipend to teachers at the top of the salaiy schedule who are ineligible for the experience increment.  A 4.5 percent across-the-board raise once the district gets the state funding.  An additional 0.75 percent raise if the district is awarded state funding equal to 107 percent of its See IMPASSE,Page 3B tentatively agreed on virtually every aspect of the contract except salary and a question of whether teachers must be paid extra to teach more than five class periods a day. The teams were 1.5 percentage points apart, with teachers seeking 6 percent and the district offering 4.5 percent. Both proposals hinged on receipt of the court-ordered state funding. The teachers team presented the district's offer to the association membership meeting Aug. 25. About 400 of the district's 1,800 | teachers attended and directed their team to resume negotiations. The existing teacher contract calls for a mediator if the two teams reach an impasse in contract talks. Martin and Gadbeny will write to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Seivice for a list of potential mediators. Once a mediator is agreed on. that person will attempt to help the teams settle their disputes. If that fails, the contract provides for a federal fact finder, who would conduct a hearing on the disputed issues and within 20 days prepare a insurance premiums. Last week, the negotiating teams issues. I FRIDAY. SEPTEMBER 4, 1998 OB-J I I LR teachers association president resigns BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS UEMOIKAI-UAZE I I E Grainger Ledbetter, a longtime teacher union leader, is resigning as president of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association to work for the Labor Education Program at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock He announced his resignation, effective today, in a letter to teachers and repeated it at an association membership meeting Thursday during which teachers received a status report on efforts to negotiate a 1998-99 contract witli the Little Rock School District. Willie Givens, association vice president and head custodian at Central High School, will assume the presidents duties as prescribed in the associations constitution. Givens has been employed by the Little Rock School District for more than 23 years and has been active in the teachers association and Arkansas Education Association since 1983. It unclear Thursday was whether Givens would serve the full year remaining in Ledbetters two-year term. He said he expects to fulfill the term, but there was some talk among teachers about possibly calling a special election to select a teacher. That decision will be up to the associations executive board and its representative council. The Classroom Teachers Association has about 1,800 members, said Frank Martin, its executive director. As many as 800 are educational support personnel, including custodians, aides, bus drivers and security guards. Ledbetter, 41, a Little Rock School District employee since 1^1, will be a labor education specialist at UALR. The 25-year-old labor program is a division of the Institute for Economic Advancement and provides research, educational services and training programs for public and private-sector labor organizations and workers. Training sessions cover topics such as collective bargaining, stewardship, arbitration, labor and employment law and workplace safety. Ledbetter said his resignation was in no way the result of anger or frustration with the organization or the prolonged teacher contract negotiations this summer with school district officials. District officials declared an impasse in those contract talks earlier this week. A fed- oral mediator will be called in to assist the teams in reaching a settlement Im not resigning out of pique and Im not upset Ledbetter said. Its just tliat this is an opportunity that will allow me to spend more time with my family, continue union work, and I get to live in Little Rock. I had hoped to have a (teacher] contract signed, sealed and delivered before I took the new position, but that didnt tuni out to be possible. Ledbetter and his wife, Slieny CuiTy, have three young children and are part of a prominent Little Rock family. Uis father. Cal Ledbetter, a fonner state legislator, is a professor emeritus of political science at UALR. His motlier, Brownie Ledbetter, is a longtime community activist with the Arkansas Fairness Council, a tax reform organization. A junior high teacher, Ledbetter first seived as teacher association president in 1987-91. During his tenure, the teachers and bus drivers went on strike against tlie district. He then served two terms as president of the 17,006-member Arkansas Education Association before returning to the teachers association presidency last year. 1' Lcdbetter attended his last membership meeting Thureday afternoon at Hall Higli. He urged tlie approximately 250 teachers pre-, sent to give tlie mediation a chance i 1 to work. And he told them hebe\nlieved teachers will wind up witli' a.',  better financial settlement thaij the ' 7.5 percent- 8.25 percent raise\ntlie  district is offering. More than half.\nof the raise is contingent upon .the'' state paying the district milliops of\ndollars for 1996-98 shortfalls in I 11 teacher retirement and health in--\nsurancepayments.  . Teachers are seeking 9 percent . J increases for tlie year, including an  incremental raise for an additional : year of teaching experience. , i Ledbetter warned against a \" premature strike, saying that the- two negotiating teams are relatively close to an agreement and liave li long agreed to the use of media-  tion and fact finding should talks stall. t He criticized Superintendent': Les Camine for sending teachei's a J, letter earlier Thursday outlining:\nsome of the issues in the negotia- tions. He called tlie letter a clumsy attempt to influence teachers and said it could derail tlie negotiating . process. I' WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16.1998  Arkansas Democrat (Bazcttc LR teachers, district select Tulsa mediator BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Negotiators for the Little Rock School District and the Classroom Teachers Association have tentatively selected a Tulsa-based mediator to assist them in completing negotiations on the 1998-99 teacher contract Frank Martin, executive director of the Classroom Teachers Association, and Brady Gadberry, special as\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_353","title":"Cost per pupil","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":["1991/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Cost per pupil"],"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/353"],"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\nPer Pupil Expenditure by School 1992-1993 Actual School Number School Name Actual 91-92 Expenditure Budget 92-93 Actual 92-93 Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Expenditure Octi 1992 Octi 1992 92-93 Actual 51 47 46 24 33 48 50 31 52 18 20 38 29 37 22 42 30 45 28 32 40 17 44 19 23 25 36 39 34 26 49 41 Wakefield Terry Mablevale Forest Park Meadowcliff Fullbrig ht Otter Creek Cloverdale Watson Brady McDermott Pulaski Heights Western Hills Geyer Springs Baseline Washington Jefferson Woodruff Chicot Dodd Romine Bale Wilson Badgett Fair Park Franklin Rockefeller Rightsell Mitchell Garland Ish Stephens $1,080,201.67 $1,201,389.07 $1,206,535.14 $981,517.03 $1,076,269.43 $1,330,115.51 $851,542.87 $934,944.01 $1,131,452.56 $1,041,098.68 $1,317,443.02 $839,547.56 $877,344.34 $707,928.80 $885,849.79 $2,162,216.22 $1,304,570.79 $649,511.89 $1,486,051.76 $849,570.99 $1,103,629.12 $1,013,230.42 $1,111,388.63 $697,035.45 $883,765.97 $1,575,718.57 $1,637,994.32 $1,162,902.06 $1,208,845.13 $1,289,211.46 $1,011,279.63 $1,163,545.97 $1,019,654.16 $1,160,444.45 $1,147,518.12 $869,050.69 $1,002,625.92 $1,324,804.26 $802,665.92 $923,339.89 $1,112,392.78 $990,898.05 $1,222,557.18 $903,190.50 $821,912.41 $719,345.29 $808,448.36 $2,223,513.84 $1,274,108.81 $639,833.62 $1,455,057.31 $809,999.85 $1,231,028.03 $1,029,374.87 $1,131,098.45 $641,908.51 $872,728.18 $1,801,195.82 $1,707,964.33 $1,284,635.19 $1,280,639.42 $1,317,830.72 $1,160,352.63 $1,274,741.49 $1,041,513.36 $1,175,147.95 $1,127,149.24 $1,009,041.26 $1,051,067.36 $1,317,057.53 $879,354.11 $919,636.35 $1,136,159.29 $1,009,510.96 $1,291,407.88 $969,181.35 $870,983.22 $755,680.79 $915,687.59 $2,242,772.97 $1,340,589.71 $669,017.57 $1,532,460.98 $872,462.96 $1,147,564.73 $1,040,097.06 $1,196,557.69 $724,769.38 $873,357.37 $1,733,066.85 $1,758,362.40 $1,238,081.45 $1,319,496.71 $1,384,930.53 $1,021,284.19 $1,255,977.41 500 541 500 444 440 530 353 366 451 398 509 379 335 282 339 822 483 234 535 304 361 321 355 202 243 411 361 249 264 256 187 209 69 44 56 45 66 42 41 80 74 69 54 52 62 63 77 59 42 63 65 60 77 77 75 76 79 86 69 96 88 91 97 97 $2,083.03 $2,172.18 $2,254.30 $2,272.62 $2,388.79 $2,485.01 $2,491.09 $2,512.67 $2,519.20 $2,536.46 $2,537.15 $2,557.21 $2,599.95 $2,679.72 $2,701.14 $2,728.43 $2,775.55 $2,859.05 $2,864.41 $2,869.94 $3,178.85 $3,240.18 $3,370.59 $3,587.97 $3,594.06 $4,216.71 $4,870.81 $4,972.21 $4,998.09 $5,409.88 $5,461.41 $6,009.46 Note: FTE is from the 1993-1994 budget and does not reflect changes due to enrollment losses Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitonng Based Upon Information Supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedPer Pupil Expenditure by School 1993-1994 Budget School Number School Name Actual 91-92 Expenditure Budget 92-93 Actual 92-93 Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget 93-94 Expenditure Oct 1 1992 Oct 1 1992 92-93 Actual FTE Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Oct 1 1993 Oct 1 1993 93-94 Budgeted 47 24 46 33 51 20 38 50 48 29 30 52 37 18 31 45 35 22 32 28 42 44 23 17 19 40 25 36 34 39 26 41 49 Terry Forest Park Uablevale Meadowcliff Wakefield McDermott Pulaski Heights Otter Creek Fullbright Western Hills Jefferson Watson Geyer Springs Brady Cloverdale Woodruff M.L. King Baseline Dodd Chicot Washington Wilson Fair Park Bale Badgett Romine Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell Garland Stephens Ish $1,201,389.07 $981,517.03 $1,206,535.14 $1,076,269.43 $1,080,201.67 $1,317,443.02 $839,547.56 $851,542.87 $1,330,115.51 $877,344.34 $1,304,570.79 $1,131,452.56 $707,928.80 $1,041,098.68 $934,944.01 $649,511.89 $1,160,444.45 $869,050.69 $1,147,518.12 $1,002,625 92 $1,019,654.16 $1,222,557.18 $903,190.50 $802,665.92 $1,324,804.26 $821,912.41 $1,274,108.81 $1,112,392.78 $719,345.29 $990,898.05 $923,339.89 $639,833.62 $885,849.79 $849,570 99 $1,486,051.76 $2,162,216.22 $1,111,388.63 $883,765.97 $1,013,230.42 $697,035.45 $1,103,629.12 $1,575,718.57 $1,637,994.32 $1,208,845.13 $1,162,902.06 $1,289,211.46 $1,163,545.97 $1,011,279.63 $808,448.36 $809,999.85 $1,455,057.31 $2,223,513 84 $1,131,098.45 $872,728.18 $1,029,374 87 $641,908.51 $1,231,028.03 $1,801,195.82 $1,707,964.33 $1,280,639.42 $1,284,635.19 $1,317,830.72 $1,274,741.49 $1,160,352.63 $1,175,147.95 $1,009,041.26 $1,127,149.24 $1,051,067.36 $1,041,513.36 $1,291,407.88 $969,181.35 $879,354.11 $1,317,057.53 $870,983.22 $1,340,589.71 $1,136,159.29 $755,680.79 $1,009,510.96 $919,636.35 $669,017.57 $25,501.31 $915,687.59 $872,462.96 $1,532,460.98 $1,196,557.69 $873,357.37 $1,040,097.06 $724,769.38 $1,147,564.73 $1,733,066.85 $1,758,362.40 $1,319,496.71 $1,238,081.45 $1,384,930.53 $1,255,977.41 $1,021,284.19 541 444 500 440 500 509 379 353 530 335 483 451 282 398 366 234 339 304 535 822 355 243 321 202 361 411 361 264 249 256 209 187 Note: FTE is from the 1993-1994 budget and does not reflect changes due to enrollment losses 44 45 56 66 69 54 52 41 42 62 42 74 63 69 80 63 77 60 65 59 75 79 77 76 77 86 69 88 96 91 97 97 $2,172.18 $1,201,978.91 $2,272.62 $1,034,064.02 $2,254.30 $1,149,041.07 $2,388.79 $1,044,336.95 $2,083.03 $1,101,790.19 $2,537.15 $1,314,256.17 $2,557.21 $1,049,040.22 $2,491,09 $911,092.87 $2,485.01 $1,392,965.59 $2,599.95 $894,632.77 $2,775.55 $1,360,887.52 $2,519.20 $1,195,073.02 $2,679.72 $784,275.30 $2,536.46 $1,090,136.40 $2,512.67 $1,091,282.28 $2,859.05 $687,642.24 0 $1,658,864.16 $2,701.14 $1,031,401.85 $2,869.94 $880,215.87 $2,864.41 $1,617,845 51 $2,728.43 $2,369,300.33 $3,370.59 $1,200,696.51 $3,594.06 $918,162.06 $3,240.18 $1,158,843.33 $3,587.97 $737,551.85 $3,178.85 $1,329,911.36 $4,216.71 $1,636,195.14 $4,870.81 $1,877,365.19 $4,998 09 $1,370,625.10 $4,972.21 $1,278,754.99 $5,409.88 $1,444,866.58 $6,009.46 $1,318,562.68 $5,461.41 $70,411.25 45 37 46 33 41 42 40 30 47 34 45 43 34 43 42 27 4 41 35 64 90 40 32 43 28 45 62 72 50 44 50 46 561 458 488 434 447 509 398 341 520 332 504 442 288 397 386 236 553 343 292 509 721 354 263 303 189 334 345 340 230 189 205 145 43 44 64 71 75 51 48 41 45 65 42 80 72 66 79 62 65 77 65 70 63 74 76 74 70 74 87 71 93 97 88 97 $2,142.56 $2,257.78 $2,354.59 $2,406.31 $2,464.86 $2,582.04 $2,635.78 $2,671.83 $2,678.78 $2,694.68 $2,700.17 $2,703.79 $2,723.18 $2,745.94 $2,827.16 $2,913.74 $2,999.75 $3,007.00 $3,014.44 $3,178.48 $3,286.13 $3,391.80 $3,491.11 $3,824.57 $3,902.39 $3,981.77 $4,742.59 $5,521.66 $5,959.24 $6,765.90 $7,048.13 $9,093.54 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Based Upon Information Supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedLRSD Junior High Budgets, Enrollments and Per Pupil Expenditure Dunbar Jr High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure Actual Expenditures 1991-1992 2,177,871.82 691 3,151.77 Actual Expenditures 1992-1993 Actual Expenditures 1993-1994 2,233,736.11 705 3,168.42 2,375,356.69 701 3,388.53 Budget 1994-1995 Dated 8/08/94 2,215,349.31 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cloverdale Jr High Enrollment | ~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,012,575.56 745 2,701.44 2,162,862.55 775 2,790.79 2,197,345.54 701 3,134.59 2,072,735.61 Forest Hts. Jr. High Enrollment | ~~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,320,122.47 765 3,032.84 2,365,925.57 787 3,006.26 2,424,252.56 788 3,076.46 2,494,614.11 Henderson Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,464,130.70 859 2,868.60 2,836,387.32 914 3,103.27 3,049,192.92 915 3,332.45 2,961,683.42 Mablevale Jr. High Enrollment | ~ Per pupil Expenditure 1,918,244.33 665 2,884.58 2,047,442.02 667 3,069.63 2,097,826.14 654 3,207.69 2,053,420.97 Pulaski Hts. Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,337,373.84 761 3,071.45 2,484,029.31 774 3,209.34 2,493,182.82 790 3,155.93 2,391,960.24 Southwest Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,124,034.56 704 3,017.09 2,299,448.03 695 3,308.56 2,150,663.98 679 3,167.40 2,068,377.82 Mann Magnet Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 3,055,026.00 872 3,503.47 2,896,401.00 849 3,411.54 3,157,632.00 851 3,710.50 3,195,685.00 Totals Avg. Per Pupil Expenditure 18,409,379.28 6062 3,036.85 19,326,231.91 6166 3,134.32 19,945,452.65 6079 3,281.04 19,453,826.48 I I I I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Enrollment based upon Oct. 1, 1992 \u0026amp; 1993 iz i - r Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDPupil/Staff Ratios Highest to Lowest Per Pupil Certified Pupil/Staff Budget Enrollment Cost Staff Ratio Elementary Schools Terry Pulaski Hts Jefferson McDermott Forest Park West Hills Wakefield Meadowcliff Geyer Springs Fulbright Cloverd Elem Wilson Brady Mablevale Elem Otter Creek Woodruff Watson Baseline Dodd ML King Bale Romine Chicot Fair Park Washington Badgett Garland Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,366,303 1,005,828 1,440,462 1,324,462 1,132,508 927,759 1,180,715 1,146,039 824,349 1,546,660 1,108,921 1,161,523 1,149,456 1,346,068 940,017 736,630 1,204,878 974,549 918,043 1,776,722 1,083,388 1,322,365 1,619,962 925,563 2,262,546 705,781 1,188,474 1,840,649 1,971,799 1,224,438 1,038,383 537 422 506 484 434 320 426 402 278 509 402 366 374 429 332 202 423 284 284 488 307 277 430 242 602 185 237 377 314 243 205 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,544 2,383 2,847 2,736 2,609 2,899 2,772 2,851 2,965 3,039 2,759 3,174 3,073 3,138 2,831 3,647 2,848 3,432 3,233 3,641 3,529 4,774 3,767 3,825 3,758 3,815 5,015 4,882 6,280 5,039 5,065 31 26 32 31 28 21 28 27 19 35 28 26 27 31 24 15 32 22 22 39 26 24 39 22 55 17 22 36 ,34 27 24 17.32 16.23 15.81 15.61 15.50 15.24 15.21 14.89 14.63 14.54 14.36 14.08 13.85 13.84 13.83 13.47 13.22 12.91 12.91 12.51 11.81 11.54 11.03 11.00 10.95 10.88 10.77 10.47 9.24 9.00 8.54 Elementary Totals 38,395,240 11321 $ 3,392 870 13.01 Junior High Schools Dunbar Forest Hts Southwest Pul Hts Henderson Clov Jr Mablevale $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,291,519 2,467,869 2,137,196 2,327,556 3,060,661 1,960,786 2,166,389 732 759 612 781 792 609 491 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,130 3,251 3,492 2,980 3,864 3,220 4,412 52 57 49 63 66 52 52 14.08 13.32 12.49 12.40 12.00 11.71 9.44 Totals $16,411,976 4776 $ 3,436 391 12.21 High Schools Central Hall Fair McClelland $ $ $ $ 5,006,526 3,238,721 3,046,831 3,372,519 1546 889 849 878 $ $ $ $ 3,238 3,643 3,589 3,841 101 71 70 79 15.31 12.52 12.13 11.11 Totals $14,664,597 4162 $ 3,523 321 12.97 Secondary Totals $31,076,573 8938 $ 3,477 712 12.55 Grand Total $69,471,813 20259 $ 3,429 1582 12.81 Prepared by Bob Morgan Unaudited Black Area School Enrollment LRSD Schools u (Q m Maiority Black Area Schoofs Wakefield Clo'rerdale Watson Wilson Badgett Faw Park Chicot M^dowctiff Baseline GeyerSpnngs Bale Mabelvale Woodruff Western Hills Dodd Brady SilsTotai 368 384 353 304 166 211 345 305 247 231 243 318 170 208 190 250 4293 Maiorrty White Ares Schoofs Forest Park Fuibngtit Jefferson McOermott Ferry Otter Creek P'jJeski Heights Sub*Tolal Total For Area Schools 205 255 210 259 239 139 189 1496 5789 4) 5 o n o u CO u (9 (aQ. o o \u0026lt;0O o \u0026amp; O Incentive Schools Frenklin'' Garland'' Mitchell'' RightselF' Rockefeller'' Sub-Total Interdistrict Schoofs Os Romine- Washington- 400 235 250 210 259 1354 A Sub-Total Magnet Schoofs Booker' Carver* Gibbs Williams 289 213 422 924 Sub-Total Special Schools Bementary Sub-Total 316 326 165 264 1071 17 9155 Magnet ** Magnet Program *Incenttve - inlerdistnct 51 64 84 72 44 53 99 93 75 71 85 139 81 106 97 124 1338 222 254 285 213 279 193 207 1653 2991 24 2 7 6 131 170 230 80 210 520 267 290 132 232 921 29 4631 10 5 7 8 0 6 3 2 5 8 19 3 3 1 7 20 112 8 9 6 15 18 7 10 73 185 7 18 0 3 16 44 12 9 24 45 21 13 10 12 56 0 330 429 453 444 384 210 270 452 400 327 310 347 460 254 315 294 394 5743 435 518 501 487 536 339 406 3222 8965 431 255 257 219 406 1568 531 302 656 1489 604 629 307 508 2048 46 14116 85.78% 84 77% 7950% 79.17% 7905% 78.15% 76.33% 76.25% 7554% 74 52% 70.03% 69.13% 86 93% 66.03% 64.63% 63.45% 74.75% 4713% 49.23% 41.92% 53.18% 44.59% 41.00% 46.55% 46 43% 6457% 92.81% 92.16% 97 28% 95.89% 63.79% , 86 35% 54.43% 70.53% 64.33% 52.06% 52.32% 51 83% 53.75% 51 97% 52.29% 36.96% 64.86% 432 492 492 394 257 351 558 465 390 328 401 515 324 328 328 467 6582 399 540 492 517 SIS 351 374 3188 9770 434 298 298 258 469 1757 728 487 836 2051 656 613 353 517 2139 15717 -63 -39 -48 -10 -47 -81 -106 -65 63 -18 -54 -55 -70 -13 -34 73 839 36 22 9 -30 21 -12 32 -64 -903 -3 -43 -41 39 -63 -189 -197 -185 -180 -562 -52 16 -46 -9 107 1761 Distribution Of Black Children By Type of School - Bem \u0026gt; Total 9138 Magnet Schools- 1071 12% Interdlstnct Schools-924 10% Incentive Schools^ 1354 15% Area SchooJs-S789 63% 87% 92% 90% 97% 82% 77% 81% 86% 84% 95% 87% 89% 78% 96% 90% 84% 87% 109% 96% 102% 94% 104% 97% 109% 101% 92% 99% 86% 86% 85% 87% 89% 73% 62% 78% 73% 92% 103% 87% 98% 96% Prepared by Bob Morgan Unaudited Area Schools to Show a Relationship Between Per Pupil Cost, Capacity and Pupil/Staff Ratio January Percent Per Pupil Certified Pupil/Staff Budget Enrollment Capacity of Capacity Cost Staff Ratio ' Area Schools 23 Fair Park 19 Badgett 28 Chicot 45 Woodruff 17 Bale 22 Baseline 32 Dodd 44 Wilson 46 Mablevale Elem 18 Brady 48 Fulbright 37 Geyer Springs 29 West Hills 33 Meadowcliff 52 Watson 30 Jefferson 50 Otter Creek 51 Wakefield 31 Cloverd Elem 20 McDermott 24 Forest Park 47 Terry 38 Pulaski Hts $ $ 925,563 705,781 $ 1,619,962 $ 736,630 $ 1,083,388 $ $ 974,549 918,043 $ 1,161,523 S 1,346,068 $ 1,149,456 S 1,546,660 $ $ 824,349 927,759 $ 1,146,039 $ 1,204,878 $ 1,440,462 $ 940,017 $ 1,180,715 $ 1,108,921 $ 1,324,462 $ 1,132,508 $ 1,366,303 $ 1,005,828 242 185 430 202 307 284 284 366 429 374 509 278 320 402 423 506 332 426 402 484 434 537 422 351 257 558 324 401 390 328 394 515 467 540 328 328 465 492 492 351 492 492 517 399 515 374 69% $ 72% $ 77% $ 62% $ 77% $ 73% $ 87% $ 93% $ 83% $ 80% $ 94% $ 85% $ 98% $ 86% S 86% $ 103% S 95% S 87% $ 82% $ 94% $ 109% $ 104% $ 113% $ 3,825 3,815 3,767 3,647 3,529 3,432 3,233 3,174 3,138 3,073 3,039 2,965 2,899 2,851 2,848 2,847 2,831 2,772 2,759 2,736 2,609 2,544 2,383 22 17 39 15 26 22 22 26 31 27 35 19 21 27 32 32 24 28 28 31 28 31 26 11.00 10.88 11.03 13.47 11.81 12.91 12.91 14.08 13.84 13.85 14.54 14.63 15.24 14.89 13.22 15.81 13.83 15.21 14.36 15.61 15.50 17.32 16.23 Totals Non Area Schools 36 Rockefeller 39 Rightsell 34 Mitchell 26 Garland 25 Franklin 40 Romine 42 Washington 35 ML King $ 25,769,864 8578 9770 88% S 3,004 609 14.09 Totals Grand Totals $ 1,971,799 $ 1,038,383 $ 1,224,438 S 1,188,474 $ 1,840,649 $ 1,322,365 $ 2,262,546 $ 1,776,722 $ 12,625,376 38,395,240 Effect of Adding 46 Students to Baseline 22 Baseline - Before Baseline - After $ $ 974,549 974,549 Effect of Closing Two Schools Totals - Before Fair Park Badgett Totals - After $ 25,769,864 $ $ 925,563 705,781 $ 24,138,520 314 205 243 237 377 277 602 488 469 258 298 298 434 487 836 728 67% $ 79% $ 82% $ 80% $ 87% $ 57% $ 72% $ 67% $ 6,280 5,065 5,039 5,015 4,882 4,774 3,758 3,641 34 24 27 22 36 24 55 39 9.24 8.54 9.00 10.77 10.47 11.54 10.95 12.51 2743 3808 72% $ 4,603 261 10.51 11321 13578 83% $ 3,392 870 13.01 Effect of Increasing Staff By One @$40,000 Wakefield - Before Wakefield - After $ 1,180,715 $ 1,220,715 284 330 390 390 73% $ 85% $ 3,432 2,953 22 22 12.91 15.00 8578 8578 9770 351 257 9162 88% $ \\6//$ ^72/$ 94% $ 3,004 3,825 3,815 2,814 609 22 17 570 14.09 11.00 10.88 15.05 426 426 492 87% $ $ 2,772 2,866 28 29 15.21 14.69 Prepared by Bob Morgan UnauditedArea School Per Student Costs Area School Per Student Costs School BADGETT ________ BALE ______ _____ B^aiNE________________ BRADY CENTRAL CHICOT_____________________ CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY CLOVERDALE JR HIGH________ DODD_____________________ DUNBAR____________________ FAIR FAIR PARK . FOREST HEIGHTS . . _ FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT_________________ GEYER SPRINGS______________ HALL________________________ HENDERSON_________________ JEFFERSON__________________ MABELVALE ELEMENTARY______ MABEL VALE JR HIGH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH MCDERMOTT________________ MEADOWCLIFF______________ OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS INT__________ PULASKI HEIGH.TSJR_HIGH Benefits Capital Outlay SOUTHWEST TERRY WAKEFIELD WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILSON WOODRUFF .5 o A T $331.53 _ $0.90__ Materials Supplies Other Objects ___ $330.82 ___ $311.49 $302.14 $307.58 $386.99 $259.14 $313.39 $340.81 $300.01 $343.41 ____ $33118^ ____$317,94 $268.34 ___ $311.84 $285.96 $342.83 $375.60 $282.11 $315.97 $434.35 ___ $362.48. $275.29 $292.36 $282.38 $248.69 J298W $363.36 $266.11 $285.29 J270.77 $292.22 $309.04 $328.51 $1.60 $0.00 $0.00 $6.16 $1.11 $0.00 $1.69 $3.49 116.15 $7.55 $0.00 142.52.1 $43.97 ____$3.38_____ $3.92 J$3.03 $3.85 $5.19 $56.31 $0.99 $1.51 $5.94 J2B.29___ $2.07 $1.24 $2.32 $0.71 $6.45 $5.11 $4.10 $0.87 $0.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $51.85 137.33 $57.90 $42.63 $38.63 $52.90 $35.39 $32.73 $51.53 J32.68 $47.40 __ $51.68 $45.66 $34.58 $56.26 $51.31 $53.85 $32.00 .... 170,14 $51.95 $50.80 $56.22 $49.37 $30.95 $32.76 $50.26 $48.08 $47.58 $52.37 $46.35 $54.74 $0.00 $038 $0.00 J0.89 $0.00 ! $0.07 ! J Purchased Servic^ JISO CXY . $2.71 $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $0.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.22 $0.00 JO.26 $0.00 $0.14 $0.00 $0.00 $118.47 $192.37 $112.82 $140.96 $82.95 $89.65 $173.53 $135.74 $162.79 $177.24 -_$l?P.7? . $157.2k $102.19 $119.55 $131.09 $190.40 $171.91 $107.72 _1141.98 $131.98 $215.26^., $128.82 $90.80 $159.34 $122.33 $100.07 $167.12 $89.66 $88.97 $130.61 $131.56 $129.62 $165.72 Salaries $2,668.63 __ $2,613.12 $2,464.07_ $2,464.58 J2,672.65 $3,Q62.99_ $2,051.08 $2,580.18 ___ $2,699.61 $2,583.80 $2,977.79 ___ 12,767,88. _ $2,697.98 $2,187.63 __ $2,552.53 $2,174,63 ___ $3,001.20 $3,238.85 $2,410.27 $2,504.78 $3,685.61 . $3,079,21 $2,278.37 $2,415.64 $2,331.12 $1,962.38 $2,567.56 $3,072.53 $2,134.19 $2,348.42 $2,186.51 ___ $2,423.10 $2,539.79 $2,572.34 tA^-^ Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS ALL HIGH SCHOOLS 5,068.00 \" IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL RECEIVER DEC 1 , 1995 CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET 1 1 $ 11,352,320.00 17,845,851.00 29,198,171.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,521.28 5,761.28 100% Office Of Desegregation hionitoring INSTRUCTION____________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL ___________ $ $ $ 737,901.00 12,071,325.00 12,809,226.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,381.87 2,527.47 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL ____________ $ $ $ 1,044,413.00 2,012,601.00 3,057,014.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 397.12 603.20 10% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL _______________ 1 1 $ 5,551,285.00 2,102,065.00 7,653,350.00 73% 27% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 414.77 1,510.13 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL 1 $ $ 2,769,966.00 2,769,966.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 9% J. LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL _________________ 1 $ $ 1,248,755.00 1,659,860.00 2,908,615.00 43% 57% 100% $ $ $ 246.40 327.52 573.92 10% Page 1 Ba ESheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET INSTRUCTION___________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 837.00 IN DOLLARS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL 1,874,880.00 3,404,231.00 5,279,111.00 121,867.00 2,366,077.00 2,487,944.00 172,489.00 332,984.00 505,473.00 916,816.00 460,107.00 1,376,923.00 457,471.00 457,471.00 206,237.00 245,063.00 451,300.00 36% 64% 100% 5% 95% 100% 34% 66% 100% 67% 33% 100% 100% 0% 100% 46% 54% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,240.00 4,067.18 6,307.18 145.60 2,826.85 2,972.45 206.08 397.83 603.91 1,095.36 549.71 1,645.07 546.56 546.56 246.40 292.79 539.19 100% 47% 10% 26% 9% 9%Sheetl MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL#OF STUDENTS 884.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,980,160.00 3,348,363.00 5,328,523.00 37% 63% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,787.74 6,027.74 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 128,710.00 2,129,169.00 2,257,879.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,408.56 2,554.16 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 182,175.00 503,058.00 685,233.00 27% 73% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 569.07 775.15 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 968,298.00 413,802.00 1,382,100.00 483,159.00 483,159.00 217,818.00 302,334.00 520,152.00 70% 30% 100% 100% 0% 100% 42% 58% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 468.10 1,563.46 546.56 546.56 246.40 342.01 588.41 26% 9% 10%Sheetl HALL HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 911.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 2,040,640.00 3,193,915.00 5,234,555.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,505.94 5,745.94 100% INSTRUCTION___________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 132,642.00 2,160,160.00 2,292,802.00 .6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,371.20 2,516.80 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 187,739.00 308,865.00 496,604.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 339.04 545.12 9% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 997,873.00 377,932.00 1,375,805.00 73% 27% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 414.85 1,510.21 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 497,916.00 497,916.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 10% LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL $ $ $ 244,470.00 346,958.00 591,428.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 268.35 380.85 649.21 11% Page 1Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS FAIR HIGH SCHOOL 890.00 ' IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,993,600.00 3,001,845.00 4,995,445.00 40% 60% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,372.86 5,612.86 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 129,584.00 1,986,456.00 2,116,040.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,231.97 2,377.57 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 183,411.00 348,495.00 531,906.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 391.57 597.65 11% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 974,870.00 310,114.00 1,284,984.00 76% 24% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 348.44 1,443.80 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 486,438.00 486,438.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 10% LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL $ $ $ 219,296.00 356,780.00 576,076.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 246.40 400.88 647.28 12% Page 1Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 1,546.00 IN DOLLARS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL 3,463,040.00 4,897,497.00 8,360,537.00 225,098.00 3,429,463.00 3,654,561.00 311,674.00 519,199.00 830,873.00 1,693,427.00 540,110.00 2,233,537.00 844,982.00 844,982.00 380,934.00 408,725.00 789,659.00 41% 59% 100% 6% 94% 100% 38% 62% 100% 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 48% 52% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,167.85 5,407.85 145.60 2,218.28 2,363.88 201.60 335.83 537.43 1,095.36 349.36 1,444.72 546.56 546.56 246.40 264.38 510.78 100% 44% 10% 27% 10% 9%Sheetl ALL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 5,623 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET 12,595,520 19,446,132 32,041,652 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,458.32 5,698.32 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL _______________ INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL ZZZZZZZZZZZ OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS______________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET ~ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET ~ TOTAL ______________________ 818,708 13,033,196 13,851,904 1,158,888 2,612,328 3,771,216 6,159,560 2,063,725 8,223,285 3,072,942 3,072,942 1,385,508 1,756,883 3,142,391 6% 94% 100% 31% 69% 100% 75% 25% 100% 100% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 145.60 2,317.84 2,463.44 206.10 464.58 670.68 1,095.42 367.01 1,462.44 546.50 546.50 246.40 312.45 558.85 43% 12% 26% 10% 10%Sheetl MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 491.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,099,840.00 2,166,387.00 3,266,227.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 4,412.19 6,652.19 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 71,490.00 1,449,519.00 1,521,009.00 5% 95% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,952.18 3,097.78 47% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 101,185.00 317,267.00 418,452.00 24% 76% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 646.16 852.24 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 537,822.00 170,629.00 708,451.00 268,361.00 268,361.00 120,982.00 228,972.00 349,954.00 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 35% 65% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ A 1,095.36 347.51 1,442.87 546.56 546.56 246.40 466.34 712.74 22% 8% 11%Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 792.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,774,080.00 3,060,661.00 4,834,741.00 37% 63% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,864.47 6,104.47 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 115,315.00 2,191,564.00 2,306,879.00 5% 95% 100% 1 1 $ 145.60 2,767.13 2,912.73 48% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 163,315.00 273,988.00 437,303.00 37% 63% 100% 1 $ 206.21 345.94 552.15 9% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 867,525.00 344,752.00 1,212,277.00 432,511.00 437,876.00 195,149.00 250,357.00 445,506.00 72% 28% 100% 99% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1 $ $ 1,095.36 435.29 1,530.65 546.10 552.87 246.40 316.11 562.51 25% 9% 9%Sheetl MANN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 847.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,897,280.00 3,054,156.00 4,951,436.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,605.85 5,845.85 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 123,323.00 2,122,129.00 2,245,452.00 5% 95% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,505.47 2,651.06 45% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 174,550.00 404,376.00 578,926.00 30% 70% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 477.42 683.50 12% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 927,770.00 292,498.00 1,220,268.00 462,936.00 462,936.00 208,701.00 235,153.00 443,854.00 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 47% 53% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 345.33 1,440.69 546.56 546.56 246.40 277.63 524.03 25% 9% 9%Sheetl SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 612.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,370,880.00 2,137,196.00 3,508,076.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,492.15 5,732.15 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 89,107.00 1,442,640.00 1,531,747.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,357.25 2,502.85 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 126,121.00 258,188.00 384,309.00 33% 67% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 421.88 627.96 11% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 670,360.00 230,628.00 900,988.00 334,495.00 334,495.00 150,797.00 205,740.00 356,537.00 74% 26% 100% 100% 0% 100% 42% 58% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 376.84 1,472.20 546.56 546.56 246.40 336.18 582.58 26% 10% 10%Sheetl FOREST HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 759.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,700,160.00 2,467,868.00 4,168,028.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,251.47 5,491.47 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 110,510.00 1,620,096.00 1,730,606.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,134.51 2,280.11 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 156,415.00 346,791.00 503,206.00 31% 69% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 456.91 662.99 12% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 831,378.00 278,393.00 1,109,771.00 414,839.00 414,839.00 187,018.00 222,588.00 409,606.00 75% 25% 100% 100% 0% 100% 46% 54% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 366.79 1,462.15 546.56 546.56 246.40 293.26 539.67 27% 10% 10%Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 609.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET 1 $ $ 1,364,160.00 1,960,787.00 3,324,947.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,219.68 5,459.68 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 1 $ 88,670.00 1,193,161.00 1,281,831.00 7% 93% 100% 1 S $ 145.60 1,959.21 2,104.81 39% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL ~ 1 A $ 125,503.00 311,767.00 437,270.00 29% 71% 100% 1 $ 206.08 511.93 718.01 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 667,074.00 267,894.00 934,968.00 332,855.00 332,855.00 150,058.00 187,965.00 338,023.00 71% 29% 100% 100% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ $ 1,095.36 439.89 1,535.25 546.56 546.56 246.40 308.65 555.05 28% 10% 10%Sheetl PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 781.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,749,440.00 2,327,557.00 4,076,997.00 43% 57% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 2,980.23 5,220.23 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 113,714.00 1,555,741.00 1,669,455.00 7% 93% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 1,991.99 2,137.59 41% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 160,948.00 361,519.00 522,467.00 31% 69% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 462.89 668.97 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 855,476.00 199,892.00 1,055,368.00 426,863.00 426,863.00 192,438.00 210,405.00 402,843.00 81% 19% 100% 100% 0% 100% 48% 52% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 255.94 1,351.30 546.56 546.56 246.40 269.40 515.80 26% 10% 10%i Sa^.u^ Incentive Schools Cost per Student $600 Cost per Student $500 $400 VI ro o Q $300 $200 $100 $0  Jb 'hy- Incentive Schools 11 IIBs w Ave rag ^Rockefeller Costs for 1993-1995 IFranklin Rightsei Garland Ish IIMitchel Stephens SCHOOL STEPHENS GARLAND RIGHTSELL MITCHELL ROCKEFELLER FRANKLIN ROMINE WASHINGTON KING GIBBS WILLIAMS BOOKER CARVER STEPHENS GARLAND NEW STEPHENS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACT SHEET STEPHENS /GARLAND JUNE 7,1994 BUDGET 1993/94 1,273,272.88 1,408,766.58 1,238,154.99 1,311,925.10 1,764,565.19 1,567,895.14 1,267,911.36 2,278,100.33 1,588,019.16 1,390,795.00 1,800,998.00 2,254,707.00 2,048,463.00 94/95 (1,316,770.51) 95/96 (1,316,770.51) ENROLLMENT 1993/94 145 205 189 230 340 345 334 721 553 299 472 595 595 PER PUPIL 8,781.19 6,872.03 6,551.08 5,704.02 5,189.90 4,544.62 3,796.14 3,159.64 2,871.64 4,651.49 3,815.67 3,789.42 3,442.79 INTEREST/CONST FUNDS PARKIN/RENT/UTILIT GARLAND TO IRC 231,559.00 96/97 (1,316,770.51) (1,350,530.66) 2,100,000.00 231,559.00 (107,872.00) 75,000.00 TOTAL (3,950,311.53) (1,350,530.66) 2,100,000.00 463,118.00 (107,872.00) 75,000.00 TOTAL SAVINGS (1,316,770.51) (1,085,211.51) (368,614.17) (2,770,596.19) CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FUNDS AVAILABLE INCLUDING INTEREST SECOND LIEN BONDS 3,701,624.01 2,615,300.00 7 TOTAL PROJECTED COST TO CONSTRUCT 6,316,924.01 C/W I F\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_1547","title":"Court filings concerning educational law and school integration and planning","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":["1991/1992","1992-07-01/1992-07-22"],"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","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning educational law and school integration and planning"],"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/1547"],"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":["127 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_364","title":"Desegregation and education plan","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":["1991/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation and education plan"],"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/364"],"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\n10/07'94 12:46 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst @002 DESEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE 1994-95 AREA ELEMENTARY: 40:00% - 60.00% AREA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: 51.25% - 76.88% AREA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: 49.11%-73.67% ORIGINAL MAGNETS (BOOKER, CARVER, GIBBS, WILLIAMS, MANN, PARKVIEW) 50% - 55% INTERDISTRICT MAGNET PROGRAMS (CENTRAL \u0026amp; MCCLELLAN) (HENDERSON) (DUNBAR) 49.11%-73.67% 51.25%-76.88% 40% - 60% INTERDISTRICT (KING, WASHINGTON, ROMINE) 40% - 60%*4 Desegregation Requirements/Acceptable Racial Ranges The minimum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent. The maximum bhck percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. The minimum black percentage for each secondary (junior and senior high) attendance zone school will be 25 percent below the distnet-wide black percenuge at each organizational level. The maximum black percentage will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at each organizational level. The rmnirnum and maximum black percenuges constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for attendance zone schools. re- The Student Assignment Office and all building principals will be held accountable for complying with desegregation requirements. In addition to complying with desegregation requirements, building principals will be expected to assign students to classes in an equitable manner, to the greatest extent possible. The building principal should not allow resegiegation to occur in classrTOms. School desegregation requirements and equiuble classroom assignments will be monitored by the LRSD Offices of Desegregation. School based biracial advisory committees will also monitor compliance in these areas. 'S The accepuble range is listed below: .5\nElementary Junior High Senior High 40.00% . 73.75% 52.50% . 78.75% 49.25% - 73.75% 1 1ES59S (}\\0/i ^'^fjze^ fc.UArkansas Democrat (l^azcllc |  MONDAY, APRIL S. 2000 Judge gets revised school plan Desegregation report a trial run, and nioie, LR officials say I RvrvNTifiA HOWELL more than that. We wanted to as- One provision of the plan cal'.- - U!K,VNS.VS ni-Mn( i\u0026lt;AT.o,\\zr.rrr. sc.s.s our progress and to show the for hiring a The Little Rock School District lin the ongoing 1982 school .ton e.xpert to -oik with staff on has issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and a federal judge that it is moving swiftly and in good faith to carry out its revised desegregation plan. parties tin the ongoing 1982 school desegregation lawsuit] and the community our good faith conipli- ance. he said. The 1998 plan, which is 24 The 129-page compliance report. sent to Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, describes the School Board policies. academic programs and staff vised plan training efforts now in place in response to the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. pages, was negotiated by representatives of the district and the Joshua intervenors, the class of black students in the three Piilas- ki County school districts. The re- cum- bersome plan of more than 200 pages in use since the late 1980s. policies and programs, as well as on desegregation or discrimina- This year's report, available for review at all schools, is a preview of a document the district must submit to Wright next spring. That second report is a prerequisite for the district's anticipated release in June 2001 from federal court supervision. lion problems. The district has retained two experts: Terrence Roberts, now a California psychologist, who was one of the nine black students to integrate Central High in 1957\nand Stephen Ross, an education policy researcher at the University of Memphis. Roberts has advised administrators on policies dealing with achievement, parent involvement, counseling, student discipline and use of conimunitj' volunteers. He developed a two-day workshop for school administrators and others on \"Learning to Cope with Differences. Brady Gadberry. special assistant to the superintendent and co- .........-,rtn author of the report, said this aware of it. failure to report non- compliance also may result in disciplinary action being taken.\" year's voluntary report is a practice run for the 2001 report. But. ' School '  Continued Iron Page 1B The compliance report describes efforts to give school prin- XUMva --------- . cioals and the new (juupus U'ad- The philosophy of the revised plan permeates the activities ol the district, Gadberiy and Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs wrote in the new report's introduction. Employees are fully expected to comply with the Revised Plan. To ensure compliance. it is the responsibility of all ..............- ------- - - , employees to report instances of tional programs and the develop- non-compliance when they arc '''''vsiem.s a Expanding the number of 4- vear-nids in preschool program.-\" from 720 to 880 in 27 schools. a I 'onverting junior higiis to middle .schools for gi'ades six IInmigii eight. Ross has focused on instruc- mcnt of new systems to measure student progi'ess and hold schools accountable for achievement. I See SCHOOL, Page 3B I ership Teams of teachers, parents and community members the au- a Establishing alternative education programs throughout the city, a Adding a double-period of English and language arts instruction in middle and high schools. thority to develop and cany out school improvement plans. The report details the new Col- ....................... _ Icctivc Responsibility Plan, which school stndent.s can get credit sets student achievement goals on ............... \" ' ' which each school will be cvaluat-  Establishing the Hall High University program in which high from the University of Arkansas at ed bv the district and state. The collective responsibility I plan, when completed, will de- I scribe the technical assistance to ' schools that fall short of I heir Little Kock. H Constructing the new Stephens lilemcntaiy School, which open.- in January. Also, the district has initiated\ni scholarship program for pupils who graduate from a Little Rock high school after attending incentive elementary schools. Incentive ' goals and lav out the consequences of failure. Those conse- ' quences could include replacing eiemenu.i.s .............- the .school .s principal and up to .m apt pxl ra funding for pro- ' percent of the staff. oranis to help raise student i The district has enacted puli Ihe nas tnatieu pui- I cies to increase minimum gradua- arams achievement. I tion requirements to 24 units and I to increase the number of slii- , dents, particularly black students, taking pre-Advanced Placement i and Advanced Placement courses. I according to the compliance re- I port.\nAdvanced Placement courses 1 are rigorous courses developed by  the national College Board that I enable students to gel college i credit for Inch school coursework. i The district offers 80 Advanced ' Placement courses. ' The district has loosened admis- 1 Sion requirements to the courses, allowing students who make C's or belter to take the Advanced Placement courses without getting Administrators periodicall.v collect data on 10 factors related to scliool resources. The factors include the pupil-teacher ratio at each school, the percentage ol teachers with master's degrees and nine year.s of experience, the number of new teachers, the number of computers per student, the per onpil expenditure in discre- tionaiv funds and the number of volunteer hours per student, among others. Each factor is assigned a numerical value, and those numbers are totaled for each school and compared to the district mean. Resources can be added to schools that vary from the mean. I teacher recommendations. I The compliance report de- i scribes all components of the dis- . - ...........I lii/iPnPT' j trict's new elemenlaiw literacy iriClS Uc vrujuuuiMi I program and produces details of a ! m 11111 inuIfI1 nt* Mnt.ional Sci* I multiinilliun-dollar National Sci- i ence [oundalioii grant to revise science and mathematics courses and increase student numbers in upi\u0026gt;er-level classes. ?\\s a result. most ninth-graders are now re- quired to take physics. 1 Other initiatives addressed in ' the compliance report inclurle: SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 2001  LR schools, state near deal on desegregation funds BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the state and Little Rock School District are moving closer to settlii^ school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and complicate district efforts to end federal court supervision. They are negotiating: The Little Rock districts possible payback of a $20 million state loan.  Continued state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and other desegregation-related programs worth $15 million to $20 million a year to the district.  The impact of a recent tax increase in Little Rock on the states funding obligations to other Arkansas school districts. Little Rock officials would like to settle issues with the state and other parties before the district submits a March 15 desegregation compliance report to a federal judge who oversees the 18-year-old Pulaski County school-desegregation case. If there are no objections to the compliance report or if there is no proof that the district is out of compliance with its desegregation plan, then the district could be declared desegregated at the end of this school year and released from federal court monitoring. The word I get is that the negotiations are in the final stages\nthat we may have a deal that everyone is goiiig to agree to, Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, said Friday. Argue is one of three state senators who wrote to Gov. Mike Huckabee, Little Rock Superintendent Les Gamine, state Department of Education Director Ray Simon and Attorney General Mark Pryor in September 2000 urging that the state and Little Rock address several issues as a package and avoid relying on the courts to resolve them. Argue served as an informal facilitator at some of the earlier meetings with the leaders from the agencies and the parties in Little Rocks school desegregation lawsuit. On Friday, Argue said he didnt know the specifics of an emerging agreement. I do get the sense that both sides have given some and won some, he said, adding that the talks are now in the hands of Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, and 'Rmothy Gauger, an assistant attorney general. Heller said Friday that he and Gauger talk almost daily and, while they do not have a final draft of an agreement to take to their respective clients, he said there exists at least the nucleus of an agreement. The Little Rock lawyer also said the district faces deadlines for resolving the issues and We need to know within a week or two whether there is substantial agreement Michael Teague, a spokesman for the attorney generals office, declined to comment at length about the negotiations but called Hellers comments an accurate assessment of the talks. Simon said Friday that he was See SCHOOLS, Page 3B ' Schools  Continued from Page 1B fhistrated by the slowness of the talks between the attorneys but optimistic about an ultimate agreement. He said he may have something to report to the state Board of Education at its Feb. 12 meeting. Simon said earlier this month that the attorneys had listened to the discussions of others involved in the issues and were now attempting to put into writing a possible agreement that all the interested parties could endorse. Asked specifically whether district and state representatives have agreed to a method for determining whether Little Rock must repay a $20 million loan, Simon said, Were close. A proposal should be forthcoming A 1989 agreement between the state and district said the district would not have to repay the loan if the composite scores earned by Little Rock black students on a nationally standardized test reached 90 percent or better of the average scores earned by white students by Dec. 31,2000. In the intervening years, the district and the state never formally ' agreed on the test to be used. Heller said Friday that the focus of the talks now is not so much on the $20 million as it is on developing a process for determining whether the loan should be for^ven. He said the process described in the 1989 agreement proved to be unworkable. He also said the district and Education Department administrators have desi^ated experts to make recommendations to negotiators about possible measures of student achievement. 'Those advisers are Steven Ross, a faculty member at the University of Memphis and an educational consultant to Little Rock School District\nand Douglas Reeves, a national consultant to the Education Department on several issues. One of the most pressing of the deadlines faced by the negotiators is related to the 5-mill tax increase Little Rock voters approved last year. The district must complete scheduling the sale of bonds that will be financed with the money generated by the tax increase. The longer the district delays selling the bonds and incurring new debt, the greater the districts wealth. That poses a problem for state officials because all school districts are legally guaranteed at least 80 percent of the money that Little Rock raises in state and local money per student, excluding that money that goes to pay debts. Depending on how Little Rock officials structure the debt they incur, the state would have to increase aid by $40 million to $140 million, according to preliminary projections last year. Until the debt structure and states obligation to other districts are known, legislators could be hindered in setting appropriations for state services for the next two fiscal years. Another critical issue in the school talks is whether the state will attempt to stop subsidizing Little Rocks desegregation efforts if the district is declared unitary, or a fully desegregated school system, later this year. The state pays close to $20 million a year for desegregation-related programs, including magnet schools, student transfer programs,\ntransportation, and teacher retirement and health insurance costs. We think it helps everybody if the Little Rock School Board is free to consider unitary status without having to worry about potentially disastrous financial consequences, Heller said. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will work for everybody./via,Ie4 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 9, 1999 Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thank you for your recent letter in response to our August 1999 report on the districts preparations for this school year. Im glad to hear that you and your staff have read the document, and we hope you have found it helpful. I appreciate the additional information that you provided in your letter. As for your speculation that the information may not have been available at the time of our research. I want to emphasize what our reports introduction notes: LRSD staff members who had contributed to our research (either through direct interviews or by providing documentation) received the rough draft of our findings a few days before our report was finalized and published. On August 3 we hand delivered the drafts, invited your staff to offer corrections or updated information, and picked up their written comments on August 5. We reviewed those comments, made appropriate changes in the report, and then filed the completed document less than a week later on August 1 f. This advance review of our findings is designed to assure the accuracy and completeness of our reports. How successfully we reach that goal depends in great part on the accuracy and completeness of the information upon which we base our reports. I believe that we afforded your staff a fair opportunity to help us get this report right. Sincerely yours, Ann S. BrownI IIssm Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVES) August 24. 1999 AUG 2 1399 OFHCEGr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown\nThe August 11 Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided\n Overall Alternative Education Program seats for 99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 73301 (501) 834-8000 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented.  LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools Date: August 26, 199 To: All Associates From: Re: .espouse from Carnine Attached is a copy of the letter I received from Les Carnine yesterday. As you will see, he purports to be adding information to our transition report that \"may not have been available at the time of report findings. Please find those points in the letter that were covered (or not) in the section of the report you wrote. Then write me a brief note telling me your comments on Dr. Carnines point. For example, he says that funding sources for Stephens were determined in the March 1999 board meeting\nhe asserts that the role of the ombudsman was clarified in early August. Do you agree? If so, is this what the report said? Who at the LRSD reviewed that finding? Did he or she agree or disagree with the way we handled that information? And so on. 1 may respond to Les to emphasize that his staff read our findings and had the chance to correct or update them. Your comments will help me decide how much to say to him. Thanks very much.Date: September 3, 1999 To: All Associates From: Re: Response from Carnine 2^1^ A week ago Thursday (August 26) I asked for your comments on Carnines letter about our report. If you havent already done so, please get me that information in writing immediately. If your sections of the report werent touched upon by Carnine, just say so in a note to me. Thanks.Memo To: Ann From: Margie Subject: Carnine Response Date: August 27, 1999 Alternative education program seats: Nothing new. We complimented the district for expanding alternative education. No disagreement. Ombudsman role: Notice that training occurred week before report published. The clarification recommended in our report was not for the administrators as much as it was for the ombudsman. 1 have received several visits from the ombudsman and, although 1 didnt quote him, it was clear to me that he was not sure of the exact nature of his role. In fact, his role is still being defined. He informed me last week that the duty of dropout prevention had been added to his job description. He still has not been formally trained for the position. He mentioned that he was going to apply for a training session designed for ombudsmen being held in Canada. I am curious as to what the inservice traiing on 8/5/99 entailed. I dont disagree with with Carnine. 1 figure his comment was more in the nature of an update.Memo To: From: Date: Ann Brown Skip Marshall Septembers, 1999 Subject: Comments on Carnine response to Transition Report I found none of his responses were directed to any portion of the report to which I made a contribution. To: Ann X From: Gem As I read it, Les Carnines letter regarding the recent ODM report did not touch on any of the topics I wrote for the report. Accordingly, I wrote no comments on his letter.To: Ann Brown From: Horace Smith Re: Response to Dr, Carnines Observations Talent Development Committee I am glad that the district is formally researching ways to fund AVID and related approaches to develop minority academic talent. I had pointed out to Bonnie during our early discussions that the district seemed to have few contingencies for funding some very ambitious and expensive programs. Cultural Sensitivity Training I am encouraged by the news that Dr. Terrence Roberts will be helping the district implement a training of trainers model for cultural sensitivity. I talked to Marian Woods regarding the training this week. No one mentioned this model or Dr. Roberts involvement during my research for the report. I talked to both Kathy Lease and Marian Woods while preparing the report. Kathy even reviewed our findings and did not take issue with the fact that we said that the district had not identified a training model for cultural sensitivity. My one continuing concern remains whether the district will: A) Evaluate specific needs regarding cultural sensitivity B) Tailor types of training to those building needs C) Develop and implement a process for evaluating the degree of change in attitude and behavior in the school environment. Personnel Recruitment If the district is preparing recruitment goals and procedures for areas in which African Americans are underrepresented, that is great. Again, the district representative, Dick Hurley, reviewed our report findings and did not indicate that goals and procedures were being enacted.To: Ann From: Melissa Re: Carnine Memo Date: September 7,1999 I highlighted the items that deal with my section on school construction. The information presented in the report was as accurate as I could make it and reflected the facts as given me by Mark Milhollen, Sadie Mitchell, and Doug Eaton. All three of these individuals also reviewed the report prior to filing. Sorry for the delay!I K Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEnrss August 24, 1999 AUG 2 S 1359 OFHCfcCr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The August 11* Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the '99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided:  Overall Alternative Education Program seats for '99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented.  LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, ,e^e V. amine Superintendent of Schools I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU^ LED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASU.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DIVISION EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 2 11993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W By\n,C5 V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF LRSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF LRSD'S REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") for their Joint Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan state: 1. Joshua and LRSD move for tentative and, ultimately, final approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) On September 26, 1997, LRSD submitted and reguested 2. approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997. Following submission, LRSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop a revised plan which both parties could support. Those negotiations resulted in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"January 16 Revised Plan\"). On that date, counsel for Joshua confirmed in writing Joshua's agreement to support approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. See Exhibit B. Also on that same date. the LRSD Board of Directors approved the January 16 Revised Planand authorized submission of the plan to this Court for approval. 3. LRSD and Joshua stipulate to the following facts in support of this Motion\na. that the record in this case supports modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations\nb. that the January 16 Revised Plan is an appropriate modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations\nc. that the January 16 Revised Plan is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua class members\nand, d. that, if LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under the January 16 Revised Plan during its term and implements in good faith the programs, policies and procedures related thereto, LRSD will be unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations at the end of the 2000-01 school year. 4. As a part of the compromise and settlement between LRSD and Joshua, Joshua has agreed that they will request that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit hold their two pending appeals in abeyance, and LRSD and Joshua have further agreed that they will attempt to resolve Joshua's past, present and future claims for attorneys' fees and costs by mediation. 5. LRSD and Joshua recognize that their compromise and settlement cannot be approved by this Court without notice to Joshua class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, LRSD and Joshua propose dissemination of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. This notice shall be published no less than thirty (30) days before a deadline established by this Court for Joshua 2class members to submit written objections to approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. LRSD shall bear all costs associated with publication of the notice. LRSD shall cause the notice to be published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette\nshall print and distribute copies of the notice to teachers\nshall prominently post the notice at all school\nand shall cause the notice to be broadcast over the cable television channel controlled by LRSD. 6. In light of their agreement, LRSD and Joshua respectfully request that the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled. 7. LRSD and Joshua have prepared for the Court's consideration an Order (attached hereto) granting the relief sought in this Motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD and Joshua pray that this Court tentatively approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997, pending the filing of objections filed by Joshua class members\nthat the notice attached hereto as Exhibit C be published at least thirty (30) days the deadline for Joshua class members to submit written objections\nthat the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled\nand that this Court finally approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 upon consideration of any objections filed by Joshua class members. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS 3FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3758 BY: BY: Christopher Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people hy-depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this day of January, 1998. Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roache11 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Kristopher' Heller^ 4 Little Rock.School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan January 16, 1998 SECTION 1: Prior Agreements and Orders. 1.1. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\")\nb. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nc. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nd. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting or enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 1.2. This Revised Plan does not affect the Joshua Intervenors' (\"Joshua's\") right to enforce the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan with respect to the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the North Little'Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"). 1.3. Although this Revised Plan supersedes the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, LRSD expects to continue to work cooperatively with PCSSD and NLRSD in the areas addressed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. * EXHIBIT I f i ASECTION 2: Obligations. 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. 2.1.1. LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with LRSD in the development of the programs. policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. 2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. 2.2.1. LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African- American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. 2.2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers. primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers. including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers 2to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. 2.2.3. LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. 2.2.4. LRSD shall implement policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and preselection by a school principal. 2.2.5. LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. 2.2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. 2.2.7. LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight a Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. 2.3. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. 32.4. LRSD Shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities\nensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures 4designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. 2.6.1. LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.3. LRSD shall provide transportation to students othei-wise eligible for transportation to school to allow those students to participate in after-school activities required for participation in an extra-curricular activity. 2.7. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 2.7.1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement. LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of 5either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2.8. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 2.9. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure an equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological and educational resources to LRSD schools. 2.9.1. Within 60 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, will develop a process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. 2.9.2. Within 180 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall report by school the results of its assessment of the allocation of resources. 2.10. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the equitable maintenance and repair of LRSD facilities. 2.11. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. 2.11.1. Guidance counselors shall work with students in an effort to provide for more equity in academic honors, awards and scholarships. 62.12. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that every LRSD school provides its students a learning environment free from discrimination. 2.12.1. LRSD shall implement a training program through the United States Department of Justice, the Arkansas Department of Education and/or the National Conference of Christians and Jews in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. 2.13. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under this Revised Plan. 2.13.1 The LRSD Superintendent shall be responsible for overseeing LRSD's compliance with this Revised Plan in accordance Section 6. SECTION 3: Student Assignments. 3.1. Attendance Zones. While this Revised Plan does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan, LRSD attendance zones may be redrawn in accordance with the following guidelines: 3.1.1. Satellite Zones. LRSD may eliminate satellite attendance zones where the impact would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students\n3.1.2. Neighborhood Schools. LRSD may assign students 71 to area elementary and junior high/middle schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from forty to sixty percent African-American) as reasonably practicable, except as provided in Section 3.1.3. below\n3.1.3. Exception. Where a reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zone will result in an elementary or junior high/middle school which is less than twenty percent African- American, LRSD reserves the right to either: a. Draw the attendance zone at less than full capacity to allow for the voluntary transfer of African-American students to the school\nor. b. Create one or more satellite attendance zones of primarily African-American students. If a satellite zone is established, it shall be of sufficient size to ensure substantial desegregation at the school. 3.1.4. High Schools. LRSD may assign students to area high schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each high school shall be within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and so that. to the extent practicable, a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from LRSD junior high/middle schools. 3.2. Voluntary Student Transfers. Beginning in the 1998-99 The term \"area\" school shall refer to all LRSD schools except magnet and interdistrict schools. 8school year. the following guidelines shall govern voluntary student transfers: 3.2.1. Desegregation Transfers. LRSD students whose race constitutes more than sixty percent of the population at their attendance zone school shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school where their race constitutes less than forty percent of the student population subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.2. Racial Isolation Transfer. LRSD students whose attendance zone school is a one race, African-American school (\u0026gt; 90% African-American) shall be permitted to transfer to a racially balanced LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.3. Magnet Program Transfer. LRSD students shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school to participate in a designated magnet program subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.4. Employees'.Child Transfer. LRSD employees who reside in the LRSD may choose to have their children attend the same school or campus at which the employee works, not including Magnet schools, subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.5. Special Circumstances Transfer. Upon a showing of a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student, a student may, at the sole discretion of LRSD, be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to 9capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.6. Outside Students. LRSD schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will improve the racial balance of the district as a whole and of the school to which the student wishes to transfer and subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\nand. 3.2.7. Transportation. LRSD shall provide transportation to voluntary transfer students with the following exceptions: (i) employee's child transfers, (ii) special circumstances transfers, and (iii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. 3.3. Magnet Programs. The designated magnet programs at this time are the following: a. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program\nb. King High Intensity Learning Program\nc. Washington Math Science Program\nd. Henderson Health Science Program\ne. Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Program\nCentral International Studies Program\nand, g- McClellan Business Communications Program. LRSD reserves the right to modify or discontinue designated magnet programs and to establish new magnet programs. However, LRSD f. agrees that during the term of this Revised Plan it will not modify 10or discontinue a magnet program which is successful. 3.4. Middle Schools. LRSD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or'all of its junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight and move the ninth grade to high schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right to change the grade level structure at all of its schools, including magnet schools. 3.5. Ninth Grade Schools. Because of limited capacity at LRSD's high schools, it may be necessary as a part of the orderly conversion to middle schools to establish two or more schools composed entirely of ninth grade students. If so, LRSD shall assign students to the ninth grade schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each ninth grade school shall be within plus or minus ten percentage points from the district-wide percentage of ninth grade African-American students. 3.6. School Construction/Closina. LRSD shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor 11maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. 3.7. Modification Standard. During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level stiructure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a schools other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: 3.7.1. Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable\nor. 3.7.2. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. 3.8. Racial Balance. This Revised Plan recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced. Accordingly, nothing in this Revised Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. 3.9. Housing. LRSD and Joshua commit to promote housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. They pledge to work together and use their best efforts to dismantle, and prevent 12recurrence of, segregated housing patterns. SECTION 4: Interdistrict Schools. LRSD and PCSSD shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: 4.1. PCSSD Interdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school constructed in Chenal Valley as Interdistrict Schools\n4.2. LRSD Interdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as Interdistrict Schools\n4.3. Racial Composition. The ideal composition at interdistrict schools shall be as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School\n4.4. Reserved Seats. PCSSD shall reserve at least 200 seats at Clinton Elementary and up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill Elementary for interdistrict transfer students from LRSD\n4.5. Recruitment. LRSD and PCSSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfers and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfers to Interdistrict Schools\n4.6. Outside Students. Interdistrict Schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the Interdistrict School in achieving its ideal racial composition\nand, 13^.1. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the home district for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. SECTION 5: Student Achievement. 5.1. Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four year-old program with no less than 720 seats. LRSD contemplates that the four year- old classes will remain at their present sites or in the same general location. 5.2. seajii33aZldacaua3e Ats. 5.2.1. Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal^ that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nb. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nc. Promote thematic instruction\n^The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. 14d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\ne. Monitor the appropriateness o f teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nf. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\ng- Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nh. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\n1. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nj- Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nk. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand. 1. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 5.2.2. Intermediate Grades. LRSD intends to implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four through six: 15a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment\nb. Promote thematic instruction\nc. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies instruction\nd. Monitor the appropriateness o f teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\ne. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nf. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\ng- Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classroom\nand. h. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 5.2.3. Secondary Schools. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades six through twelve\nLRSD recognizes that the sixth grade was previously included as an intermediate grade. The sixth grade is also 16a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently with comprehension in all subjects areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners\nb. Establish specific reading comprehension learning objectives for the language arts, mathematics, science and social studies curricula\nc. Revise the language arts curriculum to include greater emphasis on reading for meaning and on expressing comprehension of reading through writing and speaking\nd. Expand the use of a second Language Arts class at all secondary grade levels and establish procedures for identifying eligible students' and. where practical. assigning students to their regular Language Arts teachers\ne. Provide appropriate training to secondary teachers for implementation of these strategies\nf. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. 5.3. Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction: 5.3.1. Revise the mathematics curriculum to include a smaller number of concepts at each level, the use of manipulatives and problem solving and critical thinking and train teachers on its implementation\nincluded here since there will be a period of transition into middle schools. 175.3.2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum\n5.3.3. Provide resources for early intervention with students with mathematical problems and for training teachers on early intervention\nand, 5.3.4. Revise the mathematics curriculum to increase the nximber of students successfully completing Algebra I and higher level mathematics courses. 5.3.5. Adopt as a goal that all students in regular classes will complete Algebra and Geometry by the end of their eleventh grade year and that students will be proficient in mathematics by graduation. LRSD shall provide assistance to those students experiencing difficulty with Algebra and Geometry. 5.4. Computer Literacy. LRSD shall adopt as a goal that all primary grade students f- will be trained in the use of computers and upon graduation shall be computer literate. 5.5. Incentive Schools. LRSD shall continue to provide double funding to Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell and Rockefeller elementary schools, in accordance with the current formula as described in August 16, 1995 report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM). These schools shall be renamed and refocused. The plant services department shall provide the maintenance and upkeep necessary to preserve the comparable physical equality of these schools. 185.6. Alternative Education. 5.6.1. LRSD shall provide alternative educational opportunities to the extent practicable for those students unable to succeed in a traditional learning environment. 5.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies or procedures designed to ensure equity in the facilities, staff and resources provided for alternative education. 5.7. Parental and Community Involvement. LRSD shall establish a \"^parental and community relations linkage system to facilitate parental and community involvement in LRSD schools and the operation of LRSD. 5.8 Scholarships. Within one calendar year from the date of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall establish or participate in a program for providing college scholarships to designated schools for LRSD students who graduate from an LRSD high school after having attended a racially identifiable elementary school. This program shall be maintained at least until graduation of the class that begins kindergarten during the 2000-01 school year. SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance\n6.2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the Superintendent\n196.3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees\n6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance\n6.5. Utilization of a reporting system whereby employees can report noncompliance without fear of retribution\n6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance\nand, 6.7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. SECTION 7: Plan Modification Process. Before filing with the district court a proposed modification of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall follow the procedure set forth below: 7.1. Notice. LRSD shall submit to the other parties and to the ODM its proposed modification along with an explanation of the circumstances justifying modification and the educational and financial impact of the proposed modification. 7.2. Comment Period. Along with its notice of the proposed modification, LRSD shall establish a reasonable period of time (no 20less than ten days) for the parties and ODM to submit comments, recommendations or suggestions related to the proposed modif ication. Joshua shall be entitled to receive from LRSD the information which LRSD believes supports its request for modification. 7.3. Recommendation and Response. After the close of the comment period, LRSD shall file with the district court and serve on the parties its recommended modification and, at LRSD's discretion, a response to comments made by the parties and ODM. 7.4. Hearing. Absent good cause shown, no party shall be permitted to raise an issue in opposition to LRSD's recommended modification unless that issue was raised by the party during the comment period. SECTION 8: Continuing Jurisdiction. 8.1. General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this Revised Plan during its term. Nothing in this Revised Plan shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 8.2. Process For Raising Compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the party seeking to raise the issue shall follow the procedure set forth below: 8.2.1. The party shall as soon as reasonably 21practicable give the LRSD Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following\na. the paragraph(s) of this Revised Plan at issue\nb. the names of all students involved, if any\nc. the names of all LRSD agents or employees involved, if any\nd. all facts of which the party is aware relevant to the compliance issue\nand, , e. a copy all documents in party's possession relevant to the compliance issue. 8.2.2. The written notice is intended to provide LRSD with all relevant information related to the compliance issue known to the party so that LRSD can assess its compliance on the same basis the party. 8.2.3. LRSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the party a written response within a reasonable amount of time not to exceed fifteen (15) days from receipt of written notice from the party or such later time as agreed. 8.2.4. If the party is unsatisfied with LRSD's response, the party shall within fifteen (15) days of receipt of LRSD's response submit the compliance issue to ODM or the district court's designee for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. 8.2.5. If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by ODM or the district 22court^s designee, the party may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. 8.2.6. Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, LRSD shall be free to implement the programs. policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Revised Plan. 8.3. Programs, Policies and/or Procedures. Compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section 8.2 shall include LRSD's implementation of the programs. policies and/or procedures developed in accordance with this Revised Plan. Before the end of the transition period, LRSD shall develop and/or identify the programs, policies and/or procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and provide them to Joshua. Joshua shall have a right to invoke the process described in Section 8.2 if LRSD fails to adopt programs, policies and/or procedures required by this Revised Plan\nadopts facially deficient programs. policies and/or procedures\nor. fails to implement the programs, policies and/or procedures adopted in accordance with this Revised Plan. SECTION 9: Term. The term of this Revised Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school ^'ear. SECTION 10: Transition. The 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year shall be a transition period in preparation for 23implementation of this Revised Plan. During this transition period, LRSD shall implement the May 1992 Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan to the extent they are consistent with this Revised Plan. However, there shall be no ODM monitoring or litigation concerning LRSD's implementation of the May 1992 Desegregation Plan or the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Rather, ODM shall monitor LRSD's preparation for implementation of this Revised Plan and act as a resource for LRSD in that process. SECTION 11: Unitary Status. At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a repprt on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. 24John w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway- Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Via Fax January 16, 1998 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear'Mr. Heller\nThis is to advise that counsel for the Joshua Intervenors agree that we have reached an accord or agreement with respect to the revised Desegregation and Education Plan which is dated January 16, 1998, You may advise your board of this fact and that we look forward to working with you and with the administration to develop the contemplated programs, policies and procedures required by the plan for implementation. We also look forward to working with the board through counsel in the implementation phases through ombudsperson, the expert and our continued monitoring of the district. The latter will be in the vein of cooperation. The role of the state with respect to facilitating and furthering the goals herein remains to be addressed and I am sure that counsel for the district and for Joshua will approach that matter on a cooperative basis which is consistent with providing the best education possible for children of the Little Rock School District with special emphasis upon those children who are the lowest from the norm in terms of student achievement and treatment. bhn W. Walker incerely, JWW:lp J, EXHIBIT S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE TO THE JOSHUA CLASS: ALL PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE BLACK OR AFRICAN-AMERICTkN PUPILS WHO RESIDE IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND WHO ATTEND, HAVE ATTENDED, WILL ATTEND, OR WHO ARE ELIGIBLE, WERE ELIGIBLE OR WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ONE OF THE THREE PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS (LITTLE ROCK, NORTH LITTLE ROCK OR PULASKI COUNTY), THEIR PARENTS AND/OR NEXT FRIENDS WHO CLAIM, HAVE CLAIMED, OR MAY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, OR WHO CLAIM, HAVE CLAIMED OR MAY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE THE VICTIMS OF RACE DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION BY ONE OR MORE OF THE THREE PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND/OR BY THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. This action arises out of efforts beginning in 1956 to desegregate the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County school districts. In 1989 a settlement was reached and approved in which the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") agreed to implement the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. On September 26, 1997, LRSD submitted and requested approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997. Following submission, LRSD and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors (hereinafter \"Joshua\") engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop a revised plan which both  EXHIBIT i iparties could support. Those negotiations resulted in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"January 16 Revised Plan\"). On January 21, 1997, LRSD and Joshua filed a joint request with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, for approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. The January 16 Revised Plan basically provides as follows: Section 1: Prior Agreements and Orders. The January 16 Revised Plan will replace the current LRSD desegregation plan, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan and all existing agreements and court orders with some exceptions.  It will have no effect on the September 28, 1989 Settlement Agreement\nthe Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nthe district court's order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nand, the M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986. Section 2: Obligations. same LRSD's basic desegregation obligations remain essentially the under the January 16 Revised Plan as under the current desegregation plan. The obligations are clearly and simply stated and cover every aspect of school operations. The January 16 Revised Plan includes an even stronger commitment to an equitable distribution of faculty by race, education and experience. Although some specifics are included, the January 16 Revised Plan contemplates that during the transition period the district will identify and/or develop programs, policies and procedures related to each obligation. An expert selected by the district and approved by Joshua will assist the district in this process. Section 3: Student Assignments. Under the January 16 Revised Plan, the emphasis moves from racial balance to quality education. During the term of the plan, elementary and junior high/middle school attendance zones may be redrawn to create neighborhood schools with as many of those neighborhood schools being desegregated as practical. High school attendance zones may be redrawn to achieve racial balance within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and, to the 2extent practicable. maintain a consistent feeder pattern. Volunta^ intradistrict transfers will continue to be allowed under rules similar to the current student assignment plan. The student assignment plan also provides for the conversion of all LRSD junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight. Because of capacity limitations at LRSD's High Schools, the conversion to middle schools may require the creation of two ninth grade schools. Finally, the January 16 Revised Plan calls for the construction of at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, one or more the Incentive Schools will be closed. Section 4: Interdistrict Schools. Interdistrict schools will continue to operate as they did under the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Section 5: Student Achievement. The January 16 Revised Plan is founded on the belief that providing every student a quality education is the most promising means to the long-term desegregation of LRSD. It outlines LRSD's basic strategy for ensuring its students receive a quality It includes an early childhood education program, education. a revised reading/language arts curriculum emphasizing the primary grades, a revised mathematics curriculum, an alternative education program and parental and community involvement program. Another important piece of the student achievement section is a college scholarship program all students who attend :  \"* for identifiable elementary schools. racially Section 6\nLRSD Compliance Program. LRSD will implement a comprehensive compliance program to ensure it substantially complies with its desegregation obligations and its other legal and ethical obligations. Section 7: Plan Modification Process. The January 16 Revised Plan includes a process for plan modification designed to facilitate cooperation and discourage LRSD will submit proposed plan modifications to the litigation. other parties who will have an established time frame for comments and suggestions. LRSD will then submit its recommended plan modification for court approval. Parties would generally be prohibited from raising issues before the district court not raised during the comment period. 3Section 8: Continuing Jurisdiction. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance for three years. The plan establishes a process for addressing compliance issues again designed to facilitate cooperation and discourage litigation. compliance issues will first be submitted to LRSD. All If no agreement is reached, the issue will be submitted to ODM for facilitation. Only if ODM's efforts at facilitating an agreement fail would the issue be submitted to the district court for resolution. Section 9: Term. The term of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan will be three school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year, court supervision will end at that time, Federal Section 10: Transition. The 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year will be a transition period in preparation for full implementation of the January 16 Revised Plan. Section 11: Unitary Status. If LRSD substantially meets its obligations under the January 16 Revised Plan, LRSD will be unitary at the conclusion of its term and released from court supervision. The above is not intended to be a full, detailed statement of the January 16 Revised Plan. The January 16 Revised Plan, along with the current LRSD Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, will be made available to Joshua class members during regular business hours at LRSD's administrative offices at 810 W. Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. The purpose of this notice is to advise Joshua class members of the January 16 Revised Plan and to give them an opportunity to show cause or to provide written objections which demonstrate why the January 16 Revised Plan should not be approved by the District Court. Joshua Class members have until the day of 4, 1998 to file written comments or objections with Mr. James McCoirmick, U.S. District Court Clerk, U.S. Courthouse, 600 W. Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. All Joshua class members will be bound by the District Court's decision approving or rejecting the January 16 Revised Plan. Absent good cause shown. there will be no hearing on the whether the January 16 Revised Plan should be approved. Accordingly, this Notice provides Joshua class members their only opportunity to object to approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, WESTERN DIVISION 5IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Upon consideration of the Motion by LRSD and Joshua for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 is tentatively approved pending the Court's consideration of written objections filed by Joshua class members on or before the ___ day of , 1998\n2. LRSD is hereby directed to provide notice to Joshua class members as described in the Motion by LRSD and Joshua for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand. 3. The hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 is hereby cancelled. On this ___ day of , 1998. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEO *^)iwaisss^\\ ..\u0026lt;4ssssssiississ^.^\u0026lt;^^^ I Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECB?V'S August 24, 1999 AUG 2 \u0026gt; ^353 OFRCtOr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The August 11* Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided\n Overall Alternative Education Program seats for 99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the '98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and^r revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (301) 824-2000 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented.  LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals \"Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools S01J7441tf-' UALKhK LAW KIKM /ay HUL AUb -.b 'yy lb:L4 JOHN W. walker Ralph Washington MARK BLTiNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Auguoi jvnii AXZ IXfATVirn OA J Tnuivuix* A Mr. Larry' Berkley President Little Rock School Soard 810 west Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 , Dear Mr. Berkley\nUtank vou for vour call of a minutes ago wherein you informed me that you had receiveo mformafion from District souixes that we (Joshua) have had a fair opportunity to p^icipate in the devisation of the policies which arc on your agenda for consideration tonight. That means IDC QcVlSaUOIl Ui iiJC rM*w** .m \u0026lt; j w  . 5 v c a A That you choose not believe me and Ms. Springer when we told you that we had not been afforded an opportunity to participate in the process pnor to any ccnsiderauon by the Boar  requfred by the re'^sed desegregation plan. In that you choose not to credit our representaiions and that you plan to proceed despite our objections, I believe that your decision is inconsis^t of and that you plan to proceed despite------------- , . ,  . the direction of the Board during the July regular meeting and the August agenda meeting that we be meaningfully included as parties in the process. We have document^ our requests and ^e M  _____i...2.L...,..-,tUartkantArAArttrtffnnrt prepared to demonstrate that we have sought to work 'svith you rather than to resort to court action. I am still hopeful that this will be the path that the Board takes. In the meantime. however, I renew my request including adoption of the Chamber of Comme\u0026lt; that the Board defer further action with respect to plan revision management study until we have had full and fair opportunity to share our views at the pertinent administrative level before the Board is presented recommendations. I also renew my request that no policies be developed in a vacuum by Ms. Lmda Young. 'Ns have repeatedly stated our objection to her involvement in the devisation of pohetes, plans and procedures that purport to be in the interest of African Amencan chUdren. Our objecuon is further lughlighted that this task and her job were not posted and that she has no e^enence objective qualification for addressing the needs, curricular and r.----- or non-curricular, of the class, which we represent. Mr. Berkley, your position and that of Dr. Carnines with respect to a definition of participation in the process leaves us in a position where we must seriously consider whether we must seek a different method and forum for addressing our concerns.5013744187 walker LAW FIRM 789 P05 AUG 2b 99 15:25 The letter which we just received dated August 20, 1999 is a good example of the administrations bad faith. Today is the board meeting, I just received a draft of administrative regulations KF and KLG-R from Dr. Anderson. Please note that they are presented for our review and comment. Review and comment is far removed from the process leading up to these documents. Good faith was the premise of our revised plan. It is not evident fiom the writings or from the note dated August 20, 1999 as an example which we just received on August 26, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. I am addressing a copy of this letter to each Board member and others listed below. Sincerely, fohn W. Walker rWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown Chris Heller Members of the Board: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Mike Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Mr. R Baker Kumis Mr. Mike Kumpuris Ms. Sue H. Strickland P.S. ODM has now issued two reports in the last month or so. They have not been placed on the agenda for discussion leaving the impression that the Board as a Board ignores and disregards the Court of which ODM is its official arm. That seems to be rather contemptuous.. /fn. Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 TO: Board of Education FROM\nDr. Kathy Le:\nas^^: ssistant Superintendent, PRE il' THROUGH: ^es Gamine, Superintendent '. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent DATE\nAugust 24, 1999 SUBJECT\nLRSD Assessment Program The Planning, Research and Evaluation Department has spent a year studying e modifications needed in the Little Rock School Districts assessment plan in order to adequately address e requirements of the various documents that are guiding our work. The primary document that impacts the development of a comprehensive assessment plan for the district is the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). There are fourteen sections of the RDEP that impact assessment planning. One component of assessment is the evaluation of instructional programs. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan states: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. A very critical part of any assessment program is parmering with parents to facilitate student success. Section 2.8 of the RDEP states, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. Assessments will be more frequent in the proposed plan, thus facilitating frequent communication with parents and fostering strong partnerships in the support of students. Section 5.2.1. of the RDEP sets up four expectations for the Primary grades that impact assessment: 1) 2) By the completion of the third grade, all students will be readin: independently and show understanding of words on a page\n3) 4) Clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-leam skills will be identified\nStudent performance must be monitored using appropriate assessment devices\nand Parents or guardians must be provided with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students. ig The intermediate grades are addressed in Section 5.2.2. These goals include the mastery and daily use of higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences, and for personal growth and enjoyment by the end of the sixth grade. This section also requires that student performance be monitored using appropriate assessment devices, and that parents/guardians get better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate academic development. Secondary schools are addressed in Section 5.2.3. This section requires that the district, adopt a goal stating that upon graduation, all students will read independently with comprehension in all subject areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners. Once again, there is a requirement to Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices (5.2.3.f.). Section 5.3.2. addresses the requirement to, Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised (mathematics) curriculum. The districts Strategic Plan also states some very specific criteria that must be measured by the assessment plan. By 2003, at least 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum. By 2003, at least 65% of students in every identified sub-group of race and gender will perform at or above the national average in reading and mathematics on standardized tests\nat least 30% will perform at the highest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests\nand no more than 10% will perform at the lowest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests. One of the strategies set forth in the Strategic Plan states, We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students and that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. In addition to the documents guiding the work of our district, the State Board of Education has adopted the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). This plan carries specific requirements to participate in norm-referenced testing for grades 5, 7, and 10, and criterion- referenced testing for grades 4, 6, 8, and end of course exams in Algebra I, geometry, and literacy. The State has implemented the Smart Stan Initiative to provide specific strategies and resources to ensure a successful start K-4. Smart Start will be expanded in future years to higher grades. In researching options for a comprehensive assessment program for LRSD, various members of the PRE staff and the Curriculum and Instruction staff met with representatives from a variety of testing companies. We also visited with Dr. Steven Ross (University of Memphis), and Dr. Sean Mulvenon and Dr. Ronna Turner (University of Arkansas) to explore feasible options for Little Rock. Drs. Mulvenon and Turner also met with Drs. Carnine, Williams, and Lease to discuss assessment proposals. Once information was obtained about the various options, I met with Dr. Ross and Dr. Lesley to determine the criteria that would guide the decision-making. After considering all proposals, coordinating with the state assessment plan, reviewing the requirements of our guiding documents, and considering our budget, the following K-12 Assessment Plan is being proposed for your approval\nKindergarten Grade, and 2\"** Grade Pre-and post-assessments using Marie Clays Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement will be administered to all kindergarten, first, and second grade students. These individual assessments are in line with the States Smart Start Initiative. A meeting was held with all district kindergarten teachers to gather input on what kind of assessment they preferred. They overwhelmingly opted for individual assessments at this age. 2\"** Grade (spring) During the spring semester, 2\"^ graders will be screened for the districts Gifted and Talented Program. A nationally normed and locally designed criterion referenced test provided through consultation with Northwest Educational Association (NWEA) will be used as one indicator in the G/T identification n process. Identified 2\"* graders will also take the Raven, a non-verbal intelligence test. Grades 3-11 Beginning with the 3'* grade, we will administer a pre- and post- criterion- referenced test developed to align with our curriculum. We are proposing a partnership with NWEA to develop these assessments. Our students will be assessed in reading, language arts, and math. By using pre-and post-tests, we will be able to monitor the growth of every student. We can calculate the value-added growth of attending a particular school over time, or simply determine the amount of growth in one year. The use of these assessments gives us an opportunity to track longitudinal data to monitor student achievement. In addition to these pre- and post-tests developed with teachers and curriculum staff with the assistance of NWEA, we will utilize released items from the state's criterion referenced tests to develop additional assessments that can be administered during the second and third nine weeks. These assessments will be developed with teachers and can be incorporated into a students grade within a course. State Assessment Program The state accountability program designates the following assessments (not fully implemented until 2003)\nCriterion-Referenced Primary Benchmark Intermediate Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark End-of-CourseAlgebra I End-of-CourseGeometry End-of-CourseLiteracy Grade 4 Grade 6 (not complete) Grade 8 When completed When completed Grade 11 April April April Jan/April Jan/April Jan/April Norm-Referenced SAT-9 Grades 5, 7, 10 September We believe this program of varied assessments affords the Little Rock School District the greatest opportunity to have timely measures of student achievement. We will be able to monitor student achievement, offer enrichment or remediation as needed, and plan for the success of each of our students. Both the Curriculum and Instruction Division and Planning, Research, and Evaluation appreciate your endorsement of this proposal.Section: Commitment to Desegregation (pg. 1) Goals and Objectives This section contains an overview of the districts plan of action for providing quality desegregated education in aU schools, and features nine beliefs or commitments, beginning with 1) The belief that all students can learn\n 2) eliminating achievement disparity\n3) improved educational quality and academic performance, including double funding for incentive schools\n4) improving race relations, 5) equity in all phases of school activities and operations\n6) promoting positive public reaction to desegregation\n7) inter and intradistrict recruiting\n8) infusion of multicultural education into the curriculum\nand 9) ongoing staff development for all district personnel. Progress Note: Areas in this section are also addressed elsewhere in this review: see achievement, discipline, recruitment, incentive schools, public relations, and staff development. 1. The district has a history of demonstrating that it believes that all students can learn, and has an inclusive academic program. That program includes an alternative learning program that, the record shows, needs much improvement. 2. Achievement disparity between the races is still a problem and has not improved. 3. Incentive schools have a mixed history. Double funding has sometimes fallen short, but mostly the district has unnecessarily exceeded the double funding level. In some instances incentive school students are out-performing those in area schools, but the record contains no evidence that correlates student performance with double funding (although that s a major purpose of double funding). The record does show that implementation of many incentive school features has been slow and uneven. 4. The LRSD has a history of generally positive race relations overall, although racial incidents no doubt occur. Some inservice training on race relations has occurred, but generally it has been hit- and-miss. 5. Equity in all phases of school activities and operations is hard to measure and neither ODM nor the record has made this call. However, we are aware of no policies that are uinately inequitable nor aim to tolerate inequities\nyet some practices appear to be inequitable, such as the disproportionate disciplinary sanctions received by black students.. 6. The extent to which the district has promoted positive public reaction to desegregation is also hard to measure. Persistent squabbling (for example, among school board members and between the parties, along with the districts tendency to blame desegregation and the Court for its woes, doesnt present a positive record in this area. 7. The districts student recruitment record is uneven, both intra- and interdistrict. The numbers that each district gives us on M-to-M transfers conflict, but generally show that PCSSD has more M- to-M students than the LRSD. However, we dont know whether the PCSSD or LRSD was responsible for promoting the transfers (they each claim that they did it). 8. The district has been released from Court supervision in the area of multicultural education. 9. Staff development is directed by the LRSD department so named, but inservice is scattershot and often poor. ODM has not done a report that focuses solely on inservice, but we have touched on it in our reports on the incentive schools, Alternative Education, McClellan, and Four-Year-Old Programs. In these reports we found that inservice was often inconsistent or altogether absent\nwhen it was offered, it was frequently inadequate.Conclusions The record shows that the LRSD has had mixed results in meeting the objectives of this section. Most notably, the gap in achievement between the races has not narrowed. The district did a good job of infusing multicultural education and has been released in this area. Bottom Line The goals and objectives in this section are reasonable and worthy, but none of them has been fuUy met (except in multicultural education), due to various factors that include foot-dragging, poor planning, and inept follow-through.Area: Achievement Disparities (LRSD Plan, pg. 1\nInterdist. Plan, pg. 6) Goals and Objectives To eliminate the educational achievement disparities between black and white students on normreferences and criterion-referenced test. Progress Little. See ODM report: Status on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD (1994). Issues Many forces affect achievement, such as socio-economic status, ineffective teaching strategies, racism, and low expectations. Many of these factors are outside the control of the district. However, our report was clear: the district promised equitable education for its students. We pointed out that assessing the links between programs, process, and results had to occur in order to evaluate program and service concepts, determine the scope, quality, and consistency of implementation, and made informed decisions about where to make changes. Conclusions A laudable but very difficult goal to reach. The gap will not be narrowed to the extent named in the Settlement Agreement, especially utilizing current assessment standards. However, the district can do much more to improve minority achievement. Our report on achievement was clear about the kinds of approaches that could help the districts make gains in narrowing the achievement gap.Section: Leadership (pgs. 2-3) Goals and Objectives To provide coherent and consistent leadership for change from the superintendent and board of directors. The primary thrust of this section is to delineate that: the school board is representative of the populations it serves the superintendent and board is answerable to its public and should keep the public informed about the schools  the superintendent and board members should model the behavior of an effective desegregated school setting the superintendent and school board should provide clearly articulated leadership the district promises equitable hiring practices and budgetary decisions that will be consistent with desegregation policies the board and staff are to participate in ongoing staff development that responds to the needs of a desegregated school system the board and staff are to conduct annual self evaluations in six areas that mostly deal with relations (board, superintendent, community, staff, fiscal management, and instructional programs). the district promises to end all vestiges of discrimination, segregation, or unfair treatment, and promises to ensure that all students have a fair chance to learn. Progress The history of the district had been discord and dissension among many of its board members, superintendents, and employee groups, as illustrated by telecasts of the board meetings and board minutes (which arent an official part of the Court record, but ODM attends all board meetings and reads the minutes of them.) Superintendents seemed to do everything except try to implement the plan\nthe record contains little evidence that the have superintendents articulated or demonstrated their beUef in the plan. The record shows that the objectives in this section have been only partially met. Other indicators of the extent of comphance arent on the record, although we know about it. (For example, they havent done the annual self evaluations for several years. Evidently the evaluations stopped after responsibility for them was transferred to Ed Jackson from Sterling Ingram. We dont know why.) Conclusions The objectives of this section make sense, but the record indicates mixed results, partly because of changing superintendents, multiple agendas, and inept leadership. Except for recent history under Don Roberts (which largely isnt in the record because of the moratorium), the superintendents and board have a miserable history of working together. The LRSD Strategic, under Williams, does show evidence of an attempt at collaboration, but that plan was never filed with the court, so technically isnt part of the record. Don Roberts was able to mobilize the district for some concerted action as demonstrated by the moratorium and motion for plan modification. The board and superintendent worked through Task Forces with staff, parents, community members, and ODM to develop some of the ideas that Roberts has said will underpin plan. However, the districts submission doesn t reference the extent to which the work of the Task Forces will be used. Bottom Line The objectives of this section are fine, but none of them has been completely realized. On-the-record documentation of their failures in these areas will be spotty. Section: Early Childhood Education (pgs. 4-5)The Eight Circuit ruled that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and that no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section is an introduction to the broad area of early childhood education. The authors speak to the importance of early educational experiences, quote from expert sources, and cite statistics related to the need for school-sponsored early childhood education. The section proposes expanding of existing early childhood programs developing new programs to meet the needs of at-risk students and to remediate racial achievement disparities. These programs will have three components: -HIPPY -four-year-old program -City-wide Early Childhood Education Program. Progress Since this section is little more than an introduction to early childhood education, it is not an area where we would appropriately measure the districts progress. In reviewing the following four sections, we can examine the progress made by the LRSD.Section: Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) (pgs. 6, 14-16) HIPPY is part of the early childhood education program. The Eighth Circuit stated that, at least in the incentive schools, ECE is crucial. Goals and Objectives The HIPPY program targets parents of economically deprived children and works with mothers to help them teach their four- and five-year-old children at home. The plans states that the HIPPY cannot be continued at present levels without the continued receipt of JTPA and Chapter program  2 funds. The LRSD and PCSSD are to collaborate on HIPPY\nHIPPY and the school-based four-year-old program are to collaborate in the areas of parental involvement and teacher training. Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) screening (or a comparable model) will be conducted on HIPPY participants as they exit kindergarten and a standardized test will be given at the end of third grade. These measures will be used to judge the success of HIPPY as an early childhood intervention strategy. Progress . The district has had a HIPPY program since the 1986-87 school year. To save money, the district proposed in a March 1995 business case to drop the program from all schools except the incentive schools. The proposal failed for lack of board approval. In August 1995 the district filed for unitary status in the area of HIPPY. However, during the hearing on unitary status, testimony was not given on HIPPY because the director was ill and couldnt attend the hearing. The districts 1994-95 extended evaluations claimed that, based on the SAT-8 scores earned by some former participants, HIPPY was helping to reduce achievement disparity. The districts claim could not be substantiated from the data presented. Test results for students in 1989-90 and 1990-91 were presented, but these results were not compared to a control group or to the district average for all students of the same age. Conclusions Nationally and internationally HIPPY has a proven track record and a sterling reputation. Its implementation in the LRSD has long left much to be desired. The 1994-95 extended evaluation of the program was poorly done and says little for the competence and professionalism of the staff. Bottom Line HIPPY functions as described in the LRSD Plan, but it effectiveness has not been measured by the districtSection: Four-Year-Old Program (pgs. 7-8, 17-18) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives The program for four-year-olds was designed as a means to meet the educational needs of disadvantaged students and to help racially balance schools that had been difficult to desegregate. This section of the plan contains several provisions that have been modified by subsequent District Court orders. The plan originally required that the district locate a four-year-old classroom in each of the elementary schools. The May 1992 Order of the District Court required the district to establish the number of classes needed to serve at least as many students as would have been served under the original scheme, but the district could locate the classes where they were most likely to serve desegregation and reduce achievement disparities. (This requirement equates to a capacity of 720 students.) This section also addresses the need for developmentally appropriate curriculiun, areas of collaboration with PCSSD, and program evaluation. Progress ODM has published two reports on the four-year-old program (7-31-92 and 5-26-95). In both instances, we found the instructional program offered in the LRSD to far surpass the educational offerings usually available to children of this age. In ODMs monitoring report that covered the 1995-96 school year, we examined the following areas\nenrollment, recruitment, staffing, curriculum and instruction, parent involvement, staff development, program evaluation, and facilities. Several of these areas are not part of this section of the plan, but requirements in these areas emanate from court orders or other section of the LRSD or Interdistrict Plan. The district is meeting both the letter and the spirit of the early childhood section of the plan. The four-year-old classes are evaluated annually by outside experts using a standardized observation form. Trained evaluators visit each classroom for a full day. Ratings compiled from the annual assessment continually rank the LRSD classes well above the score needed to be termed a quahty child care program, and in some areas the district composite score is at the very top of the rating scale. Conclusions The district has done a fine job in early childhood education. In the last five years, they have met their deadlines for establishing new classrooms and have created a high quality program. Our only wish would be for more programs to accommodate the high demand for ECE.Section: Citywide Early Childhood Education Program (pgs. 9-11,19) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section deals with developing a coordinated early childhood effort between the LRSD, the City of Little Rocks child care program, and Head Start. Much of this sections narrative is devoted to a description of the program requirements for the three entities. The plan also sets forth ways that the three entities will work together in: parent involvement, staff development, student referrals, student assignment, long-term monitoring, and facilities. Progress During the 1991-92 plan modification hearings, the LRSD submitted a long-range plan for early childhood education that would have relied on outside agencies such as Head Start to fulfill part of the districts requirement to provide early childhood education. The May 1992 Order of the District Court instructed the LRSD to limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through 95 agencies, such as Head Start, which the district does not control and the goals which do not parallel the settlement agreement goals of program scope, racial balance, location, and so forth. For a year or two after the May 1992 order, the LRSD concentrated its efforts more on meeting the terms of the plan related to the school-based four-year-old classes rather than making extensive efforts related to the Citywide program. In recent years, the district has demonstrated good-faith efforts working with outside agencies that deal with early childhood issues. Representatives of a variety of other agencies are included on the LRSD early childhood council and in training activities. Conclusions Many portions of this section are dated. The LRSD currently collaborates with more agencies than the two mentioned here, and some of the activities described in this section may no longer be the most practical approach to ensuring quality early childhood education. In this area, the district has made some good-faith efforts. The LRSD and the city leaders now appear to work cooperatively on a variety of projects. The relationship between the district and city hall has changed positively but could also change again depending upon the districts and citys leadership. Although were aware of this information through board meetings and the public record, including newspaper articles, the official court record will be essentially bare in this area. Bottom Line This section is out-of-date.Section\nRockefeller Early Childhood Magnet School (pgs, 12-13) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section of the plan evolved from the Tri-District Plan. The early childhood program was designed to foster both desegregation and academic achievement and to provide excellent early childhood education while enhancing training for early childhood professionals. The school was to serve as a model for cooperation between the public schools and the community and as a demonstration site for area educators. Progress ODM has examined the progress being made in the Rockefeller early childhood program in each of the last four incentive school reports (December 1993, December 1994, May 1995, July 1996). During the period between the 1992-93 and 1995-96 schools years, the LRSD made great progress in meeting the terms of this section of the plan. Both the May 1995 and July 1996 reports found substantial evidence of good faith in implementing the Rockefeller program and substantial con^liance with the terms of the desegregation plans. Diuing the period that the LRSD had been under a hiatus from ODM monitoring, the district created a new early childhood specialist position for the Rockefeller program. This is a position that ODM recommended several years ago and the hiring of such an individual addresses one of the chief parent concerns of a lack of certified personnel on staff during the summer months. Unfortunately, the individual hired for this position (a personal friend of the principal) has created a firestorm of dissension and sharply divided the ECE staff against the principal. This isnt a matter of record, but of Ann Browns intimate knowledge of what goes on at Rockefeller. Conclusions The district has made great strides in this area since 1992-93 and has been largely complying with the terms of the desegregation plans since 1994-95. An area in which the program falls short of the promises in the plan is innovative practices. The Rockefeller program does not really develop any early childhood innovations, but this shortcoming can be overlooked when you consider that innovative education and sound practices are not always mutually inclusive. Also, the program is only minimally used as a demonstration site for the county school districts.Section: Special Programs (pg. 20) Goals and Objectives The plan describes the AP\u0026amp;L summer science institute as a one-week enrichment program designed to generate interest in the study of science. Progress The sponsoring company (AP\u0026amp;L) dropped the funding about five years ago, causing the program to be discontinued after ten years of success. Conclusions The AP\u0026amp;L summer science program apparently was in existence at the time the plan was being written and was included to pad the list of desegregation strategies. Bottom Line The summer science program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: Summer Learning Program (pg. 21) Goals and Objectives The summer learning program was the six-week Job Training Partnership Act tutorial program which provided instruction in math and reading for a maximum of 350 underachieving secondary students employed by JTPA. Progress LRSD successfully conducted the program for several years but intermittent funding has weakened it recently. LRSD requested release from court supervision in this area and presented impressive testimony in support of the request, but dropped it, apparently in favor of other strategies including plan modification. Conclusions LRSD has an impressive record regarding the JTPA program. Recent funding issues beyond the districts control are the only flaw. Bottom Line The summer learning program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: Asset Program (pgs. 24-27) Goals and Objectives The Asset Program is described in the plan as an after school tutorial program for at-risk junior high school students. Slated for four of the districts junior high schools in the 1988-89 school year, the program was to be expanded to include all junior highs by the 1993-94 school year. Progress According to LRSD personnel, Asset was discontinued about five years ago because of the loss of funding. Conclusions LRSD operated Asset as long as JTPA funding was available but discontinued it when funding ended. Bottom Line The Asset Program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: School Operations (pgs. 28-47) Goals and Objectives This section of the plan consists of one and a quarter pages of narrative and 19 pages of timelines. The narrative portion of the section describes the monitoring responsibilities of the LRSD Office of Desegregation. The office is responsible for monitoring 15 areas that cover the full spectrum of school operations from staffing to school climate, student services, and beyond. Progress Any record in this area would relate to the individual areas the Desegregation Office is to monitor, but as far as we know (but not as part of the court record), any type of oversight by the LRSD Office. of Desegregation ended when Russ Mayo left in June of 1996. Nancy Acre, who serves as director of student assignment, concentrates her efforts exclusively on issues related to assignment and enrollment. The Associate Superintendent of Desegregation has been an unfilled position throughout Dr. Roberts tenure. Recently the position has been advertised, but we have no word that a person has been selected to fill the position. The monthly desegregation update that is included in the LRSD Boards agenda is yeiy brief\nit deals only with enrollment or the bi-racial committee, and is prepared by an admimstrative assistant. This worries us, as it indicates a profound shift away from the previous focus on desegregation. Conclusions During Dr. Roberts tenure, he seemed to take the lead in issues related to desegregation. Dr. Roberts did not focus on issues related to enforcement or compliance with the April 1992 Desegregation Plans. Instead he seemed to concentrate his attention to the work groups and developing the new, very abbreviated plan that was filed with the court on September 26, 1997. Bottom Line The Desegregation Office has lacked leadership for nearly two years. It seems logical to conclude that this vacancy has resulted in a diminished focus on issues related to the current plans. Because of the moratorium, we have no official record of what the district has done recently.Area: Discipline (LRSD Plan, pg. 28) Goals and Objectives to develop and implement polices that improve discipline to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions. Progress The districts own monitoring reports indicate a continuing disparity in disciplinary sanctions. Past policies of zero tolerance and strict adherence to discipline policies have only served to exacerbate the problem. ODM has received numerous complaints from teachers, parents, and Joshua concerning unfair discipline practices, and while informal investigations have not proven the allegations, neither have they disproved them. ODM staff has provided the LRSD with many workshops that focused on working with minority youth and cultural differences. A major problem has been teachers who do not relate well to minority students, especially black males. Additionally, minority students ( black males in particular) have taken advantage of the teachers who fear them or who were uncomfortable with them. ODM has not published a report that solely focuses on discipline, but it has been considered in our reports on the incentive schools and alternative school. The LRSD has done a major overhaul of its discipline policies. The new pohcies provide a great deal of flexibihty at the building level and contain provisions for addressing schools that have high discipline statistics. The new approach should make a big difference. The changes on not in the record. Conclusions The district has a long way to go in solving its discipline problems, but safe and orderly schools are essential for community confidence in them. Some of the districts pohcies and practices have worked against minority youth, as has the lack of understanding between white teachers and minority students. Cultural sensitivity training in the LRSD has been spotty at best.Section: Program for Accelerated Learning/Academic Support Program (pgs. 48-57) This program was replaced pursuant to a Court order dated May 1, 1992. The new program is entitled Academic Support Program (filed with the Court on March 24, 1993). Goals and Objectives The objectives are to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences to improve achievement and decrease disparity among students. The plan proposes to identify and serve at-risk students, prescribe personalized intervention plans, reduce pull-out programs, and provide parents with the skills needed to assist their children at home. Services are provided indirectly, whereby math and reading speciaUsts assist the regular classroom teachers with implementing remedial services, and directly, whereby students identified with severe reading problems attend reading classes designed to assist them with reading skills. Schools could opt for indirect, direct, or a combination of delivery services. All remediation programs fall under the Academic Support Program (ASP) umbrella. Progress Initially, the program started with a bang. AU of the schools in the district participated in the ASP. Two ODM associate monitors visited several of the programs and felt that they were being implemented sufficiently. In the 1994-95 school year, the LRSD combined the language arts specialist and math specialist positions into one position at the elementary level. This measure was intended to be a budget cutting device. However, the district did not submit the change to the Court. Conclusions The LRSD took three steps forward and two steps back. The original model seemed to work well and, since the schools could modify the ASP to meet their needs, the program was very user fiiendly. But language arts specialists are not math teachers. Math scores on the standardized tests were showing improvement prior to the elimination of the math specialists\nhowever, overaU math scores for aU students have declined in the last two years. Ironically, language arts scores have improved, but reading scores have fallen. Issues The ASP was never designed specifically for black students\nhowever, as a group, black students stood to gain the most from the program, simply because a greater percentage of black students needed remedial help in math and language arts. The district should assist schools with developing site-based ASPs, utilizing a variety of services provided by the district. Bottom Line The results are mixed. Students are doing better in language arts, poorer in math.Section: Gifted Education (pgs. 58-62) Goals and Objectives While the plan indicates that the district operates in compliance with the ADE gifted and talented standards, the plan also commits to devoting special attention to the identification and placement of black students and students from low and middle socio-economic levels. The plan further commits to collaborate with the other two districts on curriculum, staff development, and research and administration. Progress Gifted and talented education in the LRSD is still fairly new. Except for trying to eliminate a coordinators position and reducing the number of specialists (both of which did not occur), the program has continued to grow and develop. The LRSD does a good job of identifying potential G/T students, especially minority students. Conclusions The LRSD has to follow federal and state guidelines in G/T placements. To our knowledge the district has never been cited for any violations in placement. The quality of G/T education is another matter. The program is still weak and has trouble enrolling and keeping some students, particularly minority students at the secondary level. G/T education in the LRSD is more often than not more work, not better, challenging, or interesting work. The program often lacks originahty. The G/T coordinators in the three districts do meet at least twice a year and participate in joint inservice programs. While they may collaborate on showcasing promising models and programs, they are very protective of their students and have been reluctant to recommend gifted programs in each others district to potential M-to-M students. Issues The biggest number of complaints we hear are from black parents whose children cannot attend one of the magnets, especially Dunbar. Since G/T education is offered in all LRSD schools, theoretically, it shouldnt matter where children attend school as long as they are enrolled in a G/T program\nbut in reality, all G/T programs are not created equal. Bottom Line The record is sparse on G/T. We have not done an independent report on it, but have referred to it in some reports, primarily those on incentive schools. We testified in a hearing that to eliminate the G/T coordinator would negatively affect the program. The information above is what we know through our experiences. We believe that what is in the plan for G/T is fine, and the district is meeting the letter of its obligations in G/T education, but could do so much better where quality and equitable inclusion are concerned. This is an area in which Mr. Walker is very interested.Section: Multicultural Curriculum (pg. 63) Goals and Objectives The districts approach to multicultural curriculum includes\n1) integration into all subject areas\n2) a focus which permeates the entire school environment\n3) opportunities for students to develop self- esteem\nand 4) opportunities for students to examine the accomplishments of varied cultural groups. Progress The district was released from court supervision and monitoring of multicultural curriculum.Section: Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants (pg. 81) Goals and Objectives The goal here was to promote each elementary area school as a community of learning among parents, students, and staff by providing various enrichment activities at the building level. Supported by annual allocations, each area elementary school was to develop a focus or thematic emphasis which would be unique to that school. In addition to enriching the curriculum, the focus would also act as a recruitment tool for desegregation. The district also committed to provide\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":126,"next_page":127,"prev_page":125,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1500,"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}}]}}